REVISED—March 21, 1994 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH BOARD OF GOVERNORS Wednesday, March 23, 1994, 3:00 p.m. Room 424, University Centre, University of Guelph
- REVISED AGENDA- (Combining February 23 and March 23 Business)
3:00 - 3:15 pm Presentation by Strategic Planning Commission Tab# I. Approval of Agenda (B. Brock) - Motion 1
II. Approval of Minutes (B. Brock) - Motion 2
III. Business Arising from the Minutes (B. Brock) - Information
IV. Joint Faculty Policies Committee Proposed Revisions (I. Campbell) - Motion 3
V. Pensions and Benefits Committee Report (c. Bedasse) i. Early Retirement Window Program - Motion 21 ii. Change to Committee Composition - Information 21
VI. Finance Committee Report (M. McEwen) i. Financial Results as of December 1993 - Information 4 ii. University Borrowing Policy - Motion iii. Funding the Early Retirement Window Program - Motions
VII. Physical Resources and Property Committee Report (T. Lonsdale) i. Athletics Facility Renovations - Information 5
VIII. Membership Committee Report (B. Pattison) i. Extension of LGC Appointment - Information 6 ii. Undergraduate Student Election Results - Motion 22 iii. Graduate Student Election Results - Motion 22
IX. Executive Committee Report (B. Brock) i. Amendments to Professional, Retirement and Non-Professional Pension Plans - Information 7 ii. Task Force on University Accountability - Information 8 iii. Audit Committee Composition, 1994 - Information 9 iv. Appointment of Associate Vice-President Academic - Information 10
X. University of Guelph (Crown Agency) Foundation (M. Rozanski) - Information 11
XI. Proposed New By-Laws (B. Brock) i. Indemnification - First Reading 12 ii. Conflict of Interest - First Reading
XII. Proposed Change to Committee Structure Document (M. Sabia) i. Audit Committee - Motion 13
XIII. University Centre Annual Report, 1992-93 (B. McNaughton) - Information 14 PAGE 2 March 23, 1994, 3:00 p.m. BOARD OF GOVERNORS -- REVISED AGENDA TAB#
XIV. Report of the President (M. Rozanaki) i. Appointments and Promotions - Information 15 ii. Status Report - Information iii. Interim Appointment, University Affairs and Development - Information
XV. Other Business
IN CAMERA
XVI. Executive Committee Report (B. Brock) i. Research Park Centre, Phase Two - Information 16 ii. Resignation and Appointment on Board of Trustees - Information 17
XVII. Report of the Physical Resources roperty Committee cr. Lonadale) i. 9 College Avenue Wes uelph 1"11)11 - Motion 18
XVIII. In-Camera Report of the President (M. Rozanaki) i. In-Camera Status Report - Information 19
XIX. Adjournment
XX. Status Reports - Information 20 UNIVERSITY of GUELPH BOARD OF GOVERNORS Wednesday, March 23, 1994
- MOTIONS -
Approval of Agenda
RESOLVED, That the agenda be approved as presented.
Approval of Minutes
RESOLVED, That the minutes of the 229th meeting of the Board be approved, as presented.
Joint Faculty Policies Committee Proposed Revisions
RESOLVED, That the Faculty Policy, section entitled Appointments Policy, as outlined be approved.
RESOLVED, That the Faculty Policy on Evaluation of Chairs for Time and Performance Step Increases as outlined be approved.
RESOLVED, That the Faculty Policies on Disciplinary Action and Dismissal as outlined be approved.
RESOLVED, That the Faculty Policy on Selection Committees for Department Chairs as outlined be approved.
Early Retirement Window Program
RESOLVED, That effective September 30, 1994 the Pension Plan text be amended to incorporate: (a) an ad-hoc full inflation protection adjustment be made to pensions in payment in respect of the 1993-94 year, at a cost of $2.0 million to the pension plan surplus; (b) an 1/8 of 1% permanent improvement to the inflation protection formula by moving from CPI-2.5 % to CPI-2.375 %, at a cost of $2.775 million to the pension plan surplus; (c) $2 million of pension fund surplus be allocated towards a permanent early retirement program which will move the current formula of age 60 plus 35 years of service towards a rule of 85 (a combination of age plus service).
RESOLVED, That the University commit up to $10 million of the pension plan surplus for the implementation of an Early Retirement Program. March 23, 1994 Page 2 MOTIONS
RESOLVED, That approval be granted for the payment of a lump-sum from operating funds to each retiree according to the formula no. of months of employment remaining to age 65 X 1 month s salary 8 in support of the Early Retirement Program.
RESOLVED, That approval for the early retirement program for regular full-time employees and lump-sum repayment practice are contingent on a) CRESAP repayments of $1 million per year continue on schedule until repaid; and b) that any accumulated early retirement lump-sum costs be repaid over a period not to exceed 37 months (from August 1, 1994 to August 30, 1997) from accumulated savings; and c) that the University's operating budget for the next three fiscal years, other than for a) and b) above, remain balanced at all times.
University Borrowing Policy
RESOLVED, That the University Borrowing Policy be approved.
Graduate Student Election Results
RESOLVED, That Daniel Sellen be appointed to the Board of Governors as the graduate student representative, for a one-year term, effective July 1, 1994.
Undergraduate Student Election Results
RESOLVED, That Ann Bilanski and Chris Niebler be appointed to the Board of Governors as the two undergraduate student representatives, each for a one-year term, effective July 1, 1994.
Proposed New By-Laws
i. Indemnification - First Reading ii. Conflict of Interest - First Reading
Proposed Change to Committee Structure Document--Audit Committee
RESOLVED, That the Board of Governors Committee Structure Document, section governing the Audit Committee, be replaced with the Audit Committee Terms of Reference, as presented, be approved.
In-Camera Session
RESOLVED, That Larry Milligan, Charles Ferguson, lain Campbell, Ken Murray, Roger Phillips and Roger Jenkins be invited to remain for the in-camera session. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
FOR
TASK FORCES,
STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMISSION
94-02-04 FOREWORD
The following information has been assembled for members of the task forces of the Strategic Planning Commission to provide a context for their activities and to expedite completion of their job.
