teachers have this responsibility (4-1.02, b).

According to FNEEQ, some of the CEEC’s recommenda-tions to date include giving the administration minutes and an attendance list of departmental meetings and providing de-tailed course plans that specify the pedagogical tools being used every hour throughout the semester.

MERCHANTS IN THE TEMPLE

Our concern is that adher-ence to the CEEC’s process of assurance qualité will result in the loss of professional auton-omy for teachers, unnecessary competition between CÉGEPs, and ultimately opening the door to each CEGEP giving out its own diploma, thereby dis-mantling the “réseau des col-leges.” It is another step in the application of private sector management practices to public education: the merchant vision of education.

FNEEQ is asking that the CEEC be eliminated. In its place, FNEEQ proposes an or-ganization responsible for coor-dination and promotion of the whole college network. This would be more efficient and cost-effective than the current situation, where some colleges have up to four employees re-sponsible for marketing and student recruitment. It would also create a spirit of collegiality and collaboration ■

M ore than 20 unions in d i f ferent col leges have refused to par-

ticipate in the new system of “assurance qualité” put forward by the Commission d’Évalua-tion de l’Enseignement Collé-gial (CEEC). This text tries to explain what assurance qualité is and why we should resist it.

The CEEC conception of assurance qualité takes the form of an audit. The objective is to evaluate the efficiency of the system of assurance qualité of the college, this means not to evaluate teaching or pedagogy but mechanisms already in place to ensure their qual-ity. That is why FNEEQ speaks of méta-evaluation, since it is the evaluations of how one evaluates.

The process is systematic and cyclic, to be repeated every five years in every college. In-spired by ISO 9001, the process of assurance qualité will impose industrial normalization to teaching, and ultimately, we believe, undermine academic values.

MÉTA-EVALUATION

This méta-evaluation was put in place in fall 2013 and the first four colleges to submit to this process were Grasset, Sainte-Foy, Shawinigan and Marie-Victorin.

The first step is for the ad-ministration of the college to prepare and submit a report to the CEEC that explains how the col lege ensures assurance qualité. The CEEC will then grade the college based upon the report: very satisfactory, satisfactory, mildly satisfactory or not satisfactory. Not only is this “mark” made public but it is also intended for use in pro-moting the college in an in-creasingly competitive CÉGEP market.

The CEEC will also recom-mend how to improve or main-tain the grade based on prac-tices in other colleges, resulting in pedagogical policies deter-mined not by the teachers nor by the CÉGEPS, but by the CEEC. This contravenes the collective agreement’s stipula-tion that departments and

JO

HN

A

BB

OT

T

CO

LL

EG

E F

AC

UL

TY

AS

SO

CIA

TIO

N

N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 4

J A C F A N E W S

I N S I D E T H I S I S S U E :

A S S U R A N C E

Q U A L I T É 1

A S B E S T O S A T

J O H N A B B O T T 2

M A N D A T O R Y

G R A D E B O O K 3

S P O T L I G H T O N

B L E N D E D L E A R N -

I N G

4

F O O D S E R V I C E S 8

S O C I A L E V E N T 1 0

N E W & T E N U R E D

F A C U L T Y 1 2

E X E C U T I V E

2 0 1 4 — 2 0 1 5 1 3

Assurance Qualité Ensures Nothing Jean-Marc Beausoleil and Luba Serge

VOLUME 14, ISSUE 1

JACFA

marks its

presence

at October

31 anti-

austerity

march in

Montreal

JACFA General

Assembly and

Xmas Lunch:

December 17.

Page 2 J A C F A N E W S

O ver the past several weeks there have been a couple of occasions (and we can antici-

pate more during the renovations) where faculty have been disturbed to find powder or debris in their offices or department corridors following renovations in adjacent areas.

Concerns about the possibility of asbestos exposure from these inci-dents is certainly understandable, but it is important to be informed about the situation prior to making any decisions in relation to asbestos. As JACFA’s representative on the Col-lege Health and Safety Committee, I would like to let you know what as-bestos is and how it is taken care of at John Abbott. In order to have a com-plete picture of the situation, I con-tacted Josée Lanouette, the Health & Safety and Sustainability Manager in the Facilities Department.

W H A T I S A S B E S T O S ?

Asbestos was used as wall and ceiling coverings (usually in boiler rooms) and as insulating material on piping before the rules were changed on February 15, 1990. While there are different types of asbestos, the rules do not make a distinction on treat-ment based on type — all are treated in the same manner. For detailed in-formation about the known health risks of prolonged exposure to asbes-tos, please refer to Health Canada’s online site:

http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/h e a l t h y - l i v i n g - v i e - s a i n e /

e n v i r o n m e n t - e n v i r o n n e m e n t /outdoor-air-exterieur/asbestos -amiante-eng.php

S U R V E Y

Starting in June 2015, Quebec law requires all establishments to conduct a survey for the presence of asbestos in the workplace. This sur-vey must indicate locations and con-dition (covered, exposed, friable— “friable” means easily crumbled) of any asbestos on site.

