Centralized Scheduling

Psychology Letter 2014

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Centralized Scheduling

  1. Andrew M. Robinson says:

    Below are some comments cobbled together from letters I have sent to WLUFA requesting that they take this matter to arbitration.
    Cheers, Andrew Robinson

    re: Centralized Scheduling. As far as I can tell the Deans here in Brantford have been committed to correcting any schedules CMIS generates that violate the strictest interpretation of the CA, so my concern is not with that.

    My concern is with the more basic violation of In my opinion, my right as a program coordinator to submit a proposal for each of my Members’ teaching schedules has been denied. This article is important because, as written, it gives the initiative of setting schedules to chairs/coordinators/Members and places the onus on the Dean to make changes. This allows for schedules to be created that optimize Members’ ability to balance their teaching, research and service commitments and that benefit students by having them teach at the time of day at which they are at their best. Further, this is a right defined in the CA that faculty negotiated in the past, presumably giving something else up in order to obtain this right.

    Under the new de facto system, CMIS determines the schedule and the onus is on chairs/coordinators/Members to justify changes. Since this requires Members to argue for each and every schedule change, it is likely to produce much less optimal schedules/working conditions/ability to conduct research, etc. for Members than the approach described in the CA.

    My concern focuses on the reference in the CA to the Chair submitting “to the Dean for approval a proposal for…the teaching schedule for each Member.” In Brantford , we didn’t use the Course Build process Deb refers to the Memo, but I have seen it and, as I read it, it does not facilitate the Chair submitting a teaching schedule for each Member. Further, the sentence that follows suggests that the Dean’s approval should be based on concerns about equitability in workload; this does not seem consistent with ignoring proposed schedules and randomizing the times and days of courses.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s