Building from the power of petition, faculty members at the University of British Columbia are moving toward a vote of no confidence in the Board of Governors.

A “no confidence” vote will set a new precedent at UBC wherein accountability in shared governance takes on meaning.

Since University executives scrambled on 7 August 2015 to announce the sudden resignation of President Gupta and seal records related to the resignation, confidence in the Board of Governors has progressively eroded.

The Faculty Association of UBC has scheduled a Special General Meeting to discuss the motion on Tuesday, March 22 from 2 pm to 3:30 pm.

Members should have received a notice regarding the presentation of a petition to the UBC Faculty Association signed by over 450 faculty seeking to have a membership vote on a no confidence motion. The motion, sponsored by Jonathan Ichikawa (Philosophy), Juliet O’Brien (FHIS), and Alan Richardson (Philosophy) is as follows:

“Be it resolved that the Faculty Association of the University of British Columbia has no confidence in the University of British Columbia Board of Governors.”

In the opaque cloud of process, the University of British Columbia announced yesterday that it is operating “in a constrained funding environment.” So what in the world does “constrained funding” mean?

Of course, UBC’s faculty and students have grown accustomed to “constrained funding” if this means few to no internal funds for research and teaching despite millions in revenue for more administrators and capital projects. Yes, we know what “constrained funding” means in that sense.

But what exactly does “a constrained funding environment” mean at the University level? Does it mean a $120m deficit? $30m deficit?

Does it simply mean that the economy and Loonie and are nosediving, so expect the worst in 2016-17?

Quite an elusive report on UBC finances

Lo and behold, the University of British Columbia finally made an announcement about the budget leading into a new fiscal year (1 April 2016). Trouble is, the budget news is vague and the process opaque.

Compared to other Canadian universities, UBC faculty, staff, and students are in the dark on the budget, whether it be at the University or local unit levels.

Today’s news that “UBC continues to operate in a constrained funding environment” is clear as mud. How “constrained”?

The Provost continues to hold a freeze on faculty hiring and a balance of Faculties are running up deficits. Come September, the University will most certainly face another $100m deficit with expenses increasing.

UBC announced that “many central administrative units absorbed significant budget reductions in the last year, and most of these flow into 2016/17” but admin bloat continues unchecked.

For various reasons, the Deans have been pampered by a central administration looking the other way when it comes to the bloat and deficits.

Since the 7 August announcement of the sudden resignation of President Gupta, UBC has been silent about the budget. Actually, save for a very partial disclosure of records given a volume of FoI requests, UBC has been silent about most issues of accountability.

In the meantime. the Council of Senates’ Budget Committee has been left to tinker with Student Information Systems instead of holding UBC’s executives to account.

In an era not too long ago, deans were able to assert their authority on most matters of governance, finance, management, and planning. Now, with credibility and legitimacy eroding, with shadow systems opening to scrutiny, can mere assertion of authority and excellence continue to pass for reality or truth at UBC?

So what part of the “Deans support UBC leadership” Op-Ed is believable or persuasive? Can the Deans support their “strongest” assertion?

We want to make clear in the strongest possible terms that we are absolutely committed to the pursuit of academic excellence and have consistently supported initiatives to promote such excellence.

Let’s test this assertion of commitment “to the pursuit of academic excellence” with a graduate program on campus:

  1. A graduate diploma mill, which in 13.5 years graduated 680 masters students but did not hire a single FT faculty member. Yes, 680 masters students and 0 FT faculty hired in 13.5 years.
  2. Instead is an exploitation Sessional labour—85% of all the courses—to teach at a piecemeal per student wage while their benefits start and stop at the term’s beginning and end. Staff members are hired to teach, who then double-up on their M&P jobs and displace the Sessionals from additional course assignments. The Sessionals are denied office space or worse:
    1. Per the policy and requirements of space usage in [the academic building] for Sessional instructors, the [123] temporary office space, must be cleared of all personal belongings, borrowed library items and additional furniture installed.
    2. If, by Dec 1, 2015, the space is not restored to its original condition, items will be disposed of, and you shall be invoiced for the cost of clearing and removal.
    3. As requested, I attach the photos of the room in its original condition, taken prior to it being temporarily assigned to you in February 2015.”
  3. It took 8 years of agitation across two Faculties to complete a single Self-Study and Program Review. There are 7 administrators overseeing this Program but not a one could initiate a Review. Effectively, when it finally did happen, well, let’s just say that an expectation of arm’s length Reviewers was mocked.
  4. Did I mention that this was a revenue generating program and maybe there is something to shield from scrutiny? When in April 2015 the Associate-Provost reviewed the Office (yes, Office) that runs and manages the Program, he reported:
    1. “Shadow systems are used more than University systems which is concerning because the data in the shadow systems are not verifiable, and because of the opportunity for misuse of funds.”
  5. In the last four years, this program generated about $5.4m in total revenue but we cannot account for expenses or overhead “because the data in the shadow systems are not verifiable.”
  6. Where does the money go then?
  7. Is it just thrown at the deficit that’s run up elsewhere year after year?
  8. But still, where does the money go? Is it just paying for administrative bloat?
  9. Did I mention 680 masters student graduates and 0 FT faculty in 13.5 years?

If this is “academic excellence” we’d hate to see academic mediocrity or compromise…

We want to make clear in the strongest possible terms that we are absolutely committed to the pursuit of academic excellence and have consistently supported initiatives to promote such excellence.

Lowering the bar of excellence? No, just inflating the envelope of greatness.

Pride

Moira Warburton, The Ubyssey, February 9, 2016– A rainbow flag, raised on the pole outside the old SUB for the Pride Collective at UBC’s OUTweek this week, was discovered to have been burnt down earlier today in what is presumed to be a violent act of hate.

Pride Collective members noticed that the flag was missing this morning and contacted the UBC Equity and Inclusion Office to ask if they knew anything about the disappearance. Upon investigation, the office found remnants of the scorched flag still attached to the pole.

“It’s been a rough day,” said Rachel Garrett, one of the coordinators of the Pride Collective. “[There’s been] a lot of stress. I don’t think any of us feel safe right now and that’s a really hard feeling to be going through.”

OUTweek is an annual eight-day event, organized by the Pride Collective, which celebrates “queer and trans identities, communities and learning,” according to its Facebook page.

Although OUTweek will not be completely cancelled, the Pride Collective has cancelled a Fuck the Cis-tem March due to take place tomorrow in response to the event because of concerns that it would give public recognition to individuals who could then potentially be targeted by further acts of hate.

Although OUTweek will not be completely cancelled, the Pride Collective has cancelled a Fuck the Cis-tem March due to take place tomorrow in response to the event because of concerns that it would give public recognition to individuals who could then potentially be targeted by further acts of hate.

Read More: The Ubyssey

SmithReportCover

Download full Smith Report

On 7 August, the University of British Columbia announced the sudden resignation of President Arvind Gupta. The next day, Professor Jennifer Berdahl queried whether he lost a masulinity contest. The UBC Board of Governors Chair, John Montalbano, took exception to this query and expressed to Berdahl his dismay. Sauder School of Business administrators also objected and requested she downplay the post and tread carefully so as not to insult financial donors, such as Montalbano, when speaking and writing.

On 17 August, Provost pro tem Angela Redish and Interim President Martha Piper issued an important Statement from UBC on Academic Freedom.

On 25 August, UBC and the Faculty Association agreed to find the facts of the “alleged breaches” of academic freedom. On 15 October, UBC released a 10 page summary of the 84 page Report written by the Honourable Lynn Smith. The Summary is peculiar in its exclusion of any facts of administration or management.

Following a Freedom of Information request, the University disclosed the full Report, albeit heavily redacted.