The areas where asbestos may be present, once identified, are listed in a registry which is described in the LSST (Chapter S-2.1, R-13, Section IX.I – Provisions on the Safe Manage-ment of Asbestos). This report is available for consultation College-wide and is updated as repairs/renovations take place, or every 2 years. This report must be made available for any persons who under-take work in areas where the pres-ence of asbestos may be suspected.

If the asbestos is found to be damaged, it must be removed imme-diately or enclosed permanently, as damaged surfaces may emit the parti-cles of asbestos that are hazardous to health. If the asbestos is covered and/or intact, it may be left in place until removal is needed (for repairs or renovations).

M I T I G A T I O N

Where asbestos is found in a covered, intact state, mitigation is not required unless and until the asbestos is disturbed for renovations or repair. Where it is found in an exposed, fri-able condition, it is required to be controlled and removed immediately.

Mitigation of asbestos is a seri-ous undertaking. The contractor who does the work must be certified by the government. They must install protective barriers (usually red in color) that warn distinctively of as-

bestos removal. This work is never done in-house; it requires special outside expertise.

Contractors who perform asbes-tos mitigation install ventilation with filtering, showers for decontamina-tion, specific dumpsters for asbestos hazardous materials, among other precautions. Any materials removed from site are double-bagged in identi-fied containers that may only be used for asbestos

Many jurisdictions have three (3) levels of risk concerning asbestos: low, medium or high. These are based on the type of material in-volved and the work being done. In Quebec, while the levels of risk are similar, the laws in effect do not make a distinction when work is to be ac-complished on asbestos-containing materials. Full protection is required

F O L L O W - U P

Most of the repairs and ongoing renovations in the College are on materials or structures that do not contain asbestos. If the materials contain asbestos, the mitigation pro-cedures outlined above must be fol-lowed under penalty of law; you would have been notified well in advance of the work, and you would have seen the containment barriers in place.

Should you find debris or pow-der in your workspace, the first step is to consider whether the material is from a source that may contain asbes-tos.

In the incidents that occurred in the past weeks, the material was sim-ply debris from renovations that had not been properly cleaned up by the contractors. The debris came from areas where no asbestos was present. Despite efforts by Facilities to have contractors clean-up during and after their work is done, you may encoun-ter unclean areas. Facilities has asked

Asbestos at John Abbott College – A Clarification Jeffery Brown

Volume 14, issue 1 Page 3

that you please report such circum-stances so they can clean the areas as soon as possible.

If you are not sure of the source or health and safety risks posed by debris, the best solution is to remove yourself from the area, close the door, and prevent others from entering the area. This is the easiest and fastest short-term control of this situation. Once this is done, you should contact Health & Safety and Sustainability Manager Josée Lanouette at extension 5461. If there is no answer, you may contact the urgent facilities notifica-

tion line at extension 4444. You may also contact JACFA’s Health & Safety representative (Jeffery Brown) at ex-tension 5016, or

jeffery.brown@johnabbott.qc.ca.

Based upon the availability of the LSST survey of known asbestos in the different campus buildings and com-pliance with legally mandated reme-diation measures, the Facilities de-partment wishes to assure faculty that any current or future exposure to asbestos will be kept at levels that are not hazardous to health ■

W e all received the memo from the Academic Dean – use of the LEA Gradebook

is now compulsory by all teachers as a “pilot project” this semester. Who can argue against providing students with ongoing information on how they are doing in their classes? Given the poor numeracy skills of many of our students, expecting them to cal-culate a weighted average is, sadly, often asking too much! In fact, most teachers already use the Gradebook or provide this information to stu-dents in other ways (e.g., by posting an Excel spreadsheet on LEA). In my department (Geosciences), all seven teachers already use the Gradebook.

Academic Council was consulted on this issue during the winter 2014 semester, and, while it had no prob-lem with the principle of requiring ongoing updates on grades, it ex-pressed concern with making the LEA Gradebook the mandatory means of achieving this goal.

When this proposal (which origi-nated in the Council’s Student Suc-cess Committee) was circulated for comments from departments late in the fall 2014 semester, many issues with the LEA Gradebook were raised. Most importantly, the Math Department pointed out that overall grades are computed incorrectly

when an evaluation is left empty in a category with a fixed weight. The Gradebook increases or decreases the weight of categories based on how many evaluations are entered, pro-viding students with an inaccurate idea of how they are doing in a course. The Math Department also pointed out that the Gradebook can-not handle dual grading schemes (e.g., the weight of a final exam may count for 50% or 75% of a final grade , with the weight of other course work (i.e. tests, quizzes or assignments) adjusted accordingly). Math faculty also pointed out that they had forwarded these problems to the Administration in 2011, but no action was taken by the Administra-tion to rectify them!

