Introduction and History of Brief

INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY OF THE BRIEF

Introduction

This post and the four that follow aim to:

1. Give some background to "the Brief";
2. Describe how it was received by patrons, some trustees, and the Pearson Board of Trustees itself;
3. Summarize some of the claims made in the Brief; and
4. Suggest that concerned graduates call for an independent assessment and apply for membership in the Pearson Corporation.

I agree with Theo and Eileen Dombrowski who have written on this site that it is important "to learn and evaluate before judging". The Dombrowskis have thoughtfully expressed reservations about using the world wide web to air concerns about the College, and their long years of service to the College and UWC bring weight to their words. So it is with reservation that I post again. I do so because, since Heather Milliken wrote on this site last month, she has received numerous requests from graduates to read the Brief. They wish "to learn and evaluate before judging".

Heather has promised the many who have asked that a summary would be available before long. I apologise for the delay in posting a reply to all those graduates' requests; it was caused by the time-consuming process of seeking permission.

I and other patrons and trustees have encouraged the Board of Trustees to mandate the formation of an independent committee chosen by the UWC International Board Chair, Dr. Christian Hodeige, and his Canadian predecessor, Professor Tom Symons. The committee would assess the concerns of the many and make recommendations to permit the College to heal. As Eileen Dombrowski has written, "it's very difficult to know whom to believe, and how to evaluate the sources and the claims you're being given." An impartial assessment of the situation is vital to evaluate the existing specific claims of injustice.

Justice is a necessary condition for peace. The College cannot fulfill its mission as a model for peace and understanding while many members of the Pearson Community strongly believe that the College has treated them unjustly.

History of the Brief

For 20 months, and in my capacity as a Patron of the College, I have brought a number of troubling issues regarding the College's administration and governance to the proper authorities. (For biographical information about me, please read my May 11 posting 20:45)

In June 2000, I became aware that many Pearson faculty and staff members felt seriously aggrieved when I helped organize the reunion of Years 1, 2 and 3. Confidentially, I told 7 trustees (all graduates) of these concerns. I sent them five statements of aggrieved people and spoke to the trustees on a conference call in August 2000. I warned this group of trustees that there would be an attempt to form a union if the concerns were not addressed. (My motivation wasn't anti-union because I had no opinion on the merits of the unionization issue; my goal was to make clear that some employees were seriously disaffected.)

I received only one reply. It came in October 2000, from a trustee who suggested that I was inadequately informed about the employee disaffection and its importance.

But by May 2001, and as predicted, some employees had attempted to form a union and the College was a defendant before the B.C. Labour Board on, among other things, an allegation of unfair labour practice. On that legal point, the College lost. Moreover, the entire Pearson community lost as a result of the acrimony and bitterness that the union attempt engendered. It saddens me that as a former trustee and a current patron, I was not able to convince trustees that if they listened to the aggrieved faculty and staff and addressed their concerns compassionately and transparently in the autumn of 2000, they might have avoided the terrible strain on personal relations on campus. These strains continue to exist now to the detriment of the current students.

The loss is also financial. The union representative stated publicly that the union spent Cdn$ 30,000 on legal fees. Pearson College, which does not have in house legal counsel, probably paid at least as much. It is undoubtedly exceedingly difficult for a non-profit institution to raise money for legal fees especially when the College's niche in the market for charitable dollars is that it is a model of good human relations.

Clearly, employee disaffection is costly both emotionally and financially. The depth of unease among employees is suggested by the staff turnover statistics. In the past 24 months, 19 people have left the College, the majority of whom felt unhappy about how they were treated. (For a list see a subsequent posting by me.)

After 8 months of hearing from disaffected employees, receiving contradictory information from management and making no progress in resolving the disturbing issues, in June 2001, I approached a Pearson patron and Atlantic College graduate, Michael Code (AC 67-69) for advice. At his suggestion and recommendation, I prepared the Brief in which 22 people submitted statements. I sent the document to four patrons, Tom Symons, John Orr, Michael Code and George Kitching. They agreed that the issues were very disturbing and recommended that the document go immediately to Jim Coutts, the Chair.

I believed that if the trustees had different perspectives on these issues, they would alter their course and listen more carefully to the aggrieved. (This certainly would have happened when I was a trustee.) With the help of many others including Heather Milliken and John MacRitchie, I delivered the 22 statements to all trustees in late September and early October 2001.

Although there were 22 statements in the Brief, there were more than 22 people who had grave concerns. Some employees were too fearful to go public. One person actually said to me, "So this is the First World War, we're deep in the trenches and you're telling us to go over the top?!" Taking into account this fear (which might be groundless but nevertheless exists), I repeated my request (see Proposal to Advance Healing, March 30, 2001) that the Board create an independent committee to assess the College.

The Brief contained the views of a broad range of Pearson community members: three patrons, a trustee, three national committees, current and former employees, a former selection committee head, reunion organizers, graduates, donors. I've invited the authors to post their statements on this site individually.

The statements made a number of claims that the College was being administered and governed inappropriately. Alarmingly, some statements made claims that the College had acted illegally. (These, among others, I summarize in a subsequent posting.)

Click HERE to continue to Part 2