What is Professor Levine claiming when he slings mud?
Professor Levine’s campaign rests primarily on two basic claims. First, that our UTFA team has been antagonistic towards the University Administration to detrimental effect and that he would do a better job relating to the Administration. Second, that Terezia’s leadership has created internal problems in UTFA that he can solve. What appears to unite these two sets of claims is the other candidate’s sense of solidarity,with the Administration. (See the column to the right.)
The first claim regards the relationship between UTFA and the University Administration.
In theory, the differences between Terezia and the other candidate do not appear great. Both say that UTFA should cooperate with the University Administration whenever possible and that UTFA should be a tough negotiator when goals and interests diverge.
In practice, there is a fundamental difference. Terezia’s UTFA teams have successfully carried out both forms of interaction with the University Administration. Although the other candidate has never led any teams at UTFA, what he says about what he would do is remarkable (more on that in a moment).
On the one hand, under Terezia’s leadership, UTFA has worked with the Administration constructively around issues of common concern including resisting governmental intrusion into academic matters, seeking more government funding for investments in graduate student funding and basic science, academic freedom, improving how the Health and Well-being Office interacts with members in need of accommodations, opposing various forms of discrimination and exclusion, and finding ways of addressing the housing problem. Terezia has personally worked with President Gertler in lobbying provincial and federal politicians to address the first two issues.
UTFA Council adopted a formal resolution acknowledging the important work of U of T HR Committees on Anti-Black Racism, Antisemitism, and Anti-Islamophobia. Recently, Vice-Provost Boon wrote expressing appreciation for “UTFA’s role in raising housing-related concerns on behalf of faculty members and librarians” and committing to continued collaboration. These are just some of the many examples of UTFA’s constructive engagement with the Administration. So, contrary to the other candidate’s assertions, UTFA’s relationship with the University Administration is not purely negative or antagonistic.
On the other hand, UTFA has also devoted countless hours to tough negotiations and strategic argumentation before and during the formal arbitration process, with the result that UTFA’s team under Terezia’s leadership made dramatic gains in Across-the-Board increases in salaries and in health care benefits while protecting equal benefits for retirees, which far exceeded what the University Administration was offering. And we know, even when the goals and interests of the Administration and our members align, the Administration is not always willing to share information and power, to listen, or acknowledge gaps between values and policies and their implementation on the ground.
More broadly, UTFA has increasingly advocated for basic changes in the ways in which the current Memorandum of Agreement limits its ability to protect the interests of faculty members and librarians. And when the UTFA team thinks that the Administration is acting in ways that conflict with our fundamental values and commitments, we criticize them both privately (first) and publicly if they persist.
The other candidate promises the sky, via “pragmatism,” but offers no concrete means to get there. He seems entirely content with the Memorandum of Agreement, asserting that if UTFA would simply be less antagonistic to the Administration, they would treat us fairly. He thus confuses institutional power relations defined by sometimes conflicting interests and uneven legal tools, with an individual sense of fairness and acting ‘nice’. This reveals that he has no first-hand experience either in leading UTFA teams engaged with the Administration (or any UTFA teams, for that matter) or in complex labour negotiations.
Indeed, the goals and interests of faculty and librarians can quickly be diminished if we do not actively and effectively advocate for them. Professor Levine carefully avoids saying anything about the recent major gains that UTFA has achieved in the bargaining process. His lack of experience also means he has no specific criticism of the Administration - not even their efforts to deny PTR in 2021, or to deny improved health benefits to retirees. In fact, he recirculates Administration myths about the University being too cash-strapped to pay our members fairly, when U of T is in fact in a strong financial position with a sizeable $551M annual carryover. Here we see that when it comes to solidarity, Professor Levine’s goal seems to be solidarity with the Administration rather than with his fellow UTFA members.
“Let me briefly note that the other candidate spends most of his time attacking his colleagues, claiming that UTFA is dysfunctional and worthless, perhaps because he has no UTFA achievements of his own to describe, and no record of leading any initiative that benefits UTFA’s membership. I won’t debate accusations built on half-truths and distortions–though I’m happy to answer members’ genuine questions, and to that end I specifically address his profoundly misleading and irresponsible statements about UTFA staff and UTFA as an employer on my website [see below]. There’s no point in rolling around in the mud with him.
To be clear: I and the entire UTFA Executive wholly reject his premise. And I have questions for him in turn:
How is it possible I brought together so strong and effective a team of teams - one with representatives from across the university?
How have our elected Executive and Negotiating teams achieved historical accomplishments, such as sector-leading salary and benefits increases?
Why does a vast and growing [super-]majority of 60 elected Council representatives, from every corner of our tri-campus, actively support my re-election and repeatedly refuse to elect (or even endorse) him?
Bonus questions: who among the many people in leadership he’s baselessly accusing of malfeasance does he imagine will work with him?
Is his negative campaign what he means by “collegiality” and “civility” and “unity”?”
We await Professor Levine’s response to these questions posed in the debate.