In total, a list of 16 requests for changes to the LEA Gradebook was compiled by the Registrar’s Office and sent to Skytech in June 2014 to evaluate whether they could be done and how much they would cost. The Academic Dean’s memo indicates that three of these changes “will be made”… but neither of the Math de-partment’s issues are included, as they are more complicated (and therefore expensive). Academic Council’s solution was to propose that the “pilot project” require teach-ers to provide ongoing online up-dates on grades, but to allow teachers

to decide how best to do this. Of course, the vast majority of teachers would have undoubtedly chosen the easiest way of doing so, the LEA Gradebook. However, for those who are concerned with the accuracy of its grades or whose grading scheme it cannot handle, other options would have been possible – distributing an Excel spreadsheet on LEA, for exam-ple.

At Council, the Administration expressed concern that this would make their job of checking compli-ance with the mandatory pilot project more difficult. Should their ability to monitor compliance be the most im-portant consideration in adopting a policy such as this? Should concerns about the accuracy of grade informa-tion be ignored in order to ease the enforcement of this “pilot project”?

The main issue is with the Ad-ministration’s decision to ignore Aca-demic Council’s legitimate concerns. In recent years, this has been a rare occurrence. I hope that this is not a sign of things to come, and that our new Director General’s words about consultation are not just that ■

Mandatory Gradebook: A for Intent, F for Meaningful Consultation Stephen Bryce

For more information, you can consult the CSST website (in French) at

http://www.csst.qc.ca/prevention/theme/amiante/Pages/amiante.aspx

Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail (French):

http://tinyurl.com/LSST-2014

Regulation respecting occupational health and safety (English)

http://tinyurl.com/Chap-2-1-R-13

SPOTLIGHT ON BLENDED LEARNING

Page 4 J A C F A N E W S

I n June 2011, the PUNT (Pedagogical Use of New Technology) committee approached me about the possibility of running a blended learning pilot project.

Having already used technology to different degrees in my courses, I was happy to participate and explore the advantages and disadvantages of this format.

I taught “Waves, Optics and Modern Physics,” the third Physics course required of all Science students, in a blended format for the 2-year pilot project (fall 2011 to

winter 2013) and have continued since. Students were made aware of the blended nature of

the course before registering through a notice in the sched-ule. I also provided a detailed calendar and used the blended features within the first week of the course so students could make an informed decision whether to stay in the course. I gathered feedback from students infor-mally throughout each semester and through a more for-mal online survey at the end of each semester.

The most significant change that made my course a “blended course” was that I replaced four 1.5-hour classes with an online lesson (eLesson) to be completed by the student anytime before the next class. Using Moodle(a course management system similar to Lea but with more features), I built the eLessons in such a way as to guide the student through a series of brief videos, simulations and interactive questions. I created the videos using a webcam and tablet to capture my pen input and then uploaded them to YouTube so they could be embedded into the eLessons. I kept the videos brief to help the students stay focused before moving on to the next page where they would usually see a question about the topic they just learned. The questions were answered electronically within the eLesson, and the students would get immediate feedback and unlimited attempts. There would also be one longer question they had to answer on paper and hand in the next class. When simulations were used, the students would download them and follow the steps to reproduce the phenomenon being explored. The eLessons were de-signed to take a student 1.5 hours to complete (the same time as the class it replaced).

When building an eLesson, I chose a topic that would most benefit from the technology. This would be the case for topics where trial and error with simulations is the best way to create, see and understand a phenomenon (e.g., the photoelectric effect), or when a concept is difficult to grasp, and so the ability to rewind and re-watch is particu-larly useful (e.g., special relativity).

The feedback I received from students was very posi-tive. 94% of survey respondents indicated that the

eLessons were effective in teaching the topic and 96% found it helpful to rewind and re-watch the eLessons . My informal discussions with students and their survey com-ments further reinforced their appreciation for learning a topic through eLessons. For example, one student wrote “I like the eLesson, because it allows to go back on what was said before, and also to pause the video in order to be able to be sure that you can get a problem right, I can go at my own pace, without following the class, and I learn much more that way.” While this was the most common senti-ment, some students did express their preference for in-class lectures: “I liked the lesson, but I still enjoy coming to class because I'm not motivated to write down the notes at home.” Of the 176 comments received, 5 echoed this pref-erence for in-class lessons.

When my students were asked specifically how many of the course’s 30 classes they’d have liked to have re-placed by an eLesson, the average of their responses was 6.6. My personal preference for this particular course is four eLessons, since I feel it strikes the right balance be-tween using technology in an effective way while preserv-ing the benefits of face-to-face time.