In the full Report, Smith offers a very helpful analysis of academic freedom, reaffirming “the ‘right to criticize’ either UBC or other societal or governmental Institutions” (p. 21).

Part and parcel of academic freedom, criticism or critique of University management, managers, decisions, and direction was reaffirmed in June 2015 in BC in a case involving faculty member George Rammel’s academic freedom in criticizing the Capilano University President’s directions and decisions.

The Berdahl and Rammell cases, combined, are extremely important for academic freedom.

Academic freedom includes criticism or critique of the management of the University or Faculty, etc. without fear of reprisal or sanction.

UBC Deans, what do you know and when did you know it? After six months and a crisis that’s growing, it is time to come clean.

The Freedom of Information disclosure indicates that you were unhappy with President Gupta. On 1 May, Gupta couldn’t tell: “Things seem to be going well with the Deans now (or at least I think so).

On 22 April, a week after the FAUBC claimed a mini-victory over scaling back and amending Policy #81 (“Use of Teaching Materials in UBC Credit Courses”), Gupta did the accountable thing by announcing that he was moving Dave Farrar from the post of Provost.

That Policy #81 process was painful; it nearly led to CAUT censure of UBC. Such a needless policy and cost but no one really shed tears over the exit of the Provost.

Except the Deans. The Deans took a tantrum. Why is that?

Montalbano said as much to Gupta: “The issue with the Dean’s in response to the Provost announcement was a catastrophic example that you are not either being informed in a timely manner or worse.”

Ok Deans, time to speak up and come clean. What happened?

At the U of S, when dean Robert Buckingham spoke out against the University, he lost his job but won integrity.

With integrity, he was rehired.

Time to come clean UBC Dean.

{ 1 comment }

Since University of B. C. President Arvind Gupta resigned unexpectedly last August, the institution’s managers and governors agreed to remain silent and move records and answers to non-disclosure agreements and privacy protection.

After five months of Freedom of Information requests, UBC released a partial disclosure of records related to Gupta’s resignation. One answer is implicit and explicit in the disclosure: if you want to know why UBC managers resist change, follow the money.

On the record, a rift formed between Gupta, the Dragon’s Den leader, and emotionally vulnerable middle managers. “You are deemed too quick to engage in debate in a confrontational or dismissive manner,” Gupta was scolded, “which is demoralising to a group of executives in fear of their employment security.” Gupta was not Presidential.

Off the record, there’s another storyline, perhaps more realistic.

One of the largest employers in British Columbia – $2.1 billion operating budget – the university and its Properties Trust have for years been given free passes in the court of accountability. This conceit percolates down through the ranks of middle management.

Gupta was hired in the fallout of serious financial fraud cases within the Faculties of Medicine and Dentistry. Controversies, such as the Sauder School of Business students’ rape chant in September 2013 had chipped away confidence in the ranks of management.

Senior campus administrators had seemingly looked the other way as internal investigations into management pointed to no one and nothing for accountability. The free pass for managers was status quo when Gupta was hired at UBC.

Three months in, Gupta targeted university finance and management for overhauls. The Vice President Finance was let go and the Provost was moved to an adviser’s post.

At this point, it began to look like a policy of administrator accountability had suddenly arrived on Point Grey. Administrative bloat and perks were finally called into question. The pushback was fierce as middle managers, deans, and their numerous assistants and associates, grew anxious and more insecure.

Stamping out fires, Gupta wrote on May 1 to the Chair of the Board of Governors: “Things seem to be going well with the Deans now (or at least I think so).” The doubt signalled that behind-the-scenes middle managers were conspiring under turf war conditions.

Accountability was pushed back up to the President: “we are still not certain that you fully appreciate the scope of your accountability,” Gupta was told in mid-May. “You must refrain from thinking controversial thoughts out loud.

