Highlights of Interim Reports by KATZ Action Groups

1
Highlights of Interim Reportsby KATZ Action
Groups

May 7, 2007
2

• Recommendation 1
• A crisis and risk management team should be
  established.

3
Agenda

• What is BIRT ?
• Why is it needed ?
• BIRT Process (draft)
• Next Steps - Consultation

4
What is BIRT ?

• A protocol
• to identify situations where an individuals
  behaviour may pose a danger to her/himself or
  others
  
• to ensure appropriate actions are taken to
  respond to this behaviour
  
• to assist in the coordination of a response,
  and
  
• to ensure that relevant university officials are
  informed.
  
• This protocol is intended to support the
  maintenance of a safe, positive learning and
  working environment free from threats,
  intimidation or violence.

5
Why is it needed ?

• Katz Report Identified Concerns
• Process not clearly defined
• Multiple Policies
• Input into Process is Not Clear
• Differing Response Processes
• Communication and Information Sharing
• Coordination of Response

6
BIRT Protocol

• BIRT is not a new policy
• It will operate in line with existing policies,
  etc.
  
• It is a mechanism to ensure 4-Cs in responding
• Centralized incident reporting
• Coordination of a thorough response
• Communication to all relevant stakeholders
• Consistency in responding to incidents

7
Key Elements

• A central alert notification point
• Designation of a Response Coordinator
• The establishment of a Behavioural Incident
  Response Team (BIRT)
  
• A coordinated University-wide response
• Assurance that relevant University officials are
  informed
  
• Alignment with existing policies, collective
  agreements, etc.
  
• A centralized repository of records related to
  incidents, in accordance with the ATIPP Act

8
BIRT Process

• All incidents are reported to a Central Alert
  Notification Point - Campus Enforcement
  Patrol
  
• CEP Triages and advises the designated Response
  Coordinator
  
• Dean, Student Affairs Services (student
  incidents)
  
• Director, Faculty Relations (faculty incidents)
• Director, Human Resources (staff incident)
• Manager, CEP (non-university)
• Response Coordinator determines whether the
  incident warrants activating the Behavioural
  Incident Response Team (BIRT)
  
• BIRT is convened to coordinate an appropriate
  response

9
Role of BIRT

• to obtain and analyze relevant information
• to determine whether any further special
  expertise is required
  
• to determine actions to be taken with regard to
  any perpetrator (s)
  
• to arrange for support and care of any victim
  (s)
  
• to identify and evaluate various strategies for
  responding to the situation

10
Role of BIRT

• to arrange for critical incident stress
  de-briefing sessions for students/employees who
  may be affected, as needed
  
• to ensure that others affected by the incident
  are supported, consulted and kept informed
  
• to ensure appropriate internal and external
  communications, as necessary
  
• to manage the incident until it is resolved

11
BIRT Membership

• Core BIRT Members
• Response Coordinator
• Dean, Student Affairs and Services
• Appropriate Academic Dean or Dept Head
• Director, Enterprise Risk Management
• Campus Enforcement and Patrol
• Counselling Services
• Internal Legal Counsel
• Marketing Communications

12
BIRT Membership

• Additional BIRT Members (as needed)
• Sexual Harassment Office
• Human Resources
• Faculty Relations
• Student Housing
• Information Access and Privacy Protection
  Coordinator
  
• Registrars Office
• Labour Representatives

13
Next Steps

• Consultations
• Open Forum St. Johns Campus
• Academic Deans and Directors
• Marine Institute campus
• Sir Wilfred Grenfell campus

14
Katz 1 Committee Members

• Mr. David Head, Chair, Director, Enterprise Risk
  Management
  
• Dr. Lilly Walker, Dean, Student Affairs and
  Services
  
• Ms. Victoria Collins, Director, Marketing
  Communications
  
• Mr. Darrell Miles, Director, Facilities
  Management
  
• Ms. Lisa Hollett, Director, Human Resources
• Ms. Karen Hollett, Director, Faculty Relations
• Ms. Rosemary Smith, Information Access Privacy
  Protection Coordinator
  
• Ms. Christine Burke, Director, Housing, Food and
  Conference Services
  
• Ms. Amy Wyse, Associate Director, Faculty
  Relations
  
• Mr. John Browne, Manager, Campus Enforcement
  Patrol
  
• Ms. Sara Stoodley, Undergraduate Student Rep
• Mr. Michael Jackman, Graduate Student Rep

15
Behavioural Incident Response Team

• Questions
• Thank you from Katz Committee 1

16
Recommendation 2 In-house training for academ
ic administrators, recently instituted in April
2006, should be continued.

