TWUSA Senate calls for referendum
The sexual harassment complaint that shocked the Trinity Western University campus last October may be settled, but tremors are still being felt. Following President Snider’s return from leave on December 5, the Trinity Western University Student Association Senate has recommended that TWUSA take certain courses of action—one of which would be to “implement a process towards the election of a student, faculty and alumni representative to the Board.”
The Senate, a four-person advisory board of past TWUSA Presidents and Vice-Presidents, explained its recommendations to TWUSA President James Moes in the form of a letter which was carbon-copied to the Board of Governors and President’s Cabinet, as well as other members of the TWU community.
“We felt the only way to properly deal with the issue was to involve the whole community in a grassroots effort,” explained Senate Chair Aaron Fedora.
“Our confidence in the Board and the Cabinet is compromised by what appears to be a lack of accountability and transparency in decisions made subsequent to the [harassment] allegations,” says the December 23 letter.
The Senate also attributes their lack of confidence in the Board to “the absence of appropriate representation by key constituents of the University on the Board of Governors.” The Senate cites the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada eligibility requirements—which require “appropriate representation… from academic staff, from students and from alumni”—to support their concern.
“The AUCC was fully aware of TWU’s structure and granted us membership as we are,” said Saffold. “Nonetheless, it’s a reasonable question.”
The Senate has recommended that TWUSA work towards the election of student, faculty, and alumni representatives to the Board before September 1, 2006.
“We are in dialogue right now with administration, moving along towards achieving that end,” said Moes. He would like to see the university move towards a “mutually beneficial relationship between those who govern the university and the main stakeholders of the university.”
As well, the Faculty Association, in a document entitled “Transparency and Accountability in TWU Decision Making,” has expressed its desire that “the makeup of the board be amended to include faculty, student, staff, and alumni representation each elected by their respective constituencies.” The Association also recommends that a large majority of meetings of the Board and its committees be public.
Senate calls for referendum
In its letter, the Senate cites Snider’s return as a particular area of concern, saying “the Board did not specifically communicate whether or not their investigations found Dr. Snider responsible for the allegations.”
On October 26, Executive Vice President Guy Saffold informed campus that a complaint had been filed against TWU and its president, Neil Snider, alleging harassment by the president and failure of the university to take action required to resolve it. The complaint has since been resolved.
In a public statement made December 4, the Board wrote that it had “considered the allegations against President Snider and has concluded that Dr. Snider’s moral integrity cannot be called into question . . . and it has concluded there is no reason for the President to remain on leave.”
In response to this concern, Saffold said that the settlement process was not “a trial process that led to a finding [of guilt or innocence], but a mediation process at the end of which an apology was offered and the person who complained said ‘that’s acceptable to me.’”
“The president apologized,” he added. “That means that there was something that needed an apology.”
Speaking on behalf of TWU, Saffold said that the university “felt that our procedures had failed her [the complainant]. We apologized for that and made a commitment that we will fix that.” Saffold confirmed that these changes would be discussed at the February Board meeting, and made public once they are approved.
In a letter to TWUSA President Moes of January 4, Saffold that these “changes will provide for . . . an independent investigator in cases where the complaint is against a senior member of the University’s administration.”
The Senate also expressed concern over the unanimity of the decision to allow Snider to return from leave. Saffold confirmed that the Board held a teleconference meeting at which 20 of 24 Board members were present. Though opposition may have been voiced, the vote taken at the meeting was unanimous.
The Senate’s letter expressed concern over Board Chairman, Dr. Allan Hedberg, who was twice placed on probation by the California Board of Psychology—in 1995 for “unprofessional conduct,” and in 1999 for “violation of rules of professional conduct.”
“The first instance [in 1995] concerned a case of his obligation to report suspected child abuse,” said Saffold. “He reported it, but the Psychological Association felt he should have reported it ten days sooner.”
Dr. Hedberg’s 1999 violation, said Saffold, occurred when a company that was partly owned by Hedberg violated the CBP rule that a psychologist cannot hire a former patient.
With respect to holding a referendum, Moes was quick to draw focus away from Snider and Hedberg, saying he didn’t wish to emphasize “personalities.”
“The important issue is whether or not students have confidence in the Board of Governors,” Moes said.
