OCUFA welcomes the opportunity to consult with the Ministry of Colleges, Universities, Research Excellence and Security on university governance. A recent report by the Council of Ontario Universities, Leading Practices in Board Governance, demonstrates that universities take seriously their institutional governance and work to disseminate leading practices. Nevertheless, improvements are always possible.

OCUFA holds that strong governance must respect the following:

• The importance of governance structures that protect academic integrity and collegial decision-making.
• The independent, incorporated status of universities and the importance of institutional autonomy within this legal structure; and
• The bicameral nature of governance (i.e., Senate and Board) with a clear understanding of the separate and distinct roles and responsibilities of each entity.

The implementation of these principles has helped Ontario build a world-class university system. They serve as the strong foundation on which improvements can be made

Boards and Senates are distinct bodies requiring different forms of expertise; successful coordination requires acknowledging this expertise.

Boards and Senates have distinct roles. Broadly speaking, the Senate is responsible for educational policy, including formulating and approving academic and research plans, determining admissions and program requirements, as well as the general composition of degree requirements. The Board is responsible for the oversight of administration and senior leadership, asset and risk management, and protecting the autonomy of the institution and safeguarding the academic freedom that undergirds it. These different responsibilities mean that these two separate bodies require different skillsets and expertise. Each body’s distinct expertise needs to be understood and acknowledged.

Unfortunately, the recognition of expertise does not always occur around academic matters. Board members are unlikely to know the best practices in specific academic disciplines. And without an understanding of academic labour and programming practices, Board members are occasionally apt to propose actions that would be detrimental to academic program quality, violate labour agreements, and offer little-to no financial relief owing in part to the protections embedded in existing labour agreements.

A genuine commitment to shared governance between the Board and the Senate and meaningful recognition of each body’s unique skillsets is foundational to good governance. Governance is ineffective when a body’s expertise is neither respected nor consulted.

Unilateral decision-making and failing to consult the other governing body
are common sources of conflict.

Effectiveness in governance is premised on the ability of decision-makers to obtain the information they need to make informed decisions. Board members, who are not necessarily appointed for their knowledge, often lack competency in understanding the shared governance structures of universities, academic programming practices, and academic labour in general. An absence of contextual expertise, as the Auditor General has noted about the lack of financial competency in some Boards, produces blind spots that lead to poor decision-making.

One of the most pressing issues in university governance is unilateral decision-making that does not incorporate the contextual expertise found in Senates, putting the university at risk. The sudden, unilateral pausing of enrolments into existing programs is an example of this trend. These sudden program pauses are effectively program closures by another means and constitute an end-run around collegial governance that
erodes trust, violates collective agreements, and harms education.

These program pauses are also unnecessary. Universities have robust program modification processes in which the expertise of Senators and faculty are marshalled to ensure that the best possible academic outcomes are achieved and risks to the university are mitigated. OCUFA has encouraged its member organizations to proactively make use of formal program modification processes to ensure that academic programs best reflect student interests and serve societal needs. Faculty, wishing to ensure that their work has the largest possible impact, are receptive to this message.

However, many Boards are ignoring existing program modification practices in favour of unilateral decision-making that does not incorporate the expertise of the very people needed to deliver education and who understand the financial implications of these decisions. Both the need to support students to finish their programs and the labour protections within collective agreements, such as severance and the right of reappointment, can make sudden program closures a financial burden rather than a driver of sustainability.

Effective governance does not require one body automatically rubberstamping the decisions of another.

While the preceding material may imply that Boards and Senates are major sites of disagreement, OCUFA member organizations have noted that Senates are not typically spaces of rigorous debate or conflict. Rather, Senates have been increasingly sites where administrative policies are increasingly likely to be rubber-stamped. This may be related to Senates becoming less balanced between faculty and administration.

It is essential that the Senate’s purview relating to the academic policies of universities be not just maintained but strengthened. One-hundred-and-twenty years ago, the Flavelle Report established the importance of Senates to the governance of Canadian universities. This was further entrenched by the Duff-Berdahl Report of 1966, which broadened the basis of collegial governance at Ontario universities and recommended that the Senate be an academic body “of whom the administrative group must not be a majority.” That same Duff-Berdahl Report noted that a university is and should be a “battleground of clashing ideas.”