The charge to the Commission from President Rozanski sets the stage for our activities. Out of this has grown the Strategic Planning Process. The mandates of the individual task forces corresponds to material provided to the University Community in December and early January. Suggestions of the process to be followed by the task forces and the nature of the reports to be prepared are designed to promote a consistent approach among task forces.
We are looking forward to your participation in this important and exciting activity.
B. Kay C. Rooke Co-chairs
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I Charge to Commission, M. Rozanski 4
II A Summary of the Strategic Planning Process at Guelph 6
(1) Steps and outcome in Level I Strategic Planning 6
(2) Outcome of Level II in Strategic Planning 8
(3) Outcome of Level III in Strategic Planning 9
(4) Tentative schedule of activities 9
III Task Force Details 12
(1) Environmental Scan: Economic and Technological Forces 12
(2) Environmental Scan: Social, Demographic and Educational 13 Forces
(3) Environmental Scan: Political/Legal Forces, U. of G. 14 Image and Competitive/Collaborative Position vis-a-vis other Post- Secondary Institutions
(4) Assessment of Values and Institutional Climate/Culture 15
(5) Strengths and Weaknesses: Human, Financial and Physical Plant 16
(6) Strengths and Weaknesses: Administrative and Academic Support 17
(7) Strengths and Weaknesses: Services to Students 18
(8) Strengths and Weaknesses: Academic Program and Research 19
3 UNIVEITY P'GUELPH
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
To: Strategic Planning Commission
Froth: Mordechai Rozanski ri/r/
Subject: CHARGE TO THE STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMISSION
Date: November 17, 1993
From its inception, the University of Guelph has taken an active and continuing interest in identifying the goals it should pursue as an institution. The first university review of its aims and objectives resulted in the Aims and Objectives document of 1972, with the next major enunciation of a revised set of aims and objectives being contained in the 1985 document "Toward 2000 . That document, which has served as a touchstone for all subsequent planning efforts, called for a review of the Aims of the University no later than 1995.
Today, we find the university challenged by a number of external forces, not least of which is a dramatic reduction in the level of government funding that comes after more than a decade of slowly reducing per capita support for universities.
If we are not to revert to crisis management, we will require a positive, deliberate and creative planning approach to the challenge of defining and reordering our institutional priorities over the next decade. I, therefore, charge the Commission with developing recommendations regarding the mission and future direction of the University over the next decade and with developing an on-going process for the review and implementation of these recommendations - - all in-the service of ensuring our academic quality and institutional vitality into the 21st century.
While the Commission will build on previous planning efforts, particularly the important contribution of the Academic Restructuring Committee, I ask that you consider the questions and contexts raised in my letter of October 6th, 1993, and among other issues focus specifically on:
► reviewing the mission and future direction of the University, and how effectively we have implemented the learning objectives ► identifying our existing and future student audience/market
v. v.-. . I V., . O./.
CHARGE TO THE STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2 ► evaluating our program and specialization mix, specific strengths and competencies and comparing them with those of our competitors ► identifying those programs and specializations which provide the University s current comparative advantage and those new areas where there is a high potential for growth ► determining the scope, size and structure of educational and research programs, services, and operations offered by the University, consistent with high academic quality and resource realities ► determining the organizational structure, staffing and physical configuration best suited to providing the programs and services deemed necessary ► identifying opportunities for cooperation with neighbouring post secondary institutions, and the public and private sectors, in the provision of programs and services ► determining the appropriate relationship between the teaching and research programs ► determining the appropriate level of accountability to our publics in terms of the outcomes of teaching and research programs as well as our expenditure of funds
The challenge we face cannot be met by tinkering and should not be met by across-the-board budget cuts, but must involve an active and comprehensive planning effort which considers the external environment, builds on strengths, reaffirms our commitment to academic quality, and respects the values and culture of the University of Guelph.
In the near term, when the Social Contract is scheduled to end in 1996, we will be faced with reduced government funding and additional obligations related to equity adjustments and compensation. The plan, therefore, will have to recognize the need to bring expenditures into line with funding through a variety of measures including the generating of new revenue sources and, where appropriate, restructuring of programs and their method of delivery.
While it is expected that the process adopted by the Commission will involve wide consultation engaging all appropriate parties, it should be emphasized that the process must culminate in specific recommendations, and ultimately, decisions about the institution s future development and must be brought to a close within a reasonable time frame. To this end, I would ask that the Commission present an interim report by June 3rd, 1994, and a final report on November 30th, 1994. II. A Summary of the Strategic Planning Process at Guelph
The Strategic Planning Process, as currently envisioned will involve three different phases or levels. The process is diagrammatically represented in Fig. 1.
Level I Level II Level III
iterative process refine Strategic Vision ► Matching —.Develop a ---). Do ► Develop —it. Develop unit Process Strategic Vision detailed institutional strategic and for Institution evaluation operational operational plans, of specific plan budget process Task programs, Forces units
Figure 1. Diagrammatic representation of Strategic Planning Process
1. Steps and Outcome in Level I Strategic Planning (a) Task forces are created to assess the environment external to the University, to assess the climate/culture of the University and to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the University and opportunities for new initiatives. Three task forces will assess trends and forces that are external to the University: economic and technological forces; social, demographic and educational forces; and political/legal forces, University of Guelph image and competitive/collaborative position vis-a-vis other post secondary institutions. Task forces assessing strengths and weaknesses and opportunities for new initiatives will consider the human and financial resources as well as the physical plant; administrative and academic support, services to students and academic programs and research. Academic programs and research will be considered by subcommittees dealing with the arts and humanities, social science, natural science and professional programs. Examples of opportunities for new initiatives include new forms of collaboration between units on campus and greater collaboration with neighbouring academic institutions; alternative ways of conducting learning and inquiry, providing services to students and providing administrative support - some of which may significantly reduce budget requirements.
