250 News - Your News, Your Views, Now

October 28, 2017 1:18 am

UNBC chancellor … Moore or less

Thursday, December 3, 2015 @ 3:45 AM
By Bill Phillips
One of the best lines since the October 19 federal election has to be: “The election is over.”

That came from UNBC’s soon-to-be chancellor, James Moore.
He was responding to the initial complaints about his appointment. The issue, led by the faculty association and with more than 1,300 people signing an online petition opposing his appointment, has turned into a full-fledged foofaraw.
There is one thing that is missing from the all the bluster, debate, opining, and attempted history revisions.
The chancellor position at UNBC is an honourary, unpaid position.
It’s ceremonial (if you’re on social media, read ‘ceremonial’ in all caps please).
We’re getting our knickers all tied up in a knot over nothing.
The duties of the chancellor are basically to don a medieval robe and silk beanie once a year, hand out degrees during convocation ceremonies, and say something nice and inspirational. The chancellor may attend a few other events, but very few.
The chancellor does not sit on the board of governors, the chancellor does not tell the president how to run the university, the chancellor does not dictate which programs the university will offer. The chancellor is to the university like the queen is to Canadian parliament … when they show up we put on our Sunday finest, mind our Ps and Qs, try to stay awake when they deliver a speech and, after they’re gone, go back to what we were doing before they showed up.
The chancellor is a figurehead. There’s nothing wrong with having a chancellor, but we’re overstating the importance of the role.
I get it that the faculty association wants to forget the former Conservative government’s attack on science and higher education and that Moore, who was a key part of that government, represents those dark years. I get it. Journalism didn’t have a place in former Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s New World Order either.
The Conservatives also vindictively punished those who disagreed with them. It’s disappointing that aspect of the 10 Dark Years has endured.
It should also be pointed out that Moore was appointed chancellor because he is a politician who happens to be Conservative, not because he is a Conservative politician. In other words, it’s not a political appointment.
The chancellor is selected through a process that includes a call for nominations issued by the Alumni Association of UNBC, consultation with the Senate, and appointment by the Board of Governors. It’s not made by the PMO.
Rather than get in a huff over Moore’s appointment, maybe we should be focusing our attention on the fact that, shortly before he called the election last August, Prime Minister Harper made 49 future patronage appointments. When the writ is dropped the government goes into caretaker mode, which prevents it from, among other things, stacking government boards and agencies with party cronies.
So, according to iPolitics, Harper did just that, just before the deadline … 49 times. In some cases, contracts that weren’t up for another year, were renewed. Some of those were for five years. Many carry six-figure salaries.
That is 1,000 times more insidious and repugnant than a university appointing a former Tory cabinet minister to a figurehead position that pays nothing.
Bill Phillips is a freelance columnist living in Prince George. He was the winner of the 2009 Best Editorial award at the British Columbia/Yukon Community Newspaper Association’s Ma Murray awards, in 2007 he won the association’s Best Columnist award. In 2004, he placed third in the Canadian Community Newspaper best columnist category and, in 2003, placed second. He can be reached at billphillips1@mac.com

Comments

Well said.

Bill, of course you would use Moore’s appointment as another excuse to rant about Stephen Harper! After all, we know that you don’t like Harper! You should be happy now! Harper is gone and in his place, we have a twit!

twit, a silly or foolish person.

synonyms: idiot, ass, blockhead, dunce, dolt, ignoramus!

Twit, I say, Twit!!

Yes indeed the Election is over and the whiners within the UNBC faculty should take note, AND including what Phillips truthfully identifies as an UNPAID position.

I wonder if those faculty whiners remember (or choose not to) that Iona Campagnolo was a huge lifetime Liberal, and Alec Micholos was as avowed socialist in his opinions. (pardon the spelling on the names if incorrect)

’nuff said.

notsofast, I believe that this whole “Moore” issue would be nothing if not for the whining from the leftwing faculty in our hallowed halls of academia up on the hill!

Much ado about nothing!

Also, it would appear from my hugely negative score today, that Justin’s fan club is out in full force! ;-)

It’s not 1300 that have signed the petition . It 1,809 as of this morning and growing . Like some are saying , this says more about the executive at unbc than it does about Moore . They may think this appointment will help him to get into 24 Sussex Drive but a very much doubt that will ever happen .

Anyway that you slice this, Moore’s appointment is a very bad decision.

UNBC has falling enrollments and a looming budgetary disaster. They cannot afford to appoint a Chancellor with such a negative and divisive reputation. The 1800 plus petitioners and friends can do a tremendous amount of damage to UNBC. And deservedly so based on the ludicrous decision making by UNBC’s BoG.

James Moore must go. UNBC’s BoG should be excoriated.

My take away from the article is that Mr. Phillips “gets it”
But seriously, much ado about nothing sums up this entire issue completely.
Watched the CKPG news yesterday, some self important UNBC academic whined on about the appointment of Mr. Moore for far too long.
Way too much camera time, producer seeking drama perhaps?
Slow news day methinks.
metalman.

Wasn’t there a certain Prime Minister one time who made a whole bunch of appointments to the Senate just before he resigned? Ones that greatly embarrassed his successor, and was one of the things that probably cost him and his Party the election that shortly followed. How many vacancies COULD Stephen Harper have filled in the Senate, perfectly legally under the Constitution, either just before the election, or right after it while he was still Prime Minister?

Comments for this article are closed.