Yesterday the Academic Board met to discuss the restructuring documents.
Provost Cheryl Regehr spoke on the process and benefits of restructuring. Professor Dubbins - Chair of the Planning and Budget Committee - gave a short recap of the FGSA's statement and questions asked during the Planning and Budget Committee. Nicole Tratnik- Chair of the FGSA - addressed the board with the same speech said at the planning and budget committee meeting (shown in a previous post) Prof. Sandy Smith, a professor at the Faculty of Forestry voiced the concerns of the faculty that echoed the concerns of the students and is written at the bottom of this post. Many questions arose after these addresses including: 1)The closing of the Faculty of Nutritional/ Household Science happened previously - how does that correspond? The Faculty of Nutritional/Household Science became part of the Faculty of Medicine and later the the Faculty of Public Health. For this Faculty closing, everyone will remain in the current building. 2)If there is a possibility of making Forestry a high level Extra Departmental Unit (EDU), could it not be done prior to the restructuring? Making Forestry a high level EDU is part of the collegial process within Daniels. Daniels currently does not have an EDU A or B. Richard Sommer, the Dean of Daniels Faculty of Architecture Landscape and Design feels that this is a work around for a department and Daniels is a single department faculty. Visibility is important and an EDU could achieve that, but it was not part of the discussion. 3)If this decision was tabled, would that allow the EDU to be discussed? This restructuring is under the new process with a policy of a 120 day consultation with additional discussions at governing council level. 4) Is the institution's goal to sustain & protect forestry's contribution to science and if so how? There are many research groups studying sciences in the University and Forestry can continue to collaborate with other faculties and continue their contribution to science. 5) This is moving a science based faculty into a professional faculty. How do we prevent a professional faculty from shaping the science aspect? Professors have their own autonomy for their research. 6)Apart from the financial aspect of the proposal, how does it help students to elevate? Faculties need to have student/financial services within its infrastructure. Daniels has many student services that wouldn't have to be replicated. Other units have moved into Daniels and students have benefited. 7)Have other alternatives been considered? There had been discussions with EEB, Earth Science, School of Environment and UTM. There was an opportunity to explore these options in the last round of consultations and this was presented as the best option. 8) Will there be changes to promotion/tenure policy? Tenure and promotion policy is University-wide. Committees are built on members who have appropriate background. Dean Sommer concluded the question period by pointing out that Forestry has its own Professional program and that landscape and forestry have been together in the past and there is a lot of overlap. The vote passed with oppositions and abstentions. Executive Committee will meet behind closed doors June 10th to discuss further. Next, it will be on the agenda of the public Governing Council Meeting June 25th. FACULTY MEMBERS ADDRESS TO ACADEMIC BOARD Given by Prof. Sandy Smith Opener: I am here today representing the few remaining faculty members in the Faculty of Forestry. It is almost 26 years ago to the day that I spoke on behalf of the Faculty to the exact same issue; i.e. “its Closure”. As faculty members, we believe that the restructuring proposal addresses a ‘problem’ that has not been particularly clear, and by way of a long process, not particularly constructive, BUT can be supported - IF there is a written commitment to a distinct Forestry identity that ensures its sustainability. The Problem: For us, the proposed restructuring raises a looming uncertainty: Whether our discipline of Professional and Applied Forest Science can be retained and thrive within a major Design School? The current proposal subsumes Forest science into a non-science Faculty. This flags two issues: 1) First, without a clear identity and core, there is no institutional framework to support forest science, leaving significant potential for reallocation of essential resources and ‘mission drift’. 2) Second, without a distinct structural entity, Forestry at the University of Toronto will be essentially invisible; invisible for students pursuing a professional career, for prospective doctoral applicants, for our very generous alumni, and for our national and international research collaborators. Solution: From our perspective, there is only one solution; one that will retain the identity of professional forest science within Daniels, and also make it visible from the outside. We request that the current proposal include a written commitment designating a ‘School’ of Forestry’, led by a Director, Chair or Associate Dean. This would ensure the necessary autonomy for professional forestry education, research, recruitment, alumni, and out-reach, and would continue the University’s leadership in the Canadian and global forestry sector. While not yet perfected, this is the first time in Canada (or North America I believe) that such an innovative blend of Faculties will be brought together under one institutional space. It has the potential to be truly outstanding; But only if forestry is assured of a recognized, sustainable home for our discipline. We ask that the restructuring document be modified to commit to an educational unit (EDU) where this can happen. Close The closure of a 112-year old Faculty is a significant event. If restructuring proceeds, it will be the first time a Faculty at the University of Toronto will be terminated; the first time a Dean removed from Governing Council. This makes it even more significant, and that it be done in the best way possible. As faculty members, we need the restructuring to renew Forestry, not diminish it. The current proposal recommends that Forestry be dissolved. While this offers a unique opportunity for transformation, without clear commitment to a distinct identity and defined structure, we do not see a clear trajectory for its sustainability. Canada is a Forest Nation, the City of Toronto an Urban Forest. The changes being proposed must embed an appropriate structure that enables the ambition of the University of Toronto in forestry education to be realized. In this, we support our inspired students and their well-voiced concerns around the restructuring.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Links & Important InfoGoverning Council Minutes
|
Forestry | Faculty of Forestry Restucturing |