There is one line that is potentially problematic:
“Respect the Board and Board decisions, and avoid undermining any decision of the Board, regardless of whether the Director agrees with or voted for the decision.”
The problematic phrase is “avoid undermining any decision of the Board.” This vague statement could be used to silence and censor dissenting directors who should be allowed to express their dissent publicly and that such dissent should not be considered “undermining.” I have served on the UNA Board, UBC’s Board of Governors, and currently am on UBC’s Senate. I would state that while each of these bodies have some similar idea that one shouldn’t undermine the effective decision-making process of the governing body, neither do they allow for the suppression of dissent. This particular formulation is, in its vagueness, potentially problematic.
I raise this issue as I have seen first-hand the use of this kind of clause to attempt to silence dissenting directors. While I was on the UNA Board, I experienced several occasions where staff or other Directors attempted to ‘bring me (or other Directors) into line.’ I faced particular concern by my blog Metro Vancouver’s University Town and live tweeting during public meetings. These attempts weren’t successful, but when such language gets put into codes of conduct it makes it easier to silence dissenting directors.
I do agree that there is a difference between undermining board decisions and dissenting. The problem is that if a majority decides it is fed up with a minority, then these kinds of clauses get used as a tactical device to deal with a ‘problem’ in a ‘technical,’ rather than, substantive way.
The one other difference that those outside of the academic realm often find perplexing is that academic freedom (not to be confused with freedom of expression) permits faculty a freer range of criticism of their employer than in almost any other workplace. Academic freedom in our context thus allows me, when I was on the board of governors, for example, greater latitude to critique the university and senior leadership than was afforded to the appointed governors irrespective of the code of conduct the board then had. It also allowed clear and explicit public criticism of decisions made by the board.
There is likely disagreement disagree on this, but democracy in my mind requires civil diversity of perspective and the freedom to explicitly dissent from the views of the majority on a governing body, whether that body likes it or not. Often those in a majority position often claim dissent is undermining the decision of a board. Use their code of conduct and continue on. No one really fairs well by that. Dissent and disagreement needs to be encouraged. What needs regulating is the form of managing debate – laying down clear rules – no hate speech, no ad hominin attacks, no speaking on behalf of the board without prior approval, etc.
3 comments:
Glad you raised this, Charles--enforced quiescence would be bad! (I'm speaking on my own behalf, not as a Board member.) The UNA's revised code of conduct (which passed at the May 17 meeting) also contains the following: "Advocacy: Directors and Appointees shall represent the official policies or positions of the UNA, Board or Committee to the best of their abilities when designated as delegates for this purpose. When presenting their individual opinions and positions, Directors and Appointees shall explicitly state they do not represent the Board, their Committee or the UNA, nor will they condone the inference that they do." In other words, Board members are free to express their views on any issue, as long as they make it clear they are not representing the UNA.
It is useful to have the qualifying section (which while I didn't mention, I had read). However, and despite that, the vague section that prevents a Director from 'undermining' a UNA decision is a kind of "not withstanding" clause that creates the space to discipline a Director who may 'step out of line' and allow the majority to silence them despite the clause you mention.
These sorts of things never become an issue until they're an issue. IN the meantime folks tend to feel, well, we're reasonable folks, we would never do that. But it's not about how reasonable you all are, it's about what happens as things progress.,
Charles I think your points are incredibly important! These code of conduct are popping up in many places and I think they undermine dissent and democracy in numerous ways. To begin with there’s usually legislation that applies. For instance in Stratas (that use these codes of conduct, that are very similar to the UNA’s new code) they quite literally circumvent the law. At our strata a president decided that decisions would be by consensus, this in spite of the statutory requirement for a majority vote. Clearly, she will not tolerate any dissent!
The code of conduct seems to compel secrecy, the opposite of what is intended by the ACT….. transparency.
Now everything is secret. What comes next is that instead of electing the chair at AGMs, the president assumes the chair and asks the strata manager to act as ‘facilitator’ but the legislation makes no mention of such a role. What is accomplished is that they have avoided entirely the legally required ELECTION of the chairperson. And it all goes downhill from there. Interestingly, the code of conduct the council elite want all new members to sign has no provision requiring them to commit to respecting the legislation.
From my perspective (and I know that many others agree), the applicable legislation should be the code of conduct and why would it be otherwise? Most legislation names a standard of care etc.
The trend it seems is in the direction of bureaucracy and policies instead of the rule of law.
The outcome is autocracy.
I can’t find my Google sign/in otherwise I would post using it and will next time.
Meanwhile, thanks for giving rise to this important topic. We need more awareness and open discussion in the interests of invigilating democracy.
There are many concerns about democracy at the level of the UNA. Membership in UNA along with voting rights extends privileges to people who definitely would not be able to vote in a municipal election! Yet, they are able to vote even on how we will be governed such as the vote to join (or not) the City of Vancouver. Of course that means people who
will lose the right to vote are going to vote against joining the City. Meanwhile a few km away, people who are not permanent residents or citizens are not allowed to vote, and that is exactly how it should be, otherwise we run the risk of being governed by foreign nationals with few ties to our communities.
Post a Comment