Patrick Sullivan, Associate Dean of Science

Stolen vacation

From: Pat Sullivan
To: ΑΩ
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011, 15:57
Subject: ΑΩ


You have returned a vacation plan with 0 days of vacation indicated on the form.

Section 19.2.7 of the collective agreement states
“A continuing member shall normally take vacation between May and August”

Section states
“Special arrangements for vacation at another time may be made, providing the member’s Dean of Director approves, in writing, prior to the May to August period.”

Since you were away at the end of April your chair requested a vacation plan on your return. The vacation plan form allows faculty members to request vacation during any month of the year. Since you have chosen not to request vacation outside the May to August period  your 44 days of vacation will be deducted at the end of August 2011.


From: ΑΩ
To: Pat Sullivan
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011, 10:16
Subject: Re: ΑΩ

Dr. Sullivan

I am surprised by your email. The ‘VACATION Plan memo 2011-12.doc’ circulated when the call for faculty to schedule vacations makes no reference to 19.2.7 or, only asking for faculty to schedule their vacation, and allows faculty to schedule up until June 2012. Furthermore, the memo states, “Days that you plan to use in May/June 2012 do not have to be declared at this time.”

I had planned to take vacation during May and June 2012 because I was away in April and May and there is a considerable amount of work to be done this summer. Some of the projects I am working on include
 * preparing the IYC2011 posters for display
 * with the assistance of summer students, testing and refining some laboratory experiments
 * getting the thermal ovens operational
 * general organization of the p.chem equipment in 5-014 & 5-018
 * developing CHEM 282 lecture notes and laboratory experiments
 * developing CHEM 101/2 lecture notes with the new textbook
 * assisting my colleagues as necessary

Given my misinterpretation of the form, what revisions are required to schedule my holidays for May and June 2012?


From: Pat Sullivan
To: ΑΩ
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011, 14:23
Subject: ΑΩ


You didn’t have to give the days you were using but you were to account for the days. You can still fill out the form and I will still consider it. I will not approve more than 24 days to be taken outside of this May to August period (now July to August). This could include days in December and reading week or other non-teaching days during the term. Some of your vacation should be taken this summer (at least 20 days).  I also will not approve any carry forward past June 30 of next year of this years vacation.

Dr. Pat Sullivan

And so I lost 20 days vacation. While it may be normal to take vacation in the summer, it is not required. This was not a normal summer, and other faculty have transferred all their vacation days to later in the year. In hindsight, knowing that MacEwan Administration was planning to terminate me, this was a way for MacEwan Administration to wear me down and save money.

Payroll fiasco

Another payroll fiasco occurred when MacEwan transitioned from monthly to biweekly payroll in 2011. MacEwan Administration knew that staff and faculty would only receive two weeks pay in January 2011, but purposely decided NOT to inform staff and faculty of this. This leaked to staff and faculty in October 2010, after most employees had taken their vacation for the year. MacEwan Administration allowed an employee to put unused vacation towards this pay gap, but adamantly refused to allow people to put their accruing vacation towards their January 2011 pay. Faculty would have accrued 22 vacation days by January 2011, but this vacation was slated to be taken between May 2011 and June 2012.

While faculty were in an uproar, the Faculty Association was reluctant to get involved, stating that this was Administrations prerogative. Three options were identified by faculty and put forward to Administration (by me, actually), including the one above re using accrued vacation days. Administrations response — delivered by Sullivan — was that they were all "too expensive". How they were too expensive is incomprehensible, but is another example of Administrations autocratic rule over MacEwan.

The ends justify the means

Sullivan is fond of the statement, "The ends justify the means." With this in mind, I reflect on the collateral damage to that Hilts, Sullivan, Higgins, Paterson-Weir, and other administrators have inflicted on Grant MacEwan University with their targetting of me. And the Psychological Abuse I sufferred and continue to suffer from Damage that is detailed herein and that will permanently negatively affect MacEwan and all its students and faculty. I also reflect on what how their actions have affected others, and what their children and grandchildren will think when they google dad and grandpa and find this website. And I am just one person; mine is just one instance.

So I have to ask: Was it worth it?

The MacEwan science degree

Sullivan led the team developing the MacEwan science degree. I am told by committee members that the committee did little other than rubber stamp what Administration (Sullivan) had prepared. And in doing so, the perception of a democratic degree-development process was . 

I was on Academic Council when the degree was reviewed. Several science faculty, including myself, discovered significant issues with the degree. These issues were summarized in a document I presented to Academic Council.

Concerns re the MacEwan science degree (presented to Academic Council)

Simply, the proposed science degree, drafted primarily by Administration, was distinctly second-rate. I argued on Academic Council to increase the rigor of the degree, but was met with opposition from Sullivan and other Administrators. Despite their overt opposition, the degree proposal was modified to address some concerns.