Ubc Reputation At Risk Due To Attack On Academic Freedom By Those In High Places

[Bambi]

Who is John Montalbano?

 

http://bog.ubc.ca/?page_id=6490

John S. Montalbano

 

John Montalbano is CEO of RBC Global Asset Management, the asset management division of Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), a position he has held since May 1, 2008 when RBC acquired Phillips, Hager & North Investment Management Ltd. (PH&N). RBC Global Asset Management invests over $340 billion for individuals and institutions, primarily from offices in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom and Hong Kong. John is also a member of the Operating Committee of RBC Wealth Management, one of the five business segments that define RBC. John began his career in 1987, when he joined PH&N as an equity analyst and subsequently assumed successive leadership roles within the firm, culminating in his appointment as President in 2005.

 

John holds a Chartered Financial Analyst designation and a Bachelor of Commerce, with Honours, from The University of British Columbia. He is a Leslie Wong Fellow of the UBC Portfolio Management Foundation, and supports the UBC Sauder School of Business in a number of capacities: as a member of its Faculty Advisory Board; as a member of the Advisory Board of the Phillips, Hager & North Centre for Financial Research; and as a founding advisor to the Sauder Philanthropy Program, an initiative that fosters philanthropy leadership skills among young business students who are committed to community service. Also at Sauder, the Montalbano Professorship in Leadership Studies: Women and Diversity was established by John and his wife Dana in 2014.

 

In keeping with his commitment to developing talented youth in Canada, John has established several fellowships at the University of Victoria in Ocean & Earth Sciences and at UBC in International Relations and Law. John is a trustee of the Killam Trusts, an organization largely devoted to supporting scholarships at the graduate and postgraduate levels for top scholars at five Canadian institutions. In this capacity, he serves as a member of the Investment Committee for the Canada Council for the Arts. In addition, John also serves as a member of the Emily Carr University Campaign Cabinet. In April 2015, he was granted an Emily Carr Honourary Doctorate Degree, in recognition of his creative and philanthropic achievements.

 

John also promotes opportunity for people facing various types of challenges: He is an advisor to the Take a Hike Youth at Risk Foundation (which he helped found) and to the Power to Be Adventure Therapy Society. He has also had a close association over time with the BC Down Syndrome Research Foundation, serving as Honourary Chair in 2012.

 

John actively supports other community-focused organizations as well. He is a member of the Science World Chairman’s Council and was formerly Co-Chair of the Community Arts Council of Vancouver’s Community Arts Fund.

[Bambi]

http://nghoussoub.com/2015/08/27/ubc-faculty-to-the-premier-of-bc-help-us-out-of-this-crisis/

 

 

Piece of Mind

 

UBC faculty to the Premier of BC: Help us out of this crisis

Posted on August 27, 2015

 

Two new types of allegations came out regarding John Montalbano, since I wrote 2 weeks ago the open letter asking him to resign from the UBC Board of Governors. One deals with his role in potentially compromising the academic freedom of one of our colleagues, and is being currently investigated by former Supreme Court Judge, Lynn Smith. Another relates to alleged conflict of interest violations, a matter that the Faculty Association is currently pursuing. But the original premise of failed leadership remains unanswered. Mr. Montalbano is still on the Board (though not Chair) hoping to be sufficiently cleared by the fact-finding report to get back in the saddle. Keep in mind that the investigation deals with only one –though an important one– of the Chair’s alleged actions.

 

Yesterday, UBC faculty members started signing an open letter to Christy Clark, the Premier of British Columbia, in which they offer a constructive solution out of the imbroglio that UBC finds itself in. The proposal was initiated by a prominent BC businessman, who is trying to get donors and other friends of UBC to weigh in on the BC Government to intervene. Here is the letter and the link for those who want to sign it. I will add a few personal comments below.

 

Premier of British Columbia Honourable Christy Clark

 

Dear Premier Clark,

 

The crisis at UBC is entering its third week and it continues to create deep fractures within the community. It has now extended well beyond campus and is headline news across the country. The reputational damage it is creating for UBC is immense and we see no sign of a solution on the horizon. With the start of the academic year fast approaching it is imperative that the situation be resolved.

 

We are facing a situation where a new President has resigned for no stated reason. We have a Board Chair who has lost the confidence of the UBC Faculty Association as well as the national Canadian Association of University Teachers, and who is currently the subject of a highly publicized investigation into his role in potentially compromising the academic freedom of one of our colleagues. Add to this the number of conflicts of interest that the Board Chair finds himself accused of, and one cannot but conclude that we have a serious governance problem at our flagship provincial university. In view of the available information we have in front of us, and to move quickly towards putting this unfortunate situation behind us, we believe the following solution is worthy of consideration by your government.

 

1. We suggest that you immediately dismiss John Montalbano from the Board of Governors of UBC and appoint as Chair a highly respected person with no links to the current Board. The newly appointed Chair can then oversee a thorough independent review of what has occurred and recommend enhancements to the University Act, so as to strengthen UBC governance and prevent such occurrences in the future (*).

 

2. According to the official announcements, the reasons behind President Gupta’s resignation were not related to competency, health or discipline. Dr. Piper has also announced that the university will carry on with the vision and strategic plan that Dr. Gupta had formulated and initiated. We therefore recommend that the terms of reference of the independent review conducted by the Chair of the Board also include an investigation of the events surrounding the resignation. In addition, it should make a recommendation within 30-days on whether Dr. Gupta should be asked to reconsider his resignation.

 

While no solution is perfect, we believe that our recommendations offer the best way out of this crisis, and the best opportunity for the institution to start the healing process, which at this stage is so sorely needed.

 

(*) The letter also recommends a person for the job. “We view Dr. Martha Piper as a strong candidate for this role, as she is also wonderfully positioned to take leadership in ensuring a worthy centennial celebration for UBC and for BC. Dr. Angela Redish can then continue as acting president until the review and –if needed– a presidential search are completed.”

 

Let me add that I am concerned of the “band-aid” solution that the fact-finding mission is proposing. The Chair of a university board is supposed to be a gatekeeper of accountability, a role model of integrity, a guarantor of transparency, and a guardian of academic freedom. We find ourselves here waiting for a formal process to tell us whether — in only one of these universal academic values — our own Chair has sufficiently abided by rules he was supposed to uphold and protect.

 

 

 

http://bog3.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2015/08/fact-finding.pdf

 

SEE: Terms of Reference: Fact Finding Process

The University of British Columbia and the Faculty Association of the University of British

Columbia  

[Bambi]

I just came across this Open Letter to John Montalbano

 

 

http://nghoussoub.com/2015/08/13/an-open-letter-to-john-montalbano-chair-of-the-ubc-board-of-governors/#more-15917

 

Piece of Mind

 

 

An open letter to John Montalbano, chair of the UBC Board of Governors

Posted on August 13, 2015

 

Dear Sir,

 

I have been a faculty member at UBC for 38 years, and I have served this great university in many other functions, including six years on the Board of Governors (2008-14), three of them on the Board’s Management Resources Compensation Committee (MRCC). I was elected by the faculty to the presidential search committee, which eventually chose Arvind Gupta, after evaluating hundreds of files during an eight-month deliberation period. You were also a key member of that committee, as Chair of the Board.

