ÉDUQ

English

By-Law 7 Concerning Human Resources Management

STUDENT AND EMPLOYEE IMMUNIZATION June 2016 1 | P a g e  FOR CLINICAL COURSES OR HEALTH CARE INTERNSHIPS   No. AcadAdm-01 Classification: Academic Admin POLICY ON STUDENT AND EMPLOYEE IMMUNIZATION FOR CLINICAL COURSES OR HEALTH CARE INTERNSHIPS Adopted: September 15, 2015 Revised: August 15, 2017 Effective: Immediately   BACKGROUND The Ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux has issued two documents entitled Protocol d’immunisation du Québec1 (the “Protocol”) establishes norms of practice in the Health Care field, and Immunisation des travailleurs de la santé, des stagiaires et de leurs professeurs2 (the “Recommendations”) which provides the vaccination recommendations and schedules for faculty and students at Clinical Sites. The Recommendations document assigns to both partners3, the College and the Clinical Site, the responsibility of developing an agreement that defines respective roles in ensuring proper vaccinations. This collaboration is formalized through a Contract of Association signed by both the College and the Clinical Site.  PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to ensure safety to patients, students, and Employees through compliance with government protocols regarding immunizations (vaccinations).  POLICY a) Health Care Workers who have direct contact with patients have an obligation to be immunized4. Failing to be immunized poses a risks to patients, co-workers, students and their families. The Recommendation equates this responsibility with “due diligence”5   « En l’absence de contre-indications, leur refus de se faire vacciner peut être assimilé à un manquement à leur obligation de diligence envers leurs patients.»  b) If for health or other reasons, an Employee chooses not to be immunized, the College has the responsibility of offering the Employee reasonable alternatives with regard to the equitable re-assignment of workload, or placing the Employee on leave in cases of a sudden communicable disease outbreak making non-immunized individuals vulnerable.  c) The College has no authority to impose an immunization requirement on any student. In some cases, however, alternative clinical learning activities may not be possible and a student who refuses or cannot be immunized may be denied access to learning activities necessary to complete graduation requirements. In such cases, alternative arrangements will have to be explored as per the responsibilities section below.  In all cases where an individual refuses to accept immunization according to the Protocol, the College has the responsibility of informing them of the risks involved.                                                           1 Ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux (2014-02-17 link:  http://publications.msss.gouv.qc.ca/acrobat/f/documentation/piq/piq_complet.pdf) 2 Ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux (2014-02-17 link: http://publications.msss.gouv.qc.ca/acrobat/f/documentation/2013/13-278-36W.pdf) 3 Ibid., section 1.2 (page 5) 4 Ibid., section 1.1 (page 3) 5 Ibid., section 1.1 (page 3) STUDENT AND EMPLOYEE IMMUNIZATION June 2016 2 | P a g e  FOR CLINICAL COURSES OR HEALTH CARE INTERNSHIPS By virtue of this policy the following responsibilities are assigned:  1. The College is responsible for: i. Ensuring that valid Contracts of Association are established and maintained with each Clinical site  ii. Ensuring that each Employee and student is protected with liability insurance in discharging their responsibilities. iii. Ensuring that applicants to programs of study with immunization requirements are informed of immunization requirements before being admitted to the program. iv. Informing candidates for employment of this policy, if relevant.  2. The Sector Dean is responsible for:  i. Negotiating Contracts of Association with Clinical Sites and ensuring that the contracts are signed according to College bylaws. ii. Ensuring that the terms of the Contract of Association are honored by the College and by the Clinical Site. iii. Ensuring that Employees reporting to them are compliant with the terms of this immunization policy. iv. Ensuring that the terms of the Contracts of Association are made known to the relevant programs of study and the College Nurse.  v. Ensuring that every reasonable attempt is made to offer an equitable workload to employees who choose not to be, or cannot be, immunized according to the Recommendations.  3. Department Chairs are responsible for: i. Ensuring that the College Nurse is informed of program requirements for the timely placement of students in their clinical component. ii. Ensuring that students are informed of this policy, and also of the need for the College to transmit relevant personal information to affiliated Clinical Sites. iii. Collaborating with any student and the Sector Dean in an attempt to find alternate learning activities or clinical placements for students who refuse or are unable to be immunized. iv. Ensuring that their students are compliant with the immunization protocol 20 calendar days prior to their clinical component. .  4. Employees are responsible for: i. Respecting the immunization Recommendations. ii. Ensuring that the Immunization Coordinator is informed of the names of Employees and students who may require immunization by virtue of the Recommendations. iii. Informing the Immunization Coordinator of their compliance or non-compliance with the immunization requirements. iv. Requesting, in writing, alternative arrangements of their Sector Dean within one calendar week of being assigned their workload for the semester, should they refuse or be unable to be immunized according to the Recommendations.  v. Informing the Sector Dean in writing, of any changes in personal health care conditions (including pregnancy) that may affect their immunization requirements. vi. Informing the College Nurse and Department Chair of any communicable disease outbreak at the Clinical Site, or of any instance of patients recently diagnosed with tuberculosis. vii. Ensuring students have access to post-exposure prophylaxis according to guidelines in the document Guide pour la prophylaxie postexposition (PPE) aux personnes exposées à des liquides biologiques dans le contexte de travail (MSSS, 2011) in the case of an exposure, and informing the department chair, and, if deemed serious enough, the College Nurse and the Sector Dean as soon as possible.  STUDENT AND EMPLOYEE IMMUNIZATION June 2016 3 | P a g e  FOR CLINICAL COURSES OR HEALTH CARE INTERNSHIPS 5. College Nurse is responsible for: i. Informing students and Employees of the immunization requirements of the clinical site. ii. Monitoring changes to the Protocol and Recommendations documents, and making appropriate recommendations to the Department Chair and Sector Dean. iii. Collaborating with Clinical Sites, Employees, and the Department Chair in the event of any communicable disease outbreak at a Clinical Site or of any instance of patients recently diagnosed with tuberculosis in order to prevent the transmission of disease. iv. Ensuring that every Employee or student that chooses not to be immunized according to the Protocol is informed of the health risk involved. v. Provide guidance and direction to the Immunization Coordinator and be a resource person with regard to immunization protocols.  6. Immunization Coordinator i. Coordinating with the Department Chair the identification of all individuals subject to the immunization protocol. ii. Monitoring the immunization status of each student and coordinating their immunization needs. iii. Entering the immunization status of the students in Omnivox to make the information accessible to the students and employees. iv. Providing access to the immunization status of students and Employees to the authorities identified in the Protocol and Recommendations, the Department Chair, and the Sector Dean. v. Receive guidance and direction from the College Nurse and provide periodic updates.  7. Students are responsible for: i. Complying with the immunization Protocol. ii. Informing the Department Chair and College Nurse in writing of their intention not to be immunized before registering in a Clinical course, and requesting alternate arrangements. iii. Providing required information to the Immunization Coordinator demonstrating their compliance or to the College Nurse if non-compliant with immunization requirements. iv. Using the services of the College Nurse to address their immunization needs at the appropriate time. v. Informing the College Nurse and Department Chair, in writing, of any changes in personal health care conditions (including pregnancy) that may affect their immunization requirements.   Consultation on this policy Writing team: Medical/Social Serv Prg Chairs/College Nurse/Dean SMSE 2013-09-04 v4 Student Services / College Nurse 2013-09-04 v4 Director of Administrative Services  2014-03-26 v5 Deans Group 2014-03-28 v5 DTU CRT 2015-09-15 v6 Deans Group 2015-09-03 v6+ minor modification by SMSE 2016-06-13 revisions to reflect creation of Immunization Coordinator role in collaboration with College Nurse     STUDENT AND EMPLOYEE IMMUNIZATION June 2016 4 | P a g e  FOR CLINICAL COURSES OR HEALTH CARE INTERNSHIPS DEFINITIONS:  Clinical Site –  health care provider or institution. The term is used here to include any public or private institutions or clinics used by the programs of study for their Clinical Components.   Clinical Component –  the program component that students take at a Clinical Site. The term includes what is commonly referred to as clinical, stage, and internship components of the program.   Department Chair6 –  person assigned the role by virtue of the faculty collective agreement. Responsibilities assigned to the Department chair may, by agreement, be discharged by the Program Coordinator.   Clinical Coordinator- person assigned by department to coordinate the placement of students in partner sites.    Program Coordinator –  person assigned the role by virtue of the faculty collective agreement   Employee –  a person employed by Dawson College. The term in this context often refers to teachers, but includes any employee whose duties include work at a Clinical site.   Health Care Worker – any health care worker as defined by the Protocol d’immunisation du Québec, including students and teachers in those fields.    The Protocol –  refers to the document « Protocol d’immunisation du Québec » issued by the Ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux    The Recommendations –  refers to the document « Immunisation des travailleurs de la santé, des stagiaires et de leurs professeurs » issued by the Ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux   Contract of Association – refers to a signed agreement between Dawson and the Clinical Site on roles and responsibilities.    Exposure – increased vulnerability through injury/accident/cross contamination, which may require post event prophylaxis and/or treatment. e.g. Biting, scratching, needle sticks /cuts and inhalations                                                             6 “Department Chair” is referred to as “Department Coordinator” in the English version of the Collective Agreement 

