Minutes ago I sent the following to the University Secretary, a request to make a presentation to the Board of Gov.
It is the work of a number of University Senators.
On Friday (April 5th) I spoke about the legality of Susan Milburn’s position on the Board of Governors with the offices of the
- Deputy Minister of Justice and then the
- Deputy Minister of Advanced Education (responsible for enforcement of the University Act).
The latter advised that they’d get back to me.
The next Senate meeting is less than 2 weeks away, Sat Apr 20. (Open to the public.)
(Note: I deleted a previous posting on this issue (Milburn is now Chair of the Board; she would know that her position contravenes the law – she participated in requests aimed at making her position tenable) and transferred “related postings” to the bottom of this posting. )
= = = = = = = = = = = =
April 8, 2013
TO: Elizabeth Williamson
University Secretary
From: Sandra Finley
University Senator
RE: Legality of Susan Milburn’s position on the Board of Governors
I wish to make a presentation to the Board of Governors.
I have read and meet the Guidelines for representation to the Board:
- I am an elected member of University Senate
- That the presentation be related to the Board’s mandate: The Board is mandated to select its own Chair. The presentation has to do with the legality of Susan Milburn’s position on the Board.
- The next Bd of Gov meeting is May 7, 2013. You would like a month’s notice. I don’t like to send communications on a weekend (not work days for you). I assume April 8th provides adequate notice.
- Materials supplied in advance: please see appended.
Thank-you for your consideration.
I await your reply.
Sincerely,
Sandra Finley
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
APPENDED
SUBMISSION TO THE U OF S BOARD OF GOVERNORS, to:
Members Ex Officio
Dr. Busch-Vishniac ( President )
Dr. Vera Pezer ( Chancellor )
Members Appointed by the Government
Mr. Lee Ahenakew
Mr. David Dubé
Dr. Grant Isaac
Ms. Kathryn J. Ford, Q.C.
Mr. Greg Smith ( Vice-chair )
Members Elected by the Senate
Ms. Grit McCreath
Ms. Susan Milburn ( Chair )
Faculty Member
Dr. Linda Ferguson
Student Member
Mr. Jared Brown ( President, USSU )
Secretary to the Board
Elizabeth Williamson
I request to make a presentation that will take less than 10 minutes to your May 7 Board Meeting.
The appointment of Ms. Milburn as the Board Chair is fundamentally flawed according to University of Saskatchewan Act, 1995, c. U-6.1.
Senator Stefania Fortugno, a practising lawyer in Saskatoon:
In 2011 with Milburn’s second and final term as Senate representative on the Board soon to expire, the Board requested that the Government appoint Milburn as one of its five appointees to the Board. However, the Government chose to appoint other individuals.
There was a second option: the Government was asked to amend the University’s governing legislation to enable Senate Representatives (Milburn) to serve a third term. The legislation has not been amended.
Milburn’s maximum term expired June 30, 2012; she was granted an extension for the time being. And yet on March 5th the Board made her Chair until 2016, four years beyond the maximum set out in the Act.
The University is subject to the laws of Saskatchewan.
Knowing that Milburn’s term as a Senate-elected representative on the Board would officially expire on June 30, 2012, a new representative should have been elected at the April 2012 Senate meeting. The Board, wishing to retain Milburn’s services in the interests of continuity, recommended to Senate that the position be left vacant for the interim while waiting for the government to address the issue. The motion was met with some opposition at Senate but passed with the understanding that this measure would be temporary and the position would be filled in 2013.
Because of her status as a provisional senate representative, a number of senators were surprised to find that on March 5, without Senate consultation, it was announced that Milburn had been selected to chair the Board until 2016. (1. below)This means Milburn is expected to remain on the Board a full four years beyond her legally prescribed term as Senate representative, according to the Act.
Question: for how many years will the Senate be prevented from electing an appropriate representative to the Board? The current situation requires that the Board of Governors and the Senate intentionally, actively and knowingly circumvent the Act.
In Fortugno’s opinion, “This is not an example of good governance. This decision represents a failure to respect legal and democratic principles, including the rule of law.”
The law, as set out in the University Act, must be respected. The Senate needs to elect someone who can legitimately represent the Senate on the Board of Governors. This is an opportunity for the Board to uphold its legal integrity and to act on its recently proclaimed commitment to transparency and good governance (2. below).
Please see appended documentation.