I have had positive receptions sharing my experiences with Academic Council as well as various EdTech weeks and conferences. I am always happy to discuss with any-one who’s interested, whether it be about the other aspects of my blended course (video lessons, online office hours, online assignments, video projects), how the eLessons were built, the workload involved, my recommendations, the student feedback or anything else ■

Using Blended Learning in Physics – Greg Mulcair

Photo: Moodle eLesson Screen Shot

Volume 14, issue 1 Page 5

T he social justice activist and educator, bell hooks, describes education as the practice of

freedom wherein both teacher and student are active participants. I saw my invitation to participate in the e-learning pilot project as a unique op-portunity for both my students and myself to be the active participant en-visioned by hooks. In my Humanities department, e-learning had mixed reviews--some colleagues rightly ques-tioned using technology in a discipline that champions face-to-face critical dialogue, while others were actively integrating technology through online discussion forums and class blogs. From my perspective, it was clear that technology was influencing how my students acquired, interpreted and used information. But what were they learning? I also observed a technologi-cal gap between teachers, like myself, who were relatively new at using tech-nology, and students who had grown up with technology. Having lived in England, I was reminded of the British Railway’s standard warning to its boarding passengers: “Mind the Gap.” As an educator, I thought there was a salient message here!

In the 2011 fall term I taught Cur-rent Events: Reading Our Global World in a blended format, and in the 2013 fall term, I taught Women’s Human Rights. I had many questions. How could I best leverage technology to engage students in critical thinking and active learning? What impacts would a vir-tual classroom have on face-to-face classroom learning? Could a virtual classroom be as inclusive and interac-tive as a traditional classroom? What were the best tools available on our Moodle learning environment? Could a blended format make me a better teacher? I am grateful to Brenda Lamb

and the ICT (Information and Commu-nications) services for answering my questions and ensuring the success of my blended classes.

Teaching in a blended format has not been without its surprises. For ex-ample, I discovered that many of my tech-savvy students often had minimal insight into issues of privacy, online etiquette (netiquette) and digital foot-prints—crucial information for all online users. I was also not alone in experiencing a learning curve: for many of my students, using technol-ogy beyond the realm of social net-working was a novel experience.

Any concerns I had regarding students’ critical thinking skills were calmed; I soon appreciated the phe-nomenal scholarly resources and online activities that can be leveraged to help students question their as-sumptions and actively learn about their world. There is also little chance for students to be passive recipients of information in our virtual classroom. Autonomy, a commitment to learning and a collaborative work ethos are critical to successful online activities. Were not these qualities consistent with student success? For example, in one online discussion forum, students watch a Ted Talk on global labour prac-tices. They are directed to a website where they access independent audits of factories owned by some of the brand name companies where they shop. Students soon realize that fair labour practices in the supply chain are both morally important and central to global security: people who are ex-ploited by the system are unlikely to want to maintain it. Students became informed and informing consumers by sharing their research and their con-cerns online. One student posted:

“You know I never realized what it was like to be actually working in those factories that produced the clothes I buy. This really makes me think about using my consumer power in a different way.”

Some students even took their learning outside the virtual classroom: they visited shops they had researched and raised concerns about unfair la-bour practices. Here, student learning was not simply collecting facts: it was who they were becoming!

I continue to be impressed by the deep learning evident in students’ online posts. Perhaps posting in a pub-lic forum promotes greater attention and care in composing written com-ments? Having participated in a peda-gogical day on the links between learn-ing to write and writing to learn, I can attest that the insight that if students are writing well, they are also thinking well, strongly applies. It has been re-warding to see my students embody the adage “To Teach is to Learn!” Online interactions also appear to aug-ment our face-to-face classroom time by encouraging real time participation. Interestingly, my less verbal students report finding their voices more easily online in both discussion forums and

weekly chat rooms. As one student posted,

“I like the chat room and the online work because my experience of group meetings in class is often awkward… those with opinions dominate over others, while quieter students just sit there not knowing what to input. “

Lastly, technology has brought the world to my classroom through the

(Continued on page 6)

Using Blended Learning in Humanities - Eileen Kerwin Jones

SPOTLIGHT ON BLENDED LEARNING

SPOTLIGHT ON BLENDED LEARNING

Page 6 J A C F A N E W S

interactive application, GotoMeeting. Whether it is a healthcare advocate for homeless people in London, England, a community anti-violence activist in Ottawa, or a graduate student in Man-chester, UK, the possibilities are limit-less. Student feedback regarding online visitors has been consistently positive: students report being inspired and

motivated by the innovative ideas and creative work projects of online visi-tors. As one student asked our online health care advocate, “What could regular people, like us students for example, do to help honour the dignity of homeless people?” In this online interactive exchange, there is clear evi-dence that technology can be a human-izing force!

I am very happy to share more of

my blended learning teaching experi-ences, please do not hesitate to contact me. ■

(Continued from page 5)

W ithout much fanfare, Aca-demic Council recently ap-proved a document that will

have important and far-reaching impli-cations for the work of all John Abbott teachers and their departments. Blended Learning @ JAC—Processes & Guide-lines sets out the rules and parameters for teachers who wish to offer a “Blended course”. The latter refers to a course that replaces some percentage of “traditional face to face” lectures and labs with online activities. With Aca-demic Council’s adoption of this docu-ment, the College has effectively given its tacit approval for a new teaching practice at John Abbott, the replacement of up to 40% of classroom time with online learning.