Governance is the work of sorting through these ideas and charting a path forward, not of limiting exposure to ideas. Bicameralism is a proven and widely adopted model that allows universities to be both academically excellent and fiscally responsible.

Improved Board training and the selection of appropriate Board members with the expertise to oversee senior administrators is a necessity.

Although serving on a Board is a voluntary time commitment of just a handful of days annually, adequate training is needed for Board members to understand the unique value and role of universities, including the functioning of bicameral governance and its necessity. Board members will also need to be trained on the specific employment agreements under which universities operate. Decisions made about academic
programming have major financial implications and secondary effects on other programs (commonly owing to breadth requirements), ones that Board members do not always grasp.

Board members should be able to properly exercise oversight of senior administration. However, OCUFA member organizations have noted an over reliance of trust being placed by Board members in whatever is being recommended by senior administrators. The recommendations of these administrators are rarely questioned. Board members need to have specific expertise and be empowered to bring this expertise to the fore in scrutinizing issues on the agenda. A more highly skilled Board taking an active hand will result in better outcomes and more accountability on the part of senior administrators.

A strong Board will also need to be comfortable with its proceedings being public. OCUFA member organizations report the increased use of in-camera sessions by Boards of Governors, which is a concerning development for institutions that should be open and transparent. In-camera meetings should be held only in the most exceptional of circumstances.

Streamlining the program development process may offer benefits.

When compared to college processes, university program approval processes are more apt to be lengthy, lending colleges a reputation of being nimbler and more capable of quick decision-making. Much of this is due to the different purpose of colleges and universities. Colleges offer shorter programs that focus much more narrowly on specific practical skills. This results in a simpler program approval process than that which is found at universities, where a more robust quality assurance process guides the development of new programs.

Were the government to explore speeding up the university program approval process in a way that maintains robust quality assurance, it would likely find support from faculty and OCUFA member organizations. Faculty and their associations are eager for universities to contribute as much as possible to Ontario.

Enhancing financial literacy is a worthy endeavour, but it must be understood that faculty members and Senates more broadly are committed to institutional financial health.

The government has received suggestions from the Auditor General and its postsecondary efficiency reviews that enhanced financial literacy from Board members would be beneficial. OCUFA concurs, but it adds that Senators themselves are also an important source of financial knowledge.

The stable and secure employment of faculty – and their ability to bargain collectively for gains – depends on the long-term financial health and sustainability of the university. In fact, the importance of financial health is much more acute to Senators than to the Board, as Senators depend on the institution for their employment.

Faculty members and their organizations are continually working to enhance their financial acumen. OCUFA is proud to support these efforts. Faculty members experience firsthand the reality that a university’s financial conditions affect student learning conditions and faculty working conditions. Unfortunately, the financial acumen of Senators and faculty members more broadly is not widely understood, including by
some of the parties conducting the government’s postsecondary efficiency reviews.

Faculty association membership and Senate membership are compatible.

Consultant Cheryl Foy, who has participated in multiple efficiency reviews conducted on behalf of MCURES, has recommended to the government that faculty association officers be barred from participating in the Senate. Foy claims that because faculty are represented by an association that may be unionized, that they are the only Senators who would be unable to put the interests of the university ahead of their own occupational self-preservation. OCUFA fails to see how a non-unionized senior administrator would not similarly be interested in preserving their own job and cautions against basing decisions off one person’s explicit and longstanding anti-union animus.

The story of the past few decades at Ontario’s universities has been one of weakened faculty power, not one of faculty association overreach. Major hiring trends at Ontario universities indicate that it is not the priorities of faculty that have been driving harmful university decisions. Universities have seen major growth in senior administration and an increased reliance on poorly paid and precariously employed contract faculty. These developments do not reflect the priorities of faculty associations, suggesting that neither
academics nor their associations have been exercising the major role in university governance.

Any suggestion to bar faculty association officers from governance responsibilities contravenes the Ontario Labour Relations Act. This Act does not define union leadership as a disqualifying conflict of interest. Internationally, it is quite common for employees to participate in corporate governance. Germany, for example, mandates that 50% of supervisory board members in large companies be employees.