Policy on Student and Employee Immunization for Clinical Courses or Health Care Internships

Management of Programs of Study May 17, 2017 1 | P a g e     No.:  AcadAdm-03 Classification:  Academic Admin. POLICY ON THE MANAGEMENT OF PROGRAMS OF STUDY Adopted:  May 17, 2017  Effective:  May 17, 2017  1. Preamble Article 7 of Bylaw Number 9 “Concerning the Management of Programs of Study” outlines some of the roles of Program Committees and Departments. These roles are described further in this document.  It is recognized that the roles described herein must be consistent with:  • The General and Vocational Colleges Act • The College Education Regulations • The Faculty Collective Agreement • Bylaw No. 6: Concerning the Senate • Bylaw No. 7: Concerning Special Conditions of Admission • Bylaw No. 9: Concerning the Management of Programs of Study • The Institutional Student Evaluation Policy (ISEP) • The Institutional Policy on the Evaluation of Programs (IPEP)  It is further recognized that while Program Committees and Departments are vested with certain specific areas of responsibility, the elaboration and implementation of programs of study as coherent sets of learning activities require effective communication between the program committee and each of the departments that offer learning activities in the program. In ensuring the coherence of the program, the general education disciplines have the mandate to deliver the component of general education that is “common to all programs” and the component of general education component that is “specific to each program”.  In the context of the program approach, the Program Committee and the Department work collaboratively so that:  • the learning activities address the competencies in accordance with the course-competency matrices and there is integration of learning activities within terms (horizontal integration) and across terms (vertical integration); • the program is able to graduate students who are adequately prepared for the workforce and/or university; • the assessment methods used in the program allow it to attest to students’ attainment of the program objectives to ministerial standards; • faculty members provide adequate support for students and feedback to them; • the program has adequate human, financial and material resources to meet its goals.  Management of Programs of Study May 17, 2017 2 | P a g e   Given the differences in the size and nature of programs and departments in the College, it is anticipated that the distribution of tasks and responsibilities will be different from one program or department to another and will reflect the specific needs of each program and department. Each program and department is responsible for distributing tasks and responsibilities equitably among its members.   2. DEC Program Committee Article 4-1.02 of the Faculty Collective Agreement states that a program committee shall be created “for each of the programs of study leading to a DEC offered by the College. The committee shall include professors in subjects taught in the program. The committee may also include members from other categories of employment.”  2.1 Composition  2.1.1 Membership criteria Membership on the Program Committee shall be determined by the following minimum criteria: a. Faculty representatives from each discipline that contributes to the program’s specific education component, and who teach or recently taught in the program; b. One representative from each general education discipline (English, French, Humanities and Physical Education);  c. The Program Dean responsible for the program shall be an ex officio member.  2.1.2 Voting All members of the Program Committee shall have a vote provided that the majority of seats are held by the faculty representatives from the program’s specific education disciplines. In cases where this condition is not met, the Program Committee shall make a recommendation to the College about how to distribute the right to vote.  2.2 Mandate The Program Committee is the main venue for activities related to program development, implementation, evaluation and revision. Programs operate under the authority of the Program Dean.  The Program Committee is responsible for, among other things: a. Developing a written constitution that describes its composition, subcommittees and the assignment of responsibilities to ensure that all aspects of its mandate are discharged; b. Putting in place mechanisms to support students and provide feedback to them; c. Designing and implementing the comprehensive examination; d. Performing the tasks and roles established in the Institutional Policy on the Evaluation of Programs (IPEP); e. Proposing program revisions to the College when appropriate; f. Approving and submitting to the Program Dean an annual report and a proposed work plan.   Management of Programs of Study May 17, 2017 3 | P a g e   2.3 The Program Coordinator 2.3.1 Designation The Program Coordinator shall be designated by the Program Committee in accordance with the Faculty Collective Agreement and the program’s constitution.  2.3.2 Duration of mandate The duration of the mandate of the Program Coordinator shall be one (1) year. There shall be no restriction on the renewal of mandate unless the Program Committee specifies restrictions in its constitution.  2.3.3 Responsibilities The Program Coordinator shall act under the authority of the Program Dean and in close collaboration with the Program Committee, Departments, and, where they exist, Profile Coordinators. In cooperation with the Program Committee, Departments, and, where they exist, Profile Coordinators, the Program Coordinator shall work toward maintaining the program’s integrated set of learning activities that achieve the aim and general goals of the program.  The tasks and primary responsibilities of the Program Coordinator shall be carried out in accordance with the Faculty Collective Agreement.  2.3.4 Meetings Meetings of the Program Committee shall be convened by the Program Coordinator at least once each semester.   3. The Department  3.1 Composition and Mandate The composition and mandate of the Department are specified in the Faculty Collective Agreement.  3.2 Responsibilities The Faculty Collective Agreement and the Institutional Student Evaluation Policy (ISEP) specify the responsibilities of the Department.  To ensure quality, the department monitors performance indicators including those related to quality of teaching, support to students, and appropriateness of resources. It also reviews its offerings as they relate to programs.  Pursuant to its responsibility for the quality of learning activities under its jurisdiction, the Department shall be responsible for ensuring that teachers carry out their responsibilities in a manner that ensures the quality with respect to content, equity, delivery and assessment.  3.3 The Department Coordinator The designation, qualification, term of office and responsibilities of the Department Coordinator are specified in the Faculty Collective Agreement.   Management of Programs of Study May 17, 2017 4 | P a g e   4 Advisory Mechanism for a DEC Program  4.1 A Program Committee shall be responsible for establishing advisory mechanisms that will advise the program and provide feedback about: • matters of program relevance as it pertains to the field and university studies as per the program goals; • changes in workforce needs; • anticipated changes in technology; • the quality of graduates; • research and professional development orientations; • other matters relevant to the field.  4.2 A program shall have a formal advisory mechanism. A program may also receive advice in an informal manner and may bring that advice to the formal advisory mechanism.  The formal program advisory mechanism shall provide a venue for participants to communicate with each other in order to formulate advice. The venue chosen for participants to communicate shall be determined by each program, and may include, but is not limited to, meetings and online discussions. A record of the advice formulated through the advisory mechanism shall be made available to the participants and the program committee members.  4.3 The formal advisory mechanism shall be invoked at least once annually. The Program Dean may authorize exceptions.  4.4 External participants recruited to the formal program advisory mechanism shall be selected from the program’s field so as to provide a representation that is as varied as possible and ensure a good basis for obtaining advice on matters of program relevance.  