 

Last Friday, I read your joint announcement with the Chancellor, informing the world that President Gupta has decided to resign after only 13 months on the job. This news took many of us by surprise, as would be expected. What was not expected is that you, the Chair of the Board, were also “surprised” by this resignation, at least according to the Vancouver Sun.

 

This could only indicate that you, Mr. Chair, have erred, either in hiring Gupta, or in not anticipating the crisis, reading the situation, and providing the support you and the chancellor were expected to provide, so as to ensure that the president is successful.

 

Frankly, your botched announcement has caused disrepute to our university. The lack of clarity and the suspicious timing have triggered rumors and innuendos that UBC can live without. You don’t seem to be aware that “an early lack of transparency and full communications can heighten the risk of a major crisis erupting.” And this eruption is happening now, under your watch.

 

You seem to have been taken off-guard by the Faculty Association’s request for clarity on the situation. Surprisingly, now you say that the full Board needs to confer, after the fact, to prepare answers. You seem to have failed to understand that ours is an institution that thrives on collegiality and respect across all of its stakeholders, and that its leadership must embrace the basic principles of shared governance.

 

Your understanding of university leadership and transitions is perplexing. We don’t hold our heads high when “Inside Higher Education” reports to the whole academic world: “When Mr. Montalbano suggested in the Globe & Mail that a university president is de-facto as disposable as a Swiffer Duster, it made me wonder if something else is going on and if risks are being taken with the future of my alma mater.”

 

This type of understanding may have led you to direct UBC into this unfortunate state of affairs. For one, the impact on the faculty was demoralizing. To them Gupta was a breath of fresh air, and their outcry reflects their high expectations from a president who valued their opinion, recognized their core academic values, and committed his support for their vision of excellence.

 

You must be aware that the last presidential search, inauguration, and transition costs alone are counted in the millions of dollars. Have you led the Board to ponder the massive financial waste of taxpayers’ money associated with all the personnel changes that accompany three presidential appointments in just over two years? Did you discuss the loss of momentum and reputational damage to an institution that will be dealing with a prolonged period of unstable, incoherent, and unfocused management?

 

Martha Piper’s message to the community speaks of the continuation of Gupta’s reforms and strategic plan. This indicates that this situation was not prompted by the president’s bold vision, but by an operational environment that you, the chancellor and the Board are supposed to oversee and keep honest.

 

One case in point is the brouhaha that is linking Gupta’s resignation to the departure of 3 Vice-presidents from the previous administration. From my own experience on the Board, such personnel changes are pre-approved by the MRCC, on which you and the chancellor sit. Have you given the president the support he needed, when these changes started making the news?

 

PSE historians relate that the most common factors that derail even the most visionary of presidencies are inordinate levels of interference by Board members on the president’s operational space, end-runs by deans and other subordinates trying to appeal directly to Governors, and an environment of extreme stress often caused by continuous harassment that can happen at any level of responsibility.

 

Did the Board debrief the president to learn if any of the above led to this short-lived presidency, and whether you and the chancellor have performed as expected to prevent such situations in your role as a key support to the president? I ask you because, if these issues are left unattended, no future president of UBC will be able to succeed, and the current impasse will be back soon to haunt us again.

 

A failure of a president is also reflective of the performance and the failure of the Board Chair, especially when the latter has both actively participated in the selection and convincingly shepherded the appointment through the Board. My question is therefore: Given the impasse we are currently facing, what guarantees UBC that your leadership will lead us to the right person next time around?

 

You often said in public and in private that you and Gupta are “brothers in arms. He fails, I fail.” Now that President Gupta has stepped down, unable to carry-on with his mission, it seems fitting that you, Sir, should do the same.

[Bambi]

 http://nghoussoub.com/2015/08/23/why-the-ubc-leadership-crisis-matters-beyond-the-ivory-tower-by-professor-e-wayne-ross/

 

Piece of Mind

 

Why the UBC Leadership Crisis Matters Beyond the Ivory Tower, by Professor E. Wayne Ross

Posted on August 23, 2015

 

The ongoing drama at University of British Columbia may look like a tempest in a teapot, but the dispute among university governors, managers, and faculty has implications that reach beyond the ivory tower. Two principles are at the heart of the crisis: transparency in governance and academic freedom. The early August announcement that Arvind Gupta had suddenly and immediately resigned as president was startling, coming just 13 months after his term began. In March 2014, UBC Board Chair John Montalbano said “The opportunity to lead one of the world’s great universities attracted outstanding candidates, but Dr. Arvind Gupta clearly stood out as the best choice to lead this great university.”

 

What happened?

 

Well, Montalbano and the UBC Board are not saying. The Board justifies its silence by pointing to non-disclosure agreements, which they drafted and signed, as did Gupta.

 

Non-disclosure agreements protect secrets. The Board ruled out issues of competence, discipline, and health as reasons for Gupta’s departure. Which makes many wonder why no reasonable explanation has been offered.

 

Why shouldn’t we just accept the Board’s decision and move on? Because effective oversight of government and public institutions requires transparency, access to information, which helps to hold officials accountable and ensure public interests are served.

 

B.C. Premier Christy Clark, who is responsible for appointing a majority of the UBC Board, says “open government is about giving people a sense of confidence that government is working for them, not trying to do something to them.” And, that is exactly the point. Clandestine Board meetings – which are the norm at UBC – and refusal to fully disclose information lead people to believe that something is being done to them.

 

Mark Mac Lean, UBC Faculty Association president, has argued that in “the absence of an informed explanation” any non-disclosure provisions related to Gupta’s departure are “contrary to the public interest and contrary to the best practices expected of a major public institution.” If you support open and transparent government, I do not understand how you could disagree.

 

Two days after the Gupta announcement, Kris Olds, a UBC graduate and global higher education expert, wrote that a key lesson from recent university leadership crises is that an early lack of transparency and full communication heightens the risk of a major crisis erupting.

 

And just days later, as predicted, UBC is in damage-control while the crisis that has gone from bad to worse, with a faculty revolt and public relations disaster.

 

A major complicating factor is the allegation that Board Chair Montalbano interfered with the academic freedom of Professor Jennifer Berdahl, attempting to silence her. A charge he has denied.

 

Following the announcement of Gupta’s departure, Berdahl wrote that perhaps Gupta had “lost the masculinity contest among the leadership at UBC, as most women and minorities do at institutions dominated by white men.”

 

Some in the media have dismissed Berdahl’s analysis; made jokes about it.

 

Research on the gendered nature of work is no joke, but only a few insiders know whether this dynamic applies in Gupta’s case. Berdahl’s perspective isn’t constructed out of thin air, it is based on her experience of UBC as workplace and her academic expertise.

 

As the Montalbano Professor in Leadership Studies, Berdahl studies power, discrimination, harassment, and diversity. Her mandate is to promote diverse leadership. One of the research groups she leads focuses on work as a masculinity contest, an effort that is, ironically, funded by donations from Montalbano and his employer, Royal Bank of Canada.

