MUN is moving into the new year with community support and new direction


(The Communicator - February 1998)

It's been quite an eventful number of weeks since I last had the opportunity to address you in this forum. I certainly hope you and your families had a wonderful Christmas season and enjoyed our extended break. Recent positive developments with The Opportunity Fund have put us much closer to our ultimate goal. We also turned the page in the Faculty of Science with the resolution of the status of the former dean.

The Opportunity Fund

In one week alone in January we received $1 million in pledges towards The Opportunity Fund. To call this fantastic would be an understatement. The pledges all came from corporations, with over 50 per cent from Newfoundland-based businesses. This latest news means the pledges, including the government matching contribution, now stand at $40 million. We still have a way to go to get to the $50 million goal, but this is a sure sign that the message is out there and being received positively in our community. This is important as we are concentrating on Newfoundland companies and individuals in the stretch drive.

In fact, the high level of public support for The Opportunity Fund and for many other initiatives of Memorial University is particularly reassuring. We're doing something right. Actually we're doing many things right. The fact that the Newfoundland and Labrador public has such a high degree of faith and confidence in Memorial University is a credit to you, the people on our staff and faculty, and your dedication to our students and our community.

Dean of science

In the case of the dean of science issue, a number of misperceptions have been fuelled by media statements from the former dean, and from other individuals and groups who have chosen to become involved in the issue. It's important that students, faculty and staff know exactly what transpired. Complicating the university's efforts to fully explain its position in the matter have been media reports based on selective interpretations of what actually happened. Please note the following facts:

  • In July 1997, Dr. Alan Law was informed that the senior administration and the Board of Regents, specifically the executive committee of the board, had lost confidence in his ability to lead the Faculty of Science, and he was told why. This didn't occur suddenly or because of any single matter. The problem had been building for several months and involved a number of issues.


  • In such circumstances, it is common for people in executive positions (and the position of dean of science is an executive position) to offer their resignations in return for appropriate consideration.


  • Dr. Law could have relinquished his position as dean, which had two years to run. The university would have continued his stipend as dean during that period. In those circumstances, Dr. Law would have continued as a tenured full professor until normal retirement age.


  • Dr. Law initially took the view that it was best to leave altogether. We offered an arrangement whereby Dr. Law would be granted approximately two years salary should he wish to leave Memorial. This offer was, in my view, reasonable in the circumstances and certainly in keeping with practice in other organizations including the private sector and government. Dr. Law asked for substantially more than that to settle the matter and move out. We refused to pay substantially more. At that point, the die was cast and we followed through by setting a termination date for his duties as dean (he was still free to continue as a tenured full professor).


  • Dr. Law asked for a hearing by the Board of Regents. In retrospect that should have been done. If it had been done, in my view it would not have altered the substantive conclusion based on the facts. However, this was not done and Dr. Law sued the university, with the faculty union (MUNFA) picking up some or all of his expenses.


  • The suit could have been settled by reinstating Dr. Law as dean and by providing the hearing that had been previously requested. The university was prepared to do this and accept whatever the outcome.


  • Both parties continued discussions toward an out-of-court settlement, and that is what ultimately happened. The settlement added approximately six months salary to what was offered last July. Dr. Law's resignation was part of that settlement. Considering a four-year scenario (to Dr. Law's normal retirement age) and the cost of replacement as a faculty member by a recent graduate, the settlement is cost-neutral.


    • When such difficult issues arise between employers and senior managers, not acting to correct the problem would be irresponsible. This began as a negotiated settlement and concluded as a negotiated settlement. The Board of Regents achieved what it needed and Dr. Law appears to have achieved what he wanted. Since no hearing took place, in or out of court, the substantive issues which led to the loss of confidence were never discussed in public. But they didn't go away because of the settlement and would be of continued concern had not the former dean resigned as part of the settlement.

    I have been asked by the Board of Regents to investigate processes for disciplining or dismissing senior academic administrators in other universities, with a view to establishing formal procedures at Memorial, should this unusual circumstance ever recur. I expect to be able to report to the board in May.

    It's now time to close this unfortunate chapter, and move on with finding a new dean of science who can establish the leadership that the Faculty of Science must have.

    Budget

    We are well on the way in our preparations for the next budgetary cycle. Given the known cuts to our operating budget (our grant from government in April 1998 will be $18 million less than it was in April 1994), we cannot maintain the level of programming and services we now offer. As we enter the last year in our three-year budget, we have informed government of this fact. We understand that the funding problem in post-secondary education is a national issue. Solutions will have to begin at the federal level and flow through provincial governments to universities and other post-secondary educational institutions. Commitments to stable and perhaps even increased government grants are necessary if we are to just maintain what exists.

    A. W. May
    PRESIDENT AND VICE-CHANCELLOR