Policy on the Management of Programs of Study

Pulling Together: a Guide for Leaders and Administrators

  Human Resource Management Policy Winter 2004 Page 1 of 4    2017-12-14  No. BOG-HR-00 Title:  HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICY                                                        CLASSIFICATION: HUMAN RESOURCES FIRST ADOPTED: March 2004 (396.6.7)  Preamble  The College, as articulated in its Mission Statement, is “aware of its responsibility to contribute to the intellectual, economic and social development of our society”.  Further, the College’s Mission, in part, is “to value the ethnic and cultural diversity of our College ... to maintain standards of academic excellence essential to our students’ future success ... to affirm that the College, as a community, requires the participation and representation of ... students, staff and faculty ... in its governance ... to continue to develop innovative and flexible educational approaches to serve the needs of our students ... (and) to develop the role of the College as a community resource and as a centre for life-long learning.”   This policy translates the principles and values of the Mission Statement into meaningful actions related to human resource management. The Policy is informed by the following:   the responsibility of the College to contribute to the intellectual, economic and social development of our society, to develop its role as a community resource and as a centre for life-long learning and to exercise this responsibility both through the education the College provides students as well as through the provision of developmental opportunities for employees;  the responsibility of all employees to understand how they contribute to the Mission of the College in the context of their job;  the valuing of the ethnic and cultural diversity of our College and its effect on both the learning environment for students and the workplace climate for employees;  the recognition that both workplace climate and learning environment are heavily dependent on the attitudes and behaviours of all employees;  the recognition that the maintenance of standards of academic excellence essential to students’ future success and the ability to develop innovative and flexible educational approaches to serve the needs of students are inextricably linked to the capacity of all employees to remain current and to have opportunities to develop their knowledge and skills;  the recognition that active participation in the Dawson Community contributes to a healthy workplace climate;  the responsibility of all employees to remain up-to-date in their field and profession and to strive for excellence in the accomplishment of their work.   The purpose of this policy is to provide an institutional framework for the management of human resources and to make explicit the College’s expectations not just of its managers but of all its employees.    Human Resource Management Policy Winter 2004 Page 2 of 4   Article 1 Objectives  The general objectives of this policy are:   to influence attitudes, behaviours, approaches and styles of personal interaction between individuals and groups in order to enhance the contributions of all employees to the College’s Mission;  to clarify how the management of human resources helps maintain a high quality of services provided by the College.  The specific objectives of this policy are:    to outline the principles of human resource management that will allow managers to fulfil the role the College expects of them;  to express the College’s expectations of all individuals that it employs.   Article 2 The Guiding Principles of Effective Human Resource Management  The ultimate goal of effective human resource management is the accomplishment of the College’s Mission of which the essential element is to offer quality education to our students.  Effective human resource management promotes the accountability of each employee and encourages collaboration and cooperation within and among departments and services.  Effective human resource management recognizes the College’s obligation to respect the individual and collective rights of College employees, notably those that are outlined in the Quebec and Canadian charters of human rights, under laws, regulations and the Quebec Civil Code, and within the collective agreements and personnel policies to which the College is a party.  The management of interpersonal relations and working conditions is an integral part of the effective management of human resources.  Effective human resource management addresses the qualities of employees as manifested by their professional competence, by their comprehension of their role within the College’s Mission, by their commitment to this Mission as well as by the diligence and effectiveness with which they carry out the duties they are assigned.  Effective human resource management gives recognition to the importance of workplace satisfaction of employees.  Effective human resource management acknowledges the respect and consideration that are due all employees by virtue of their qualities as individuals in addition to their contributions to the College’s Mission.  The development and implementation of human resource policies and procedures involves the collaboration of employees, their collective representatives and the management of the College.   Human Resource Management Policy Winter 2004 Page 3 of 4   Article 3 The College’s Expectations of its Management  Managers serve a specific role, enshrined in law, as representatives of the College: the day-to-day face of the College for its employees.  Fundamental to the implementation and actualization of this policy is the leadership of the managers and the guidance and support they provide to all employees.  It is the expectation of the College that managers respect the principles outlined in Article 2 in their day-to-day management of employees.  More specifically, within their areas of responsibility, managers:   make certain that the College hires competent and motivated individuals and ensure that all employees are welcomed and integrated into their positions as well as into the life and community of the College;  provide employees with all the information necessary to understand the nature and importance of their contribution to the accomplishment of the College’s Mission;  provide employees with opportunities to express their opinions, expectations and suggestions;  provide employees with the opportunity to discuss the quality of their contributions by means of a regular performance evaluation;  seek out opportunities for public or private recognition of employees’ contributions to the accomplishment of the College’s Mission;  acknowledge employees’ creativity, initiative and performance beyond expectations in an appropriate manner;  encourage and support employees in their efforts to develop their professional competencies;  ensure that all employees’ requests or complaints receive respectful, equitable and effective responses;  make available to employees the means to help them prevent or overcome professional or personal difficulties that may interfere with the accomplishment of their duties;  contribute positively to a healthy workplace environment that supports a good quality of work life for their employees and encourages their involvement in the College as a community;  foster effective working relationships with employees’ collective representatives that are characterized by respect and civility.   Article 4 The College’s Expectations of its Employees  Within the realm of their duties in support of the College’s Mission and as a demonstration of their commitment to the achievement of excellence in teaching and learning, all employees, including managers, are expected to:    strive for quality and effectiveness in the accomplishment of their duties;  seek out and gain a thorough understanding of the information required to perform their duties;  maintain or develop the competencies required to accomplish their duties;  exhibit respect, civility, integrity and attentiveness in providing services to others, be they students, other employees or members of the external community;   Human Resource Management Policy Winter 2004 Page 4 of 4  recognize the importance of communication, both in listening and in conveying information to others clearly and effectively;  display initiative and creativity in the accomplishment of their duties as well as in finding solutions to problems and challenges they are faced with;  cooperate and collaborate with other employees;  contribute positively to a sense of community, notably, by participating in the College’s governance;  promote the maintenance of the quality and cleanliness of the physical plant;  use available resources with care and prudence keeping in mind economy and the protection of the environment;  respect the confidentiality of the information to which they have access;  demonstrate loyalty to the College and avoid any action that may prejudice or tarnish the College’s reputation.   Article 5 Responsibilities for the Application of this Policy  The Director General is responsible for the application of this policy.  With respect to the application of this policy, the Human Resources Department provides any required assistance to those who manage or supervise employees.  To this end, the Human Resources Department oversees the development of policies, procedures and resources required for the implementation of this policy.  All managers are responsible, within their departments or services, for the application of this policy as well as of all related policies and procedures. 