Professor Rick Sutcliffe, who chairs the Faculty Association, warns against holding a referendum.
“Such a referendum would be unwise and accomplish almost nothing,” he said. “A better approach is to go to the Board and say what they have done right and make positive suggestions for moving forward.”
5 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
The most important thing that people need to remember is that TWUSA is not important. When will people stop pretending the TWUSA actually makes the difference. The administration has better things to do then listen to some idealistic & naïve kids that believe a students association actually has some meaningful input. Leave the real work to the big boys.
Comment by Undergrad — January 20, 2006 @ 12:22 AM
After reviewing the Senate’s letter (we have a TWUSA senate? who knew?) I would like to hear more from the senators – specifically about their third suggested course of action, to “Run a referendum during the Student Association Executive elections to determine whether the students have confidence in the leadership of Dr. Hedberg and Dr. Snider.”
I am confused as to what the purpose of this referendum would be: is the goal to try and make the Board of Governors (BoG) more aware of student attitudes towards the structure of the BoG; or, as the language seems to imply, is the goal of the referendum to express student opinion on Dr. Snider and Dr. Hedberg as suitable leaders in their particular positions. One question addresses the role and structure of the office itself, the other addresses the person in that office, which would seem to be significant difference that needs to be clarified.
I do not think a witch-hunt via referendum would be particularly beneficial as my own witch-hunting skills are quite rusty and I would not feel like I was capable of voting in good conscience. Continuing along these lines I think that before a referendum is conducted it would also be beneficial for TWUSA to conduct a survey on whether the students of TWU even know who Dr. Allan Hedberg is and what exactly it is he does. In this respect I genuinely appreciate the Mars Hill’s attempts to inform the student body about the current issues surrounding the BoG; they have provided a good deal of information that I would encourage my fellow students to look at. Students do need to take a more active role in “standing up for Trinity” and encouraging change for the betterment and building up of the school, and in a larger sense, the body of Christ.
The reason that the referendum issue is a special concern for me is that I am unclear as to what it will actually achieve. If TWUSA is in dialogue with the administration as the elected representatives of the student body, and if that voice is being ignored or discounted, I am unsure if the BoG will respond to a referendum the way our TWUSA senators hope. The issue is not about how many voices are reaching the BoG, the issue is in the attitude towards those voices. The “referendum” that will get real results is dropping enrolment and departing professors – the absence of students and teachers to teach the ones that are left would seem to spur on change more directly than a vote.
While it would be nice to initiate change before this point, I do not see a referendum helping in this regard (although, as I’ve already stated, perhaps our senators can better describe how it will). In addition, the tendency of referendums to factionalize and lead to “us vs. them” attitudes would also be detrimental – it’s not “us vs. them” – it is ideally “we” working together for the betterment of this community that we all are all a part. We do not want to set ourselves up in a position of one group triumphing over the other as it only leads to increased dogmatism, defensiveness and unwillingness to dialogue on both sides of the issues. If the goal is truly the improvement of TWU as an academic institution and not simply victory of one ideology over another, than this must be the approach that is taken. Granted, it seems as though the BoG has not been open to dialogue in the past, however, departing from this model ourselves as students would only seem to solidify their dogmatic stance. We ourselves as students must be on guard that we do not commit the mistake that seems to be occurring in our leadership of dogmatically holding to a set of principles that we are unwilling to compromise on. Principles are essential, but so is dialogue and thinking about those principles and the recognition of context.
I do not want to make it sound like I think it is unimportant for students to make themselves heard or to try and initiate change. I think it is extremely important. I would just like some clarification on the purpose and value of referendum as described by our TWUSA senators in their letter as we try and work within our community towards healing and reconcilliation as an improved and improving expression of a community in Christ.
your common TWU student,
Thomas Cairns
Comment by Thomas Cairns — January 20, 2006 @ 6:30 PM
I think that TWUSA, among other things, plays a very important role in providing services and heading initiatives to create a better campus for us as students, and for this I am truly grateful to them.
However, I don’t think that representation of student’s concerns to the administration is a very important role of TWUSA.
I went to a very left-wing community college before coming to TWU, where I experienced what it is like to have a student association that is constantly fighting, bashing, and defying the school administration.