17
Katz Action Group 2

• Committee Members
• Sheila Devine, Chair
• Karen Hollett
• Lisa Hollett
• Eddy Campbell
• Amy Wyse
• Robert Barker
• Lynn Best
• Susan Brown

18
Key Points for Educational Initiative

• Memorial University has a legal obligation to
  deal with harassment in the workplace
  
• It is important to communicate the principles of
  promoting an environment free of harassment

19
Key Points for Educational Initiative

• The ultimate aim of the education is to create a
  respectful work and study environment
  
• The issue of harassment requires an annual,
  ongoing strategy
  
• Both academic and administrative leaders should
  be included
  

20
Key Points for Educational Initiative

• There is a central and critical role for the
  Sexual Harassment Advisor and Committee
  
• Understanding the legal framework is the first
  step in the process
  
• Educational sessions need to include all types of
  harassment, including those not covered in the
  Human Rights Code
  

21
Activities Completed to Date

• Development of a workshop on the legal parameters
  of harassment and harassment in the workplace
  
• Delivery of this workshop to two groups of
  academic and administrative leaders
  (approximately 60 participants)
  
• Identification of remaining individuals requiring
  this training (approximately 100 participants)
  
• Coordination of final workshop (June 13, 2007)
• Consultations with Sir Wilfred Grenfell College
  to establish a time frame to deliver harassment
  training with this campus

22
Future Plans

• SEC to complete training
• Harassment training must be incorporated into the
  Academic Leadership Development program to ensure
  newly appointed academic leaders have an
  understanding of this issue
• Approval of Respectful Workplace Policy,
  followed by training

23

• Recommendation 3
• Better lines of communication should be
  established between and among units and
  divisions.

24

• Recommendation 4
• Unionized employees who have ongoing complaints
  against the administration should be dealt with
  decisively and resolutely.

25

• Committee Membership
• Karen Hollett, Chair
• Lisa Hollett
• Doreen Neville

26
Committee Objectives

• Create easy to read and accessible chart, to be
  posted on the web and elsewhere, which outlines
  where to go for dispute resolution and which
  policies and procedures apply
• Educational session to SAAG on the role of
  effective communication strategies in creating a
  respectful workplace
  
• Create summary of outstanding cases for SEC

27

• Recommendation 5
• The general area of policies and procedures and
  in particular, policy formulation, development
  and dissemination, should be reviewed.

28
Action Undertake review, recommend improvements
and oversee changes

• Group 5 Membership
• Dr. Axel Meisen, Chair
• Donna Ball, Vice-Chair
• Eleanor Bennett
• Glenn Collins

29
Work to date

• Examined practices at other Canadian universities
  beginning with a survey

1. Does your university have a framework for
policy formulation, development and
dissemination? 2. If yes, please provide a copy
or webpage where a copy can be obtained.
30
Work to date (continued)

• Received fourteen replies
• Seven answered YES of which six had documents
• Of the seven NOs, three stated they are
  developing or intend to develop policy frameworks.

From the research with these six and other
universities we drafted Development, Approval an
d Administration of University Policy
31
Highlights of Development, Approval and
Administration of University Policy

• Establishment of Policy Oversight Committee of
  the Board of Regents
  
• A mechanism by which any University employee,
  with the support of his/her unit head may request
  the establishment of a new policy or the review
  of an existing policy

32
Highlights of Development, Approval and
Administration of University Policy

• Designation of a sponsor for every policy
• Requirement for thorough consultation, for both
  implementation and communication plans and for
  compliance monitoring
  
• Review of policies at least every five years

33
Status of Development, Approval and
Administration of University Policy

• The draft has been reviewed and vetted by many
  groups throughout the University and refined
  during this process.
  