INSERT NOTE: Links above may become invalid; therefore the content is copied on www.sandrafinley.ca at:
- 2013-03-05 Susan Milburn elected chair of U of S board
- 2013-03-04 U of S board grilled on nuclear plans, transparency. CBC News.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ==
DOCUMENTATION:
1. AGENDA Excerpt from April 2012 U of S Senate Agenda – Item 9 1 3
2. MINUTES Excerpt from April 2012 U of S Senate Minutes – Item 9 1 3
3. June 2011, Minutes of the Board of Governors’ Meeting:
Board of Governors passes motion:
“It was agreed to recommend to the province that S. Millburn be appointed to the Board of Governors” (be appointed as a government representative to the Board; she would no longer qualify to be the Senate Rep as of the following year).
4. Apr 2012, Minutes of University Senate Meeting:
Senate complies with request not to fill the Senate Milburn vacancy on the Board of Governors, passing a motion that Milburn “not be replaced at this time”.
5. Was the University Act changed, such that Milburn’s position becomes tenable?
See http://www.publications.gov.sk.ca/details.cfm?p=921&cl=5 It doesn’t appear that sections 42 to 45 – the relevant sections of the University Act – have been amended
6. The Government did not choose to appoint Milburn.
Jan 21, 2013 News Release: “The U of S welcomes four new members appointed by the Government of Saskatchewan to its Board of Governors, effective Jan. 17, 2013 for three-year terms. The new members are Lee Ahenakew, David Dubé, Kathryn J. Ford, Q.C. and Grant Isaac. They replace Garry Standing, Nancy Hopkins, David Sutherland and Art Dumont, all of whose terms on the Board of Governors have expired.”
(NOTE: I would think that IF the Government HAD appointed Milburn, it would have been operating outside the spirit of the University Act, allowing Board Members to serve beyond the intention of the law by simply changing who they represent on the Board.)
8. WHAT ARE THE OTHER AVENUES THROUGH WHICH MILBURN COULD LEGITIMATELY BE ON THE BOARD?
The Govt appointments have been made; she couldn’t represent faculty (she’s not a member of faculty); Univ president’s position has been filled; Univ Secretary position has been filled; she couldn’t represent the students’ union; she can’t continue as a Senate rep unless legislation is amended; she is not the University Chancellor.
Please explain how it is that Susan Milburn can, within the rule of law, serve as Chair of the Board and until 2016.
Submitted by
Sandra Finley
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
A few related postings. For more, see Take back the University (under “Knowledge Base” in the righthand sidebar):
- 2013-02-07 Faulty Comparison (re “princely administrative leaves awarded to departed senior U of S executives”
- 2013-01-31 U of S appoints new secretary who is “director of legal services in governance for Cameco Corporation”
- 2013-01-17 Grant Isaac, Senior Vice-President Cameco becomes member of the Board of Governors, University of Saskatchewan
- 2013-01-17 University of Saskatchewan pays former senior executives. MacKinnon, Florizone receive total of $1.3 million
- Corporate involvement in university governance is a disturbing trend – The Sheaf – Feb 6, 2012 http://thesheaf.com/2013/02/06/corporate-involvement-in-university-governance-is-a-disturbing-trend/ (Copy also on my blog at http://wp.me/p20yHQ-2cW )
- 2012-11-27 Uranium firms (Cameco & Areva) offer deal to Sask. community. Agreement (“gag order”) sparks opposition. The StarPhoenix.
- 2013-02-19 University of Saskatchewan looks to head off $44.5M shortfall (Lockheed Martin set up “collaboration topics” (war-mongering ones) for universities. The financial mismanagement seriously compromises the University’s independence.)
- 2013-02-01 Meanwhile, Uranium Mining Proposal Abandoned in Virginia
2 Responses to “2013-03-13 University Senators question legality of Susan Milburn’s position on U of S Board of Governors”
RE YOUR QUESTION:
have either you, Mary Jean Hande or anyone else lodged a formal complaint with anyone about this?
MY REPLY:
We initially decided against taking it to the University Secretary which would be our channel for lodging complaint. The reasons for so doing:
– The University Secretary is secretary for Senate meetings. We have raised the issue of Susan Milburn’s position on the Board at Senate meeting.
There are serious issues, not taken seriously. As I understand things, the Senate used to accept most everything that came from the University Administration; it was a very expensive rubber-stamp.
The Administration has perhaps found it difficult to adjust to a situation where new Senators ask questions and put forward motions.
Their response has been, for example, when we objected to the conflicts-of-interest that the former Chair of the Board (Nancy Hopkins) was in ($2 million worth of Cameco shares, sitting on the Cameco Board since 1992, Cameco having a 30% investment in Bruce Power (nuclear), chairing the Bd of Gov of the University, making decisions related to the Canadian Centre for Nuclear Innovation at the U of S, we got nowhere. McKinnon (then-President)’s response was: Nancy Hopkins is this fine person, giving to the community, how dare you question her position on the Board! Both he and Hopkins are lawyers by training. They would not address the issue of conflict-of-interest, not even when the University Conflict-of-Interest statement was provided. Rhetoric without substance.