6 The strategic planning process must reflect our aspirations for the University as we move into the next century, and must respond to budget realities. Task forces will gather information and identify implications (budgetary and non-budgetary) for institutional action. This material will be synthesized in what is being referred to as "the matching process".
(b) The matching process leads to a draft Strategic Vision (i.e. what is the Univ. of Guelph?) The Strategic Vision must be compatible with budget realities.
(c) The Strategic Visions is institutionally focused and includes:
- Mission - focused specific statement on basic purpose of institution and guiding principles for behaviour
Clientele target audiences of the institution
- Program/Service Mix - program offerings and priorities of the institution: - what new programs/services should we offer? - what existing program/services should we eliminate? - what existing programs/services should be modify? - what existing programs/services should we leave unchanged?
- Comparative advantage competitive position to be established by the institution, relation to neighbouring institutions
- Objectives - what the organization must accomplish in order to move from existing to the desired state in each of the above 3 areas
It is proposed that at this stage in level I, program/service mix deal at an institutional level with academic programs and research, and the cultural, aesthetic and recreational environment that supports scholarship and personal growth. In this context the following are examples of questions that may be addressed in defining the program/service mix - balance between disciplinary and interdisciplinary activities - balance between specialization and general studies balance between graduate and undergraduate education - balance between prof. and non-professional programs balance between arts and humanities, social and natural sciences
7 - balance between "conventional" educational programs and distance education, continuing education, professional development - balance between formalized and self-study and other pedagogical approaches - balance between Canadian and visa students cultural, ethnic, gender mix of students, faculty, staff relative importance of aesthetic environment - maintenance of buildings, grounds, etc. - relative importance of cultural environment - relative importance of recreational programs and facilities, residence life and other opportunities for personal growth of students identification of unifying themes
Information from the different task forces would be at a level of detail that would be appropriate to answer these types of questions.
(d) As a draft of the Strategic Vision is defined an additional stage in the planning process will be underway that will be an evaluation of programs (academic programs and research, administrative support, student services) in the context of the institutional strategic vision and would therefore include not only details such as relation to mission, quality, workload, etc. but level of activity in distance ed., professional development, support of cultural programs, general education, aesthetic environment, etc. Information to be collected by the task forces would feed directly into this evaluation. This stage would lead to the identification of specific academic, administrative and student service programs that should be eliminated, modified, left unchanged or new programs that should be developed.
Once the evaluations have been done an additional iteration regarding the Strategic Vision may be necessary to add further refinements.
The Strategic Vision must, at this stage, be compatible with budget realities.
(e) The final form of the Strategic Vision and the program evaluations would then feed into Level II.
2. Outcome of Level II Phase of Strategic Planning
An operational plan at institutional level (How to implement the strategic vision)
Academic plan - overall academic plan would have emerged from the second stage of level I planning strategies for expansion/contraction of programs
8
Financial plan - overall financial planning parameters - strategies for expansion/reallocation of resources
- Facilities plan - overall physical planning parameters - strategies for expansion/reallocation of resources
- Enrolment management plan - target mix of students - recruitment and retention strategies
Human resources development plan strategy for expansion or reallocation of resources - strategies for faculty development - strategies for staff development
Organizational plan development of organizational structure - development of policies and procedures
3. Outcome of Level III in Strategic Planning
A strategic and operational plan at level of units that is compatible with institutional strategic and operational plan
- Implementation of a budgeting process to support institutional and unit plans
4. Tentative Schedule of Activities (revised 94-01-17) TASK TARGET COMPLETION DATE Task forces - level I - Mandates defined Dec. 14 - Membership finalized Jan. 28 - Task forces begin meeting Jan. 31 Feb. 15 - Prelim. reports from task forces to SPC - approach to be used
9 - Final report (presented to SPC) - env. task forces - values task forces - strength/weaknesses Mar. 31 - human, fin., phys. plant - Interim report (presented to SPC) - institutional strength/weaknesses, new Mar. 31 initiatives - academic - administrative - student services - Final report (presented to SPC) - unit strength/weaknesses, new initiatives - academic - administrative - student services May 1 Town Hall meetings to discuss reports from task Apr. 1 - Apr. 15 forces: environmental scan, values Matching process - matching process based on reports available Apr. 17, 18 (may need adjustment) - finalize matching process (updated with final May 15 reports from strength/weaknesses task forces) Progress report (Draft Strategic Vision for Univ.) written, report approved for submission by SPC May 31 Consultation on Progress Report June 1 - Sept. 5 Task forces - level II - mandate defined May 1 - membership finalized June 1 - task forces begin meeting June 1 - prelim. report - approach to be used June 15 - final report of task forces Aug. 15
Discussion paper - integration of Progress Report and input from Sept. 5 consultations on Progress Report with Level II task force reports, development of discussion paper outlining alternative strategies - discussion paper written, approved by SPC Sept. 15 - consultation Sept. 15 - Oct. 30
10 Final report - submitted to President Nov. 30
\■■••••"
11 III. Task Force Details
1. Environmental Scan: Economic and Technological Forces
(a) Mandate: This Task Force is charged with identifying and analyzing succinctly no more than ten economic and technological forces that are likely to have a particularly significant impact on the University of Guelph over the next decade. It should identify the threats, constraints, and opportunities presented by each of these forces. The work of the Task Force should be focused on implications for institutional action.
(b) Suggested process: (i) Review the mandate and identify any elaboration or clarification considered necessary (any changes to be presented to SPC for approval by Feb. 15) (ii) Develop a workplan which would be presented to SPC for discussion and approval by Feb. 15. The workplan would include: a list of potential forces to be assessed - a strategy for carrying out a preliminary assessment of forces - a process for identifying up to 10 important forces (consideration should be given to ranking each force or trend along two dimensions: the probability of occurrence and the probability of impact on the University, and then rating each dimension either high or low) - a description of mechanisms for consultation (inside and outside of the University) (iii) Complete assessment of up to 10 important forces and report to SPC by Mar. 31
(c) Suggested format of report: The report should have an Introduction that includes a brief overview of mandate, committee membership and methodology used. Each force or trend could then be described on about one page under the following headings: - Statement of force or trend Opportunities associated with force or trend Threats or constraints associated with force Specific implications for institutional action
12 2. Environmental Scan: Social, Demographic and Educational Forces
(a) Mandate: This Task Force is charged with identifying and analyzing succinctly no more than ten social, demographic, and educational forces that are likely to have a particularly significant impact on the University of Guelph over the next decade. Its consideration of educational forces should be restricted to the education of students prior to university entrance. It should identify the threats, constraints, and opportunities presented by each of these forces. The work of the Task Force should be focused on implications for institutional action.