• Consultation and communication is on-going.

34
Policy Framework Process

• Concept Approval
• Policy Proposal Template
• 2. Draft Approval
• Policy Development Template
• Policy Review
• Annually by the Sponsor
• Every five years by the Committee

35
Policies to Pilot the Framework
Merging with work of Board of Regents

• Whistle Blower Policy (new)
• Student Group Travel Policy (new)
• Household Removal Policy (under review)
• Upscale Hiring Policy (under review)

36
On-going Work

• Training for policy writers
• Investigating content management systems

37

• Recommendation 6
• The specific policies governing student conduct
  and student complaints should be reviewed so that
  remaining ambiguities are addressed. The policy
  and procedures concerning sexual harassment
  should urgently be revised.

38
Katz Report Recommendation 6

• Action Group Co-chairs
• Dr. Lilly Walker and Lisa Hollett

39
Two Sub-Committees

• Two sub-committees were organized
• Dr. Walker is chairing the sub-committee
  reviewing policies governing student conduct and
  student complaints
  
• Lisa Hollett is chairing the sub-committee
  addressing the revisions to the sexual harassment
  policy and procedures
  

40
Student Conduct and Student Complaints

• Dr. Katz identified ambiguities in the Code of
  Conduct
  
• The subcommittee includes the following
  representatives
  
• Dr. Lilly Walker, chair Student Affairs and
  Services
  
• Dr. John Quaicoe, Associate Deans
  representative
  
• Mary Sparkes, SWGC
• Bruce Belbin, Student Affairs Services
• Gary Green, MI
• Greg French, legal
• Katherine Giroux, MUNSU
• Rebekah Robbins, GCSU
• James Butler, GSU
• Stephen Winsor, MISU

41
Revisions to the Code of Student Conduct

• Incorporated the feedback provided by Dr. Katz
• Changed wording where appropriate
• Clarified points so that the processes were
  clearer
  
• Incorporated feedback from MUNFA
• Delineated the protections that participants have
  when serving in roles associated with the formal
  hearing processes so that committee members are
  harmless from any legal action against them.
• Added statement to support academic freedom,
  right to free speech, creative expression and
  peaceful process.
  

42
Student Conduct and Student Complaints Next Step

• The revised document will be forwarded to the
  Board of Regents for approval.

43
Revisions to Sexual Harassment Policy and
Procedures

• The subcommittee includes the following
  representatives
  
• Lisa Hollett, chair
• Amy Wyse, Faculty Relations
• Louise Webb, Marine Institute
• Ian Emerson, MUNFA
• Maureen Ryan, Stewart McKelvey
• Nathalie Pender, SWGC

44
Revisions to Sexual Harassment Policy and
Procedures

• The subcommittee noted the barriers to
  expediently revising the current policy
  including
  
• Requirement within policy itself that All
  changes to the University Wide Procedures for
  Sexual Harassment Complaints require the
  unanimous consent of all constituencies listed in
  12(d).
• The current policy is included in collective
  agreements and cannot be unilaterally changed
  
• The sub-committee recommends that meetings be
  conducted with MUNFA, CUPE and NAPE to gain their
  commitment to change
  

45
Revisions to Sexual Harassment Policy and
Procedures

• The sub-committee noted that the ideal state
  would be to have only one policy that dealt with
  all forms of harassment and applied to faculty,
  staff and students.
• Maureen Ryan, Stewart McKelvey, has prepared a
  summary document of collective agreement language
  that references the sexual harassment policy for
  the Committees review
• The committee will reconvene in May to review
  this document and determine the next steps

46

• Recommendation 7
• Certain lacunae (i.e., gaps) in policies should
  be addressed. A policy on personal harassment
  should be a priority.

47

• There is no interim report on this specific
  recommendation as it falls under the policy
  review being conducted by Group 5

48

• Recommendation 8
• A Centre for Human Rights and Equity should be
  established.