Gupta redirected priority to allocating finances to classrooms and hiring of faculty members, and away from bloated administrative ranks. For instance, the ranks of assistant and associate deans swelled from 47 in 2000 to 72 in 2015. Senior administrators and deans had long protected their prerogative of appointing at these managerial ranks and resisted even the slightest consideration of regulation through a proper hiring policy.

It didn’t matter to a balance of managers that Gupta was successful in attracting $66.5m in Federal research funding in late July. At the same time, he was called into meetings to answer to pushback. The Board formed an ad hoc committee to erode confidence. On August 7, he resigned.

Not one to rock a boat at a birthday party, Interim President Martha Piper stepped in to celebrate UBC’s 100th and restore business as usual and the free pass for management. Champagne corks were popping in September.

In December, Piper rushed the Board to once again approve student tuition increases across the campus. At the year’s major budget meeting in mid-January, with all the deans providing their faculty’s financial status and plans, the sole message to members of UBC was that the president said the ‘presentations were excellent.’ With deficits run up in the faculties, budgets are in a mess, but the PowerPoint slides are beautiful.

Of course arrogance, cronyism, and hubris have their limits, even at UBC. Since Gupta’s resignation, the university has bounced from one crisis to the next. The university is slipping again into a crisis of financial management. Why are managers resisting? Follow the money.

Stephen Petrina, Sandra Mathison, and E. Wayne Ross are Professors in the Faculty of Education at the University of British Columbia and co-directors of the Institute for Critical Education Studies.

With UBC’s crisis of administration and legitimacy growing worse, the Faculty Association has re-issued its call for an external review of the Board of Governors and its operations. Clearly, there are failures of governance and shadow systems of decision-making from the ranks of middle management to the top of the Board. The FAUBC announced today:

As the collective voice of faculty, charged with representing faculty interests and perspectives relevant to unfolding events at UBC, the Faculty Association, through its Executive, feels compelled at this time to raise a number of serious concerns. It has become clear that the University of British Columbia is in the midst of a governance crisis.

The events of the past year or so, as information about them slowly leaks out, demonstrate a failure of governance that threatens the integrity and credibility of the University. This is a singular moment in the 100-year history of UBC, the solution to which requires strong actions on the part of the Board of Governors.

We have called publicly for an external review of the Board and its operations. At this point, we re-issue this call. Such a review is essential to restore public trust in the Board. To accomplish this, the leadership for such a review must have the support of the University community – of faculty, students, staff, and alumni….

Some current members of the Board, including the Chancellor of UBC, have been shown in recent, now public, documents to have been involved in activities around the resignation of Dr. Gupta that appear to contravene standard and expected Board practices. Improper conduct of Board business is a serious matter. The former Chair of the Board, John Montalbano, has resigned. What onus of response falls on these other Board members, given these revelations?

The UBC Alma Mater Society also publicly called for a review. The AMS urges the Board to enact the following changes:

  1. That the incoming Chair of the Board of Governors instigate an external review process into governance practices;
  2. That the Board of Governors delay approving any candidate proposed by the Presidential Search Committee until such time as the suggested external review is complete and incorporated.

Thanks you FAUBC and AMS!

Give us break UBC: Board of Governors, Senate, and other admin committee work is not rocket science. However, given the release of records and findings of shadow systems and backroom deals, it’s time for the basics: adopt the Nolan Principles of Standards in Public Life.

In brief, for universities, the Nolan Principles are:

  1. Selflessness: University and public interest opposed to self-interest.
  2. Integrity: Decision-making integrity opposed to coercive power.
  3. Objectivity: Merit, affirmative action, and diversity complemented.
  4. Accountability: Decisions and actions accountable to peers, public, and open to scrutiny.
  5. Openness: Decisions and actions open and transparent opposed to restriction and secrecy.
  6. Honesty: Self-interest openly declared when in conflict with best interests of the University or public interest.
  7. Leadership: Principles supported by example of leadership (i.e., leaders model the principles).