 

So when the board chair – who also happens to be on the advisory board of your faculty, and a major donor to the university ­– calls to discuss your critical analysis of the decision he just announced, direct threats do not have to be made. The power imbalance makes it nearly impossible the conversation to be a collegial exchange.

 

Obviously, Berdahl was not cowed, but it’ss fair to say that in similar situations many others would be. As a recent New York Times article puts it “when you’re in charge, your whisper may feel like a shout.”

 

Universities exist for the common good, not to further the interest of an individual or institution as a whole.

 

And, as the influential 1940 statement of American Association of University Professors argues, the common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free expression. These are principles that are clearly stated and even extended further in the policies of UBC.

 

Transparency in governance and academic freedom contribute in profound ways to the health of democracy and the common good.

 

Secrecy is an obstacle to good and open governance.

 

Actions that have the effect of intimidating or harassing (whether intended or not) undermine the ability of people to “freely work, live, examine, question, teach, learn, comment and criticize,” activities that the UBC Board of Governors state they are committed to maintaining at every level of the university.

 

It is time for the Board to start walking its talk, if they don’t the are damaging more than a university.

 

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

 

E. Wayne Ross is a Professor in the Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy at the University of British Columbia. This entry has also appeared on his blog, a source we highly recommend.

[ubcdude]

 I don't think I've ever seen a more politically correct professor than this demented woman. What an asinine thing to do. She is just blowing things out of proportion and creating a problem out of nothing. People step down. Multiple politicians, teachers, police officers, CEO's, the god damn pope. IT HAPPENS! It's always these gender studies/feminist politically correct type of professors making an unnecessary ruckus. What a moron. I hope she's enjoying her 15 minutes of fame. What's she going to do next? Sue the patriarchy in court for oppressing her? 

[Bambi]

 I don't think I've ever seen a more politically correct professor than this demented woman. What an asinine thing to do. She is just blowing things out of proportion and creating a problem out of nothing. People step down. Multiple politicians, teachers, police officers, CEO's, the god damn pope. IT HAPPENS! It's always these gender studies/feminist politically correct type of professors making an unnecessary ruckus. What a moron. I hope she's enjoying her 15 minutes of fame. What's she going to do next? Sue the patriarchy in court for oppressing her? 

Dear Mr. John Montalbano (or, family member),    

 

I beg to differ with you and this is certainly not as you call it, "an unnecessary ruckus". The "moron" is the one without being able to see his own nose in the mirror, not recognizing that absolute power corrupts absolutely, operated under the misapprehension that he could intimidate this tenured professor into submission. How wrong you John Montalbano were!   You are responsible for your own wrongful actions and shall be held fully accountable. This is very much a BIG deal (of your own making) and you deserve everything that befalls upon you. As is your way, you continue to blame the innocent professor whom you so deliberated and wrongly tried to put into the meat grinder - only to discover that it is you who is in the meat grinder.  The question is what are you going to do next having so destroyed your honour, reputation and credibility?

 

Justice shall triumph. Long live academic freedom!

 

Cheers! 

[MedMaybe3563]

Dear Mr. John Montalbano (or, family member),    

 

I beg to differ with you and this is certainly not as you call it, "an unnecessary ruckus". The "moron" is the one without being able to see his own nose in the mirror, not recognizing that absolute power corrupts absolutely, operated under the misapprehension that he could intimidate this tenured professor into submission. How wrong you John Montalbano were!   You are responsible for your own wrongful actions and shall be held fully accountable. This is very much a BIG deal (of your own making) and you deserve everything that befalls upon you. As is your way, you continue to blame the innocent professor whom you so deliberated and wrongly tried to put into the meat grinder - only to discover that it is you who is in the meat grinder.  The question is what are you going to do next having so destroyed your honour, reputation and credibility?

 

Justice shall triumph. Long live academic freedom!

 

Cheers! 

 

 

Right! Because everyone who disagrees with your political and social views is a big ol meanie!  

 

Back to Tumblr with you >>>>

[Bambi]

I am not aware of any member of this forum who is a meanie. 

[ubcdude]

Right! Because everyone who disagrees with your political and social views is a big ol meanie!  

 

Back to Tumblr with you >>>>

 

lol my thoughts exactly 

[Bambi]

http://ocufa.on.ca/blog-posts/universities-blog-posts/ubc-board-chair-steps-aside-amidst-ongoing-controversy/

 

UBC Board chair steps aside amidst ongoing controversy

September 2, 2015

 

On Tuesday, August 25, 2015, Chair of the UBC Board of Governors voluntarily “stepped aside” while the university investigated claims that he had violated the academic freedom of a professor. It is alleged that Montalbano intimidated Prof. Jennifer Berdahl in a phone call, after Berdahl made critical comments about the sudden resignation of UBC President Arvind Gupta. As well as being the Chair of the Board of Governors, Montalbano also funded the position that Berdahl currently occupies.

 

Both the UBC Faculty Association and the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) had called for Montalbano to step aside. The Board of Governors have appointed Lynn Smith, former UBC Law School dean and a former BC Superior Court Justice, to conduct a “fact-finding” mission about the allegations. According to her terms of reference, Smith cannot recommend any actions or remedies based on her findings.

 

The Globe and Mail has published an in-depth account of the events leading up to Arvind Gupta’s resignation. While the exact reasons for Gupta’s departure are protected by non-disclosure agreements, the Globe article does a good job exploring several potential causes, including conflicts with the Board and privileging the perspectives of faculty over those of senior administrators.

 

If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!

 

 

 

http://www.ppforum.ca/news-room/leadership-shakeup-ubcs-can-affect-planning-funding-and-reputation

 

A leadership shakeup like UBC's can affect planning, funding and reputation

In The News

08/31/2015

 

By Lori Culbert and Tracy Sherlock

 

AUGUST 28, 2015 VANCOUVER -- At a time when the University of B.C. should be hunting for party hats and balloons for its centennial celebrations, it is instead searching for another new leader to guide the storied institution into its next 100 years.

 

A few months before Arvind Gupta's unexpected departure from the president's office, he was elatedly making plans to mark UBC's 100th birthday, starting Sept. 30. He promised to renew connections with thousands of alumni, students, staff and faculty, as well as local and international partners.

 

That was in May. By Aug. 7, it was suddenly announced that Gupta, just 13 months into a five-year contract, had stepped down and would return to teaching. The reasons provided were vague, fuelling ceaseless speculation about what was behind his retreat and what will happen next.

 

Students will return this September and classes will be in session, but how will this controversy affect UBC's reputation, fundraising and international ranking as Canada's second-best university?

 

While both UBC and its former president are tight-lipped due to confidentiality agreements, some critics say Gupta may have alienated the university's deans by focusing his attention on the classroom and teaching at the expense of administrators and managers. Others surmised some deans rebelled after the provost was moved to a new role as adviser to the president.

 

Gupta also lacked administrative experience as he leapfrogged over the vice-presidents to the top job; and he came from the innovative Mitacs program, which fostered partnerships between the university and businesses — a philosophy that could have alienated traditional academics.

 

The ensuing social media firestorm claimed another casualty: UBC board chair John Montalbano temporarily left Aug. 25 while an investigation determines if he violated academic freedom by contacting a UBC professor who posted a blog alleging Gupta had been unceremoniously forced out of his job.