While as a Humanities teacher I have some concerns about the facilita-tion of reduced “face-to-face” class time for students in my discipline, I want to focus my reflections on the question of delivery, namely: how effective are the current Guidelines in facilitating the ac-tual implementation of Blended courses at the college?

My reading of the Guidelines and subsequent discussion with their creators has led me to two conclusions. Firstly, they provide ample support to individual teachers who wish to prepare a Blended course: they set out the rules

and procedures for those who seek ap-proval of a Blended course; they desig-nate specific terminology to be used in the evaluation of Blended courses; they identify relevant bibliographic refer-ences that teachers can use as resources; and they call for the establishment of a “community of practice” for interested teachers to provide mutual support.

My second and more vivid impres-sion of the guidelines is that they need to provide a lot more concrete guidance to departments in their implementation of Blended learning, and identify the resources departments would need to fulfill their roles.

WHAT ROLE SHOULD DEPART-MENTS PLAY?

The only reference to departments in the document is one that stipulates that a Blended course needs to seek de-partmental approval (p.1). In my view, if we want to maintain the quality of edu-cation in Blended courses at the college, significantly more consideration must be given to the role that departments will play and the support they will need. This is because Blended learning is opening the door to a panoply of new pedagogical tools and corresponding issues for departments to work out; con-sequently they cannot simply rely on existing policies and guidelines. For

instance, departments need to decide on what types of online pedagogical activi-ties can be accepted as equivalent to in class time; what is an acceptable limit for replacement; and what types of peda-gogical situations, if any, warrant online replacement.

In order to ensure that departments can fulfill their role in quality assurance (instead of letting it be hijacked by the ministerial body, CEEC), they need to develop concrete and explicit guidelines that answer these questions. Like in other similar situations, without such guidelines, departmental approval be-comes only a symbolic gesture. More-over, while the College Guidelines pro-vide the necessary baseline parameters, it is the departments and only depart-ments that can set their own guidelines. This is because it is the legal role of de-partments as defined in our Collective Agreement, and because only teachers within a department have the requisite disciplinary knowledge to set appropri-ate guidelines.

WHY DEPARTMENTAL OVERSIGHT IS DOUBLY IMPORTANT

Aside from the question of quality control, there is a second crucial reason why departments should take owner-

(Continued on page 7)

Editorial

Blended Learning: Departments Need to Assert Their Control - Roy Fu

WANT TO LEARN MORE?

Visit the Teaching and Learning Resources Community on the JAC Portal and click on the folder enti-tled “Educational Technology Week March 19-23, 2012.”

Volume 14, issue 1 Page 7

ship of the Blended Learning initia-tive, namely: teachers’ professional autonomy. Under our current system, teachers collectively exercise their autonomy and control over course content and pedagogy through their participation in departmental deci-sions. The corresponding rights and responsibilities are clearly spelled out in the Collective Agreement. In my view, if departments--and by exten-sion teachers—are to maintain their authority in practice when faced with new pedagogical situations and ques-tions such as those posed by Blended learning, they need to become au-thoritative. That means demonstrat-ing that they are in control of the process by explicitly developing the relevant policies and guidelines.

ANTICIPATING THE WORK AHEAD AND RESOURCES AVAILABLE

Calling for more departmental involvement in the development of Blended learning at John Abbott will certainly translate into more work for teachers. It will mean more policies to develop and more approval processes to design at a time when our work-load is being increased by more and more bureaucratic requirements (e.g., the ever-expanding JAC course ap-proval procedure and checklist). This would also come at a time when de-partmental coordination resources for some departments have been recently cut.

In response to that reality, the college should provide the requisite professional support and monetary resources to departments to do their work, much like what has been done for individual teachers in the devel-opment of the College Guidelines. This could take the form of Volet 3, col-umn D (a.k.a. “5.2”) research release, professional development funding

and expert support from the college’s professional educational advisors.

Currently the college is proceed-ing with Blended Learning as if all the necessary supports are in place. In reality, however, a significant amount of work remains to be done for departments and teachers. Even though I am fortunate to benefit from the insights gained by my depart-mental colleague Eileen Kerwin Jones through her participation in the Blended Learning pilot project, I still feel a bit overwhelmed by the amount of work remaining for our department on this issue. Nonethe-less, I do take some comfort in the fact that teachers and departments have the means to assert control over the initiative according to their own priorities ■

(Continued from page 6)

JACFA Seeks Democratic Participation for College’s Strategic Planning Process– Roy Fu

T he JACFA executive is currently in discussion with the college administration to determine its role, if any, in the upcoming consultations for the Strategic Plan, 2015-2020. In these negotiations, we are asking for a consultation process that is democratic in design and execution, one that not only invites broad participa-

tion from various college members, but also incorporates methods that will ensure grassroots’ priorities and aspira-tions are reflected in the final document.

