Bonnie Patterson
Special Advisor – Universities
Strategic Mandate Agreement Team
Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development
Mowat Block
900 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario M7A 1L2
Dear Bonnie:
I am writing on behalf of the 17,000 professors and academic librarians OCUFA represents to
express concern regarding the process by which the current round of Strategic Mandate Agreements
(SMAs) have been negotiated with universities. Specifically, the lack of meaningful consultation with
campus communities as part of the SMA negotiation process is extremely problematic from the
faculty perspective.
As the negotiation of the current round of SMAs comes to a close, faculty representatives have
expressed their deep dissatisfaction with the negotiation process. The shortcomings of this process
were raised at our most recent Board meeting and at our policy conference, where members voiced
their concerns to Deputy Minister Sheldon Levy and Assistant Deputy Minister Glenn Craney. The
frustration among our membership regarding the process by which SMAs were developed at the local
level cannot be overstated.
While there was variation from campus to campus in terms of whether and how faculty were
consulted, OCUFA has heard consistently from our member associations that the level of campus
consultation has been inadequate. Typically, if “consultation” did occur, draft SMAs were presented
to Senates for the information of Senators, but opportunities to provide input or modification to
these drafts were non-existent. In some cases, campus town halls were held, but the mechanism
through which community feedback was to be integrated into draft SMAs was not made clear.
The absence of meaningful consultation with faculty as part of the SMA development and
negotiation process significantly undermines the legitimacy of these documents once completed. For
the next round of SMA negotiations in particular – when funding allocations will be tied in some way
to performance on the metrics that are agreed to in these documents – it is essential that each
university’s SMA be developed in much closer consultation with faculty than has been the case in the
current round. While it is, of course, the responsibility of local university administrations to undertake
these consultations, the Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development must take a
leadership role and require institutions to provide evidence of robust and meaningful consultation
with faculty before the SMA negotiations can begin or the document can be approved.
17 Isabella St, Toronto, Ontario M4Y 1M7 • T 416 979-2117 • F 416 593-5607 • [email protected] • www.ocufa.on.ca
Our concern about the lack of meaningful consultation with faculty and insistence upon
opportunities for greater faculty input is grounded in the impact the concluded SMAs will have on
faculty work on an ongoing, day-to-day basis. Our desire to be consulted with locally does not stem
from a mere passing interest in the topics under discussion. On the contrary, the very nature of the
key priority areas addressed by the SMAs is such that anything decided in these agreements will
directly impact faculty in every aspect of their work as teachers and researchers. This reality must be
accounted for when designing the next round of SMA negotiations.
OCUFA recommends, as a starting point, that the following be accounted for when designing future
SMA negotiation processes:

The Ministry must require university administrations to demonstrate they have consulted
with, sought the input of, and made efforts to incorporate feedback from faculty (through
Senates and/or faculty associations) before Ministry negotiations with the institutions can
begin and before the final SMA document can be approved.

Timeframes for the negotiation must be made clear to universities with more advance notice.
This will better equip institutions to plan robust and meaningful consultation processes with
faculty before beginning negotiations with MAESD.

Faculty input must be solicited prior to the development of institutional priorities and metrics.
A process in which faculty are simply presented with a completed draft SMA undermines
opportunities for meaningful input and deliberation. Instead, a first draft of institutional
priorities and metrics must be developed collaboratively by administrators and the faculty
members who will be responsible for implementing them.
These recommendations would address the core of faculty concerns with how the current SMA
development and negotiation process unfolded. I look forward to continuing the conversation with
you and with Ministry colleagues to discuss how the process for developing and negotiating the next
round of SMAs can be improved.
Best regards,
Mark Rosenfeld, Ph.D
Executive Director
c.c. Sheldon Levy, MAESD Deputy Minister