Human Resource Management Policy

1.  APPLICABILITY AND JURISDICTION1.1  The Code of Conduct applies to all students and is intended to cover instances of non-academic misconduct not otherwise dealt with in College regulations and policy1.2  Code of Conduct applies on College premises and at any site or occasion where College business, programs or activities are being conducted, including extracurricular activities under the aegis or supervision of the College.  1.3  The Code does not replace, alter, or take precedence over any other offi cial College policy, regulation, or procedure nor is it a substitute for legal recourse available to both the College and students.2.  MISCONDUCTNo student shall:2.1  threaten with bodily harm, harass or assault another member of the College;2.2  steal, damage or deface the property of the College or of others;2.3  gamble;2.4  smoke within the building;2.5  possess, use, distribute or sell alcohol (except as may be permitted by the law) or illegal drugs;2.6  possess a weapon or materials which endanger the health, safety or property of others;2.7  commit indecent or grossly immoral acts;2.8  make public statements which threaten or incite violence against any group or individual distinguished by race, sex, colour, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation;2.9  act in a way which endangers the safety and well-being of others;2.10 disturb the peace, or disrupt or obstruct College activities;2.11 use, enter or remain in, without permission, any restricted area or facility;2.12 enter College property outside of authorized hours;2.13 misuse College property or equipment;2.14 promote or engage in any commercial activities on College premises without permission;2.15 refuse to show identifi cation when requested by College staff for a valid, stated reason;2.16 falsify a College document or submit falsifi ed documents to the College;2.17 aid, be party to, or deliberately conceal another person’s miscon-duct, as defi ned under this Code;2.18 make false statements to the College Judicial Committee or to a College offi cial enquiring into an allegation of misconduct;2.19 fail to abide by a decision or order of the Director of Student Services or the Judicial Committee made in conformity with this Code or fail to abide by a ne go ti at ed penalty agreed under Article 4.4 f) of this Code.3.  CLASSROOM BEHAVIOUR3.1  A teacher is responsible for determining the appropriateness of student behaviour in the classroom.   A teacher may remove a student who misbehaves in class for the duration of that period.  3.2  Teachers may, at their own discretion, refer a single instance of misbehaviour to the Director of Student Services.  Teachers shall refer cases of students who have been removed twice in the same semester from their classroom to the Director of Student Services.  The teacher shall inform the Director of Student Services each time the student is subsequently removed.Code of ConductCode of Conduct4.  ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES4.1  A faculty or staff member who observes an instance of student misconduct shall intervene in order to deal promptly and effectively with the situation provided that the methods of intervention do not place the faculty or staff member at risk.4.2  Faculty, staff and students shall report instances of student miscon-duct to the Director of Student Services.  Reports shall be made as soon as possible after the incident and may be verbal or in writing.4.3  The Director of Student Services shall investigate and take the appropriate measures in order to determine the facts of the case.4.4  Taking into account the nature of the offence and any other relevant factors, the Director of Student Services may take one or a combination of the following actions: a)   Verbal Warning;  A student is advised verbally of the seriousness of the mis con duct in question and the consequences of a repetition.b)   Written Warning;   A student is warned by letter against any further misconduct. c)   Prohibition or Exclusion; A student is prohibited or excluded from a certain area or activity for a specifi ed period of time.  (The area or activity will normally be associated with the misconduct; for example, misconduct taking place in the cafeteria may result in exclusion from the cafeteria).d)   Payment of damages;  A student may be required to pay the costs of repairing or replacing College property which he/she has damaged or stolen.e)   Short-term Suspension;  A student may be suspended from the College or a course for up to fi ve working days.  f)   Negotiated Penalty;  A student who chooses not to contest the charges of misconduct against him/her may negotiate with the Director of Student Services specifi c terms or conditions as a means of redressing his/her misconduct (e.g. payment for damages, community work, formal apology).  Such agreements must be in writing and signed by bothparties. Copies of such agreements shall be sent to the ombudsoffi cer.g)   Refer the case to the Judicial Com mit tee;  A student’s behaviour may warrant action other than that specifi ed above.  The Director of Student Services shall advise the student of the charges against him/ her and the procedures of the Judicial Committee.  Copies of this letter will be sent to the Academic Dean and the chair of the Judicial Committee as a signal that proceedings should begin.  In all cases except the verbal warning, the decision of the Director of Student Services shall be communicated in writing.  When possible, the notice shall specify the penalty that may apply in the event of further misconduct.4.5.  Article 4.4 g) notwithstanding, if in the judgment of the Director of Student Services, the nature of the student’s conduct is such as to warrant immediate suspension from the College or a course for more than fi ve working days or expulsion from the College, the Director may recommend such action to the Academic Dean.  If  the Academic Dean decides that suspension or expulsion is warranted, the Director of Student Services will advise the student in writing of the decision.  A copy of the notice of suspension or expulsion is forwarded to the ombudsoffi cer who will contact the student and advise him/her on the rights of appeal under this policy.4.6.  A student may appeal to the Judicial Committee any sanction arising from the application of Articles 4.4 a-d of this policy.  Appeals must be made in writing and sent by registered or certifi ed mail or by fax to the chair of the Judicial Committee within 10 working days of the appellant’s receipt of the decision of the Director of Student Services.   The student must state in the letter the reasons for the appeal.4.7.  Appeals arising from the application of Article 4.5 are made directly to the Director General.5.   THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE5.1 The Judicial Committee is composed of six members drawn from the following four constituencies:a)   one faculty member appointed by the Dawson Teachers Union;b)   one professional appointed by the Association of Dawson Professionals;c)   one administrator appointed by the Director General, who will chair the committee;d)   three students (two from pre-university programs and one from technicalprograms) appointed by the Dawson Student Union.5.2  At the time of the selection, one alternate shall be appointed for each seat on the Committee.  The alternate shall replace a designated Committee rep re sent a tive in the event that he or she is unable to participate in a hearing or in the event of a confl ict of interest as specifi ed in Article 6.4.5.3  Members are appointed for one year from September 1 to August 31.  The appointment is renewable.  It is au to mat i cal ly prolonged if required to complete proceedings already underway, or if no replace-ment for that member has been appointed. 5.4  The names of members and alternates appointed to the Judicial Committee are reported to Board of Governors. 5.5  The Judicial Committee shall operate autonomously.6.   HEARING PROCEDURES6.1  The Judicial Committee shall meet as follows: a)   In the cases covered by Article 4.4 g) of this policy, within ten (10) working days from the date of receipt of the letter of referral;b)   In all other cases, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter of appeal.6.2  The chair of the Committee will give the student concerned at least three days’ notice of the meeting.  The notice will be in writing and be sent by registered mail or by courier.  If the student cannot be available at the time designated, he/she must provide the chair with valid reasons, otherwise the meeting will proceed in the student’s absence.6.3  The student has the right to be assisted before the Committee by the College Ombudsman, a member of the College staff or a parent or guardian.  6.4  Any of the parties may, with valid reason, request that a regular member of the Committee be replaced by his/her alternate. The chair will rule on such requests. The Director General will rule on request to replace the chair.  6.5  The Director of Student Services and the student will supply the chair of the Judicial Committee with the names of witnesses to be called.  The Committee has the right to limit the number of witnesses heard.  The Committee may call additional witnesses.6.6  Hearings of the Committee are closed to all but members of the Judicial Com mit tee, the Director of Student Services, the student and his or her representative and witnesses during their testimony.  The Committee will deliberate in private.6.7  Any decision under appeal will be maintained  until the matter is decided. If the appeal is successful the College will make every effort, insofar as it is practical, to reverse the consequences or sanctions previously imposed.7.   MANDATE OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE7.1  The Committee shall render a decision in the cases referred to it under Article 4.4g) of this policy.  7.2  In the cases covered by Article 4.4 g) of this policy, the Judicial Committee may impose any sanction deemed appropriate to the misconduct (e.g. warning, community service, repayment of damage, probation, suspension to a maximum of fi ve days, removal from a specifi c course or a pro gram).7.3  The Committee’s decision will be reasoned and will be sent by registered or certifi ed mail or delivered by hand to the Director of Student Services and the student within fi ve working days of the end of the Committee’s deliberations.  Where it is appropriate, the parties will be advised of their right to appeal.7.4  Failure to abide by a penalty imposed by the Judicial committee  shall be con sid ered a repeat offence and constitute grounds for further action by the Judicial Committee.7.5  In the event that the nature of a student’s offence is suffi ciently serious to have a grave effect upon or pose a serious threat to the College, its staff, or students, the Committee may recommend to the Academic Dean that the student be expelled or suspended for more than fi ve working days.7.6  The decision of the Judicial Committee is fi nal in the case of an appeal of sanctions imposed under Article 4.4 of this policy. 8.   APPEALS TO THE DIRECTOR GENERAL8.1  The student may appeal:                                                                           (a)  a penalty of the Judicial committee imposed under article 4.4g of the present policy(b)  a decision to expel a student or suspend a student for more than fi ve working days8.2  Appeals may be made only on the following grounds: a grave abuse of pro ce dure the discovery of new evidence a manifest error, apparent in the text of the decision, which signifi cantly affects the outcome sanction which is dis pro por tion ate to the offense.a perceived miscarriage of justice.8.3  An appeal must be made within 10 working days of the receipt of the decision by the student.  It must be made in writing and be sent by registered mail or delivered by courier.  The grounds for appeal must be set out fully and only those grounds will be considered.8.4  The Director General will review the record and consult the appropriate parties.  He or she may confi rm, reverse or modify the decision, or require a new hearing.8.5  The Director General’s decision is fi nal.9.   CONFIDENTIALITY9.1  All letters to students concerning disciplinary matters will be marked confi dential and will be sent by registered mail or by courier.9.2  Letters and reports about a student’s misconduct do not become part of the offi cial student fi le.  Disciplinary letters or related documents are not made available to persons outside the College, for example, to other institutions or potential employers.  Within the College, they are made available only to College personnel directly involved with the procedures of this Code or the College Judicial Committee.9.3  With the exception of a fi le retained by the College Judicial Committee, all documents concerning a particular student’s miscon-duct will be destroyed within one calendar year of the date of the most recent incident of misconduct, or by a date stated in the documents themselves.  A fi le may be kept by the Judicial Committee in the event that it may have to take account of previous offenses and sanctions 3040 Sherbrooke St. WestMontreal, QC Canada  H3Z 1A4514 931 8731www.dawsoncollege.qc.cain determining sanctions for a subsequent offense.  Following the stu dent‘s graduation, the fi le of the Judicial Committee is forwarded to the Director of Corporate Affairs who will decide if the fi le should be retained any longer.10.   DELEGATION10.1 In the event that the Director of Student Services is unable to exercise his/her functions under this code, or in the case of real or potential confl ict of interest the Director General shall designate a re place ment to carry out these responsibilities.Sexual HarassmentDawson College has adopted a policy on sexual harassment to ensure that every member of the community has the right to work and study in an environment free of sexual harassment. Any member of the community who believes he or she has been sexually harassed should consult the policy and seek confi dential guidance from Ombuds Services, or from the nurse on campus.