 

On Wednesday, an anonymous petition was posted online asking Premier Christy Clark to appoint former UBC president Martha Piper as board chair, and consider reinstating Gupta to the top post. The petition had 100 signatures within 24 hours.

 

With the provost position also unfilled, UBC is essentially rudderless: it is being steered by interim leaders who likely cannot make long-term plans for the university until permanent hires are made.

 

Acting UBC president Anji Redish — who is in that role only until next week, when Piper takes over until a replacement is hired — insisted the centennial celebrations will not be overshadowed by these leadership upheavals.

 

"It is too early to gauge any effect on fundraising," Redish added, in response to questions from The Sun. "People give to students, to research they care about, to initiatives and fields of study that affect their lives. They follow their passions but leadership plays an important role, too."

 

The impact of abrupt leadership shakeups at universities can vary, says expert Kris Olds, but often includes financial costs and fundraising losses; delays in filling other empty senior staff positions and in long-term strategic planning; debates about the quality of governance and distrust with decision making; and a lag in forming or maintaining key relationships with politicians or funders.

 

"Inevitably (these situations) always generate lots of attention regionally, nationally and sometimes internationally for the university ... So all the people who do world rankings for universities are watching what is going on at UBC, for example," said Olds, a geography professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who studies the globalization of universities and monitors administrative crises at North American schools.

 

"But I do think they are pretty resilient, universities. They have existed for hundreds of years."

 

Other universities have, indeed, faced adversity. At the University of Virginia, founded in 1819, the board ousted president Teresa Sullivan in June 2012, sparking a massive uprising of students, faculty and alumni in her support. She was reinstated 18 days later.

 

In Virginia, Olds said, information about why the president was fired quickly became public and then an informed decision was made to re-hire her. The university has since stabilized.

 

"In the UBC case it seems to me that nobody still broadly knows what is going on," said Olds, who is also a UBC alumnus. "And if they did know — Vancouverites and politicians and taxpayers and faculty and students — how would they feel?"

 

At the University of Saskatchewan, former president Ilene Busch-Vishniac was terminated in May 2014 over a brouhaha about a former dean who was fired after he criticized the school's budget review plans and was eventually reinstated.

 

Ivan Muzychka, the school's associate vice-president of communications, said fundraising and student enrolment did not decline after this scandal. The University of Saskatchewan fell a few spots in recently released international world rankings, but Muzychka argued it is difficult to know whether that is affected by reputation or negative media coverage.

 

"Much of the university's day to day activity — teaching, research, administration, fundraising — will move along despite leadership changes," he said. "The larger more visionary questions tend to be put on hold, but the core of the university's life proceeds."

 

U. of S. just hired a new president, but it took a year to fill the position.

 

There is a shrinking pool of candidates in Canada willing to take the complex, high-pressure job of university president; but this next round of hiring at UBC will surely include a better understanding of the president's relationship with the board given the Gupta conflict, said Julie Cafley, vice-president of the Ottawa-based Public Policy Forum.

 

"This is a chance for the university to do a reboot," said Cafley, who researched Canadian university presidents and found over the last decade 18 had left their jobs before finishing their terms.

 

There were several common reasons for presidents not completing their mandates, and two of the themes she believes apply to Gupta's situation: conflicts with the board and some mistrust with his executive team. (Three UBC vice-presidents moved on under his watch.)

 

In an email to The Sun, Gupta said he was unable to answer questions but hoped to be able to do so at "a time in the future."

 

While there may be delays in big on-campus projects, this leadership row should not make life more difficult for students in the short run, said UBC Alma Mater Society president Aaron Bailey. In fact, he plans to lobby for more student participation in the next president hiring committee.

 

In the meantime, plans for the 100th birthday party continue.

 

"I think it will definitely be an interesting celebration considering the recent events," Bailey said. "But I don't think the last few months will overshadow the accomplishments this university has made over 100 years."

 

Editor's note: The article originally appeared in The Vancouver Sun.

[Bambi]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/look-to-ubcs-bloated-administration-for-a-clue-on-the-gupta-controversy/article26171172/

 

Look to UBC’s bloated administration for a clue on the Gupta controversy

GARY MASON

The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Sep. 01, 2015 3:00AM EDT

Last updated Tuesday, Sep. 01, 2015 3:00AM EDT

 

Bound by confidentiality agreements, neither side in the ongoing saga involving the University of British Columbia and recently departed president Arvind Gupta have shed any light on precisely what happened to precipitate his shocking July departure.

 

Dr. Gupta was barely a year into a five-year term. With a background in computer science and innovation, he was brought in without the usual administrative experience university presidents possess. He was an unusual choice except when you consider that he had a mandate to reimagine how the university functioned, to be a disrupter who wasn’t afraid to smash sacred cows and challenge the status quo.

 

We now see what happens when you attempt that.

 

In the absence of any cogent explanation as to why Dr. Gupta left, the university community has been left to guess what might have gone wrong. Nature abhors a vacuum; so does a university controversy. In the absence of real information, the Gupta affair has been choice grounds for rumour and innuendo. But based on conversations I’ve had with people who have some knowledge of the situation, it would seem that suppositions that Dr. Gupta made enemies among certain administrators inside the school are correct.

 

The reason this might have happened is simple. Mr. Gupta looked at some numbers and began questioning them. For instance, in 2009-10, total faculty at UBC’s Vancouver campus numbered 3,242. By 2014-15, that figure had only increased by 28, or 0.9 per cent. Now let’s look at staff, specifically the category of management and professionals, which includes everything from admissions specialists to vice-presidents of various departments – but not deans. In 2009-10, this group totalled 2,903; in five years it had ballooned to 3,640 – an eye-popping increase of 25 per cent. Meantime, clerical and support staff were cut over that period.

 

There is little wonder Dr. Gupta thought it was high time there was a reallocation of resources, a realigning of priorities.

 

Look at this another way: When you take faculty at UBC’s Vancouver campus as a whole, including sessional lecturers, librarians and others, it totals roughly 4,700, according to information provided by the university. That compares to 9,500 members of staff. Now let’s examine another first-rate university in Canada, the University of Toronto, which has 13,000 faculty versus 6,500 staff. In other words, UBC has a 2:1 staff-to-faculty ratio, while Toronto has a 1:2 ratio.

 

If you want to know what happened to Arvind Gupta, this is a good place to start. In tight budgetary times, a good university president has to look at available resources and sometimes reflect on how they can be reallocated. I don’t think there is any question that Dr. Gupta was pro-faculty; after all, he was a UBC prof before he became president. When he started to talk openly about taking resources from administrators, threatening the impressive little fiefdoms many of them had built up over the last five years, alarms sounded.

 

 

I have little doubt that some of those who felt most threatened by Dr. Gupta’s plan went to members of the board of governors with their concerns. Blind to the logic of Dr. Gupta’s vision, and loyal to an administration it knew well, the board decided it would be best for all concerned if the new guy left.

 

It should be a lesson to anyone who follows in his footsteps.