UBCcleanProtest2Feb16a

UBC faculty, staff, students, and citizens turned out in mass to protest the Board of Governors’ unaccountability and damaging lack of transparency. The message being enough is enough. We’re fed up with the the backroom politics that are pervasive enough to move a new President out of office with no review, rhyme nor reason.

UBCcleanProtest2Feb16c

UBCcleanProtest2Feb16b

After a rally in front of the Alumni building, the protest proceeded upstairs to the door of the Board meeting. The disruption was direct and effective, with a subset marching into the meeting. Chants of ‘hey hey, ho ho, the BoG has got to go’ roaring outside the door and the Board’s discomfort inside. Shockingly, the Board allotted time for a colleague to speak out at the mic!

UBCcleanProtest2Feb16d

Amazing demonstration of the grass roots on campus everyone! Next time we may move to occupy.

The management and legitimacy crisis at the University of British Columbia is growing worse. Putting out fires from crisis to crisis, the University’s public relations has been a disaster from day one.

Following the release of Freedom of Information records, replete with embedded files– smoking guns– UBC has had little to no comment. The first comment was “UBC will not be commenting.” No comment… from the VP External Relations and University Counsel.

The second comment elaborated on a technicality: “it is necessary to take the additional step of “sanitizing” the [FoI] PDF file to remove the hidden copies of the unredacted attachments.

“UBC deeply regrets the error that led to this privacy breach,” University Counsel continued.

That’s it? That’s the extent of the apology? A technical regret for a failure to sanitize?

Advice to the VP External Relations and University Counsel: 1) Apologize to Dr. Gupta. 2) Publicly apologize to the faculty, staff, and students of UBC.

That would be a start…

{ 3 comments }

As the economy tanks with questions of whether governments, banks, manufacturers, and universities are “too big to fail,” the concept of “shadow systems” takes definition.

it was riddled with contradictions: ubiquitous negotiations on all levels, informality, and a huge shadow system. (Kisser & Kalb, 2010, p. 173)

Sound familiar? Zola suggests in the exhilaration, like gambling, of governing through a “shadow system– a place where free from outside scrutiny and evaluation a miniature version of the game of life can be played”– “the demands of the outside world seem distant” (1974, p. 61).

That’s the point– shadow systems provide a sense of control… but within the systems “too big to fail” when you get caught, what happens? When that outside world sees what’s going on, what happens?

In an extensive analysis and critique of management and governance models at UBC, the Faculty Association Executive expresses our

concern about how much UBC business is conducted in such a manner (i.e., “secret, in camera processes” or shadow systems) and hence not captured by FOI requests….

We are deeply concerned by the evidence that a culture exists in UBC whereby the Chair of the Board is personally involved with managing university personnel and their concerns, and whereby back-channels exist between the Board and the University which bypass formal governance structures.

Shadow systems wherein business is conducted that cannot be “captured by FoI requests” have become business as usual, at UBC and the provincial government. In April, we found that  “the British Columbia government is routinely blocking access to documents that should be made public by claiming that the records don’t exist.”

Wary of corruption and cronyism, on 22 October, the Information and Privacy Commissioner for BC released a scathing report of the practice of withdrawing decision-making to shadow systems. In Access Denied, Denham begins:

Democracy depends on accountable government. Citizens have the right to know how their government works and how decisions are made.

This holds for UBC, by the University Act a corporation bound to accountability to its members: faculty, staff, students.

UBC Management, from top to middle (Deans, ADS & Directors) has lost a sense of how to govern faculty, staff, and students. It has also lost a sense of judgment of what is important and what is not.

UBC’s shadow systems have now come back to haunt a university “too big to fail.”

Protest at UBC
Protest the BoG Meeting

Why: Demand UBC management and Board accountability
When: Tuesday, February 2 at 12:30 2:00
Where: Robert H. Lee Alumni Bldg, Centre, 6163 University Boulevard, UBC
How: Faculty, staff and students will gather w/ guests & speakers, etc.

