OPEN SESSION MEETING AGENDA
FRIDAY JUNE 8, 2018 1:00 p.m. Guelph-Humber Campus | Learning Resource Commons Building Governor's Boardroom, 6th Floor 205 Humber College Blvd, Toronto Page
Meeting Information Teleconference details are included on the closed session agenda. 3 List of Attendees 1. Welcome, Approval of Agenda and Minutes 5 a) Approval of Open Session Agenda [Motion] 7-14 b) Approval of April 20, 2018 Minutes [Motion] c) Business Arising 2. President's Report 15-23 a) Report on University Activities b) Report on Faculty Tenure and Promotion 3. Governance & Human Resources Committee Report 25 a) Report from Committee Chair 27-44 b) Proposed Amendments to Sexual Violence Policy and Procedures [Motion] [Addenda] 45-70 c) Proposed Amendments to Human Rights Procedures [Motion] 71-73 d) Wellness@Work Survey Results 4. Audit and Risk Committee Report 75 a) Report from Committee Chair 77-108 b) 2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Guelph-Humber [Motion] 5. Finance Committee Report 109-110 a) Report from Committee Chair 111 b) Report on Key Performance Indicators 113-130 c) Proposed 2018-19 OMAFRA Agreement Budget [Motion] 131-142 d) Capital Activities: North Wing MacKinnon Project, Greenhouse Gas Funded Projects [Motions]
Page 1 of 189 Board of Governors June 8, 2018 Open Session Agenda Page
5. Finance Committee Report 143-155 e) Annual Review of Endowment Investment Policy [Motion] 157-160 f) Annual Report on Responsible Investing 6. Pensions Committee Report 161 a) Report from Committee Chair 163-172 b) Plan Text Amendments [Motion] 173-176 c) Update on University Pensions Project 7. Physical Resources and Property Committee Report 177 a) Report from Committee Chair 179 b) Campus Master Plan: Annual Reports 8. Move to Closed Session 181 a) Adjourn Open Session and Move into Closed Session [Motion] Addenda Item 183-189 Item 3b) Proposed Amendments to Sexual Violence Policy and Procedures
Page 2 of 189
Attendees for Friday, June 8, 2018 Board meeting1
Board Members Guests Kevin Golding (Chair) Daniel Atlin (VP External) Shauneen Bruder (Vice-Chair) Annette Blok (University Secretariat-Administrative Officer) Paul Gallagher (Vice-Chair) Ted Cogan (University Secretariat-Special Projects Assistant) Franco Vaccarino (President) Ben Doadt (Associate University Secretary, Board) Rich Appiah Karen Menard (AVP Institutional Analysis and Research) Carolyn Augusta [teleconference] Mary Murphy (University Legal Counsel) Graham Badun Jane Ngobia (AVP Diversity & Human Rights) Gerrit Bos Don O’Leary (VP Finance, Administration & Risk) Nancy Brown Andison Murray Perkins (Chief Internal Auditor) Nancy Croitoru Monique Poirier (University Secretariat-Governance Assistant) Mary Deacon John Walsh (Vice-Provost Guelph-Humber) Lindsey Fletcher Brenda Whiteside (AVP Student Affairs) Eleanor Fritz Charlotte Yates (Provost & VP Academic) Paul Gibson Sally Hickson Bill Hogarth Andrew Kuttain Coral Murrant Neil Parkinson Prashant Pathak Byron Sheldrick Irene Thompson Gen Gauthier-Chalifour (University Secretary)
Regrets Visitors Martha Billes (Chancellor) Andrew Marsh
1 As of May 30, 2018
N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2017-18\6. June 8, 2018\Attendance & logistics\Attendance List for Pkg.docx
List of Attendees Page 3 of 189 Page 4 of 189
To: Members of the Board of Governors
From: Gen Gauthier-Chalifour, University Secretary
Subject: 1. Welcome, Approval of Agenda and Minutes
Meeting: June 8, 2018
1. Welcome, Approval of Agenda and Minutes
The Chair will call the regular meeting of the Board of Governors to order, and offer welcome and introductory remarks.
a) Approval of Open Session Agenda [Motion]
The Board of Governors is asked to, RESOLVE, that the June 8, 2018 meeting agenda be approved, as presented.
b) Approval of April 20, 2018 Minutes [Motion]
The Board of Governors is asked to, RESOLVE, that the open session minutes of the April 20, 2018 meeting be approved, as presented.
c) Business Arising
2018-19 Budget and Student Health Services Fee – At its meeting April 20, 2018 a question was raised in regard to a 3% total increase in the Student Health Services fee to support student mental health, and clarification in regard to a subsequent reference to increased funding for a nutritionist. For the benefit of all Governors, it was subsequently confirmed that the 3% total increase refers to services that support a holistic approach to student health and wellness, including nutrition and the reference in question was accurately reflected in the budget document.
Board Governance Review – The Working Group on Board Governance Review continues its work and a report is anticipated at the first regular Board meeting in the fall.
All other items of business arising are addressed throughout the meeting agenda.