 

The university, of course, just wants this story to go away. That’s why it asked Dr. Gupta to sign a confidentiality agreement, so he wouldn’t discuss what happened. The board of governors acts as if its hands are tied; otherwise, you know, it would love to tell the world what happened. Right. What it should do is release Dr. Gupta from the bonds of a gag order he likely regrets signing.

 

But it won’t. Instead, it’s going to pretend there isn’t a problem. Interim president Martha Piper penned an op-ed piece that ran in the Vancouver Sun on Monday that was truly breathtaking in its naivete and lack of appreciation of the crisis her school is facing. She mentioned the Gupta controversy in passing, offering little empathy to those wondering why a school built on the foundational elements of openness and transparency can continue to be so opaque and secretive about this matter.

 

As much as Dr. Piper may want to sweep this matter under her office rug, it will be difficult to do. She should, instead, be alive to the deep discontent that lingers in many parts of her campus, among many people critical to the university’s success.

[Bambi]

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/10/16/u-british-columbia-finds-university-failed-protect-professors-academic-freedom​

 

Academic Freedom Fail

 

U of British Columbia finds the university failed to protect a professor's academic freedom

 

October 16, 2015

 

By

Elizabeth Redden

 

A major research university president resigns, abruptly and without explanation. A professor of leadership who researches gender and diversity pens a blog post speculating on possible gender and diversity-related implications of his resignation. The chair of the university’s board of governors calls the professor to register his unhappiness with the post.

 

The board chair is also a major donor to the business school who, as it so happens, gave $2 million to endow the chair held by the professor in question. Upon learning of the board chair’s distress, administrators in the business school proceed to reprimand the professor for causing “serious reputational damage” to the university and upsetting a powerful donor.

 

That’s the account of events presented by Jennifer Berdahl, the Montalbano Professor of Leadership Studies at the University of British Columbia, in an August blog post that raised widespread concern about the state of academic freedom at UBC. On Thursday, the university released the results of a third-party investigation by former British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Lynn Smith, finding that UBC indeed “failed in its obligation to protect and support Dr. Berdahl’s academic freedom.”

 

Also on Thursday, UBC's board chair, John Montalbano, announced his resignation from that body.

 

It is unclear whether the report will fully resolve the controversy over his call, which has roiled UBC, one of Canada's top research universities and one with an international reputation.

'A Positive Obligation to Support' Academic Freedom

 

A public summary of the report’s findings cites language on academic freedom included in the preamble to the university's collective agreement with the UBC Faculty Association. That preamble states that “all members of the university must recognize this fundamental principle [of academic freedom] and must share responsibility for supporting, safeguarding and preserving this central freedom.”

 

Smith wrote in the report that this language creates a “positive obligation” on the part of the university to support academic freedom -- meaning that “academic freedom can be threatened not only by acts, but also by failures to act.”

 

“In the case of Dr. Berdahl, neither John Montalbano, nor individuals in the Sauder School of Business infringed upon Dr. Berdahl’s academic freedom,” Martha Piper, UBC’s interim president, said in a press conference. “She was not censored. She was not asked to remove her blog. Her job was not threatened and her funding was not removed.”

 

“Rather, it was a question of what we did not do,” Piper continued. “We did not proactively support her right to say what she said. We did not express to her explicitly that she had the right to say what she said, and we did not clearly tell her we would defend her right to say what she said. That is to say we did not adequately support her in the exercise of her academic freedom. As a result, Dr. Berdahl, who is a distinguished scholar in the areas of gender and identity, felt isolated and reprimanded. The events had a significant negative impact on her, and so on behalf of the university I sincerely regret this and am committed to taking actions to ensure that the university upholds its obligation to protect and support academic freedom in the future.” Piper announced a series of planned actions to provide education and information on academic freedom-related issues to board members, academic administrators and others.

Mark Mac Lean, the president of the UBC Faculty Association, which is representing Berdahl, said he was disappointed that university officials did not in their press conference “choose to highlight the fact that academic freedom was interfered with here.”

 

“They certainly highlighted the fact that they hadn’t lived up to their responsibility to protect and support academic freedom, but it’s a bigger problem than that,” he said. “The whole effect was interference. That’s a serious thing for a university.”

 

'A Cascading Series of Events'

 

The report distinguishes between intent and effect, and failures at an individual and institutional level. In the public summary of the investigative report, Smith “concluded that no individual intended to interfere with Dr. Berdahl’s academic freedom, or made a direct attempt to do so. However, sometimes several relatively small mistakes can lead to a failure of the larger system. The systemic failure in this case resulted from a cascading series of events in which there were some errors of judgment by Mr. Montalbano and some individuals at the Sauder School, and some unlucky circumstances. As a result, the institution failed Dr. Berdahl and missed an important opportunity to vindicate the principle of academic freedom.”

 

The report summary states that Montalbano made the call to Berdahl “in the context of a pre-existing positive relationship” with her and without the intention of interfering with her academic freedom. Nevertheless, the report notes, the call was “unprecedented and unwise.”

The report also faults subsequent actions on the part of the Sauder School of Business’s dean’s office without naming individuals in that office (Berdahl’s original blog entry identifies various administrators she had communication with by their titles).

 

“The dean’s office in Vancouver was aware that Mr. Montalbano found the blog post offensive and that he had telephoned Dr. Berdahl,” the report states. “Concerned about Mr. Montalbano, Sauder’s reputation and future fund-raising prospects, the dean’s office conveyed a message about those concerns to Dr. Berdahl. At the same time, it failed to elicit her point of view or state support for her in the exercise of her academic freedom.”

 

When asked whether Sauder School of Business employees would be disciplined in any way, Piper responded, “I think we will be looking at that very carefully.” UBC’s provost, Angela Redish, added in response to that question that university officials have been in discussions with the Faculty Association.

 

As for Montalbano, he said in a statement that he was “gratified that Ms. Smith's report confirms that I was mindful of the need to protect Professor Jennifer Berdahl's academic freedom, that I acted in good faith and that my intentions were not to infringe on Dr. Berdahl's academic freedom when I spoke with her.”

 

He said, however, he feels his continued presence on the board “might serve as a distraction from the important work facing UBC in the months ahead.”

 

Berdahl, in an email, used the word “gratified” relative to the finding in Smith's report “that UBC failed to support and protect, and interfered with, my academic freedom. Her report clearly validates my experiences of reprimand and silencing after the publication of my blog that raised uncomfortable questions about organizational culture, diversity and leadership, and her report confirms that these experiences were inappropriate,” she said.

 

“I was recruited to UBC to advance understanding of important issues surrounding gender, diversity and leadership. As someone who studies a controversial subject, it is inevitable that some of the things I have to say will upset some people. But as a faculty member at one of Canada’s pre-eminent universities, I have an obligation to exercise my right to academic free speech.”