Code of Conduct

Riley, Krista

White, Karen

Gagné, Philippe

Demystifying Vanier’s Research Ethics Board ProcessMany Vanier teachers who are interested in doing research find the process of applying for Research Ethics Board (REB) approval a little daunting. In this conversation, teacher-researcher Philippe Gagné, teacher and REB chair Karen White, and pedagogical counsellor Krista Riley discuss the work of the REB and what the application process is like.KR: Karen, can you start things off by giving a brief overview of the Research Ethics Board and the issues it’s here to address?KW: The REB’s main goal is to protect the rights of potential research participants here at Vanier, primarily students, but some-times faculty or other staff as well. The most important rights are those to6 NES is the total number of students assigned to a teacher on a weekly basis.7 See Appendix I -1 of the collective agreement for more details.•  avoidance of harm – participants should not be harmed by provid-ing data to researchers, and if there is any risk of harm, that shouldbe minimized, and clarified to the potential participants.•  confidentiality – participants should be assured that private infor-mation will not be exposed in a way that might allow others toknow who they are.91 See http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/tcps2-eptc2/Default/ for the full document.•  voluntary participation – potential participants should not feel pressured into providing data, nor should they feel that in some way they will “pay” if they don’t participate (ie: by receiving a lower grade from a teacher/researcher), and they should under-stand that they can stop providing data at any point. •  informed consent – participants should know exactly what they are getting into when deciding whether to participate in a research study, including any risk of harm and any possible lack of confidentiality.There are usually around eight people on the Research Ethics Board, including teachers from each faculty at the College. We work by consensus, following the ethics guidelines of the Inter-agency Advisory Council on Research Ethics, the TCPS 2,1 and Vanier Research Ethics Policies. The VCTA and the DG appoint the members, but the Board is a completely independent deci-sion-making body. Decisions can be appealed to a Review Board, and we can be audited by the granting agencies’ Panel of Research Ethics.We make sure that all research projects are set up to protect the aforementioned rights before they begin recruiting participants.KR: One of the most common questions I get as the pedagogical counsellor responsible for research is about the situations in which a project needs REB approval. The basic answer is that any Vanier teacher who plans to conduct research involving people, or any person who wants to conduct research that would involve Vanier students, staff, or faculty, is required to get REB approval.But what does “research” mean in this context? Generally, research involves the collection of data (including through interviews, surveys, databases of student information, etc.), as part of a project that will eventually be published or presented outside of Vanier, for example as an academic article, a public report, or a conference pre-sentation. It also includes any collection of data for academic credit outside of Vanier, such as for a university course paper or thesis.It does not include the collection of data for internal course or program improvement purposes: for example, a survey or focus group to evaluate a particular course or program, if that data remains internal to Vanier and is only used to improve that course or program. The REB also doesn’t cover Vanier students who are doing research for a Vanier course. In that case, it is the teacher’s responsibility to ensure that research ethics principles are being respected.PG: So what is your role in the REB process?KR: When a Research Ethics Board application is submitted, whether by a Vanier teacher or by an external researcher, it comes to me first. My evaluation focuses on institutional suitability: is the project feasible at Vanier given the resources we have? Is it appropri-ate? For example, someone who wants to spend more than 20 min-utes of class time for a research survey that has no direct pedagog-ical relevance will usually be asked either to change the survey or to plan to have students do the survey outside of class instead. This practice is in place because Vanier as a college should be focused on teaching and learning, and Vanier’s students shouldn’t have to give up too much in-class time to research unrelated to their class.Often, when I’m evaluating applications for institutional suitability, I also look at other issues in the research design. While I’m corre-sponding with the researcher about the changes they need to make in terms of feasibility or suitability, I will suggest other changes to help improve the research. Sometimes I will also alert them to eth-ical issues with the research – for example, an incomplete consent form – so that they can make those changes before the application is forwarded to the REB.As soon as everything is together, I pass it on to Karen for the REB’s review.KW: Once we receive an application, the REB chair decides whether it is “low risk” or not, meaning that there is little or no risk of any of the principles above being problematic. If it is low risk, it’s usually examined by the Chair plus two Board members, each going over the project separately and submitting any concerns or comments to the Chair. If the project is complex or deemed a higher risk for some reason, it has to go to a meeting of the Board. Everyone reads it and prepares their comments ahead of time, and we discuss it, deciding together on any concerns that need to be addressed or changes that need to be made. Sometimes we have research quality suggestions, too, but those are “extras” and are never required.The Chair prepares a feedback letter to the researchers. If the REB’s suggested changes are very minor, we assume they will be made, and we emit the certificate to allow the recruitment to go ahead. Most of the time, we need to see the changes, and there may need to be some back-and-forth about what is requested and how best to make changes while preserving the research goals and feasibility of the project. Once everything is good, the certificate is prepared, and recruiting begins!10 — VANIER ACADEMIC VOICESKaren White is a teacher of Psychology and the Chair of the Research Ethics Board.Philippe Gagné is a French teacher and researcher.Krista Rileyis a Pedagogical Counsellor in thePedagogical Support & Innovation office.Links of Interest:Application form to apply for Research Ethics Board approval at Vanier: http://www.vaniercollege.qc.ca/psi/innovation/conducting-research-at-vanier/ Tri-Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Hu-mans, which establishes the ethical guidelines followed by Vanier’s REB: http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/tcps2-eptc2/Default/ Online Course on Research Ethics: http://tcps2core.ca/welcomeIt is extremely rare for a project to be turned down by the REB; I think it has happened twice in the ten years we’ve had an REB. Our goal is always to get the project into good shape so that it can go forward.PG: As a researcher, I am interested in students’ motivations for learning French as a second language. I “use” the services of the REB once or twice a year. I really see the REB’s work as a contribution to the research proposals I submit. A proposal rarely comes back without any comments or suggestions. Even when this feedback suggests modifications that must be made in order to get the ethics certificate, I always perceive these modifications as improvements. For example, if I distribute a questionnaire in my classroom, the REB will suggest having a third party to recruit participants because students may feel pressured to participate if their own teacher is requesting it. I have never had the impression that the REB was some kind of a gatekeeper that was hard to please or fussy on details; much to the contrary! This is important to note because there is a common misperception that REB members at the college level are “plus catholiques que le pape,” as we commonly say in French, meaning that they are punctilious or painstaking, and that they slow down the research process. A university professor once told me that she was not doing field work in CEGEPs anymore because of that. KW: One of the things researchers are often not aware of is the extra level of participant protection that has to occur at the CEGEP level. Unlike university student participants, our students are often recruited by their own teachers, or through their teachers and classes. This may make students feel like they are under pressure to partici-pate, even when the teachers are super careful to make it clear that they are not. Students may also worry that their teacher may have access to their data, or that a Vanier researcher may at some point be their teacher, threatening confidentiality. We’ve figured out ways around these issues, often involving the collaboration of the PSI office with recruitment and data analysis, but these projects need a little extra care because of that. And because our students are at an earlier stage of their educational path, they may not be as well in-formed about how research works as their counterparts in university.KR: Karen, what are some of the biggest challenges the REB faces in doing its work?KW: I’d say there are two. One, people often realize they need REB approval quite late in the research process, and then they need to collect data RIGHT AWAY! While we try to not dilly dally over reviews in general, and we attempt to move things along even faster when someone has a legitimate deadline, Board members other than the Chair have no release time for this work, so the work has to be done on top of everyone’s usual responsibilities. It always involves multiple people, and often multiple steps, so time is definitely a challenge. The second challenge is when we receive projects from inexperienced researchers; there are often lots of small and medi-um-sized changes to be made followed by multiple rounds of feed-back and fixes. But we get there in the end! And most of the projects are very interesting and engaged with important topics.PG: As a member of Cégep de Saint-Laurent’s REB committee, I have an additional perspective on this work, and I can attest to the fact that Boards try to get proposals accepted with as few delays as possible. During the evaluation process, we can be tempted to judge the academic or scientific value of the projects, but this is not an REB’s duty. A Board would intervene with these kinds of judgments only in extreme cases where there are major issues and the committee estimates that participants (students, teachers, or staff members) will invest their time and energy in a project that will lead to poor data and unreliable or invalid results. In that case, it means a researcher would need to go back to improve his or her proposal substantially. This seldom happens, and it certainly does not reflect the vast majori-ty of proposals that I have participated in reviewing. If you would like to do your own research and have questions about the Research Ethics Board, please contact us!

