Adopting Standards of Practice to
Navigate Safely in Difficult Times
Kristen Robillard, Concordia University, Canada
Natalie Sharpe, University of Alberta, Canada
ENOHE, Oxford, April 2013
New Standards of Practice:
A Milestone for ACCUO
In June 2012, ACCUO (Association of Canadian College &
University Ombudspersons)/AOUCC (Association des
ombudsmans des universités et collèges du Canada)
adopted Standards of Practice at its annual conference in
Edmonton, Canada.
“They are the product of the significant work of many of our
members. I view the document as an important milestone
for both ombudsmanship in higher education and for our
Association.”
(ACCUO President Kristen Robillard to
Tom Kosakowski, Ombuds Blog, July 13/12)
What are SoPs?
 These vary in all professions: some call it minimum
standards of professionalism and practice; establishment,
maintenance and enforcement of professional standards
(prescriptive, e.g., College of Physicians & Surgeons,
Alberta))
 Others view it as a framework of principles that describe
the knowledge, skills and values inherent in a particular
profession; articulating goals and aspirations of the
profession; and the collective vision of professionalism that
guides their members’ daily practices (guidelines, e.g.,
Ontario College of Teachers)
Purpose of SoPs in Ombuds Work
 To serve as a guideline for the establishment of practices, policies
and procedures for ombudspersons in Canadian post-secondary
institutions, with enough flexibility to acknowledge the diversity
in their roles and variances in institutional structure and
governance
 To ensure that the ombudsperson’s role is understood, protected,
valued and promoted in Canadian higher education institutions
 To ensure that our relationships with clients are based on
promoting fairness, equity, and respect
 To help post-secondary institutions that are seeking support to
create an ombuds office, promote fairness and accountability in
their academic institution, remove systemic barriers, and seek
progressive change
Background
 The Standards of Practice (SoPs) has been a document in
evolution with its first draft in 2004.
 After substantial work was completed by various ACCUO
members, a sub-committee was struck in June 2011 at the annual
ACCUO Conference in Vancouver to formulate a concise
Standards of Practice for ombudspersons at higher education
institutions in Canada, primarily colleges and universities.
 It was made very clear that ACCUO would adopt the SoPs as
guidelines, rather than prescriptions to allow for the variety of
legislation in the provinces of Canada, and mandates of ombuds
offices in Canada, and to educate and encourage post-secondary
institutions across Canada to recognize the value of the ombud’s
role in promoting institutional fairness.
Inclusive, not Exclusive
 At the very outset, we recognized significant differences in the
nuances of language as we worked on our SoPs.
 As an organization of two national languages with cultural and
regional variations, and very diverse institutions, we worked
carefully to ensure that terminology was flexible and clear.
 It was important to be inclusive of all models of ombuds offices;
unlike the many Canadian provinces that have standard classical,
legislative ombudsmen, universities and colleges in Canada have
a variety of ombuds forms, mandates and practitioners: parttime academic; administrator; student; hybrid studentadministrator, etc.
 As one member noted, ACCUO may benefit with more inclusive
and compelling language to safeguard the funding of existing
offices and/or helping to promote the creation of new offices.
Guideline, not Prescription
 The goal was to to have a concise, point form statement that
described what we aspire to as post-secondary ombudspersons in
Canada.
 It would be a guide for the ombudsperson, and educate the
institution about the value of the ombuds role in promoting
fairness in the educational institution.
 Based on the acceptance of variation of practices, it was
important to not have a restrictive, prescriptive model that
would create any hierarchy or weed out hybrid models. One
member stated that the inherent challenge of publishing such a
document lies within the language that defines each practice.
 Rather it was important to clarify the essential elements to carry
out the work of an ombudsperson and provide true value to the
institution and its community.
Grassroots Participation
 The sub-committee of three ombudspersons (Martine Conway,