​

[Bambi]

http://nghoussoub.com/2015/10/15/ubc-faculty-association-response-to-the-report-by-honourable-lynn-smith/

 

Piece of Mind

All about the Academy

Skip to content

• Home
• About
• Related links

  UBC Faculty Association response to the report by Honourable Lynn Smith

Posted on October 15, 2015by Ghoussoub

Dear Colleagues:

The Honourable Lynn Smith, Q. C., completed her fact-finding process last week and presented the parties with her report. We thank Professor Smith for her fair and impartial process and for producing a high quality, nuanced report, a public summary of which is attached here. Summary-of-Process-and-Conclusions-Final

 

The key finding of the Smith Report is that the University of British Columbia failed in its duty to support and protect Dr. Berdahl’s academic freedom and that it interfered with her academic freedom. The finding thus has two clear implications. First, the University itself actively impinged Dr. Berdahl’s academic freedom by the cumulative effects of various University actors’ behaviour. And, secondly, because the duty is a positive one, requiring affirmative and proactive support for academic freedom in situations such as Dr. Berdahl’s, the University’s silence in relation to the attack by others on Dr. Berdahl’s academic freedom was an additional failure.

More specifically, the conclusions to be drawn from the Report are as follows. The Report finds that the University acted without regard for the well-being and interests of Dr. Berdahl. Following her online posting of a blog, Dr. Berdahl became the target of attacks by email, by social media, and in columns appearing in the national press. At no time did any university official speak out in defense of her right to academic freedom or issue any other statement of support for her or scholarship. The Smith Report, consequently, concludes that, as a result of the combined acts and omissions of Mr. Montalbano and others, Dr. Berdahl “reasonably felt reprimanded, silenced and isolated.” The events initiated by the University following the publication of Dr. Berdahl’s blog post have had, the Report continues, a “significant negative impact” on Dr. Berdahl.

The main agents involved in the University’s response to the blog post were the Chair of the Board of Governors, Mr. John Montalbano, the Chancellor of the University, Mr. Lindsay Gordon, the Sauder Dean’s Office, as well as UBC staff and others advising the Board on how to handle the aftermath of President Gupta’s resignation. Senior academic leaders were conspicuously absent and silent.

While Dr. Berdahl received support from international scholars and experts in her field, and from faculty throughout UBC and other universities, we are troubled that neither the Administration nor the Board spoke fully and publicly in defense of Dr. Berdahl’s academic freedom. The silence with respect to Dr. Berdahl on this issue from these two central sites of university leadership is extraordinary. Senior administrators and board members bear responsibility for this failure.

These mistakes and missteps in the case of Dr. Berdahl have occurred under Mr. Montalbano’s leadership, often as a result of his direct personal involvement.

We await the responses from the Administration and the Board of Governors.

Sincerely,

Mark Mac Lean, President
On behalf of the UBC Faculty Association Executive Committee

 

​

[Bambi]

Summary of the fact-finding process and conclusions regarding alleged breaches of academic freedom and other university policies at the University of British Columbia The Honourable Lynn Smith, Q.C. October 15, 2015

 

SEE http://president.ubc.ca/files/2015/10/Summary-of-Process-and-Conclusions-Final.pdf

[Bambi]

UBC reputation is questionable not just b/c of the above, UBC has also ignored women's complaints for sexual assault andmany have recently gone public. UBC needs to put their house in order.

 

See

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/woman-grabbed-from-behind-assaulted-at-ubc-1.2968837

[Bambi]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ubc-sexual-assault-complainants-1.3335768

 

UBC sexual assault complainants say nothing changing at school

 

'It was a very scary process because ... we discovered along the way that there was no process'

By On The Coast, CBC News Posted: Nov 25, 2015 8:50 AM PT Last Updated: Nov 25, 2015 1:15 PM PT

[Bambi]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ubc-faculty-association-non-confidence-1.3502712

 

UBC Faculty Association holds vote of 'no confidence' in UBC board of governors

More than 450 faculty have signed petition calling for vote, to be held after Tuesday meeting

By Lisa Johnson, CBC News Posted: Mar 22, 2016 1:26 PM PT Last Updated: Mar 22, 2016 6:23 PM PT

 

The University of B.C. Faculty Association is holding a vote of "no confidence" in the university's board of governors, following a petition circulated by three academics and signed by more than 450 faculty.

 

The faculty association, a union representing more than 3,200 members, held a special general meeting at UBC's Vancouver and Okanagan campuses Tuesday afternoon to discuss and vote on this motion:

• "Be it resolved that the Faculty Association of the University of British Columbia has no confidence in the University of British Columbia Board of Governors."

The vote results will not be legally binding on UBC, but the university is still watching the proceedings closely, said Philip Steenkamp, UBC vice president of external relations.

 

"The university administration and the board obviously take seriously the views of all members of the university community, including the faculty association."

 

One of the motion's sponsors, Jonathan Ichikawa, hopes that if the vote passes, UBC will be compelled to act.

"Certainly our hope is that a university recognizes that it can't operate with governance that does not have the confidence of its faculty," said the associate professor of philosophy.

 

'Culture of fear' after Gupta resignation

The petition is the latest move in the ongoing turmoil following former UBC president Arvind Gupta's sudden resignation last summer.

Dr. Arvind Gupta resigned suddenly last summer as president of the University of B.C., one year into his five-year term. (UBC)

In October, a report found the university failed to protect the academic freedom of a professor who suggested Gupta might have lost a "masculinity contest" with UBC's leadership.

 

 "I was very concerned to see board members exercising their power and influence in an attempt to get faculty members to stop speaking about what happened," said Ichikawa on Tuesday.

 

Following that report, chair John Montalbano resigned from the board of governors, but Ichikawa said there remains a "culture of fear" at UBC — something he observed while circulating the petition for the no confidence motion.

 

"I spoke myself to many faculty members who were afraid to sign it publicly, so some people signed i t anonymously, some people weren't willing to sign it at all because they were afraid,"he said.

 

"It's clear to me that we have an academic freedom problem at the University of British Columbia."

 

The university said any claim that academics could suffer professional consequences for speaking out is not true.

 

"Categorically, there is no such culture and there's no such actions," said Steenkamp.

 

"We have an active duty to protect and promote people's academic freedom so if people are feeling harassed or bullied or silenced, that is something we need to pay attention to," he said — on both sides of the debate.

Time to 'move on,' says one prof

 

Steenkamp pointed to an op-ed written by Sauder School of Business professor James Tansey, imploring faculty to "move on" and describing the petition as part of a campaign by friends of Gupta.

 

Ichikawa said he wasn't motivated by Gupta leaving, but by the board of governors more generally.

"There is a widespread perception that the board of governors is treating the university as if it were a corporation, instead of being something like a public institution that's dedicated to education and research." he said.

 

UBC continues to search for a new president that it hopes to name by June 30, which is "the most important task at hand," said Steenkamp. Former president Martha Piper is serving in the interim.

 

"There was a failed presidency last year ... obviously an unfortunate event but what which you have to deal with and then move on," he said.

He said the university intends to learn from the past and improve governance in the process.

 

"The university is a very big place. This in some ways is a bit of a tempest in a teacup, but it's important and it's significant and we have to deal with it."

[Bambi]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ubc-arvindgupta-report-1.3508976

 

UBC release of uncensored personal information an 'honest mistake,' report says

 

Report calls information release 'an accidental result' of school's attempt to be 'open and transparent'

 

The Canadian Press Posted: Mar 27, 2016 4:51 PM PT Last Updated: Mar 27, 2016 5:42 PM PT

 

A new report says the release of uncensored details about the departure of a former University of British Columbia president was an honest mistake.