Demystifying Vanier’s Research Ethics Board Process

Management Evaluation Process ; Management Evaluation Process Schedule

MANAGEMENT EVALUATION PROCESS   Adopted by the Board of Governors February 9, 2004  I. GENERAL PRINCIPLE  Every manager has a right to be evaluated annually and every supervisor has the obligation to evaluate his/her managers annually.     II. DEFINITIONS  In this document “manager” indicates the manager who is being evaluated.  “Supervisor” indicates the manager’s immediate supervisor.  “Immediate superior” indicates the supervisor’s supervisor.   III. OBJECTIVES OF THE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION PROCESS  The management evaluation process is designed:  1. To clarify the expectations of both the supervisor and the manager;   2. To assess the manager’s performance in carrying out the responsibilities of the position as described in his/her job description;  3. To evaluate the accomplishment of specific objectives;  4. To promote discussion between the supervisor and the manager concerning the manager’s performance;  5. To promote communication between the supervisor and the manager on common objectives and planning;   6. To promote the development of coherent institutional management objectives, action plans and work plans, derived from the College Strategic Plan;  7. To provide the mechanism for the manager to qualify for annual salary review under the Regulation;   8. To provide the mechanism for the manager to qualify for a bonus, regulation permitting.  9. To advance the Mission of Dawson College through the improvement and support of management performance.   IV. ASPECTS OF PERFORMANCE WHICH MUST BE CONSIDERED IN THE EVALUATION OF MANAGERS  1.    Quality of a manager’s performance in carrying out the responsibilities of his/her position as described in Schedules 1 and 2       Management Evaluation Process – January, 2004   Page 1 of 7  2. The accomplishment of objectives set for the year as reflected in work plans and  action plans.   3. The evaluation may also take into account the following factors • Particular circumstances which may have affected the manager’s performance or, attainment of objectives ; • Ability of the manager to adjust to above circumstances, as applicable; • Special accomplishments of the manager which are not reflected in the objectives.   V. PROCESS  1. Establishment of annual objectives  Annually, each manager shall set objectives with his/her supervisor, subject to the approval of the Director General. Such objectives may be directly linked to the manager’s current tasks and responsibilities and/or may represent new and additional challenges.    Objectives should be consistent with institutional goals and priorities as articulated in the College Strategic Plan and consequent action plans.  The supervisor and the manager will specify the means of evaluation, including measurement tools and targets if appropriate, and clarify expectations with regard to the achievement and the relative weighting of the objectives with respect to the overall scope of the evaluation.  The supervisor and the manager will clarify what level of performance is expected for an excellent, very good or good rating.  The manager and the supervisor will agree on the relative weighting of each objective.   The document containing the objectives shall be signed by both the supervisor and manager before being submitted for information purposes to the immediate superior and the Director General.    2. Professional Development  At the time objectives are set, and throughout the year as required, the supervisor and the manager will discuss areas, if any, where additional learning, coaching or training may help the manager improve job performance and/or attain the set objectives.  As appropriate, they will agree on a professional development plan.   3. Progress reviews  There shall be at least one progress review by the supervisor and manager, to take place normally within the first six months of the academic year.   The purpose of the review is to discuss the manager’s progress in carrying out the responsibilities of his/her position and the specific objectives.   Management Evaluation Process – January, 2004   Page 2 of 7 Where problems are identified with regard to the manager’s overall performance, the supervisor shall advise the manager in writing on expectations for improvement of performance and shall provide assistance, as appropriate.    Subsequent to discussion between the manager and supervisor, in cases where special circumstances merit it the supervisor may decide to modify the manager’s objectives.  These changes will be signed and dated by the supervisor and the manager.    4. Annual evaluation  The documentation supporting the annual evaluation includes the Base Protocol, the Manager’s Self-Assessment, the Supervisor’s Evaluation Form, the Summary of Evaluation and  the responses to the Confidential Questionnaire where applicable. The supervisor will prepare the Summary of Evaluation based on this documentation and his/her personal evaluation of the manager.  If the manager and/or the supervisor consider it appropriate, Confidential Questionnaires may be distributed to members of the College community and/or external partners.  The names to be included on the distribution list will be determined and agreed upon by both the manager and the supervisor.  Should agreement on the proposed names to be included on the distribution list fail to be achieved, the manager and the supervisor may each contribute up to five names.   Once the list is completed, the supervisor will distribute the Confidential Questionnaires to the persons named to solicit their feedback.     4.1 Base Protocol The supervisor and the manager will establish the Base Protocol. The Base Protocol will identify the individuals, if any, who will receive Confidential Questionnaires concerning the manager’s performance, and will specify the dates for the completion of the evaluation components.   A standard questionnaire will be available; see Schedule 3.  The supervisor and the manager may modify this questionnaire as desired, subject to the agreement of the manager and the supervisor.      4.2 Manager’s self-assessment The manager will assess his/her own performance.  This may include:  • The quality of the manager’s performance in carrying out the responsibilities of the position; • The quality and degree of attainment of objectives. • Special events or problems which had a bearing on performance or the attainment of objectives; • Special accomplishments; • Professional development activities over the year.  Management Evaluation Process – January, 2004   Page 3 of 7 After the review with the supervisor, the manager may add to his/her personal assessment any responses to concerns or questions raised by the supervisor or other written comments, which seem appropriate.     4.3 Evaluation of the manager’s performance by supervisor    The supervisor will evaluate the performance of the manager, taking into account:  • The quality of the manager’s performance in carrying out the responsibilities of the position;  • The quality and degree of the attainment of objectives;  • Feedback obtained from the respondents to the confidential questionnaires;  • The manager’s self-assessment;  • Circumstances which may have affected the manager’s performance or attainment of objectives;  • Professional development activities;  • Special accomplishments on the part of the manager.  The supervisor will establish a rating for the manager for:  a) the performance of the manager in carrying out the responsibilities of the position b) the manager’s objectives c) the overall rating of the manager.  This will take into account the relative weighting of the objectives with respect to the normal responsibilities of the position.  The overall rating will be used to determine the award of a bonus (if applicable).   The ratings used will be one of the following:  EXCELLENT: The overall quality of the manager’s performance is deemed to be of exceptional quality.  VERY GOOD: The overall quality of the manager’s performance is deemed to be fully commendable.  