49
Committee Membership

• The Committee includes
• representatives from all three Memorial
  University campuses
  
• senior administration
• full time and contractual faculty
• staff
• the student body

50
Committee Membership

• Doreen Neville, Associate Vice President,
  Academic, Chair
  
• Noreen Golfman, Associate Dean of Graduate
  Studies, Vice Chair
  
• Karen Hollett (Faculty Relations and Legal
  Counsel was replaced by Amy Wyse in March)
  
• Lisa Hollett (Director of Human Resources)

51
Committee Membership

• Amy Wyse (Equity Officer, later replaced Karen
  Hollett on the committee when she became
  Associate Director of Faculty Relations)
  
• Kent Jones (Professor, Department of Fine Arts,
  SWGC)
  
• Amy Caison (Contractual faculty in Education and
  Medicine
  
• Jennifer Allen (Student, Marine Institute)

52
Activities

• First meeting held December 15th, 2006
• Resource person to assist the committee
  identified (Ms. Sarah Mills, LLB, MBA).
  
• Plan for moving forward developed
• Review of potential models/approaches
• Development of a discussion document outlining
  options for Memorial
  
• Consultation with the University community
• Submission of a Final Report, with
  recommendations.

53
January 2007 Review of Potential
Models/Approaches

• A Review of exemplary models for dealing with
  human rights and equity issues across selected
  universities was conducted by Sarah Mills.
  
• A report summarizing key features of exemplary
  models was circulated to committee members and
  posted to the website
  
• The report is titled
• Towards Establishing an Office of Human Rights
  and Equity at Memorial A Research Review
  Prepared for the Centre for Human Rights and
  Equity Committee

54
February 2007 Development of a Discussion
Document

• A brief discussion document, outlining the most
  appropriate options for addressing human rights
  and equity concerns at Memorial, was developed in
  early February
• This document recommended the establishment of an
  Office of Human Rights and Equity at Memorial,
  with the following staff positions
  
• Director
• Human Rights Advisor
• Equity Advisor
• Education and Outreach Advisor
• HRE Resource Persons at SWGC and MI
• Administrative Support

55
February 2007 Development of a Discussion
Document (continued)

• Feedback obtained from members of SEC and DD
  indicated that
  
• There were questions concerning the evidence of
  need for such a Centre at Memorial, over and
  above the Katz report
  
• What are the problems that are not currently
  being addressed?
  
• How are Memorials existing structures performing
  their mandate with respect to these issues?
  
• The resource request was considered to be too
  rich/expensive in terms of positions requested
  
• There were questions regarding how the new
  structure would interact with existing structures

56
February 2007 Development of a Discussion
Document (continued)

• The Chair met with the Committee to share the
  concerns raised by the senior administrative and
  academic groups and the Committee agreed to the
  following revisions
• The Brief was shortened and reformatted
• Current avenues for addressing human rights and
  equity issues at Memorial were outlined

57
February 2007 Development of a Discussion
Document (continued)

• Key questions raised about the need to establish
  an Office were noted
  
• The importance of a primary education role was
  noted
  
• The resource request was substantially reduced to
  3 people A Director, the current Sexual
  Harassment Officer and an administrative
  assistant (one new position, Director)

58
February 2007 Development of a Discussion
Document (continued)

• The revised Discussion Brief was circulated
  widely across the university through the usual
  communication channels, including posting it to
  the website and providing an article for
  Newsline (March 20th)
• The title of the Discussion Brief is
• Interim recommendations towards
  establishing an Office of Human Rights, Equity
  and Diversity at Memorial University (March 15th,
  2007)

59
February 2007 Development of a Discussion
Document (continued)

• Individual consultation sessions were held with
  key members of administration on all 3 campuses
  and representatives of the various unions, the
  Office of Student Affairs and the Sexual
  Harassment Office, among others
• The Committee requested the input of the broader
  university community through one of two
  channels
  
• Attendance at open consultation sessions held on
  the St, Johns Campuses or SWGC
  