 

The report, by former B.C. Information and Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis, says a step was missed when the documents were prepared to be released to the public, and hidden attachments containing uncensored personal information were accidentally included.

 

The university released 861 pages of documents in response to a series of Access to Information requests in January after Arvind Gupta abruptly relinquished his post last August.

 

Loukidelis' report says releasing the uncensored information was  "an accidental result" of the university's attempt to be "open and transparent."

 

The report notes UBC has made changes to how it releases information in the wake of the incident, including changing how embedded information is removed and requiring a second staff member to check releases containing sensitive information.

 

The university responded to the report with a statement saying they accept the findings and will devote more resources to the department that handles access to information requests.

© The Canadian Press, 2016

[Bambi]

http://ubcinsiders.ca/2016/01/ubcs-leadership-crisis-revealed-in-unintentionally-leaked-gupta-docs/

 

UBC’s Leadership Crisis Revealed in Unintentionally Leaked Gupta Docs

 

By Maayan Kreitzman ⋅ January 27, 2016 ⋅ Email This Post Email This Post ⋅ Print This Post ⋅ Post a comment

Filed Under  Arvind Gupta, Board of Governors

by Neal Yonson and Maayan Kreitzman

 

“As leader of an organization, you are fully accountable for your actions and the actions of others who are reacting in response to your behaviours. To be completely transparent with you, we are still not certain that you fully appreciate the scope of your accountability. As President and leader, issues such as low employee morale on campus, the relationship challenges with your key stakeholders and the simmering external reputational risks developing as a result of these challenges, are fully yours to own.”

 

From John Montalbano’s notes following a May 18 meeting with Arvind Gupta, Alice Laberge, Lindsay Gordon, and Greg Peet.

 

The document dump from the dozens of Freedom of Information requests pertaining to Arvind Gupta’s resignation finally landed on January 25th. Unsurprisingly, the most useful parts of the correspondence and documents requested were redacted. Turns out, they were actually hiding in plain sight. A post made tonight on the /r/UBC subreddit pointed to the fact that a large volume of attachments were contained in the PDF of the records released. The attachments are completely free of redactions, and are already saved on the hundreds of hard drives that downloaded the package. Three key documents – letters between John Montalbano and Arvind Gupta – point to a significant deterioration of the relationship between the Board and the President starting just months into his term. They contain unrelenting and thorough criticism of the President’s divisive communication style, dismissive attitude towards the Board, lack of a plan behind his vision, misinformed and unprofessional office staff, dismissal of executives without a plan for replacement (particularly of the then-provost David Farrar), and lack of understanding of formal governance.

 

The FOI release indicates that trouble may have been brewing as early as March 2015 when some Board committee meetings were taking place. (Side note: these committee meetings were outside the Board’s normal meeting schedule and the Board even recently denied that they took place). Since members of the Board would all be together for these meetings, John asks Arvind “do you want to meet with us to have a chat in confidence with private members of the Board as we discussed?” [pg 393] This meeting is clearly meant to be taking place off-book. A few messages later in the same email thread Arvind says “It’s tough love but in the end it’ll be better. Let me know if I need to do anything.” John responds: “Just give some thought in advance what you would like to talk about. It is your hour with us.” Ultimately, the attendees at that meeting appear to be John, Arvind, Alice Laberge, Greg Peet, and Doug Mitchell – not members of a particular Board committee, but rather an ad hoc group of Board members.

 

A few months later, things don’t appear to have improved. On May 14, Arvind emails John looking to set up another off-book meeting. “I spoke with Brad and would like us to work together to get things back on track.” (The Globe and Mail has reported that “Brad” is Brad Bennett. He is a former Chair of the UBC Board and his wife Birgit currently sits on the Board.) A meeting ends up occurring on May 18, also with an ad-hoc handful of Board members. A week later, John sends Arvind 6 pages of notes from that meeting.

 

That document, which was entirely redacted in the original FOI release, is perhaps the most sensational part of the entire FOI package . It can be read in its entirety here (summary notes below). While John goes out of his way in the letter to repeatedly state that his main wish is for Arvind to succeed as President, most of the letter is a pointed and unrelenting thrashing, detailing nearly every aspect of leadership style and management skill that you can think of as deficient. Here’s the opener:

 

“The Board has noted that your first year as leader of The University of British Columbia has been an unsettled one. Relationships with key stakeholder groups, notably your senior executive, the Faculty Deans and the Board of Governors are not at functional levels to allow you to move forward in a confident manner – unusual even for an organization undergoing strategic shifts in vision and key personnel.”

 

From John Montalbano’s notes following a May 18 meeting with Arvind Gupta, Alice Laberge, Lindsay Gordon, and Greg Peet.

 

Another private meeting between Arvind, John, and Lindsay occurs on June 2. Arvind emails the next day: “Hi John, I appreciate the candor at our meeting and our collective desire to look forward constructively.” The day after, John once again sends Arvind notes about their discussion, detailing ways he would like Arvind’s planned response to the Board to be changed. That document, which was also entirely redacted in the original FOI release, can be read in its entirety here (summary notes below). It’s clear that the exact same topics were covered as in the previous meeting. While John once again tries to use supportive language in parts, it’s clear that he feels Arvind’s response to most of the issues are unsatisfactory. Here’s one of the more dramatic passages:

 

“There is general consensus that your actions and reactions to the Board’s concerns, advice and inquiries suggest you possess an indifference or intolerance of the Board at best ‐ or worse, an intended disregard of its authority”

 

Letter from John Montalbano on June 4th following up on June 2nd meeting with himself and Lindsay Gordon

 

A few days later, on June 8th, Arvind submits a letter to the Board’s Executive Committee. That document, which was also entirely redacted in the original FOI release, can be read in its entirety here (summary notes below). Arvind expresses his desire to improve relationships with everyone at the top – UBC Executives, Deans, and the Board. He lays out his plans for improving communication, information flows, and general morale. He promises to engage an executive coach to develop his leadership skills.

 

The events of late July, immediately before the resignation occurs, are still unknown, except that there was one last private meeting between John, Greg, and Arvind [pg 578-579]. Greg sent a follow-up email the day afterwards [pg 589] and then Arvind was gone.

 

This is by far the clearest picture anyone has had so far of the crisis leading up to the resignation. If the criticisms in John Montalbano’s letters to Gupta are to be believed, the rumors that Gupta was feared by his Executive team, facing mutiny from the Deans, and experiencing mounting distrust from the Board of Governors all seem to be true, with problems connecting to the Public Affairs department, and a weak staff in the presidential office to make matters worse. The dismissal of Provost David Farrar seems to have been a turning point, and the search for a new provost is dwelt on considerably as a test of Gupta’s leadership. The letters paint the President as an arrogant leader with a confrontational communication style, who failed to build trust with his closest reports and with the wider academic leadership circles within the University. Anyone can see that his letter of response to the Board’s criticisms is not particularly meek, and even defiant in places, emphasizing that change and centralization of vision must leave some people unhappy.

 

Yet questions remain about the way that these criticisms were funneled through the university ranks to the ad-hoc groups of Board members who seemed to be most involved in the critique of the president’s performance. The extent that each narrative truly reflects UBC’s administrative and academic leadership will probably continue to be controversial. What isn’t up for debate anymore are the two opposing narratives from the Board and President Gupta himself.