GOOD: The overall quality of the manager’s performance is deemed to be more than satisfactory.  SATISFACTORY: The overall quality of the manager’s performance is deemed to be adequate, but weaknesses are identified in some areas. Management Evaluation Process – January, 2004   Page 4 of 7  UNSATISFACTORY: The quality of a manager’s performance is inadequate in general or in more than one important area.    4.4 Meeting between the supervisor and the Director General The supervisor will review the Summary of Evaluation with the Director General.  When a supervisor must evaluate more than one manager, this meeting with the Director General will include a review of all the Summary of Evaluations of managers for which the supervisor is responsible.  In cases where the immediate superior is not the Director General, the immediate superior shall be present during this review.  Should the Director General have concerns about the appropriateness of the rating proposed by the supervisor, or about the proposed rating as compared to the ratings of other managers, he/she may request to review the evaluation in full consisting of the Base Protocol, the manager’s self-assessment, the Supervisor’s Evaluation Form, but not the results of Confidential Questionnaires.  Based on the review, he/she may modify the rating assigned to a manager.  The supervisor and the Director General will sign the Summary of Evaluation confirming this review has taken place.   4.5 Meeting between the supervisor and the manager       Subsequent to the process detailed in V.4.4, the supervisor will meet with the manager to review the results of the evaluation.  They shall give particular attention to discrepancies between the supervisor’s evaluation and the manager’s self-assessment.  The supervisor and the manager shall sign and date both the Supervisor’s Evaluation and the Summary of Evaluation as confirmation that they have seen and discussed them.  A signed copy of the Supervisor’s Evaluation Form and the Summary of Evaluation shall be given to the manager.   The signature of the manager does not necessarily mean that the manager is in agreement with the evaluation. However a disagreement between the manager and the supervisor may be annotated on the evaluation document(s).    By the date specified in the critical path, the Summary of Evaluation for all managers shall be submitted by the supervisor to the Director General.     4.6 Awarding of bonuses and salary progressions, Regulation permitting  The Director General shall determine the bonuses for all management personnel based on the overall ratings for managers as described in each Summary of Evaluation.  The bonuses, awarded in increments of equal shares, must conform to the following:  Management Evaluation Process – January, 2004   Page 5 of 7 a) the manager who receives an overall rating of “EXCELLENT” shall be entitled to a bonus of 6 shares of the aggregate funds available, and shall be entitled to any salary scale progressions due in the next academic year;  b) the manager who receives an overall rating of “VERY GOOD” shall be entitled to a bonus 4 shares of the aggregate funds available, and shall be entitled to any salary scale progressions due in the next academic year;  c) the manager who receives an overall rating of “GOOD” shall be entitled to a bonus of 2 shares of the aggregate funds available, and shall be entitled to any salary scale progressions due in the next academic year;  d) the manager who receives an overall rating of “SATISFACTORY” shall not be entitled to a bonus but shall be entitled to any salary scale progressions due in the next academic year;  e) the manager who receives an overall rating of “UNSATISFACTORY” shall not be entitled to a bonus and may not be eligible for any salary scale progressions due in the next academic year;  f) the total amount awarded may not exceed the accumulated amount of funds set aside for those purposes by virtue of the Regulation;  g) The total amount disbursed in any one year may not be less than 2% of the total amount of annual management salaries.   Notwithstanding the above, the Regulations take precedence with regard to the granting/withholding of salary scale progressions. Subject to the Regulation, arrangements for the method by which the bonus is to be credited to a manager must be finalized between the manager and the College no later than September 1 of the calendar year during which the bonus was determined. In the event of failure on the part of the manager to so inform the College, the College will proceed with the payment of the bonus through regular payroll.   5. Confidentiality of the Process  The supervisor shall oversee the administering of the questionnaires.  Questionnaires shall be administered and responses collated in such a way as to guarantee confidentiality.   In discussing the results of the evaluation, the supervisor or the manager may wish to review the results of the questionnaires.  In this review, the supervisor must guarantee that specific responses from the questionnaires and the identity of the respondent(s) are not revealed by the review process.  The supervisor must ensure the confidentiality of his/her evaluation of the manager (including supporting documentation).  Only the manager concerned, the supervisor, and the Director General may have access to the Summary of Evaluation as provided for in article V.4.4.  In the case of an appeal, the Director General and the representative of the manager may have access to the evaluation documents, as provided for in article V.7 of this document.    Management Evaluation Process – January, 2004   Page 6 of 7 6. Conservation of Evaluations  The supervisor shall forward a sealed copy of the manager’s self-assessment, the Supervisor’s Evaluation Form and the Summary of Evaluation to the Human Resources department.  In accordance with the Act respecting Access to Documents Held by Public Bodies and the Protection of Personal Information, the sealed file is confidential and access is restricted to those whose duties so require.  Confidential Questionnaires are to be destroyed by the supervisor following the evaluation.   Subject to procedures governing access to files held by the Human Resources Department, the sealed copy of the evaluation may only be opened by the manager, by the manager’s supervisor or the Director General.  The evaluation documents shall be removed from the manager’s file and destroyed after a period of five years.     7. Appeal process  In the event that a manager finds his/her evaluation to be unjust, he/she may appeal in writing to the Director General within sixty (60) days of receipt of the signed evaluation. The manager making the appeal shall name a representative from among his/her colleagues, who shall review the evaluation with the Director General with the exception of the formal feedback provided by respondents to the questionnaire, which shall remain confidential. The Director General and the representative will consult with the manager and the supervisor.  The decision of the Director General shall be final.    The Director General will advise in writing, both the manager and the supervisor on any course of action which may follow as a result of the appeal decision.   8. Renewal of process  Once the annual evaluation is completed, the supervisor and the manager will review the manager’s job description and set objectives for the subsequent year.  In addition to overall College objectives and the supervisor’s overall objectives, these objectives shall take into account the results of the annual evaluation.   The Director General shall establish a critical path for the subsequent year’s evaluation.   VI. SUMMATIVE ASPECTS  Notwithstanding the fact that the objectives of the Management Evaluation Process are formative, the results may be used for summative purposes, subject to normal College procedures for disciplinary action and to any relevant clauses in the Regulation and in the College’s Policy for Management Personnel.   VII. RESPONSIBILITY FOR APPLICATION OF THE PROCESS  The Director General is responsible for the application of the process. Management Evaluation Process – January, 2004   Page 7 of 7 