UBC faculty, staff and students will protest the upcoming UBC Board of Governors Meeting, and will publicly demand that

  • the Board of Governors stops holding secret, undocumented meetings
  • the Board honours its duty to operate in a transparent and accountable fashion
  • an external review of its past practices takes place immediately

For more background on the issues leading to this protest, see this letter from the Faculty Association of UBC, which details how the BoG has, among other things, held committee meetings that left no official record, and made decisions about personnel matters without formal assessments or performance reviews.

Please share with all interested UBC people: faculty, students, alumni.

And faculty are encouraged to wear academic robes if they have them!

We have invited MLA David Eby, MLA Andrew Weaver, Minister Andrew Wilkinson, and President Arvind Gupta to join us and speak about these issues.

More details

We are thrilled to launch this Special Issue of Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labour:

EDUCATE. AGITATE. ORGANIZE: NEW AND NOT-SO-NEW TEACHER MOVEMENTS

Special Issue of Workplace
Edited by
Mark Stern, Amy E. Brown & Khuram Hussain

Table of Contents

  • Forward: The Systemic Cycle of Brokenness
    • Tamara Anderson
  • Introduction to the Special Issue: Educate. Agitate. Organize: New and Not-So-New Teacher Movements
    • Mark Stern, Amy E. Brown, Khuram Hussain
  • Articles
  • Principles to Practice: Philadelphia Educators Putting Social Movement Unionism into Action
    • Rhiannon M Maton
  • Teaching amidst Precarity: Philadelphia’s Teachers, Neighborhood Schools and the Public Education Crisis
    • Julia Ann McWilliams
  • Inquiry, Policy, and Teacher Communities: Counter Mandates and Teacher Resistance in an Urban School District
    • Katherine Crawford-Garrett, Kathleen Riley
  • More than a Score: Neoliberalism, Testing & Teacher Evaluations
    • Megan E Behrent
  • Resistance to Indiana’s Neoliberal Education Policies: How Glenda Ritz Won
    • Jose Ivan Martinez, Jeffery L. Cantrell, Jayne Beilke
  • “We Need to Grab Power Where We Can”: Teacher Activists’ Responses to Policies of Privatization and the Assault on Teachers in Chicago
    • Sophia Rodriguez
  • The Paradoxes, Perils, and Possibilities of Teacher Resistance in a Right-to-Work State
    • Christina Convertino
  • Place-Based Education in Detroit: A Critical History of The James & Grace Lee Boggs School
    • Christina Van Houten
  • Voices from the Ground
  • Feeling Like a Movement: Visual Cultures of Educational Resistance
    • Erica R. Meiners, Therese Quinn
  • Construir Y No Destruir (Build and Do Not Destroy): Tucson Resisting
    • Anita Fernández
  • Existential Philosophy as Attitude and Pedagogy for Self and Student Liberation
    • Sheryl Joy Lieb
  • Epilogue
  • No Sermons in Stone (Bernstein) + Left Behind (Austinxc04)
    • Richard Bernstein, Austinxc04

Thanks for the continued interest in and support of our journals, Critical Education and Workplace, and our ICES and Workplace blogs. And please keep the manuscripts and ideas rolling in!

Sandra Mathison, Stephen Petrina & E. Wayne Ross, co-Directors, Institute for Critical Education Studies

The Faculty Association has levelled an extensive critique of senior management and governance of the University of British Columbia. The FAUBC begins:

Information that has come out from freedom of information requests, as well as Wednesday’s leak of documents, has justified our concern that the Board of Governors had acted via secret, in camera processes that do not meet the standards of best practices for public bodies in British Columbia. Worse, it is becoming apparent that such a lack of public accountability is the normal mode of operation for the UBC Board of Governors, and we are concerned that the actions of the Board may expose the University to charges of contravention of the University Act and provincial privacy and access to information laws….

