The Informer Page 8

November 24, 1988

Faculty Development, cont'd.

$100,000.00) it should be funded. If a central staff
requires a larger budget in order to function, it should
not be created and the total budget should be
distributed among colleges and institutes.

2.2 Tue Perra PLAN CALLS For be hired; this vague
phrase could allow for a substantial portion of the
budget to be spent on “expert staff” of the agency.
2.2.1 IN ADDITION, WE ASK in what these staff members
would be “expert”? If these people are experts in
educational process, some faculty see a use for their
expertise; others feel that such educational experts
assume a “top-down” approach and are biased in
favour of “in house” or “intraining” schemes which
Capilano faculty seem generally to oppose.

2.3 THE EXISTENCE OF THE CURRENT “Development
Centre” should not prejudice the decision as to
whether a Centre is required. Once again, the Morin
and Perra reports seem to lead from an assumption—
as this Centre already exists, what should it do?—
rather than beginning at the true question: how can
professional development activities be encouraged?
2.4 RATHER THAN A CENTRE, some Capilano faculty
suggest the development of an enhanced electronic
network (of the “Discovery Training Network”
variety). Ifthe colleges were to become more closely
linked electronically, a variety of goals of “HRD’—
such as faculty exchange, seminars, skills workshops,
information dissemination, “partnering and
mentoring”’—could be enhanced.

3. Tue Facutty or CapPiLaNo CoLieck feel that one
programme or one agency charged with development
for Board members, Administrative staff, Faculty and
Support Staff will not do a successful job for any one
group. Further, we feel that such a plan betrays a
fundamental weakness in the Report: the assumption
that these disparate groups share common
professional development needs. The Perra plan
continues this error and cements it into action by
creating a Steering Committee made up of
representatives of each group. Indeed, in the Perra
schedule of representatives, it is proposed that some
colleges be represented for as long as two and one-half
years by non-faculty delegates. The Perra plan states
that the Centre should be “free of domination by any
one sector of the system.” While this opinion may,
indeed, have arisen from the methodology used to
interview for the Morin Report, it does not reflect the
opinion of the faculty of Capilano College that each
sector has very different needs and that these are best
served by a distribution of funds to each sector, within
each college, with local administration of projects.

3.1 THIS ISSUE STEMS FROM a major concern we have
with the direction and underlying objectives of the
Morin Report. As we understand the history of the
investigation into “HRD” in BC, a call from Paul
Gallagher in a brief report entitled “A COP Human
Resource Development Proposal” urged the creation of

a “management institute. . . aimed at defining and
upgrading the skills necessary for sound
contemporary management of colleges and institutes”
(8). Further, and two pages later, he called for a
“small short term committee to survey the manner in
which ‘professional development’ and educational
leave funds are currently used in each college ... [and]
to consider ways in which such funds might more
effectively be used by institutions in support of
human resource development at an institutional and/
or system-wide level” (10). Out of these calls came the
IDAC committee.

In the process, however, the two calls by
Gallagher seem to have been combined and the
“institute” for management studies became one with
the call for “ways in which [PD might be enhanced] ...
at a system-wide level.” The result is Morin’s call for
an Institute (or Centre); it seems, therefore, that the
opposition of Capilano faculty, CIEA and others to
such a Centre is appropriate: no such centre was
originally envisioned by COP.

4, Facuury aT CaPiLaNo CoLLeceE are concerned that
any relationship between College faculty and
University faculty be one of equals. It may well be
that workshops, colloquia and the like among faculty
from all institutions could be highly beneficial to all.
It is not our opinion, however, that University faculty
should be imported to “instruct” college faculty either
in discipline matters or educational process.

5. Facutty at CapiLano Cou.ece tend to agree with
the Morin recommendation that there should be “the
provision of a province-wide ‘voice’ for college/
institute human resource development... .” Once
again, however, we remain unconvinced that a
Centre is the most appropriate “voice” for faculty.
The Perra plan proposes a Steering Committee which
is to become this voice.

Capilano faculty feel that a “service” rather than
a Centre could be created and some similar Steering
Committee could be formed to provide separate
“voices” for each sector and a collective “voice” for the
notion of development. The makeup and apparent
function of the Steering Committee proposed by Perra
presupposes the creation of a Centre such as Morin
advocates; once again, a reasonable plan of
implementation flows from the illogic of assuming of
the Morin report’s recommendations. Faculty at
Capilano College feel that an effective “service” or
“agency” or “planning group” (all terms submitted by
areas of our college) should first be conceived and
then its makeup and operating agenda be created.

6. Facu.ty at CaPILANo Cou.ecE feel strongly that
funds should be primarily available for research,
paid-educational leave, attendance at courses, the
maintenance of benefits for faculty returning to
business, replacement costs of faculty on leave, and
the purchase of services and staff related to such
matters of personal professional development. (The