Management Evaluation Process

Comprend des références bibliographiques

1Building Expertise on Diversity Education at Vanier CollegeAs one of the most diverse colleges in the country, Vanier College takes pride in the range of nationalities, languages, and identities represented among our students. As a signatory to CICan’s Indige-nous Education Protocol, Vanier is also committed to affirming the importance of Indigenous education. However, rather than being a finalized accomplishment to hold up on a pedestal, this diversity pushes us to think about how educational institutions can be best equipped to educate and support the students who come to us. Vanier faculty and staff have long been active in research and projects related to diversity education. In fact, this work has been so extensive that the college is moving forward with the creation of a centre of research and expertise on the topic, which will allow us to highlight and support both existing projects and the creation of new initiatives. In this article, I will look at how we can understand diversity educa-tion; some examples of the work already being done at Vanier; and some of the next steps and considerations to keep in mind as plans for the centre develop.What is diversity education?Although “diversity” is sometimes understood mainly in ethnic or cultural terms, the diversity education work at Vanier generally takes a broader definition of diversity, looking at ethnocultural background, gender, language, sexuality, gender identity, religion, disability, class, and age, among other characteristics. As we look at all of those forms of diversity, there are many questions we can ask, including: How do different forms of diversity intersect?People’s experiences and identities cannot be compartmentalized: someone is not a woman in some moments, and Indigenous in others, for example. The pieces of our identities do not simply add themselves to each other; rather, they interact with each other and in-fluence each other. As many people reading this will be aware, Black feminist legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term “intersec-tionality” in 1989 to refer to the ways that forms of discrimination based on categories like race and gender work together and reinforce each other. As educators, it behoves us to ask ourselves, what does intersectionality look like in the lives of our students?Who do we imagine as the “default” student, and who is excluded from this image?Do we assume a “typical” student to be someone who is around 18 years old and living at home with parents who support them financially? Do we assume them to be born in Canada and to speak English or French as a first language? Do we assume that reading a certain number of pages for homework will only take a short time? If we talk in conversation about a typical student, are they more likely to be named “Jimmy” or “Johnny” than “Emilio,” “Fatima,” or “Rebecca”?If so, what are we missing? It’s true that certain experiences or backgrounds may be more common than others, and there’s nothing wrong with that; the problem is what happens when students don’t feel that we are ever taking their backgrounds or experiences into account, and when our words or actions implicitly exclude certain students over and over.What barriers might students be facing?At Vanier, we often talk about the diversity of our student body as a strength. This is true! However, if we are not as aware as we could be about the diverse experiences of our students, there may be barri-ers that have a disproportionate impact on some of our students. Students who speak English as a third or fourth language may be unfamiliar with certain figures of speech used in class. Students who are non-binary may face barriers to their physical education classes because of the gendered changerooms. Students with dyslexia may struggle to read PowerPoint slides that are cluttered or have insuf-ficient contrast in colours. How can a greater attention to diversity help reduce some of these barriers?What is the “education” piece of “diversity education”?Having looked at what “diversity” means, let’s look at the “education” side. Research and pedagogical projects aimed at diversity education might look at one or more of the following areas and prompt us to pose the following questions:•  Course content: what is the “canon” in particular fields? Whose voices are left out? How might all disciplines be enriched by ensur-ing a wider diversity of topics covered and authors read?•  Pedagogy/teaching styles: how can teaching styles be adapted in order to be accessible to students with a wide range of possible dis-abilities, language levels, and cultural points of reference? How can Indigenous pedagogies be incorporated into more disciplines? •  Institutional policies: are there policies around admission or assessment that might create disproportionate barriers for certain students? What considerations need to be kept in mind in order to ensure that policies don’t impose a greater burden on some students than on others? •  Services for students: what does it look like for academic institu-tions to offer services (financial, psychological, disability-related, 2 — VANIER ACADEMIC VOICESand others) that are culturally relevant, that respond to the needs of our students, and that are available at times that our students can access them? •  Campus climate: what does it mean for a campus to be safe and accessible to students, both physically (such as the presence of ramps and elevators) and in other ways (for example, options for washrooms that affirm people’s gender identities)? How do we assess whether our campus climate affirms all students?  •  Representation: what impact does representation of backgrounds and identities among faculty, staff, and administration have for students?Who is already working on diversity education at Vanier?Below is a non-exhaustive sample of some of the research on diversity education that Vanier faculty and staff have undertaken as part of their work at the college: •  The Critical Diversity in Higher Education working group organized a conference in 2017 looking at zones of “discomfort” when talking about issues around race, gender, sexuality, religion, ethnicity, and language. •  Humanities teacher Leila Bdeir and I are collaborating on a project that examines the experiences of Muslim college students in Quebec.•  French teacher Philippe Gagné’s work investigates “twinning” programs as a way of building connections across cultural and linguistic differences.•  Anthropology teacher Jacky Vallée has created an Indigenous Studies Certificate Program at the college as well as trainings and pedagogical materials for teachers wanting to incorporate Indige-nous pedagogies into their work.•  French teacher Danielle Altidor worked with her students to pub-lish a book about experiences of racism.•  Sociology teacher Sophia Grabowiecka’s research examines students’ experiences of diversity and belonging on campus.•  Humanities teacher Kim Matthews has studied the development of intercultural competence among students and is currently working on questions of food security.•  French teacher Katri Suhonen is working on research looking at feelings of inclusion and exclusion among allophone students in French classes.•  English teacher Maria Chiras, whose doctoral research focuses on discourses about allophone students, has prepared a report and strategic plan for a diversity education centre at Vanier.•  Year-long task forces of teachers representing a wide range of programs have examined how to implement Universal Design for Learning in the Vanier context and have conducted research about accessibility barriers that students face.What’s next for diversity education at Vanier?For the last few years, Vanier has been moving towards the creation of a centre of research and expertise on diversity education, which will bring together some of the existing work in this area and offer support and resources to further enhance such work. Among the anticipated outputs of this centre will be both scholarly publications and hands-on tools that other educators can use in supporting their students, revisiting course content, and contributing to a campus climate that affirms the diversity of its community members.One element that has arisen recently as a key component of this work is that of community care. The work of engaging with themes around social justice and systemic oppression can be draining, and it is important to think about what collective care can look like among people doing this work. A recent workshop facilitated by Humanities teacher and community organizer Rushdia Mehreen raised questions about how Vanier faculty and staff can better support ourselves and each other in some of the work that we do. The workshop opened up discussions and ideas that we will be following up on in the future. My intention is to weave some of these ideas into the centre of diversity education from the outset as a way of opening up new possibilities for how to think about the research process and the people involved in it.In her book On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life, feminist scholar Sara Ahmed writes that “we need to keep asking what we are doing with diversity. If diversity is to remain a question, it is not one that can be solved” (p. 17). Throughout her study, Ahmed cautions against seeing diversity as a fait accompli or as a public relations exercise. Instead, she argues that the real work often comes through critical reflection about ourselves, our institutions, and the world in which we live. As we move forward in looking at diversity ed-ucation at Vanier, it is important to continue to commit to asking hard questions and not shying away from the difficult and often uncomfort-able work of addressing racism and other systemic forms of oppression.Works CitedAhmed, S. (2012). On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989, 139-167.Krista Riley   is a Pedagogical Counsellor in the Pedagogical Support & Innovation office.

Building Expertise on Diversity Education at Vanier College

    No. IST-03 Title: Password Policy CLASSIFICATION: INFORMATION SYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGY FIRST ADOPTED: (V1.1) May 8, 2014 AMENDED: (V2.01) April 4, 2016 (V2.02) April 22, 2016  1. Scope All employees, students and other users of the College’s IT resources are responsible for taking the appropriate steps, as outlined below, to select and secure their password(s). 2. Enforcement Users must not take any measures to bypass password authentication, for example in attempting to override the automatic time outs. Only use password-saving features, e.g. the password manager in your browser, if you are the sole user of the machine. 3. Complexity requirements Passwords must meet the following requirements: - Be at least 8 characters long - Include a mix of uppercase, lowercase, and numbers (or optionally, special characters). - Cannot reuse an old password  - Cannot include the user’s account name, or part of it.  The following are also considered good practice in choosing a good password: - Do not use the name of a relative or pet - Do not use the same password(s) for your Dawson account(s) as you do for your personal account(s) outside work. - Do not use birthdates or other personal dates A good way to generate complex yet easy to remember passwords is to use an abbreviated passphrase: using the first the letter of a sequence of meaningful words, capitalizing a letter and adding a digit.  4. Aging Passwords must be changed at least one time every year. Some mission critical systems, such as Student Information Systems, finance/purchasing, and payroll, may enforce a shorter expiry period. 5. Network password Your network password will work on most college systems including; email, wireless network, employee MyDawson, Moodle, SharePoint, etc.  The mission critical systems have distinct passwords.  In addition, some critical functions within MyDawson require a super user password, or re-entry of the password. 6. Sharing passwords Passwords must not be shared with colleagues, even with a superior, unless an exception has been granted by IST.  Occurrences where a password or an account may have been compromised must be reported immediately to IST; the password for the account and related accounts must be changed. When it is necessary to disseminate or store passwords in writing, reasonable measures shall be taken to protect the password from unauthorized access. 

Not a member yet