(b) Suggested process: (i) Review the mandate and identify any elaboration or clarification considered necessary (any changes to be presented to SPC for approval by Feb. 15) (ii) Develop a workplan which would be presented to SPC for discussion and approval by Feb. 15. The workplan would include: - a list of potential forces to be assessed a strategy for carrying out a preliminary assessment of forces a process for identifying up to 10 important forces (consideration should be given to ranking each force or trend along two dimensions: the probability of occurrence and the probability of impact on the University, and then rating each dimension either high or low) a description of mechanisms for consultation (inside and outside of the University) (iii) Complete assessment of up to 10 important forces and report to SPC by Mar. 31
(c) Suggested format of report: The report should have an Introduction that includes a brief overview of mandate, committee membership and methodology used. Each force or trend could then be described on about one page under the following headings: Statement of force or trend - Opportunities associated with force or trend - Threats or constraints associated with force - Specific implications for institutional action
13 3. Environmental Scan: Political/Legal Forces, University of Guelph Image, and Competitive/Collaborative Position Vis-a-Vis Other Post-Secondary Institutions
(a) Mandate: This Task Force is charged with identifying and analyzing succinctly the political/legal forces that are likely to have a particularly significant impact on the University of Guelph over the next decade, as well as the post-secondary educational forces that are most relevant to the questions of competition and collaboration. No more than ten forces should be considered overall. The Task Force should identify the threats, constraints, and opportunities presented by each of these forces. In addition, it is charged with identifying and analyzing the public image of the University of Guelph. The work of the Task Force should be focused on implications for institutional action.
(b) Suggested process: (i) Review the mandate and identify any elaboration or clarification considered necessary (any changes to be presented to SPC for approval by Feb. 15) (ii) Develop a workplan which would be presented to SPC for discussion and approval by Feb. 15. The workplan would include: - a list of potential forces to be assessed - a strategy for carrying out a preliminary assessment of forces a process for identifying up to 10 important forces (consideration should be given to ranking each force or trend along two dimensions: the probability of occurrence and the probability of impact on the University, and then rating each dimension either high or low) - a description of mechanisms for consultation (inside and outside of the University) (iii) Complete assessment of up to 10 important forces and report to SPC by Mar. 31
(c) Suggested format of report: The report should have an Introduction that includes a brief overview of mandate, committee membership and methodology used. Each force or trend could then be described on about one page under the following headings: Statement of force or trend - Opportunities associated with force or trend - Threats or constraints associated with force Specific implications for institutional action
14 4. Assessment of values and institutional climate/culture
(a) Mandate: This Task Force is charged with identifying and analyzing succinctly those personal values of members of the University of Guelph community which contribute to a sense of institutional values. In pursuing this charge, the Task Force should take into account what ought to be valued as well as what is valued. The assessment of values necessarily overlaps with an assessment of institutional climate or culture, including such issues as morale, the purpose of a university education, and the commitment to learning, scholarship, and service. The work of the Task Force should be focused on implications for institutional action.
(b) Suggested process: (i) Review the mandate and identify any elaboration or clarification considered necessary (any suggestions for changes to be presented to SPC for approval by Feb. 15) (ii) Develop a workplan which would be presented to SPC for discussion and approval by Feb. 15. The workplan would include: a list of the types of information to be obtained an outline of the processes to be used to collect this information (the use of existing survey instruments and the extent to which these instruments need to be complemented by other means may be considered) - a description of mechanisms for consultation within University (iii) Complete assessment and report to SPC by Mar. 31
(c) Suggested Format of Report: The report should have an Introduction that includes a brief overview of mandate, committee membership and methodology used. The committee may then wish to summarize the results of the study under the following headings (about one page under each heading): values and views of institutional climate/culture on which there is a consensus - values and institutional climate/culture furthest from achievement - values and views institutional climate/culture on which there is disagreement implications for the development of future proposals
15 5. Strengths and Weaknesses: Human, Financial and Physical Plant
(a) Mandate: This Task Force is charged with identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the University's aggregate human resources (including such issues as training, diversity, and age profile), its financial situation, and its physical plant (including such issues as deferred maintenance, safety, and classroom configuration). The work of the Task Force should be focused on implications for institutional action.
(b) Suggested process: (i) Review the mandate and identify any elaboration or clarification considered necessary (any changes to be presented to SPC for approval by Feb. 15) (ii) Develop a workplan which would be presented to SPC for approval by Feb. 15. the workplan would include: a list of the types of information to be obtained (from Guelph and comparable institutions) an outline of the processes to be used to collect this information criteria to be used to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the University's aggregate human resources, physical plant and financial situation a description of mechanisms for consultation (inside and outside of University) (iii) Complete assessment and report to SPC by Mar. 31
(c) Suggested format of report: The report should have an Introduction that includes a brief overview of mandate, committee membership and methodology used. The analysis of aggregate human resources, finances and physical plant could then be presented (about 2 pages each) under the following headings: - present situation (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities for new initiatives) preliminary recommendations for institutional action - rationale (a brief statement of the rationale underlying the recommendation)
16 6. Strengths and Weaknesses: Administrative and Academic Support
(a) Mandate: This Task Force is charged with identifying the strengths and weaknesses of administrative and academic support at the University of Guelph. The Task Force should begin by reviewing previous assessments. Administrative support includes the work of such units as Human Resources; academic support includes, for example, a range of computing services and the library. All directors and managers should be invited to supply a narrative assessment of their units, but opportunities should also exist for staff to participate in the assessment and, in particular, to identify directions in which they might grow. Issues of quality, need, and cost/effectiveness should be addressed in all cases. The work of the Task Force should be focused on implications for institutional action.