• Submission of written comments to
  awilliams_at_mun.ca by April 15th, 2007

60
March /April 2007 Consultation with the
University Community

• Open Consultation Sessions Were Held
• Tuesday, March 27t, , 730 930, EN2006
• Wednesday, March 28th, 230 430, SWGC
• Monday, April 2nd, 1200 200 pm, Reid
  Theatre
  
• Thursday, April 15th, 1200 200pm, Marine
  Institute

61
Findings From the Consultation Process
Highlights

• All persons who attended the Open Consultation
  Sessions (48) or offered written submissions(14)
  fully supported the establishment of a Centre for
  Human Rights, Equity and Diversity at Memorial
  and recommended that it be adequately resourced
  (no fewer than 5 staff)
• Existing mechanisms were not considered to be
  adequate and people do not feel safe lodging
  complaints
  

62
Findings From the Consultation Process
Highlights (continued)

• SWGC and MI need paid staff, not volunteers
• Education should be a big role for the Office
• Office should have decision making power (teeth,
  versus simply monitoring and reporting)
  
• Office should be independent from other
  administrative structures and definitely outside
  of the department of Human Resources
  

63
Findings From the Consultation Process
Highlights (continued)

• Additional roles for the Office should include
• Advocacy
• Assessment of gaps in services
• Enhancement of access to information
• Support of other University Structures such as
  the Blundon Centre
  

64
Memorial University Employee Survey Report

• Survey by Brock University, Workplace Health
  Research Laboratory released to university
  community (2 presentations and posted to the
  website) on Friday, April 27th
• Survey is currently being reviewed by several
  committee members to determine findings which
  may be relevant to the work of this committee.
  
• Focus of the Committees review of this report is
  findings related to Diversity, Respect in the
  Workplace and Collegial Relationships.

65
Submission of Final Report

• Final report was scheduled for April 30th but
  will be delayed due to the later-
  than-anticipated release of the Employee Survey
  
• Report will
• Incorporate findings from the research review
• Address questions raised about the need for the
  Centre
  
• Highlight relevant findings from the employee
  survey
  
• Incorporate feedback received from the
  consultation process
  
• Final report will recommend the Creation of an
  Office of Human Rights and Equity, with no fewer
  than 5 staff positions

66

• Recommendation 9
• A position of Advisor to the President on the
  Status of Women should be created immediately.

67

• Recommendation 10
• A survey should be conducted by the Centre for
  Institutional Analysis and Planning for the
  purpose of obtaining the views of women employees
  on a variety of subjects including compensation,
  career development and conditions of employment.

68
Actions Taken

• Survey Committee

Aileen MacDonald Amy WyseCatherine
Dutton Holly PikeKaren Hollett Leslie
ThompsonLilly Walker Linda CullumLisa Hollett
Penny DiamondReeta Tremblay Robert
Barker Rosemary Smith Shannon Dawson Sharon
Pippy
69
Actions Taken

• Survey scope broadened to
• include men and women
• inquire about wide range of workplace related
  issues
  

70
Actions Taken

• External consultant sought to perform survey
• To bring expertise
• Ensure confidentiality of data
• Benchmarking
• Brock University Workplace Health Research
  Laboratory (WHRL) engaged

71
Survey

• Survey conducted from Feb 26 to March 16, 2007
• 1750 respondents
• 561 faculty
• 1080 staff
• 89 (either/or would not say)
• 20 mis-identified (faculty who did staff survey)
  
  
• Response rates (Overall Response 41.4)
• 47 faculty
• 36 staff
• 17 either/or

72
Communications of Results

• Presentation on April 27, 2007 to university
  community
  
• Presenters from Brock University WHRL
• Zak Rochon, BA, MA Project Manager and
  Assisting Consultant
  
• John Yardley, PhD Director, Brock University
  WHRL
  

73
Website Access

• Website includes
• University-wide 256-page overview report
• April 27th power point presentation and video
• Feedback button
• www.mun.ca/humanres/opinion_survey/

74
Harassment

• Some respondents cited being harassed on the job
• Survey was confidential so their identities are
  unknown
  
• Please report incidents so support and resources
  can be provided
  
• Sexual Harassment office
• supervisors
• dean or director
• Human Resources

75
Next steps

• Katz 10 committee to review data and provide
  recommendations
  
• Disseminate detailed data to units
• local solutions identified for local issues
  
  
• Human Resources to facilitate process
• Identify best practices which may be applied
  university-wide
  
• Organize a working group to analyze the research
  data and provide advice on further actions and
  research with regard to the experience of women
  at Memorial.