Using past practice as a guide, we are also asking to play an active role in the determination of the consultation process. In the recent past, JACFA representatives have sat on steering committees that made such decisions .

We believe that clearly defining the terms of engagement from the onset is the best way to ensure meaningful and committed participation from all members of the college community.

The college administration’s response to our requests has been mixed . Even though they already have a plan in mind, they indicated that they remain open to our input on how to proceed. In the meantime, they have already moved ahead with launching the consultations, recently in a one-hour brainstorming session on October 14 that involved Aca-demic Council and Board of Governor members. The next step in the administration’s plan is to convene a meeting with various representatives from various college bodies, including employee and student associations. Stay tuned for updates…

Quality of Campus Food and Drink

are Institutional and Collective Responsibilities– Mark McGuire

Page 8 J A C F A N E W S

A s some readers may know, beginning in the spring of 2013 Food Services at John

Abbott hired a consulting firm to facilitate two Town Hall Meetings and an online survey. The principle objective was to gather priorities for inclusion in a Call for Proposals from potential new food and beverage service providers. The College’s ten-year exclusive, monopoly contracts with Sodexo and Coke would expire in June 2014 and there was a collec-tive sense that we could and should do better. The central questions as I understood them were:

Could Food Services find new service providers who could deliver healthy, affordable, high quality, appetizing and sustainable food and drink?

Would satisfying this appetite for change net sufficient revenue to pay for these innovations?

In a context of ever-increasing food prices and slim profit margins, our deliberations sparked a mix of enthusiasm and doubt among partici-pants and observers. Could such am-bitious challenges be met? If so, by whom and how long would it take?

As one of a dozen or so faculty who participated in the two Town Hall Meetings along with an equiva-lent number of staff and students, three deans and two directors, I can say that the quality of the engage-ment was quite high and yielded sev-eral consensus positions. The group did not want another long-term ex-clusive contract; we wanted greater variety and healthier fare at a fair

price; we wanted the menu to reflect the nutritional recommendations provided by the College; and we wanted transparency and account-ability. The consultants and directors who facilitated these meetings lis-tened to our concerns and expressed interest in our ideas and suggestions. It became apparent that we could transform our cafeteria into a much more inviting, nourishing and wealth-producing space if we decided to do so. Other campuses in Québec and Ontario were doing it. Why couldn’t John Abbott?

For those who have followed this story closely, there have been early signs this fall that meaningful changes are on the horizon. The Di-rector General announced the College would eliminate the sales of bottled water and install more water foun-tains by the end of the academic year; the cafeteria’s new menu features a variety of affordable and appetizing meal options; some menu items con-tain local produce from the Mac-Donald College farms, vegetarian and vegan options, and sustainably har-vested fish certified by the Marine Stewardship Council; nutritional in-formation is now available; blatant advertising of empty calorie food and drink has been removed; depart-ments and programs are no longer bound by an exclusive, expensive and not very attractive campus cater-ing contract; we once more have the option to order food and drink from off-campus providers.

FOOD SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE STRUCK

Food Services Director Dennis Waide has also resurrected the Food Services Advisory Committee, a par-ity committee composed of faculty,

staff, students, directors and three managers from our new food services provider Aramark. The committee has been tasked with two-way com-munication between Food Services and our campus community. As its name implies, the committee has no decisional power at present nor does it have a work plan or direct link with any decisional body on campus (e.g. the Board of Governors or Academic Council). Its first task is to review the campus Food Policy (non-binding guidelines last updated in 2009) and keep abreast of rapidly changing cir-cumstances in the delivery of food and drink on campus.

Any faculty who would like to share their questions, comments or concerns with the Food Services Ad-visory Committee are welcome to do so by contacting Food Services Direc-tor Dennis Waide or JACFA represen-tatives Melissa Hunn (PE) and Mark McGuire (HPR). But beyond channel-ing your suggestions, questions, praise and complaints to the commit-tee, what’s needed is a collective com-mitment to educate ourselves and our students about the impacts of our food choices, communicate clear pri-orities, and be prepared to spend the extra money it sometimes requires to

Photo: Priority List from Town Hall

Volume 14, issue 1 Page 9

purchase higher quality food and drink. Our input and purchasing decisions will have a direct impact on the quality of food and drink on cam-pus.

Aramark and Food Services care-fully monitor sales of particular items. If they see that the empty calo-rie, low-cost items constitute the ma-jority of sales, it will be more difficult to justify stocking a majority of healthy menu items. If, on the other hand, sales of complete meals, salad and yoghurt bar items, healthy sand-wiches and soups go through the roof, we can demonstrate that we are willing to pay premium prices for healthier, nutrient dense foods. The unfortunate reality is that healthier, whole foods cost more to produce than highly processed “food-like sub-stances” composed primarily of sub-sidized commodity crops. And of course none of our priorities could be realized if the “capture rate” (revenue per capita) doesn’t improve. This demonstrates that, in an age of aus-terity and efforts to recoup lost gov-ernment funding through corporate-campus partnerships, the quality of Food Services on campus is both an institutional and collective responsi-bility.