 

Highlights from May 18th letter:

The Board has noted that your first year as leader of The University of British Columbia has been an unsettled one. Relationships with key stakeholder groups, notably your senior executive, the Faculty Deans and the Board of Governors are not at functional levels to allow you to move forward in a confident manner – unusual even for an organization undergoing strategic shifts in vision and key personnel.

 

The Executive Committee of the Board has identified key aspects of your leadership style and management skills which require a “course correction” in order for you to lead the University effectively. To be very clear, we all wish you to succeed, as it is in the best interest of the University that you do.

 

Because there is a low level of trust among those that work most closely with you, morale is low. You are rarely seen to solicit or seek advice from those best positioned to support you.

Creating division among individuals whether within the Executive, the Board or the Deans must cease immediately. The role of the President is to bring people to together. [sic]

 

We are deeply concerned that your office is not providing you with the information you need on a trusted and timely basis. The issue with the Dean’s in response to the Provost announcement was a catastrophic example that you are not either being informed in a timely manner or worse, the very people you are relying on are unable or currently not in a position to develop relationships of trust to provide you with the information you need prior to any major initiative.

 

We are also very concerned that your office is not only inexperienced and perhaps under resourced, but that certain members of your team do not reflect well on the tone that the office should wish to establish with stakeholders on and off campus.

 

Communication releases of key departures have inflamed concerns on campus and in the community. Specifically, while the communications are fact based, they are void of empathy, often not tied to University strategy and deemed to be hastily released without proper pre-consultation to prepare key stakeholders in advance.

 

We appreciate that you have come to understand that you have some key deficiencies in your leadership style that must be addressed. No doubt, it is difficult to reconcile how the very skills that made you a success at Mitacs are the very skills working against you as the President of one of Canada’s most important Universities.

 

As leader of an organization, you are fully accountable for your actions and the actions of others who are reacting in response to your behaviours. To be completely transparent with you, we are still not certain that you fully appreciate the scope of your accountability. As President and leader, issues such as low employee morale on campus, the relationship challenges with your key stakeholders and the simmering external reputational risks developing as a result of these challenges, are fully yours to own.

 

Highlights from June 2 letter

This letter discussed a meeting between Chancellor Gordon, Montalbano, and Gupta. Montalbano suggests edits to a draft of a letter Gupta is preparing to send to the Board Executive, and reiterates many concerns left unadressed from the May 18th letter.

 

Deans: both Lindsay and I found this section light on further strategies to improve your engagement with the Deans. We completely understand your desire to ensure that Dr. Redish has every opportunity to succeed in her role as Interim Provost, however, we ask that you reflect further on how you will build trust with the Deans in a more interactive manner.

 

no aspects of the [university] Act are to be ignored at your discretion, only at the discretion of the Board. It will be ideal that you explicitly acknowledge your understanding that you report to the Board.

 

Board is very concerned that you may not fully appreciate the importance of formal governance, in every aspect of your role. There is general consensus that your actions and reactions to the Board’s concerns, advice and inquiries suggest you possess an indifference or intolerance of the Board at best – or worse, an intended disregard of its authority.

 

How do we remove the sense, fairly or unfairly, that the “ship is rudderless”? Can you lead in anyway differently to inspire and guide your team?

 

You mention in your letter that your first year of leadership concentrated on building the foundations for change. From the Board’s perspective, it feels that the foundation has weakened, as a result of the turmoil on campus, within key stakeholder groups

 

we suggest that we spend considerable time discussing your letter at the Executive Committee of the Board with you present, but then end the meeting with 30 minutes of in-camera.

 

Highlights from Arvind’s June 8 response

This is a letter sent to the Board Excecutive replying to the concerns in the two letter above.

It is my goal, in close working relationship with you and with others in the UBC community, to lift UBC from the top 25 to the top 10

 

engaging an executive coach to help enhance leadership skills

 

One on one meetings with Executives

 

Strategic planning retreats with Executives and Deans

 

I particularly appreciate your identification of the need for improved resourcing in the President’s Office. With your support, I intend to address this gap

 

change can induce anxiety and resistance. This is further magnified in a university setting; universities are places of great innovation, but also, historically, places which resist institutional and structural change [...] The current highly decentralized nature of UBC, often exaggerates this

[Bambi]

http://www.theprovince.com/news/local+news/faculty+votes+favour+confidence+motion/11816153/story.html

 

UBC faculty votes in favour of non-confidence motion

By Tracy Sherlock, Vancouver Sun March 29, 2016

 

The University of British Columbia has voted to express its lack of confidence in the school’s board of governors.

 

UBC’s board has been criticized by the faculty after the abrupt departure of former president Arvind Gupta last August. Since then, the board chairman has resigned in an academic freedom scandal, the finance committee chairman has stepped aside pending a court case in which he is trying to get a $1-million tax bill cancelled, and the board as a whole has been criticized for conducting secret meetings with little documentation.

 

On March 22, faculty agreed to vote on the following question: “Be it resolved that the Faculty Association of the University of British Columbia has no confidence in the University of British Columbia Board of Governors.”

 

Of 3,357 eligible voters, 1,294 voted, with 800 voting for the motion and 494 voting against.

 

Over the weekend a group of Sauder School of Business faculty wrote an open letter urging members to vote against the motion, expressing concerns that a non-confidence vote would interfere with the university’s search for a new president. Earlier this month, chancellor Lindsay Gordon said the search committee is on track to announce the new president by the end of June.

 

 

 

Although it is unknown what the ramifications of the vote of non-confidence will be, both the faculty association and the university expressed hope that a planned April 14 meeting that faculty, students and alumni will speak at will result in a renewed relationship.

 

“Today’s result indicates that many faculty members have deep concerns about the board and governance issues,” said Mark MacLean, president of the faculty association. “We would like to see the Board deal seriously with the issues we have been raising over the past several months, such as openness and transparency, management of conflict of interest, and problems with the way that the Board operates.”

 

MacLean said he hopes the board will begin to engage with the faculty association.

 

“For months, we had been rebuffed in our efforts to generate the meetings with the board that would be necessary to move the university past its current governance crisis,” MacLean said. He said the faculty association received a letter from board chair Stuart Belkin that said faculty association would have sufficient time at the meeting to present its concerns.

 

“I am taking this as a sign of a thaw in relations. That said, we have some difficult conversations ahead,” MacLean said.

Philip Steenkamp, UBC’s vice-president of external relations and communications, said faculty members are represented on the board and on the two senates.

 

“These faculty members have equal governance responsibilities to other governors and senators, and enjoy the respect of their faculty peers and fellow governors and senators, Steenkamp said.

 

He said the board is looking forward to the April 14 discussion.

 

“We take the concerns of the faculty association very seriously, and we look forward to a respectful and ongoing dialogue about improving governance practices,” Steenkamp said. “We are committed to working towards continuous improvement in all that we do.”

Sun Education Reporter

tsherlock@postmedia.com

© Copyright © The Vancouver Sun

Original source article: UBC faculty votes in favour of non-confidence motion