N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2017-18\6. June 8, 2018\Cover memos\1_Agenda and Minutes.docx
Approval of Open Session Agenda [Motion] Page 5 of 189 Page 6 of 189
OPEN SESSION Minutes of the 341st meeting held Friday, April 20, 2018 University of Guelph | The Arboretum | 9:00 am
*via teleconference Present: Kevin Golding (Board Chair), Shauneen Bruder (Vice-Chair), *Paul Gallagher (Vice-Chair), Rich Appiah, Carolyn Augusta, Graham Badun, Gerrit Bos, Nancy Brown Andison, Mary Deacon, Lindsey Fletcher, Eleanor Fritz, Paul Gibson, Sally Hickson, Bill Hogarth, Andrew Kuttain, Andrew Marsh, Coral Murrant, Prashant Pathak, Byron Sheldrick, Irene Thompson, Franco Vaccarino (President), Gen Gauthier-Chalifour (University Secretary; non-voting) Regrets: Martha Billes (Chancellor), Nancy Croitoru, Neil Parkinson Guests: Daniel Atlin, Zack Baker, Annette Blok, Malcolm Campbell, Ted Cogan, Bed Doadt, Jackie Gillis (Minute Taker), Martha Harley, Philip John, *Virginia McLaughlin (Chair, Board of Trustees), Karen Menard, Mary Murphy, Don O’Leary, Aidan Paskinov, John Walsh, Sarah Willey-Thomas, Charlotte Yates Visitors: Janice Folk-Dawson, Laura Maclure, Nicholas Manuel, Joe Rooyakkers
1. Welcome, Approval of Agenda and Minutes
a) Approval of Agenda [Motion]
The Chair called the meeting to order, offered a territorial acknowledgement, and welcomed all members, visitors and guests.
The Chair then asked members to declare any conflict of interest with respect to the meeting agenda. Ms. Lindsey Fletcher noted her conflict with respect to item 5b.
On motion duly moved and seconded, it was RESOLVED, that the April 20, 2018 meeting agenda be approved, as presented.
b) Minutes of January 23, 2018 [Motion]
On motion, duly moved and seconded, it was RESOLVED, that the open session minutes of the January 23, 2018 meeting be approved, as presented.
2. President’s Report
a) Report on University Activities
President Vaccarino began by highlighting recent changes in leadership at the University, highlighting that Professor Beverley Hale has taken on the role of AVP Research (agri-food partnership). He thanked the interim AVP, Professor Wayne Caldwell, for his support and efforts in further enhancing the OMAFRA agreement over the past year. He then noted that Dr. Mario Thomas had concluded his term as the CEO of the Biodiversity Institute of Ontario and thanked him for his service. He then congratulated Dr. John Fryxell who would serve as interim Executive Director for BIO Activities for the foreseeable future. Finally, he noted that Ms. Karen Bertrand, AVP, Major Gift Advancement, had been named Vice-Principal (Advancement) at Queen’s University. President Vaccarino then noted that the OMAFRA had been successfully signed, and thanked Dr. Malcolm Campbell and his team for their dedication to the agreement
Approval of April 20, 2018 Minutes [Motion] Page 7 of 189 Page 2 Board of Governors Open Session Minutes | April 20, 2018
process. President Vaccarino then highlighted that a task force has been developed to develop Aboriginal initiatives and strategy, which will focus on governance and student support, pedagogy and curriculum, research, and scholarship. He then discussed the somewhat uncertain environment created by the upcoming provincial election and stated that while post- secondary has not been ranked as a key issue on the list of party priorities, the University continues to build strong relationships with each of the major parties. In closing, President Vaccarino noted the results of the Wellness@Work survey were released to the University community and the Board will receive an update with regards to the findings at the June meeting.
Dr. Yates provided an update on enrolment and related targets. She noted that the University has been impacted by the demographic shifts in the province, which have decreased the number of applications for domestic students but expressed cautious optimism that enrolment targets would be met for the University. She also noted that applications for international students has increased.
Questions were invited and answered to the satisfaction of members.
b) Faculty Appointments
The Chair noted that the faculty appointments report is included in the online supporting document folder, for the information of the Board.
3. Audit & Risk Committee Report
a) Report from Committee Chair
Mr. Golding provided a brief overview of recent Committee activities on behalf of Mr. Parkinson. He noted that many of the items were standard and that later in the meeting, the Board would discuss the 2017 University of Guelph Audited Pension Plan Statements.
4. Finance Committee Report
a) Report from Committee Chair
The Chair invited Ms. Brown Andison to present the report of the Finance Committee.
Referring to the meeting materials, Ms. Brown Andison explained the recent work of the Committee, noting the significant amount of work that the Committee has recently undertaken. She expressed thanks to all Committee members for their work and to Dr. Yates and Mr. O’Leary who had been huge supports and allowed the Committee to be briefed in advance of all meetings. She also complimented the presentations and analysis related to the 2018-19 budget that were done by various student groups, including the Student Budget Committee, the Central Student Association, and the Graduate Student Association, noting that the quality of insight that was brought forward by the groups was outstanding. Finally, she noted that the Committee had received the first Student Financial Support 2016-17 Annual Report, which she noted was excellent and extremely helpful.