A CALL FOR MORE INCLUSIVE DECISION-MAKING

Thus far I have emphasized posi-tive and more consumer-oriented dimensions of the quiet transforma-tion of the cafeteria. Now I would like to shift to matters of governance and citizenship. I could certainly critique the presence of corporations on a public college campus and sales of highly addictive, empty calorie food and drinks to adolescents during an epidemic of diabetes and obesity. I could also point out lost opportuni-ties in the Food Services consultation process. Quite a few faculty dis-cussed these issues during the May 2014 General Assembly and have contacted me since the start of the

semester to complain about the pres-ence of a fast-food franchise in the Physical Education and Sports Cen-ter.

Even more problematic from my perspective was that none of us who participated in the Town Hall Meet-ings had any assurances that our pri-orities and recommendations would be reflected in the Call for Proposals or the contract signed with new ser-vice providers because only directors would participate in the tender and contract negotiation process. No con-crete benchmarks or selection criteria were agreed to or even circulated among the larger group and none of the various Offers of Service or short-listed candidates was ever presented for discussion before the directors made their final decision. This left more than a few of us who devoted significant time and energy feeling shut out of the decision-making proc-ess.

In future proceedings where decisions as important as what food and drink are served on our campus, and by extension, what kind of busi-ness models, labor practices, and ani-mal welfare policies are undertaken in our name, I would like to suggest that the College strike a parity com-mittee with representation from di-rectors, students and employees who will all have decision-making power. The Food Services Advisory Commit-tee (minus any Aramark employees to eliminate a conflict of interest) or another independent parity commit-tee could be empowered with making the decision whether to renew our current five-year contract. Timely updates should be given throughout the process to let participants at large know when and how important deci-sions are to be made. Data gathered from surveys or reviews should be made public and time should be given for Advisory Committee repre-sentatives to consult their constituen-cies before arriving at a final decision. A more inclusive and transparent

consultation process would ensure that the changes underway in Food Services would have the broadest possible support and potential for success.

VOTE FOR BETTER FOOD SER-VICES WITH EVERY BITE

Because Aramark, Pepsi, and Tim Horton’s have only been on cam-pus since August 1st (a mere 25 days before nearly 6,000 students arrived on campus), it is too early to offer more than this very preliminary up-date. From what I have seen so far, Food Services and Aramark are working hard to improve food and drink options on campus. They have been receptive to constructive feed-back and have a direct stake in the quality and attractiveness of the food and drink options on campus because their shared revenues and Aramark’s contract renewal depend upon it. They will need more time to get all systems in place and adjust to the new facilities and our community

A new system of instant online customer reviews of the cafeteria and Tim Horton’s is planned for rollout in January 2015. Another comprehen-sive survey of Food Services will also be conducted at the end of the winter semester to assess how things are going. We should all participate in these processes. Once this data is available, we can then have a better understanding of the gains we’ve

(Continued on page 10)

Any faculty who would like to

share their questions, comments

or concerns with the Food Ser-

vices Advisory Committee are

welcome to do so by contacting

Food Services Director Dennis

Waide or JACFA representatives

Melissa Hunn (PE) and Mark

McGuire (HPR).

JACFA SOCIAL REPORT

Page 10 J A C F A N E W S

JACFA Seeks Teachers Interested in Attending FNEEQ Regroupement meetings

Are you interested in union politics and in seeing first-hand the inner workings of FNEEQ, our union federation? Do you have a good working knowledge of French?

JACFA is currently seeking teachers who are interested in attending a FNEEQ Regroupement meeting in Montreal as a non-voting, fraternel(le) representative. We are creating this opportunity to increase our members’ direct exposure to the functioning of our syndical world, particularly during a negotiation year. The meetings are usually held on a Thursday and Friday. Those interested would commit to attending one full day. Should the meeting times conflict with a teacher’s schedule, JACFA is offering to pay for a substitute teacher, along with lunch. Some restrictions may apply.

Spaces are limited. Please inquire by contacting the JACFA office, ext. 5506, or sending an email of interest to jacfa@johnabbott.qc.ca.

Faculty Soup Lunch Thank you to all who came out to the first Soup Lunch of the academic

year on October 21. While it was a pleasure to meet and talk (and enjoy

being back in the Faculty lounge!) the event also underlined the importance

of the issues that confront us this year, as negotiations for the new Collective

Agreement get underway, this in the context of a resolute (yet at times seemingly

random) pursuit of austerity on the part of the provincial government.

We look forward to more of these over the next few months – including our traditional Valentine’s Day soup lunch.

made with our new service providers and what further challenges and opportunities remain. This will be a con-tinuous work-in-progress over the next few years and the foreseeable future.