Governance enhancements must preserve an understanding of the value of a university education and equip institutions for growth.

A university education is a wise investment because all Ontario university programs prepare future workers for success. Although it is not widely appreciated, Ontario humanities graduates have the same median earnings as Ontario STEM graduates and the same employment rate three years after graduation. Yet Boards of Governors and this government seems focused mainly on STEM.

University programs are geared towards providing the critical thinking, social perceptiveness, and complex problem-solving skills that are in increasing demand in Canada. These are the skills that are less susceptible to being disrupted by artificial intelligence and other forms of automation, meaning that university-educated workers are more likely to be ready for the future of work. Those with a broad university education can pivot and stay relevant as new technologies emerge, unlike some of the more specialized roles that are being replaced by AI.

Ontario is in a demographic boom making supporting university growth essential. In both the 2024-25 and 2025-26 academic years, first-year undergraduate registrations from Ontario secondary school students have exceeded the number seen during 2003’s double cohort. Without additional investment, as many as 100,000 qualified prospective Ontario students may be unable to find a place at an Ontario university. More seats and program options are needed, not less.

A commitment to faculty representation must guide the future of university governance.

OCUFA and its member organizations are committed to promoting a culture of continuous improvement in all aspects of university life. This commitment is on regular display in faculty members’ teaching, scholarship, and service activities, and it extends to university governance as well.

Shared governance is the foundation of Ontario’s world-class system of public universities. A commitment to the established bicameral governance structure is needed to protect academic integrity and collegial decision-making. Effective communication and transparency are essential for faculty to be involved appropriately governance matters and to ensure that their expertise is leveraged to support informed decision making.

Ensuring adequate representation of faculty members – including contract faculty – across all aspects of university governance is crucial for a robust and inclusive governance system. Many Boards include elected faculty members as governors who participate in full Board discussions and sit on Board committees, acting as an important conduit. While not part of the Board itself, faculty associations may present briefs, submissions, or consultations to the Board on issues related to academic governance. This promotes mutual understanding and the effective sharing of information. More collaboration in this vein, involving faculty who are the most connected employees to the university’s educational mission, would be of tremendous value and would help ensure that neither governing body views the other as an adversary.

Recommendations on the ways that these principles may be practically applied are articulated in OCUFA’s 2019 Statement on Principles in Collegial Governance. This Statement is attached as an appendix to this submission.

OCUFA calls on the government to develop guidelines on governance with an accompanying checklist of best practices.

OCUFA holds that improved institutional governance is possible through existing structures and legislation. Legislative amendments are not required to drive improvements in governance. Because governance best practices are evolving, guidelines and checklists offer a more flexible approach, allowing best practice updates to be provided more rapidly and easily.

OCUFA calls on the government to establish guidelines on governance with an accompanying checklist. This would help to ensure additional consistency, transparency, and accountability across the sector.

Governance improvements alone are not enough.

Improved institutional governance will not be enough to address the root causes of the difficulties faced by Ontario’s universities. Ontario’s public universities receive the lowest proportional provincial funding by far in Canada, fully $6,543 less per each domestic full-time equivalent student that the Canadian provincial funding average. This funding shortfall is the most significant issue facing Ontario’s universities.

Appendix: OCUFA’S Statement on principles on
collegial governance

Preamble

At the May 2017 OCUFA Policy Exchange conference, university governance was identified as one of three critical policy issues that are of concern to faculty. In particular, participants noted three main areas of concern: the composition and practices of Boards of Governors/Trustees, lack of transparency in the development of university budgets, and procedures for president, provost and other senior
administrator hiring searches.

Over the past few years, OCUFA’s member associations have been reporting various barriers to collegial governance for faculty, a lack of meaningful input in university Senate decisions, and frustration with controversial decisions being made by increasingly corporatized Boards of Governors. Concerns about the way universities are being governed and the erosion of collegial governance have been coming up in
all facets of OCUFA’s work.

To begin to address these concerns, and recognizing the current state of the postsecondary sector in Ontario, OCUFA has decided to develop a set of principles to guide collegial governance at our universities. The guidelines below are informed by the 2018 OCUFA university governance survey completed by every university faculty association in Ontario.