University of Victoria; Nancy Chamberland, Université Laval;
Natalie Sharpe, University of Alberta) work in universities with
diverse mandates and provincial legislation.
They sought the guidance of their fellow ombuds “wise persons”
who had formulated the original documents.
They sought feedback from current members as they pieced
together the document over the ACCUO list:serve (the ACCUO
server distributes members’ shared information electronically).
They held teleconference meetings frequently over the year.
Feedback was also sought at the two mid-year regional meetings,
capturing all points of view, regional, cultural and language
variations.
Turbulent Times for our
Universities and Colleges
 Our SoPs do not operate in a political vacuum. These are turbulent times for
post-secondary institutions.
 The majority of institutions we are talking about are public institutions, and
fall under provincial legislation. Post-secondary institutions in Canada have
been facing severe reductions in government funding since the early 1990s.
 The administration in post-secondary institutions, weary of fighting for
government funding, are succumbing to the pressures of a neo-liberal agenda
that education is for sale on a global scale; we are witnessing the introduction
of corporate models of management and growth of privatization at Canadian
universities. The stresses and strains of research, teaching and learning has
been chronicled by academia (R. Gill:2009)
 Cutbacks in education cannot be ignored as we also hear of the closing of
ombuds offices on a few of our Canadian campuses, but thankfully, the
opening of others; it has become increasingly important for ombudspersons to
emphasize their role in promoting fairness and integrity at post-secondary
institutions during these challenging times.
Commodification of Education
 As tuitions rise to compensate for government underfunding (and threats to
increase them more, even in Quebec), students are given conflicting messages.
They are consumers of education and personally responsible for their
education, and that is why the costs are rising; but at the same time they are
also told that a degree with integrity cannot be bought and sold; if they are
dissatisfied with the quality of their education, they cannot request a refund.
 With the promotion of the consumer-recruitment model, some students still
believe that quality is something you can negotiate for if you bargain hard
enough, yet the institution argues that despite what you have paid, the degree
will never be compromised. So “buyer beware”. Why do we blame students for
all their “consumer” complaints when the system promotes such values?
 The ombudsperson is continually examining for systemic fairness when
institutions are forced to pose conflicting values in their struggle to survive an
economic climate and compete with sister institutions for limited funding.
 The ombudsperson continues to emphasize the need to build a a respectful
dialogue between students and institution to create value and accountability in
the education process.
The SoP Preamble
 “With a focus on fairness, equity and respect, the
ombudsperson builds capacity to help the institution be
accountable to its own value and mission statements.
 In working with individuals, the ombudsperson
facilitates fair resolutions that build trust and fortify
the relationship between individual and institution.”
Highlights of The Standards of
Practice - The 4 Principles
 www.uwo.ca/post-secondary/SoPJune2012EF.pdf
 “These standards provide a point of reference for practicing




ombudspersons and staff of the office of the ombudsperson.”
These 4 principles are:
Independence (structured to function independently; no
decision-making power, other than the discretion of when to
intervene);
Impartiality (objectively reviews facts, apply principles of
administrative fairness; no conflict of interest);
Confidentiality (except for imminent harm; office retains
privileged information);
Accessibility (office is accessible, free of charge, and publicized).
SoPs – Functions & Responsibilities
 Provides Information & Advice (on policies, procedures,




rights & responsibilities); referrals; analyzing problems,
developing options, evaluating courses of action; coaching
and feedback to help party make decisions;
Decides whether and how to intervene (CR; investigation);
access to information and files;
Makes Recommendations on case-specific or systemic
matters and Publicize if not responded to in a timely
manner;
Publishes Annual and Special Reports;
Promotes Integrity of its Service to fulfill its Mandate.
Next Stage: Guiding us to Best Practices
 We now have a sub-committee (Nancy Chamberland, Laval; Iman
Ibrahim, Ottawa; and Natalie Sharpe, Alberta) developing a Best
Practices manual to show how these standards can be realized in our
daily practices.
 Confidentiality guidelines – We outlined about 18 practices related to
client visits; website information, disclosure to other services; limits of
confidentiality, etc. and realized very quickly that our mandates and
provincial legislation influence our practices. Given our varied
professional backgrounds, we noted that in Quebec, the majority of
post-secondary ombudspersons are lawyers and most of their
ombudspersons have full investigative powers. Yet the variation of
practice that we examined in no way compromised the SoPs.
 The development of best practices will be a slow, ongoing process as it
requires extensive dialogue about our institutions, our mandates, as
well as variation in our provincial legislations. However, we believe it
will help us to handle complex problems with confidence; it will also
benefit new ombuds offices as they face a rising sea of complaints.
Summary
 The SoPs focus on fairness, equity and respect;
 The SoPs help the ombudsperson build capacity for
institutional accountability and facilitate fair resolutions
that foster trust between the individual and institution;
 The SoPs help us to achieve our goals in upholding the
quality and integrity of the academic institution while
simultaneously removing unfair systemic practices and/or
barriers;
 The SoPs help us to identify “Best Practices” within our
ombuds offices to help us to truly add value to our higher
learning communities, in calm and turbulent times.
Summary
 The SoPs helps the ombudsperson to maintain a firm
hold on his/her role as an advocate for due process and
right to be heard, not as an advocate for the
customer/client.
 The SoPs help the ombudsperson advocate for what is
reasonable and fair, rather than special treatment or
privilege of status.
 The SoPs provide ombudspersons a community of
support, a “community of practice” across the vast
expanse of Canada.
Standards of Practice?
 Do you follow a Standards of Practice?
 Prescriptive or Guideline?
 Any cautions on developing SoPs? Risks? Limitations?
 Other commentary
Sources cited
 Gill, R. (2009) Breaking the silence: The hidden injuries of neo-
liberal academia in Flood, R. & Gill, R. (Eds.), Secrecy and
Silence in the Research Process: Feminist Reflections, London:
Routledge
 Standards of Practice for Ontario College of Teachers; Alberta
College of Physicians & Surgeons
 Guide to Standards of Best Practice for Public Servants,
http://www.ombudsman.gov.ie/enpublications/guidelines-forpublic-servants
 ACCUO Standards of practice, www.uwo.ca/post-
secondary/SoPJune2012EF.pdf