—
With respect to his second main claim, the other candidate describes a litany of imaginary problems and improprieties at UTFA, hoping that if he slings enough mud at UTFA’s elected leaders, some might stick. This appears to us to be a bid to distract colleagues from his lack of experience and knowledge, and the low levels of voter support he has received in the recent UTFA elections he has contested.
To begin, if his claims about major internal problems in UTFA are true, why does a clear (super-)majority of elected UTFA representatives support Terezia’s candidacy and why do so few endorse him? These are colleagues who know well both Terezia and the other candidate (who was once a representative on UTFA Council but chose not to run again after facing a revolt from his local UTSC—Social Sciences constituents). Council representatives meet regularly and have first-hand knowledge of both candidates and how UTFA is governed as an organization. And they are elected by their independent, local constituencies.
How would Professor Levine lead UTFA if what he says and thinks about UTFA’s current elected leadership–members of the UTFA Council, Executive Committee, and our Negotiating Team–is true? There are currently 53 elected constituency representatives (and 7 vacant seats). Terezia has already received formal endorsements from over half and counting. And if making UTFA more democratic is an important goal (which is something Professor Levine and we agree upon), shouldn’t the opinions of these elected representatives carry weight?
The other candidate’s attempt to valorize vexatious and frivolous complaints of “reverse discrimination” filed at the HRTO by personal friends and close allies of his campaign is barely worthy of a response. Suffice it to say: ethical leadership does not include wasting the resources of the human rights tribunal by filing meritless complaints that are likely to be summarily dismissed.
In fact, Professor Levine lobs so many false and baseless allegations and defamatory remarks against UTFA’s president, past and present vice-presidents, treasurer, and the Association as a whole, it is impossible to respond to each accusation here, in turn, without amplifying his libel. To be clear, we categorically deny all of the other candidate’s allegations and we are considering how best to respond further.
Professor Levine Spreads UTFA Office Staff Misinformation
With respect to how the UTFA office itself is run, the other candidate’s lack of understanding of the workings of UTFA staffing is on full display. UTFA is a busy, and sometimes demanding place to work, with fair and appropriate accountability measures in place. During Terezia’s presidency, no staff member has brought forward a toxic or discriminatory workplace complaint, and no grievances have been filed (the majority of UTFA staff are unionized by CUPE). In fact, it is Professor Levine, not staff, who is spreading the misinformation that UTFA is “toxic”.
UTFA values and protects the privacy rights of its staff, and as a result, our consistent practice is that we do not comment on employment matters concerning individual staff in the public domain (though both Executive and Council do each hear more details in confidential meetings, and have full opportunities to ask questions). The other candidate should understand why treating staff as political footballs is unethical.He alleges there has been a general pattern to staff departures over the past several years, but he is incorrect.
As is normal with any place of employment, staff leave for different reasons. At UTFA, every permanent staff member who left either had been offered excellent promotional opportunities with much higher salaries elsewhere, chose to work for themselves as sole practitioners, or retired. A few on short contracts parted with UTFA before their contracts were extended. For example, as is widely known: our former Executive Director now works for the University Pension Plan in a senior role and two long-serving staff in their 70s retired, right on the schedules they had declared years ago. (Both are now replaced–one with someone promoted from within the ranks, and another with a term employee as we review our administrative staffing model.) These departures and changes are all part of normal staff turnover.
UTFA continually reviews its policies and procedures, and a Committee, not an individual, manages staffing issues. Rather than hire only lawyers, the Committee decided to hire a Staff Representative - a model many faculty associations have adopted instead of, or complementing, hiring internal legal counsel - and also hired an accounting firm to do our bookkeeping on a part-time basis. These decisions and others made by the Committee were all consistent with the CUPE 1281 Collective Agreement and were all unanimous.
Did the normal staff turnover hurt the Association’s finances? Absolutely NOT!
UTFA’s staffing decisions resulted in either cost-neutral results, or significant cost-savings, and at the same we continued to provide excellent advice, service, and support to our members and the Association as a whole.
In our legal portfolio, there is an annual cost savings of $250,000. We accomplished this by continuing to use a blend of internal and external counsel to do UTFA member matters and other legal work. We have improved our intake processes to reduce the duplication of efforts of internal and external lawyers, assign matters based on the counsel’s area of expertise, and have the Vice-President, Grievances, play a more active role.
In our bookkeeping portfolio, the Association saved $100,000 by implementing automated financial systems and staffing the unit appropriately to reflect the work that is carried out. With the associated cost savings, we were able to recently post a new Junior IT staff position to help UTFA improve our outdated website, among other responsibilities. We expect many qualified candidates to apply.
These staffing changes represent fiscal prudence and wise governance, not malfeasance.
Most notably, UTFA recently hired an outstanding Executive Director, to strengthen its development and enforcement of internal and external facing policies and procedures. The new Executive Director has implemented processes to ensure open and ongoing dialogue occurs with staff. Staff meet regularly as a team and individually with their manager to discuss issues, reach consensus on priorities, and for two-way constructive feedback to take place.
UTFA is proud of its track record as an employer, of being excellent stewards of members’ dues and trust, and especially of our direct and skilled support for members who need our help. And we are still always looking to improve, listening closely to those who engage with the Association in good faith.