76
Conclusions

• Survey results are extensive and complex
• Decisive action will flow from interpretation of
  results
  
• Survey is an important step in ensuring a sound
  employment environment

77

• Recommendation 11
• The Sexual Harassment Advisor should in the
  immediate future provide informational sessions
  to meetings of Faculty Councils, departments, and
  senior administrators so that all are familiar
  with what sexual harassment is and how it is
  dealt with at Memorial.

78
Actions Taken

• Memorial contracted Sarah Mills, Human Rights and
  Business Training Consultant
  
• Ms. Mills created a training package
  incorporating the information provided by Ms.
  Yetman
  
• Ms. Mills has presented this information to
  several groups across the university

79
Groups who have received SH training

• Senior executive
• CEP leadership
• Departments
• Computing and Communications
• Ocean Sciences Centre
• Psychology
• Biology
• Biochemistry
• Computer Science
• Earth Sciences
• Student Affairs and Services (May 17, 2007)

80
Next Steps

• Interim Sexual Harassment Advisor, Cathy Morris,
  will be starting on May 7, 2007
  
• Her mandate will include continuing this
  educational initiative in conjunction with
  learning and development

81

• Recommendation 12
• The Womens Studies Program should be supported
  and strengthened as a matter of urgency, in
  accordance with the report on the Womens Studies
  Program dated April 13, 2005.

82
Assignment Group

• Eddy Campbell, VP (Academic)
• Christopher Loomis, VP (Research)
• Reeta Tremblay, Dean, Faculty of Arts

83

• Following recommendation of the Academic Program
  Review of Womens Studies in consultation with
  the Womens Studies Council, it was agreed
  
• Womens Studies program is to be strengthened as
  a unit within the Faculty of Arts, respecting
  both the interdisciplinarity and transuniversity
  connectivity of Womens Studies.

84
To accomplish

• The Faculty is committed to work toward creating
  Womens Studies as an Academic Unit, allowing it
  autonomy to manage its own affairs (hiring,
  tenure, promotion) which is not possible for an
  interdisciplinary program and not allowable by
  the Collective Agreement.
• This task will begin in the winter term 2007.

85

• Since Sept. 2006, Faculty of Arts has provided
  the Womens Studies program certain autonomy akin
  to other Academic Units, within the constraints
  of the Collective Agreement
• WS program given its own budget
• Coordinator of the program included in the Heads
  group, allowing participation in Heads
  discussions with the Dean on major decisions
  affecting the Faculty and its units.

86

• The Faculty of Arts has envisioned 2.5 tenure
  track positions allocated to the Women Studies
  program.
  
• At present, there is just half a tenured
  professor position dedicated to the program.

87

• A senior appointment at the rank of Associate or
  Full Professor was advertised. Candidates are
  being considered.
  
• This appointment is expected to provide
  leadership in facilitating the creation of a
  restructured Womens Studies unit, developing
  existing strengths, and guiding initiatives that
  include
• curriculum review and development,
• graduate program growth, and
• the establishment of an undergraduate Major.

88

• The senior appointment will be followed by a
  tenure track appointment at the rank of Assistant
  Professor.
  
• Further increases in the faculty complement will
  depend on
  
• the introduction of a new major
• strengthening the graduate program
• enrolment at the undergraduate and graduate
  levels.
  
• The Faculty will also explore possibility of
  joint appointments.

89

• At its April 2007 session,
• the University Senate endorsed the establishment
  of a Department of Womens Studies at Memorial
  University