(b) Suggested Process: (i) Review the mandate and identify any elaboration or clarification considered necessary (any changes to be presented to SPC for approval by Feb. 15).
(ii) Develop a workplan which would be presented to SPC for approval by Feb. 15. The workplan would include: - identification of groups of administrative and academic support units to be assessed a list of the types of information to be collected (and their relation to previous assessments) that will be used to assess strengths and weaknesses - an outline of the process to identify new initiatives - criteria to be used to assess: institutional strengths and weaknesses new initiatives - strengths and weaknesses of groups of units and individual units a description of mechanisms for consultation within the University
(c) Suggested format of report
The report should have an Introduction that includes a brief overview of mandate, committee membership and methodology used. It is suggested that each group of administrative and academic support units then be discussed under the following headings: - present situation (summary of current status in relation to criteria) - preliminary recommendation for institutional action (enhancements, maintenance, reduction and new ventures) - rationale (a brief statement of the rationale underlying the recommendation)
17 7. Strengths and Weaknesses: Services to Students
(a) Mandate: The Task Force is charged with identifying the strengths and weaknesses of services to students at the University of Guelph. The Task Force should begin by reviewing previous assessments. All directors and managers should be invited to supply a narrative assessment of their units, but opportunities should also exist for staff to participate in the assessment and, in particular, to identify directions in which they might grow. Issues of quality, need, accessibility, and cost/effectiveness should be addressed in all cases. The work of the Task Force should be focused on implications for institutional action.
(b) Suggested Process: (i) Review the mandate and identify any elaboration or clarification considered necessary (any changes to be presented to SPC for approval by Feb. 15). (ii) Develop a workplan which would be presented to SPC for approval by Feb. 15. The workplan would include: identification of the types of services that should be provided to students and the groupings of units to be assessed that are involved in the provision of these services a list of the types of information to be collected (and their relation to previous assessments) that will be used to assess strengths and weaknesses an outline of the process to identify new initiatives criteria to be used to assess: - institutional strengths and weaknesses - strengths and weaknesses of groups of units and individual units - new initiatives a description of mechanisms for consultation within the University (iii) Complete assessment of institutional strengths and weaknesses, identify potential new initiatives and report to SPC by Mar. 31.
Complete detailed analysis of groups of units and individual units identify any additional initiatives and report to SPC by May 1.
(c) Suggested format of report:
The report should have an Introduction that includes a brief overview of mandate, committee membership and methodology used. It is suggested that each group or area of student services then be discussed under the following headings: present situation (summary of current status in relation to criteria) - preliminary recommendation for institutional action (enhancements, maintenance, reduction and new ventures) rationale (a brief statement of the rationale underlying the recommend- ation)
18 8. Strengths and Weaknesses: Academic Program and Research
(a) Mandate: This Task Force is charged with identifying the strengths and weaknesses of academic programs and research at the University of Guelph. Issues of quality, need, and cost/effectiveness should be addressed in all cases. The Task Force will have four subcommittees addressing the Arts and Humanities, Social Sciences, Natural Sciences, and Professional Programs; the chairs of the four subcommittees will be responsible for liaison, and in particular for ensuring that special attention is paid to disciplinary/programmatic coherence, interdisciplinary programs and to faculty who might be involved in such programs. In pursuing its charge, the Task Force should not be unduly constrained by existing structures; thus, an assessment of strengths and weaknesses of faculty must be undertaken as well as an assessment of existing units. All deans and chairs should be invited to supply a narrative assessment of their units, but opportunities should also exist for faculty to participate in the assessment and, in particular, to identify directions in which they might grow. The Task Force is also charged with gathering data on faculty workloads. It should examine how the structure of colleges and departments assists or impedes the development and delivery of the curriculum and research, and should consider recommending changes in those structures. The work of the Task Force should be focused on implications for institutional action.
(b) Suggested process: (i) Review the mandate and identify any elaboration or clarification considered necessary (any changes would be presented to SPC for approval by Feb. 15) (ii) Develop a workplan which would be presented to SPC for approval by Feb. 15 The workplan would include: a list of the types of information to be collected that would lead to an identification of strengths and weaknesses at an institutional level and an outline of the processes to be used to collect this information - a list of the types of information to be collected to assess the strengths, weaknesses and workloads of individual faculty and existing units and an outline of the processes to be used to collect this information an outline of the process to identify new initiatives criteria to be used to assess: - institutional strengths and weaknesses - strengths and weaknesses of individual units and faculty new initiatives a description of mechanisms for consultation within and outside of the University
19 (iii) Complete assessment of institutional strengths and weaknesses, identify potential new initiatives and report to SPC by Mar. 31. Complete detailed analysis of units and faculty, identify any additional initiatives and report to SPC by May 1
(c) Suggested format of report:
The report should have an Introduction that includes a brief overview of mandate committee membership and methodology used. It is suggested that each area (Arts and Humanities, Social Sciences, Natural Sciences and Professional Programs) be discussed under the following headings: - present situation (summary of current status in relation to criteria) preliminary recommendations for institutional action (enhancements, maintenance, reduction, new ventures) - rationale (a brief statement of the rationale undulying the recommendation)
20 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH BOARD OF GOVERNORS
Minutes of the 229th meeting of the Board of Governors, Monday, November 15, 1993, 4:00 p.m., 3rd Floor, Group Viewing Room, McLaughlin Library, University of Guelph campus.