It is alarming to us that the records supplied in response to a formal request under the Access to Information laws should be incomplete, and that University Counsel should be supplied with incomplete records. As such, this would appear to be a violation of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA)….

What remains unknown about Board procedures is, we think, significant in the matter of Dr. Gupta’s resignation. Board procedures, more generally, appear not to be documented. Instead, they appear to be maintained as some form of “oral knowledge” managed by either the Board Secretary or the University Counsel, depending on the matter. This is at variance with best practices, and certainly inconsistent with a notion of open and transparent university governance….

Given the events that have unfolded thus far and the information that has been revealed, we believe it is time for an external review of the UBC Board and its practices. Such a review should be an open process that engages fully the faculty, students, staff, and alumni of the University of British Columbia.

Superb work on behalf of members of the University and the public good.

Dear John, how goes it?

Did you hear what happened? Spoiler Alert: you’re not going to believe it!

Just a bit of a head’s up cause Arvind is now allowed to talk! (Hey, see if you can get UBC to say something lol)

First Law of UBC’s Statement on Respectful Environment: Thou cannot complain up.

You and our good ‘ol Board of Governors knew this better than everyone; after all, pursuant to Policy #1, you administrated all 97 Policies, plus the Statement.

And we all know what that Statement says about complaining up: “Bullying or harassment does not include the exercise of appropriate managerial or supervisory direction, including performance management.”

The President, of all people, has the right under the Statement to be uppity, snippity, and, to be candid, John, “void of empathy” whenever he, she, or they exercise/s managerial direction. It’s b&w in the Statement. It’s in the book.

Truth be told John, if the middle managers deemed Arvind “too quick to engage in debate in a confrontational or dismissive manner, which is demoralising to a group of executives in fear of their employment security,” you should have enforced the First Law, took those managers to task, and protected that top level.

Remember, the purpose of the Statement is not only to pit faculty against faculty, staff against staff, and student against student. It is all that, secondarily for sure.

The primary purpose of the Statement is to protect managers from any bottom up criticism. That toxic critique of Arvind should’ve been nipped in the bud.

Top down, never bottom up.

It’s awesome to know you and we all now feel we know you even better. You now know us a little better too! Sometimes a “course correction” is ok.

Be good (and if you can’t be good at BMO, by all means, be bad).

UBC, famous for its pots calling kettles black, is now scrambling to explain why its unaccountable Board of Governors is lecturing its President on accountability. “We are still not certain that you fully appreciate the scope of your accountability,” Gupta was told last May.

UBC, famous for cutting off its nose to spite its face and body, is now in reaction mode trying to explain why its President, having just secured $66.5m of federal research funds is the same day hauled into meetings and told “You are deemed too quick to engage in debate in a confrontational or dismissive manner.”

UBC, famous for redecorating its deck chairs as its leadership sinks, is now back-pedalling to explain why its Chairman is dressing down its President for not addressing the Board “in a manner that is ‘Presidential’.”

VP External Relations Steencamp, welcome to UBC. Suddenly there is a lot of communicating to do. “UBC will not be commenting.” Say what?

Given the implications that an unelected body has been running the show at the University of British Columbia, through a series of behind the scenes ad hoc committees, confidence in governance has waned. It is time to recall the Board of Governors. And time to rescind the tuition hike the Board approved in December. Accountability?

After six months of silence, Arvid Gupta is speaking and sorting out distortions of his resignation and what transpired behind the scenes. The Globe and Mail posted a summary last night and this morning Gupta took to the airwaves on CBC.

A one-sided story prompted the University of British Columbia’s ex-President to introduce a reality check. UBC fumbled with Freedom of Information requests for six months but finally disclosed a package earlier this week. UBC Insiders detailed the serious implications of  the embedded files, and by yesterday’s end Gupta broke the silence.

Turns out UBC’s Board of Governors formed an ad hoc committee to deflect the President’s attention from reform to their concerns with his style. Listen to CBC for Gupta’s side.