February 4, 2011

Prof. Carl G. Amrhein

Provost and Vice-President (Academic)
The University of Alberta
2-10 University Hall
Edmonton, Alberta
T6G 2J9

Dear Prof. Amrhein:

Thank you for your letter of February 1, 2011.

CAUT launched its ad hoc investigatory committee after ascertaining that there were serious
allegations being made affecting those who work in the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry. It
has been our practice since 1957-58 to rely on investigatory committees to report on what appear
to be serious problems, advise if the allegations have merit and, if so, to make recommendations
for resolving them.

CAUT’s investigation in no way interferes with the role of AAS:UA under the Post-Secondary
Learning Act. CAUT is not attempting to negotiate or enter into an agreement with the Board of
the University. Nor do the actions of CAUT ad hoc investigatory committee constitute an “ad
hoc dispute resolution process.” The Committee is simply undertaking an investigation into
allegations and preparing a report on what is found. At the end of the investigation, it will be up
to the University and AAS:UA to decide how to deal with any recommendations and how to
resolve any problems.

I was concerned by your comment on the history of the relationship between AAS:UA and
CAUT as well as your request for information about what consultations occurred between CAUT
and AAS:UA. With respect, the nature of the relationship between AAS:UA and CAUT as well
as what discussions CAUT has with its largest member association are matters between the two
organizations, and not the business of the University administration.

I am equally concerned about your invocation of privacy in the face of an investigation of a

public body that prides itself on its openness and transparency – as all good universities should.
The matters we are investigating are matters of public interest. Our Committee will not be
asking

…/2
 –2–

anyone to provide records in violation of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy
Act. It is certainly not the intent of the Committee to breach privacy provisions of the Act.

However, it must be remembered that the Act does not, and was not intended to, prevent citizens
of Alberta from speaking about their own situation, making fair comment on matters within their
institution.

I understand that the university’s public caution and the invocation of its duty to protect
confidential information may have resulted in intimidating some who wish to exercise their
freedom of expression. Hence my statement in the Gateway article.

My quote was clearly not in reference to your duties under the Act as head of a public body but
to the impression given by your statements and your web posting that it was a violation of the
Act for anyone to speak to the Committee “about the circumstances of their academic
colleagues.” [see
http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/en/NewsArticles/2011/01/Facultyagreementprocedureshavel
onghistoryofsuccess.aspx].

As you know, it is not correct to suggest that academic staff are precluded from talking about
anything except their own situation. This does not diminish the fact about which we agree;
namely, that there is confidential information in the custody and control of a public body that
cannot be released.

Furthermore, there is nothing CAUT has stated publicly (or privately for that matter) to suggest,
as you allege, that CAUT is “prepared to prematurely and publicly divulge sensitive employee
and institutional information, without careful regard for its accuracy.” In announcing our
investigatory committee, we have said that there are serious allegations that need to be
investigated to determine if they are true, and, if any is found to be true, the committee will make
recommendations for resolution. This prejudges nothing about what the committee will find, and
we can assure you the Committee has no intention of prematurely and publicly divulging
sensitive employee and institutional information, or any other information for that matter,
without careful regard for its accuracy.

We are disappointed with the University administration’s decision not to cooperate with the
Committee. We hope the University administration will change its mind about talking with the
Committee, as I indicated to President Samarasekera in my letter of January 13, 2011, the
Committee seeks a full and fair understanding of the situation.

We are truly alarmed about the unprecedented position your administration has taken that “the
balance of the University’s employees are being cautioned about the risks associated with any
communication with your committee.” This deeply concerns CAUT as it appears to be an
attempt to restrict the free expression of rights and the academic freedom of your academic staff.

The CAUT will not be terminating the work of the Committee which we hope will assist

…/3
 –3–

AAS:UA in resolving any outstanding problems, if there are any, faced by its members in the
Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry.

I would be pleased to accept your invitation to meet, accompanied by the President of the
AAS:UA, at a mutually convenient time. I will be out of the country for the next week or so, but
would be pleased to make arrangements to meet in late February or March.

Yours sincerely,

James L. Turk
Executive Director

/mmp

cc: Don Heth, President, AAS:UA

Brygeda Renke, Executive Director, AAS:UA
Penni Stewart, President, CAUT
Victor M. Catano, Chair, CAUT Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee
Myron Frankman
Keith Brownell
Robin Whyte