Another example of the difficulty: for the time I’ve been on the Senate (3 years) we have tried to put forward motions for the Senate Meetings (the University Act explicitly states that Senators can put forward motions). The motions have been worked on, in one case taken to the Secretary for input, we worked to establish a working relationship, and still it is difficult to get motions onto the Agenda through normal channels (submitting the motion in advance, for inclusion in the agenda package). Can’t get past the gate-keepers.
– The Bd of Gov is just as closed-shop. Long before I went on Senate, I submitted a well-argued document to the Board and asked to be allowed to make a related, brief presentation to them. They would not allow it because their meetings were closed. A few years later, long after a change in procedures – presentations could be made to the Board, I submitted a different matter. They rejected it on the basis (never mentioned in the past), that no, it did not have anything to do with the financial management of the U, and so they would not consider the submission. A narrow interpretation could conclude that it did not affect the U financially.
– To my way of understanding the role of Senator at the U, especially the elected Senators (who are a minority, 25% roughly), it is like other elected bodies in a democracy – – our role is to ask the questions, to keep the administrators accountable, and responsible.
Also, in a democracy you have to have conversation – – the public has to have some idea of what is going on in order to know whether the money is well-spent, and how well the educational institution is serving the population. The University is making it very difficult to converse, unless it’s a one-way conversation in which they write the script. Now, this Milburn situation places them outside the rule-of-law.
– I would add that Milburn’s position has been considered by more than one lawyer; the case is deemed by them to be valid. We also checked to see if the Legislation had been changed – it hasn’t. Milburn will be 3 to 4 years on the Board, beyond what she is allowed by law (she got a temporary extension past her July 1, 2012 expiry date, but was to have been replaced in 2013. The University Press Release says she’s on the Board until 2016.).
– This final point was not a factor in the decision to issue the media release, but it is a concern of mine. As I wrote to one lawyer:
First – I am not interested in denouncing Milburn. Maybe she is good on the Board. Maybe she is not – – she has been on the Board for 6 years, going on 7.
It can be reasonably argued that the spending during that time was way out-of-line. A $44.5 million deficit in the operating budget ALONE. And other very serious financial matters. Costs that were easily projected into the future.
Yes, the Provincial Govt did not come through with the money, but it was not good management to spend the money before it was in the bank, when it was subject to politics.
Also, the Board during her time did not protect the autonomy of the U. It was willing to take $30 or $47 million from the Prov Govt ear-marked for the CCNI (Cdn Centre for Nuclear Innovation), and now it is receiving $50 million from the Province ear-marked for the Global Institute for Food Security (a corporate biotech/chemical entity – – the announcement of it completely bypassed the people on Campus who have been working on the question of public interest Food Security for years now.).
Bees in my bonnet: autonomy requires that the U receives the money and be able to allocate as it sees fit. The U cannot be held to account on many different fronts, if it does not protect its autonomy.
There it is, more than you want!!
Best wishes, Sandra
RE: YOUR SUGGESTION ” if we acceded to Milburn . . . “: (This is from a different person than the preceding question.)
What I think I can say somewhat factually, but admittedly knowing very little:
– The University Bd of Gov provided less-than-stellar over-sight to the U Admin. They would not be in the financial mess they are now in, but for the terribly inflated over-building. It is the responsibility of the Board to keep the Admin in line on financial matters.
– The Board has served corporatist values well.
– It seems to me they were part of a small, overlapping cabal. Use the Lockheed example: McKinnon & Hopkins both on the S’toon Airport Authority, Lockhheed Martin setting up for drone training at the new school set up at the Airport, Lockheed then coming onto campus (don’t know whether that has been successful). Lockheed being a prime player in the SPP (North American integration), Board member Sutherland with connections to that. A few years ago I circulated the newspaper piece about university presidents (12 at that time) that are now drawn in. Eisenhower identified the “(military)-industrial-congressional complex”. We now have the “(military)-industrial-government-UNIVERSITY complex”.
– Milburn would know that she is not legitimately on the Board. But she is willing to go along with that. I don’t know what the intrigues are, but it’s more important to her that she become Chair of the Board than that she play by the rules. That’s not a very good sign.
– Personally, I am opposed to accommodation for Milburn. She’s been on the Board for more than 6 years, a not-very-stellar 6 years. Enough. (There is wisdom in limiting people’s time served in positions where their influence builds with time.)
– Right now, a significant battle whether with the Govt, or with the University, is to try to establish the rule of law. If they want Milburn on the Board, it should be by legitimate procedure. If we capitulate, we are effectively abandoning the rule of law.
Sandra