Present: Lincoln Alexander, Chancellor Bill Brock, Chair Ken Bedasse Mary Beverley-Burton Donald Cockburn Greg Clark Doug Dodds Susan Faber Patricia Gentry Roger Horton Karen Houle Catherine Hume David Lees Tanya Lonsdale Elizabeth Macrae Murray McEwen Susan McNabb Bernard Ostry Bill Pattison Mordechai Rozanski, President David Weinberg Marty Williams
Regrets: Maureen Sabia
Visitors: Iain Campbell, Acting Vice-President, Academic Charles Ferguson, Vice-President, Administration Larry Milligan, Vice-President, Research Roger Phillips, Treasurer Brian Sullivan, Associate Vice-President, Student Affairs Jane Watt, Assistant Vice-President, Human Resources Roger Jenkins, Director, Physical Resources John Miles, Director, Financial and Administrative Services Joanne Faught, Internal Auditor
Betsy Allan, Secretary
5 observers 2 November 15, 1993
OPENING REMARKS Library 110/93 The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced Dr. John Black, Chief Librarian. Governors had been taken on a tour of the McLaughlin Library prior to the meeting and Dr. Black presented an overview of the function of the Library and its systems for the benefit of Governors who had not been able to attend the tour. He remarked on the Library's 25-year-old structure as being a model of function over form. The Library is a leader in automated systems and has developed on-line integrated systems which have gone on to be installed in libraries around the world. A number of challenges and concerns facing the Library were presented and briefly discussed, including: the fiscal reality of declining funding and the ensuing impact on i.e., journal subscriptions; space needs for the collection; efforts to develop the collection and the relatively new initiative of achieving program support through collaboration with other institutions. Greater collaboration is seen as important and for common benefit between institutions while maintaining institutional autonomy. The issue of revenue available for Library acquisitions was raised and it was recommended it be considered by the Strategic Planning Commission.
Agenda AGENDA 111/93 On motion duly made and seconded, it was
RESOLVED, That the agenda for the meeting November 15, 1993, be approved as presented.
Minutes MINUTES 112/93 On motion duly made and seconded, it was
RESOLVED, That the minutes of the 228th meeting of the Board of Governors be approved.
Bus. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES Arising 113/93 The Chair commented that the Board will discuss the role of the Executive Committee later in the meeting.
REPORT OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE
OMAF 1993-94 OMAF Budget Budget 114/93 Dr. Lees introduced this item and explained that typically the OMAF budget comes before the Board in the spring but that due to delays at the Ministry the information was only recently made available. He pointed out that a highlight of the 1993-94 OMAF budget is the reduction of 10% or $4 million in funding over the next two fiscal years (1993-94, 1995-96). The combination of program cost reductions and user fee increases will facilitate meeting the reduction in funding 3 November 15, 1993
and maintain a balanced budget.
On motion duly made and seconded, it was
RESOLVE, That the OMAF budget for 1993-94, as presented, be accepted.
ii. 1993-94 MET Revised Budget iii. Internal/External Financed Debt Report (Report titled "Outstanding University Debt") iv. Change in Provincial Financing Method v. University Borrowing Policy Report - Update vi. Financial Results to August 31, 1993
Dr. Lees reported that the preceding list of reports had been reviewed by the Finance Committee, and in its opinion presented an informative overview. The documentation does indicate that the institution will eliminate the $10.1 million dollar budget challenge in each of the three years. This figure is a combination of the April 1993 directive by the Board to adjust the budget by $1 million, plus the impact of the Province of Ontario Social Contract, Expenditure Control Program, unbudgeted increases to employee benefits costs and other revenue reductions. It was noted that a further reduction to the 1994-95 base grant for universities was announced by the Ministry of Education and Training on November 3, 1993.
FACS PROPOSED FAMILY AND CONSUMER STUDIES PROJECT, PHASE Phase 1 ONE ADDITION 115/93 Mrs. Lonsdale introduced the portion of the proposed Family and Consumer Studies Project, Phase One Addition attributed to the Physical Resources and Property Committee. The Phase One addition will be undertaken in two independent Stages. It was noted that Stage 1 will be fully functional space, independent of the completion of Stage 2. This two-stage module is an integrated planning concept that has worked well on campus in the past. The FACS project had been identified as a long-term academic priority and had been a project of the recent Capital Campaign. Due to insufficient funds being raised to complete the projected $2.6 million addition, it was being proposed in two stages. Stage 1 is estimated to cost $1.6 million and Stage 2 is estimated to cost $1 million, for an overall project cost estimate of $2.6 million. Dr. Rozanski remarked that the operating costs are considered manageable. He noted his interest to establish endowments for future projects which would provide for operating costs. 4 November 15, 1993
On motion duly made and seconded, it was
RESOLVED, That the Building Program and Brief to the Architect for the Family and Consumer Studies Project, Phase One Addition be approved on the clear understanding that, when tendered for construction, the Phase One Addition, Stage I, will be completed within the cost estimate of $1.6 million using funds identified for this project.
Dr. Lees commented that the Finance Committee had reviewed the funding for Phase One, Stage 1 of this project, most of which had been accumulated during the Capital Campaign. The Committee supported allocating $500,000 in interest earned on unrestricted Capital Campaign Funds to the FACS Phase One, Stage 1 portion of the project.
On motion duly made and seconded, it was
RESOLVED, That $500,000 in interest earned on unrestricted Capital Campaign Funds be allocated to the Family and Consumer Studies Project Addition, Phase One, Stage I.
Univ. REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE ON UNIVERSITY ACCOUNTABILITY Acntblty 116/93 It was noted that the University of Guelph complies with the recommendations in the report to a greater extent than most other institutions. In discussion there was some concern with respect to Chapter 6, External Monitoring Body and recommendations numbered 40-47. In particular, one member was concerned with recommendation 42, which states members of an accountability review committee will be nominated by the Minister of Education and Training and appointed by the Lieutenant Governor Order In Council process. Members queried the Council of Ontario Universities supporting this Report which included a recommendation to establish an External Monitoring Body. Board members considered such a body to be another layer of bureaucracy and to possibly interpose on the Board's own role. Governors supported the importance of accountability and maintaining institutional autonomy.
It was agreed that the Executive Committee would consider the recommendations in the Report and return this item to the Board for further discussion.
REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT
Apptmts Appointments and Promotions 117/93 The report is included for information.
ii. Review of University Business -- Status Report
Dr. Rozanski reviewed University business: 5 November 15, 1993
MacLeans Magazine has issued its third annual ranking of universities. Guelph was ranked fourth overall, a drop of one position from last year; 3rd in research; second best overall in reputation in our category; and 7th best overall in all categories. It was noted that the high ranking in the area of research attests to work done by faculty and students. The campus is once again participating in the annual United Way fundraising campaign. The campus target for 1993 has been exceeded in advance of the end of the campaign. Frances Sharom, Chemistry and Biochemistry and Joe Mokanski, Mathematics and Statistics were among the first 15 Ontario professors to receive the Lieutenant-Governor s Award for Teaching Excellence; the University of Guelph Faculty Association presented its Distinguished Professorial Teaching Awards to Brian Derbyshire, Veterinary Microbiology and Immunology; Jim Pickworth of HAFA; Gil Stelter, History; Eleanor Cebotarev, Sociology and Anthropology; Allan Colter, Chemistry and Biochemistry; Ward Chesworth, Land Resource Science and the Award of Special Merit to Tom Hulland, retired from Pathology As a result of the Social Contract Agreement on campus, a new Committee was formed, Waste Inefficiency Committee (WIN). This Committee is looking at identifying waste inefficiencies as well as quality and improvement of services. - The campus Strategic Planning Commission is in the process of being identified and will be in place prior to the November 23, Shaver Symposium; the preliminary workshop with Robert Shirley attracted over 100 campus members. The Strategic Planning Commission will include members of the Academic Review Committee, Consultative Forum, Management Advisory Group, members of the Board of Governors and others as deemed appropriate. The Co-Chairs will be selected from the faculty body. Resource people will be identified and available to the Committee as required. - Staff bumping will apparently not be required for those people in positions eliminated as an on-going result of restructuring and budget contraction, pre-Social Contract. An Ad-Hoc Committee working with Human Resources is placing these individuals. (2 positions are still being matched) Discussions have begun about the University s Presidential Search Procedures. A group has been convened to begin conversation about the committee composition, matter of confidentiality and other issues of concern. - The Anti-Racism and Race Relations Task Force has released a discussion paper which is receiving campus wide consideration and input. The Senate has encouraged further University community discussion about it and a status report is expected to be presented to the President in December with a final report at the end of January. A memorandum from the Ministry of Education and Training has apprised universities of an expected reduction in the base grant to universities in 1994-95 of at least $24 million. The University anticipates an approximately $1.4 million reduction; as part of the Provincial 6 November 15, 1993
Government s Expenditure Control Program (ECP), it was decided to make additional qualifications (AQ s) ineligible for funding under the university operating grants formula. University of Guelph does not have any AQ's, but the budget may be impacted depending upon the formula devised to withdraw the approximately $58.5 million from the system. A review of the funding formula and corridor system will be required and the institution is beginning to look at modelling and how changes may be managed. the recommendation by COU that tuition fees to post secondary schools be increased is receiving consideration. Meetings have taken place with members of the student body. The Premier mandated that additional revenues applied in support of education not be used for salaries of existing employees. consideration is being given to generating new sources of revenue. An example is the Continuing Education program offered this past summer to international students. The President would like to create a global village here on campus. In preparation of the launching the next University fundraising campaign, the President has been meeting with corporate CEO's to thank them for their past support. There has been much interest in the University's strategic planning initiative.
In discussion, it was noted that members of the student body have significant concerns, but have been involved in discussing the COU proposal to increase tuition fees so as to help frame the issues and concerns the University will put forward. It was noted that the income contingent repayment plan, which may be tied to tuition increases, is a proposal which would be implemented on a national level and student advice is being solicited. The President remarked on the importance of involving students in discussion, but recognizes that they are opposed to the proposal.
The Chair asked visitors to clear the room as the Board was going into closed session.
On motion duly made and seconded, it was
RESOLVED, That Larry Milligan, Charles Ferguson, Iain Campbell and Roger Phillips be invited to remain for the in-camera session.
"END OF OPEN SESSION" INIVFRSITY
UNIVERSITY /GUELPH
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members, Board of Governors
FROM: Betsy Allan, Secretary of the Board of Governors
SUBJECT: Joint Faculty Policies Committee Proposed Revisions — Motions
DATE: February 15, 1994 EXTENSION: 3438/6571
Under the terms of Article 10.7 of the Special Plan Agreement the Joint Faculty Policies Committee (JFPC) is responsible for making recommendations on all matters pertaining to policies, procedures and practices relating to the terms and conditions of employment for faculty. As required, the Committee circulated to each faculty member, for comment, the proposed amendments to the policies.
JFPC has prepared and submitted to Dr. Rozanski a package of proposed revisions to Faculty Policies under four separate headings.
1. Proposed Revisions to Appointments Policy 2. Proposed Revisions to the Policy on Evaluation of Chairs for Time and Performance Step Increases 3. Proposed Revisions to the Policies on Disciplinary Action and Dismissal 4. Proposed Revisions to the Policy on Selection Committees for Department Chairs.
Attached please find material prepared by the Committee and submitted to Dr. Rozanski which outlines the philosophy behind the proposed changes and the new wording.
The Board is asked to,
RESOLVE, That the Faculty Policy, section entitled Appointments Policy, as outlined be approved.
RESOLVE, That the Faculty Policy on Evaluation of Chairs for Time and Performance Step Increases as outlined be approved.
RESOLVE, That the Faculty Polic on Disciplinary Action and Dismissal as outlined be approved.
RESOLVE, That the Faculty Policy on Selection Committees for Department Chairs as outlined be approved.
Betsy/sm Betsy A encl
GUELPH • ONTARIO • CANADA • NIG 2WI • (519) 824-4120, EXT. 3-138 • FAX (519)767-1350 UNIVERSITY c'GUELPH
UNIVERSITY SECRETARIAT
January 31, 1994
Dr. M. Rozanski President University of Guelph
Dear Dr. Rozanski:
In accordance with Article 10.7 of the Special Plan Agreement, I am pleased to present for your consideration a package of proposed revisions to Faculty Policies under four separate headings.
1. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO APPOINTMENTS POLICY
Subsequent to the report of the then-Employment and Education Equity Coordinator, Professor Janet Wood, which resulted in the approval of a new Policy on Parental Leave, JFPC undertook a review of the Appointments Policy with a view to making it more flexible. The Committee saw a need to facilitate the movement from part-time to full-time appointments (and vice versa), recognizing that faculty members have different demands on their priorities at different stages in their careers. The University, too, needs the flexibility afforded by increased use of reduced-workload appointments.
In the attached proposal, new wording has been underlined. Important points to note are:
1. The maximum duration of a probationary appointment has been changed from five to six years. This is consonant with prevailing practice in other Canadian universities, and gives departments adequate time to assess the performance of probationary appointees, increasing the effective time for meeting the department's criteria from four to five years.
2. The word "normally" has been removed from the old 2.07 (now 2.10) regarding notice of resignation.
3. The procedure for the review of tenure, promotion and TPSI of persons holding joint appointments (section 4.04) has been modified to reflect JFPC's concern that the minor department play a meaningful role in candidates' evaluation; this will require the minor department to consider joint appointees in advance of the major department.
GUELPH • ONTARIO • CANADA • N1G 2W1 • (519) 824-4120, EXT. 2114 • FAX (519) 767-1350
4. Section VI, on Shared Appointments, is new, and reflects JFPC's intent to look into this type of appointment. The Committee has, in fact, struck a sub-committee on shared appointments. Also, please note that Section III of the Academic Appointments Policy is currently reserved for a future policy on contractually limited appointments. A sub-committee has been struck and JFPC hopes to develop a proposal this academic year.
There are a number of consequences for other sections of Faculty Policies which flow from changes to the Appointments Policy discussed by JFPC. Proposals for these changes appear below:
Page B.1.16, Section 10.03(i)
Change to: "Each year the department committee will consider each of those members of the department who hold probationary appointments. At the time of such consideration, except in the sixth year, there are three possible recommendations that the Committee may make to the President:
(a) that tenure be granted (b) that tenure not be granted but the probationary appointment be continued (c) that tenure not be granted and the appointment be terminated.
In the sixth year of candidacy for tenure, the Committee is limited to possibilities (a) and (c) (see 2.07).
Page B.3.1, Section II
In the second paragraph, change:
"2.01 to 2.14" to "2.01 to 2.15".
The words "of one year or less" should be removed from the final sentence of the second paragraph.
2. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE POLICY ON EVALUATION OF CHAIRS FOR TIME AND PERFORMANCE STEP INCREASES
When the new Faculty Salary Policy and the Faculty Policy on Time and Performance Step Increases were approved, there was no specific provision for a procedure by which the performance of department chairs would be evaluated. The existing section 1.02 on page C.1.1 is vague. A new policy proposal is attached. J.F.P.C. recommends that the "TPSI Recommendations" section be added to page B.3.7 as section 2.17; that the "Promotion of Chairs" section be inserted on page B.1.21 as section 11:10; and that the second sentence of section 1.02 on page C.1.1. be changed to read "the procedure for consideration of Chairs may be found in Section 2.17, page B.3.7 and Section 11:10, page B.1.21." 3. PROPOSED REVISION TO THE POLICIES ON DISCIPLINARY ACTION AND DISMISSAL
On the recommendation of the Senate's Special Committee on Academic Freedom in its May, 1992 Report, JFPC has agreed that the following changes should be made to the Faculty Policies on Disciplinary Action and on Dismissal Procedures and Suspension.
Page B.2.5
ADD a new Section 4.06, as follows:
"Under no circumstances should the exercise of academic freedom, as described in B.1.02, be held to be grounds for disciplinary action."
Page B.1.23, Section 12.05
ADD a new last sentence, as follows:
"Under no circumstances should the exercise of academic freedom, as described in B.1.02, be held to be a part of adequate cause for dismissal."
In the process of making these modest changes to the section on Disciplinary Action, it became clear to JFPC that the entire section needs revision. Specifically, the disciplinary procedures available to the university are not flexible enough. A sub-committee has been struck to examine the entire Disciplinary Action policy.
4. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE POLICY ON SELECTION COMMITTEES FOR DEPARTMENT CHAIRS
J.F.P.C. has agreed with suggestions that staff members play a role in the selection of department chairs, and that the Associate Dean, Faculty of Environmental Science, be allowed to sit on selection committees for department chairs as an alternate to the Dean of Graduate Studies, the Vice-President, Research or the chair of another department.
In the case of staff representation, the Committee suggests that the Dean nominate, for appointment by the President, a staff member to sit on each selection committee for department chair. The Dean would have the freedom to nominate a staff member from another department where appropriate.
The Committee notes that the Associate Dean, Environmental Science, has a position somewhat analogous to that of the Dean of Graduate Studies or the Vice-President, Research, in that he or she is responsible for a program which is interdisciplinary in nature, spanning several colleges; the expertise of this person would be extremely useful in some searches and would lighten the burden on the other two officers. It is proposed that the membership of the Selection Committee for Chair of a Department (page C.1.5) be changed to read as follows:
- Dean of Graduate Studies, or the Vice-President, Research, or the Chair of another department, or the Associate Dean of Environmental Science (if appropriate)
Three faculty members from the department concerned, elected by the full-time probationary and tenured members of the department, the election to be conducted by the Dean of the College
- Two faculty members from other departments, one being from outside the college concerned
One full-time, permanent staff member, to be nominated from one of the departments within the college by the Dean
Copies of existing Faculty Policies to which J.F.P.C. is proposing an amendment are attached for the purpose of comparison.
As required by the Special Plan Agreement, the amended policies have been sent by J.F.P.C. to each faculty member for comment and subsequently reviewed by the Committee in light of those comments.