Between October 3 and October 10, 2024, Mr. Tyrone Cotie, Chair of the Board of Governors (BoG), made several attempts to interfere with the FA President’s Faculty Report. These efforts included attempts to censor the written report, prevent the FA President from attending the October 10 Board meeting, and ultimately obstruct her from delivering an oral report at the meeting. Below is a summary of this serious incident.
On October 2, the FA President, Dr. Tianyuan Yu, submitted a Faculty Report [link to the document F], which provided a summary of the FA’s efforts to finalize and sign the Collective Agreement over the preceding two months. The report aimed to inform the Board of Governors (BoG) about the challenges and progress made during this critical period.
On October 3, the FA President was informed by the Board Chair that her Faculty Report would not be included in the distribution of materials for the upcoming Board meeting, nor would it be added to the meeting agenda. The Board Chair stated that the Faculty Report should focus solely on faculty members’ teaching and research accomplishments and should not address labour relations matters. Additionally, the FA President was informed that she would not be allowed to attend any Board meetings or access Board meeting materials unless she removed a notation in her Confidentiality Agreement with the Board. Dr. Yu’s notation stated: “I do not abdicate my responsibilities in my role as President of the Faculty Association.” The Board Chair asserted that to fulfill her role as a governor, the FA President must set aside her responsibilities to the Faculty Association. This decision raises serious concerns about governance, transparency, and the Board’s recognition of the FA President’s dual responsibilities in representing faculty interests while serving as a member of the BoG.
On October 4 the FA President wrote back to the Board Chair to refute all his arguments. In her response, Dr. Yu cited the precedent of allowing notations in the BoG Confidentiality Agreements and referenced the CAUT Legal Advisory on university Board members’ fiduciary duties [Link to document H]. Dr. Yu condemned the Board Chair’s attempts at censorship and demanded that her Faculty Report be included in the distribution materials and added to the meeting agenda. Furthermore, she notified the Board Chair that, should her demands not be met, she would take action to publicly condemn his censorship. This strong response underscored her commitment to transparency, faculty representation, and adherence to governance standards, while challenging the Board Chair’s overreach and attempts to undermine her dual role as FA President and Board member.
On October 8 the Board Chair agreed to include the Faculty Report in the distribution materials and on the meeting agenda. Subsequently the FA President received the link to access the Board meeting materials. For detailed information of the FA President’s correspondence with the Chair of BoG during the period from October 3 to October 8, please refer to the FA-BoG Email Exchange document [link to document E]
On October 10, during the Board meeting and prior to the FA President delivering her report, a Board member expressed dissatisfaction with the Board’s lack of communication regarding the labour dispute. The member stated that they had only become aware of some details about the issue through the Faculty Report, which had been circulated late, on October 8. This comment highlighted concerns about transparency and timely communication within the Board on critical matters affecting the University community.
During the October 10 Board meeting, when it was the FA President’s turn to deliver her oral report, the Board Chair repeatedly interrupted her, disregarding her strong protests. The Chair asserted that it was inappropriate to discuss labour relations during the Board meeting, particularly while a Labour Board adjudication was ongoing. The FA President firmly protested, clarifying that her report did not include any information from the Labour Board facilitated discussions and, therefore, did not violate the Labour Board Confidentiality Agreement. She explained that her report was a summary of events and issues that had already been shared with all FA members but remained unknown to many Board members. She emphasized her right to deliver her oral report as it was part of the approved agenda and argued that the information she intended to share was critical, as it addressed the most pressing issue facing the University at the time. She further contended that it was in the best interest of the University for the Board members to be informed and to discuss the matter. The FA President formally moved to have a vote on whether she could deliver her oral report. However, the Board Chair ignored her motion, continued interrupting her, and did not allow other Board members the opportunity to respond to or vote on the motion. Consequently, the FA President was prevented from delivering her oral report at the meeting. This incident raises significant concerns about governance, procedural fairness, and the rights for Board members to engage in meaningful dialogues on critical University issues.
It is important to clarify that neither the MSVU Charter nor the BoG bylaws impose any restrictions on the content of the Faculty Report. Labour relations are a legitimate and appropriate topic for discussion at Board meetings. Furthermore, the Board Chair has been using the BoG’s Confidentiality Agreement and the Labour Board adjudication process as pretexts to block the dissemination of information regarding labour relations issues. The Faculty Association (FA) maintains that the BoG’s Confidentiality Agreement should not be misused to suppress representative members’ obligations to their constituents. Additionally, the Labour Board Confidentiality Agreement does not prohibit the two parties from communicating information generated outside of the Labour Board facilitated discussions. The FA has been careful to adhere to this agreement while advocating for open and necessary exchanges of information on critical issues affecting the University community. Misinterpreting or misrepresenting these agreements to stifle communication is both inappropriate and detrimental to effective governance.
The FA recognizes that the censorship of the FA President at the October 10 Board of Governors (BoG) meeting is not an isolated incident but indicative of a longstanding systemic issue at Mount Saint Vincent University. This problem, as corroborated by the testimonies of the past two FA Presidents, reflects a historical misuse of corporate law concepts such as fiduciary duties and conflicts of interest to silence Faculty Representatives, particularly FA Presidents. This practice is rooted in a false dichotomy that pits the best interests of the University against those of its internal constituents.
The corporate interpretation of fiduciary duty, which originates from the corporate sector, presumes that the best interests of an organization are inherently at odds with those of its constituent groups. This narrow, corporate-law perspective treats the University as a corporate body existing independently of its faculty, staff, and students. This view disregards the fact that the objectives of a University often align with the goals of its constituents. For example, faculty and staff gain job security through the ongoing existence of the institution, and attractive terms and conditions of employment help recruit and retain quality academic staff who contribute to the University’s mission and reputation. Where such alignment exists, there is no conflict of interest in determining what is in the best interests of the University and its constituent groups. Even in cases where disagreements arise, it is the mandate of a University board to hear diverse voices from its constituent representatives in making informed and inclusive decisions affecting the University. Therefore, in the University context, Board members representing faculty and other constituents must have the freedom to act as representatives for their constituents. Their role is not limited to passively serving corporate-style fiduciary duties but includes advocating for their constituents and ensuring their voices are heard. Silencing representative members undermines the Board’s mandate to act in the best interests of the University, which inherently includes fostering a community that supports its faculty, staff, and students.