How refreshing it was to come to TWU where TWUSA actually seems to have good relationships with the administration, and works to promote the vision of the school to the students.
At least that was the feeling I got when in my first year.
Now, in my fourth year, either things have changed, or I am noticing things that I didn’t notice before. Whatever the case, I don’t think that TWUSA’s current stance of “getting on the case” of the university on various issues is a very productive way to solve our problems.
I think that students need to approach the administration personally and express their concerns that things are not done in a right way, or that policies are not made in the interests of the students.
If the administration does not do the right thing, it is not our job, nor TWUSA’s job to get in a huff and go into fight mode.
The better path in this case is to pray for the administration to have a change of heart. If they don’t change – we’ll just have to live with it.
An excellent quote for this situation comes from Oswald Chambers: “God does not give us discernment in order to criticize. He gives us discernment in order to intercede.” (approx.)
Referendum — bad idea!
Students on the BOG — great idea… but I’m all for leaving that to the board and not getting into a tizzy over it.
- Austin
Comment by Austin Davies — January 27, 2006 @ 3:04 AM
In response to Austin’s comment, while I agree that we want to approach the issues with a view of working “with” rather than working against the BoG; I do not think that places us under a mandate where we should do nothing.
The fact is that if something is wrong with the university and the way it is structured the Christian love we believe in compels us to say something about it and try and improve the university for its own benefit as a community and the building up of the body of Christ.
I, for one, do not feel like TWUSA has been going into fight mode and have been impressed by the way they have tried to approach some of the issues with healing and restoration in mind. I do think that a certain amount of passion and hot-bloodedness (is that even a word?) is a good thing in trying to initiate change on campus. It gets things moving. And if I felt like TWUSA was being critical for criticism’s sake alone then I would be inclined to agree with your comments, but my understanding of the situation as I read the different documents that have been provided has affirmed for me that they are trying approach the issues in a balanced and Christian manner.
I think the encouragment to make sure we pray for our administration and our student leadership is especially important. We are Christians here after all, and so ultimately we want to see God’s will be done. However, I think God can use us as the instruments of His will and like Nehemiah as he rebuilt the temple (for the glory of God – and as we (re)build our school I hope our intentions are the same) we must pray and also act (I see this most clearly Nehemiah 1 and 2 – chapter 1 focuses on Nehemiah’s prayer, and then in chapter 2 Nehemiah springs into action – the two work in tandem with each other, I think). To intercede, I think, is not to act only through prayer, but also through word and action.
The goals here, I think, are not to destroy the good relationships between TWUSA and the student body and the administration – the goal is to strengthen that relationship so that the university as a whole functions better. Just as a good friend would confront a person with something that was destroying themselves or their relationship – so should we confront what we see as misguided policies that are negatively affecting the community. And just as the friend confronts and acts in order to restore the other and the relationship – so should we – and so I hope we are doing.
Thomas Cairns
P.S. I should mention that in my initial comment, comparing the suggested referendum to a “witch hunt” was bad form. I thought it was funny…and now I don’t. My negative sentiment towards the idea of referendum remains, but the language I used to express that sentiment was unecessarily inflamatory – so I apologize to the TWUSA senators – I did not think then, nor do I think now that they were hoping to burn anyone at a stake (although I still think referendum is a bad idea).
Comment by Thomas Cairns — January 27, 2006 @ 8:10 PM
I am ashamed at the intent of TWUSA (as I understand it) to move so quickly in judgment of Dr. Snider. This case has truly been unfortunate for all involved, but the alligations and consequential recommendations (including a referendum) are very upsetting, and detrimental to TWU as a whole. Dr. Snider has a proven track record of integrity and without all the information (which unfortunately has not been disclosed to the public) we should not be so quick to judge. I think in times like this we need to support and pray for our leaders not look for ways to destroy their legacies. It would be my desire that TWUSA issue an apology to Dr. Snider for making statements which usher thoughts of wrong doing when only allegations and unfortunate misunderstandings exist.
This case should be resolved in house as God is fully capable of repairing any relationships or policies that need to be addressed as a result of this most unfortunate situation.
Chris Meehan. Senior
Comment by Chris Meehan — January 31, 2006 @ 1:43 AM