Carleton released a modified clause in the donor agreement for its political management program, clarifying the role of the donor, Calgary businessman Clayton Riddell’s foundation, in running the program, but a national faculty association remains unsatisfied.
The university changed the clause to “clarify the wording to avoid any misunderstanding,” according to a letter by Carleton president Roseann Runte.
The Clayton H. Riddell School of Political Management aims to prepare its graduates for employment in leadership, management and administrative support positions with elected officials, political parties, and NGOs, according to the donor agreement.
The original donor agreement outlined that a five-member steering committee would determine program curriculum, faculty hiring, and scholarship selection. The revised clause clarifies its authority as an advisory role and says the committee must adhere to Carleton’s policies.
The five-member committee consists of a chair, two representatives of Riddell, and two university representatives. The current chair is Preston Manning, former leader of the conservative Reform Party of Canada, who has strong ties with Riddell.
Carleton administration released the agreement after stonewalling requests for the full document for over a year and has since revised the clause outlining how the steering committee will function.
The university renegotiated the agreement because it did not reflect Carleton’s policies and procedures for budget management and staff selection, according to a press release from the university.
Carleton’s original donor agreement gave too much power to the donor and compromised the integrity of the program, said James Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT).
Clarifications in the revised agreement do not address the involvement of the donor in program decisions and the problem still remains, Turk said.
“The donor will have a say in who’s hired, who gets scholarships and the nature of the program. The role of the donor is to give money and the obligation of the donor is to give money. Once it’s agreed to, the role of the donor ends in our view.”
The university has taken a “more explicit representation of the steering committee,” Turk said. The revised agreement gives the committee control over program direction and hiring.
“No donor should ever have any right to decide scholarships, faculty hiring, budget, and program direction. […] the donor’s role stops at the door,” he said.
“Once the university starts making itself available to those who have money, it loses its raison d’être.”
In the updated agreement, Section C of Clause 14 states the steering committee will meet three times each year “To provide timely and strategic advice on program-related matters, including program direction, curriculum development, academic and administrative staffing, organization and promotion, and securing additional funding, to ensure the GPPM’s long-term success,” according to an Aug. 28 university press release.
In a letter earlier this month, the Carleton University Academic Staff Association (CUASA) said it was “concerned over the administration’s disregard for academic freedom and quality oversight of [Carleton’s] graduate programs.”
CUASA voiced concerns that allowing a program steering committee be from a non-academic institution could compromise the university’s reputation.
The ability to maintain the university’s core values of academic excellence is “compromised when the administration creates agreements where there is a real, or apparent, corporate or partisan approach,” the letter said.
The Senate was unable to protect the integrity of the university’s academic programs and reputation because the university withheld the full agreement outlining academic programs, curricula, and hiring, the letter said.
Donor agreements should have oversight and review by the Senate, the letter said. “The administration must act to uphold the integrity of programs, teaching, and research at Carleton University.”
CAUT will be holding a meeting Nov. 23 to 26 and its academic freedom and tenure committee has a made a recommendation to start censuring against the University, Turk said.
“Our executive committee would bring a motion to our council, to begin the censure process with Carleton’s administration,” Turk said.
If the motion passes and Carleton has not changed the agreement, CAUT will begin the censure process at its meeting Apr. 2013.
The program recently saw its one-year anniversary. The university expressed its appreciation to Mr. Riddell for “his commitment to excellence as his generous donation has enabled Carleton to establish a model program that combines academic excellence with practical experience,” a university press release said.
“We extend our congratulations to the faculty and the students for contributing to the success of the program in such a remarkably short period of time.”
Beth Gorham, Carleton’s manager of public affairs, said the university declined to comment further.
“The key fact is that a movement to consideration of censure is last resort,” said Len Findlay, Chair of the CAUT academic freedom and tenure committee. “The good outcome is to protect the integrity of the university by changing the agreement that gives inappropriate discretion to the donor.”