Collegial governance simply means a shared governance model often structured as a bicameral system in which both university Boards and Senates take on responsibilities to ensure the health and success of the institution. Further, functional collegial governance deliberations at the level of Board of Governors, include meaningful input from faculty who provide the instruction and research that is at the core of the
academic mission.

Ontario universities are, in principle, public institutions; but our gathered data show that they are increasingly managed as if they were corporate entities. Many key decisions are no longer appropriately addressed through collegial governance models. Coupled with the chronic underfunding of universities and their increased reliance on precariously employed professors who are generally left out of the decision-making process, this failure to implement collegial governance has led universities in Ontario to function much less collaboratively than they have in the past.

While postsecondary institutions need to change to adjust to changing political, social, economic, and cultural conditions, these changes need to be determined and implemented through collegial processes that involve the meaningful participation of faculty, staff, and students.

We note that collegial governance models do and must involve staff and students. To respect the autonomy and voice of these groups, however, and to avoid speaking on their behalf, this document is written with particular attention to the role of faculty in collegial governance and from a faculty perspective. The term faculty here refers to all those who hold academic appointments, including academic librarians, and those who teach under precarious employment arrangements.

Policy statement

The following principles have been organized under three main categories: representation on governance bodies, processes and practices of governance, and procedures regarding senior administrator searches and appointments.

Representation:

a) University governance should be based on principles of collegiality, inclusivity, meaningful representation, shared participation, and shared accountability.
b) Collegial governance participation should be a right of ALL faculty.
c) On all governance bodies, faculty should be elected by, and accountable to, their constituencies.
d) Faculty must not be expected to relinquish their association or union membership in order to sit on university governing bodies.
e) University Boards’ membership should be representative of the diversity of the community in which the university is located, and representatives must be committed to the public mission of the university.
f) Appointments to the Boards should be based on open collegial practices and include an open nomination process.
g) Membership of Board subcommittees should be open to all Board members.
h) Contract faculty should participate in university governance bodies and be fairly compensated for their participation.

Processes/practices of governance:

a) University governance practices should be based on principles of shared information, shared responsibility, open processes and planning exercises, open consultation, and shared decision-making.
b) Values of the university are not necessarily the same as those held by the corporate sector.
c) Values of academic freedom, open discussion and respect for the diversity of voices should be at the core of university governance practices.
d) The principles and traditional decision-making practices of Indigenous peoples must be respected.
e) Faculty should be meaningfully included in the budgetary and financial discussions and decisions of the institution, all of which bear upon its academic mission.
f) Faculty should be duly consulted on any contracts with external donors.
g) University Senates must engage in free and open debate on matters under their purview.
h) The in-camera content of governance meetings should be limited and justified. Closed debate should be rare and limited to exceptional circumstances.
i) Conflict of interest policies should be fully enforced with respect to all internal and external members of a governing body.
j) Where one or more members of a governing body may have a conflict of interest regarding matters being addressed, the preferred method for resolving the conflict should be recusal from discussion and voting on those matters rather than general exclusion from that committee. It should be recognized that faculty and other representatives can simultaneously represent the good of the university. The good of the university is not at odds with the good of the university community and its members.
k) Appropriate training and education should be offered to all representatives on governance bodies to ensure informed decision-making and adherence to the public and academic mission of universities.

l) Service should be duly recognized and compensated as a key responsibility of faculty.
m) The chair or speaker of the Board and the Senate should be elected by the membership of each body, respectively. The chair or speaker should not have another administrative post within the university.

Searches and appointments

a) All senior administrative hiring searches should be open and transparent.
b) The presidential and provostial search committees should be inclusive and consist of representatives from different constituencies including full-time faculty, contract faculty, students, staff, and the Board.
c) The members on the search committee should be elected by their constituencies and mindful of the role they play in representing them.
d) All members of a search committee should have equal voice and vote.
e) Community consultation should not be limited to the job posting and setting of criteria for searches. Consultation should also include the final review of shortlisted candidates.
f) The shortlist of candidates should be provided to the campus community.
g) The campus community should be provided with an opportunity to meet shortlisted candidates and engage with them.
h) A mechanism for meaningful consultation must be provided to the community and Senate for their assessment of shortlisted candidates.