Clearly, there is a new openness for feedback and opportunities for collaboration between faculty, staff and students, on the one hand, and Food Services and our new food provider Aramark, on the other. If you

care about these issues, I urge you to get involved, dine with your colleagues and students at the cafeteria and give Aramark and Food Services your feedback on the experience. We can improve the quality of food and drink on campus one meal and conversation at a time. ■

(Continued from page 9)

Volume 14, issue 1 Page 11

End of year BBQ

Yes it’s hard to imagine spring-time and the end of the academic year.

But book May 14th for the annual and ever-popular BBQ!

END OF SEMESTER XMAS LUNCH

Once again JACFA will host the an-nual Xmas lunch at the Château-Vaudreuil on December 17, 2014. Back by popular demand we will also offer round trip shuttle service from the College to the hotel. Space is limited, so please check your emails in the upcoming weeks and reserve your seat (and lunch) as early as possible.

YOU DON’T WANT TO MISS THIS!

JACFA GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND XMAS LUNCH:

DECEMBER 17.

Page 10 J A C F A N E W S

CONGRATULATIONS ARE IN ORDER!

The JACFA executive would like to welcome all of our new colleagues who joined the

faculty this fall and extend a hearty congratulations to all colleagues who have received

permanence. These are significant milestones to be celebrated. We look forward to rais-

ing a glass and spending some time with you at the December 17 Christmas lunch at

Chateau Vaudreuil.

NEW FACULTY

Louiza Aissani – French

Sian Horan – Nursing

Cynthia Lemieux – French

Christophe Morris - Mathematics

Claude Nicou – French

Catherine Greffard – French

Marianne Campeau-Devlin – French

Sophie Meunier – PHEC

Ethan Mombourquette – Mathematics

Luiz Kazuo Takei – Mathematics

Jennifer Fisher – Creative Arts

Elyse Malo – Theatre

Samantha Cadotte—Cont. Ed

Ireneo Frias Gran—Cont. Ed

Gloria Hodges—Cont. Ed

Tasha Natalie Keri—Cont. Ed

Jennifer Kirby—Cont. Ed

Olesia Koretski—Cont. Ed

Cheryl Randle—Cont. Ed

Robert Vieira—Cont. Ed

Maria Damien - Nursing

NEWLY TENURED

Monica Healey - Phys. Ed

Chelsea Privée - Phys. Ed

Lasheema Maria Coates - Nursing

Debra Coveduck - Nursing

Danielle Noel - Nursing

Josee Pigeon - Nursing

Claudette Pamela Scott - Nursing

Yu Zhao - Mathematics

Rachid Jamal - BioPharma

Nabil Mohamed Khalid - BioPharma

Michael Nafi - HPR

Vicki Beaupré- Odorico - Sociology

Sally Robinson - ILT

Gordon Spicer - Business Administration

Randall Anderson - Visual Arts

Suzanne Girard - Creative Arts

Yael Margalit - English

Volume 14, issue 1 Page 11

From left:

Mark McGuire (HPR), Director -

Jeffery Brown (PHEC), Secretary -

Luba Serge (Sociology), Director-

Jean-Marc Beausoleil (French), VP External-

Sharon Rozen Aspler (Sociology) VP Internal-

Richard Masters (Mathematics) Treasurer-

Roy Fu (HPR) President

“Becoming a member of JACFA has been a terrific learning curve and greatly helped by Roy, Jean-Marc,

Richard, Sharon, Jeff and Mark. I joined the JAC faculty almost five years ago and have since taught intro

sociology, methods, and courses on social movements and urban sociology. In my previous work with com-

munity groups and with public consultation the paramount concern was ensuring that citizens were given a

voice in changes to their neighborhoods and city. I hope to carry this belief in the democratic process into

my work with the JACFA Executive as we undertake what promises to be a long and arduous negotiation

process for the new collective agreement..” Luba Serge.

Professeur de français au cégep John Abbott depuis huit ans, Jean-Marc Beausoleil a été journaliste

pour des magazines et des quotidiens. Il a publié six romans et un recueil de nouvelles. Il a en-

seigné en Haïti. Il a également animé des soirées de poésie. Délégué externe pour JACFA, il s'es-

time privilégié de pouvoir participer à la lutte qui viendra dans les prochains mois. En effet, Jean-

Marc espère pouvoir transférer l'enthousiasme et l'énergie stimulées par les Regroupements des

syndicats du collégial à l'assemblée générale de JACFA.

JACFA EXECUTIVE 2014-2015

Please Welcome Luba Serge and Jean-Marc Beausoleil as new members of the JACFA executive :

Penfield-105

Phone: 514-457-6610, ext. 5506

Fax: 514-457-9799

E-mail: jacfa@johnabbott.qc.ca

J O H N A B B O T T C O L L E G E F A C U L T Y A S S O C I A T I O N

http://www2.johnabbott.qc.ca/~jacfa/