Approval of April 20, 2018 Minutes [Motion] Page 8 of 189 Page 3 Board of Governors Open Session Minutes | April 20, 2018
b) 2018-19 University Centre Operating Budget [Motion]
Mr. O’Leary was invited to comment on the budget. He noted that the Executive Director of the University Centre, Mr. Philip John, was present to answer any questions before explaining the revenues in the budget come from three sources, Brass Taps, student fees, and facilities rentals. Mr. O’Leary then explained that the UC operates on a break-even basis, and they do contribute to building renovations, which have recently included significant improvements to public spaces and meeting rooms.
On motion duly moved and seconded, it was RESOLVED, that the Board of Governors accept and approve the proposed 2018- 2019 University Centre Operating Budget, as presented.
c) 2018-19 University of Guelph-Humber Budget [Motion]
Dr. John Walsh was invited to speak to the item. Dr. Walsh first highlighted that the recent strike had limited impact on student enrollment and that while some students had been disadvantaged, any issues were mitigated. He then noted the proposed budget includes capital allowances to facilitate the updating of the media program, which he noted is one of the fastest changing curricula at the institution. In closing, he noted that the University continues to look to expand accessibility through increasing distance programing and access for degree completion.
Dr. Yates added that a review of the entire structure and approach at the University of Guelph- Humber is ongoing, and that it will include a review of programming, as the institution has had the same programs for years. She noted that Mr. Walsh has for some time wanted to explore some new options and that this is a great opportunity to look at new programming options.
On motion duly moved and seconded, it was RESOLVED, that the Board of Governors accept and approve the proposed 2018-19 University of Guelph-Humber Budget, as presented.
d) 2018-19 University of Guelph Budget [Motion]
Ms. Brown Andison noted that the OMAFRA component will be brought forward in June. She also reminded Governors that the budget includes several assumptions, including those related to operating grants, infrastructure costs, and so forth. She then asked Dr. Yates and Mr. O’Leary to speak to the item.
Dr. Yates first thanked Mr. Zach Baker, Dr. Karen Menard, and all Deans who were all integral to the creation of the Budget, as well as all Governors for their related questions and comments. Dr. Yates then provided an overview of the budget. She first explained the significant changes in University revenues that fixed enrollment and frozen or decreased operating grants have on the budget, as the two comprise 75% of the University’s revenues. She highlighted that the University remains in a strong financial position and that it will be able to weather the changes and it will continue to invest in infrastructure and strategic initiatives in order for the University to be responsive to new opportunities and innovations. Following an in- depth discussion of the University’s revenues and expenditures, Dr. Yates explained that the University is expecting a $5.9 million deficit, and then turned to discuss how the University plans to respond to the deficit. She noted a contribution plan has been devised wherein all units, with the exception of Student Aid, make a contribution to the deficit. She noted that the Plan was devised with significant input from the President, Vice-Presidents, and Deans. She
Approval of April 20, 2018 Minutes [Motion] Page 9 of 189 Page 4 Board of Governors Open Session Minutes | April 20, 2018
explained the plan, noting that it does not reflect a claw-back of the carry-forward, but rather, the 2016-17 carry-forward levels were used as a proxy for estimating the contribution level of the units. She highlighted that all colleges and directorates have agreed to partner in this one- time contribution.
Mr. O’Leary first highlighted the significant costs related to employee benefits, in particular those related to pension funding which further emphasize the need to change the pension model. He then noted that forecasted utility costs are high, despite the fact that the University partners with other universities in a cooperative purchase of gas and electricity. In addition, Mr. O’Leary noted that the City of Guelph is bringing in a new storm water tax that will result an additional $1 million expenditure in the next year. Finally, Mr. O’Leary highlighted that while costs associated with the capital plan are high, the University has been successful in obtaining funding from various other sources and leveraging internal funding, and that it has not needed any external financing.
Questions were invited. Governors sought clarification regarding the corridor funding model, opportunities for cogeneration electricity, and plans for unit contributions should the projected deficit not materialize.
A Governor noted that on page 73, it proposes a “3.0% total increase in the Student Health Services Fee to student mental health” and on page 102 (table f) it says that the increase was to support additional hours for a nutritionist, and asked for clarification. Dr. Yates advised she would consult with the AVP (Student Affairs) and provide confirmation following the meeting, but that the University is acting to promote holistic mental health.
On motion duly moved and seconded, it was RESOLVED, that the Board of Governors accept and approve the proposed 2018- 2019 University of Guelph Budget Plan, as presented.
e) Report on Student Aid and Accessibility
Dr. Yates was asked to speak to the item.
Dr. Yates thanked the Registrar’s office, Dr. Karen Menard, and the contributions of Governors, including Ms. Augusta, who responded to calls for a more robust understanding of student aid and scholarship. She noted that between investments in experiential education and scholarships, the University will continue to increase the amount of money put into student aid, and that the report is a great way to have visibility into what is done in this sphere.
f) Update on Special Action Request for Fossil Fuel Divestment
Ms. Brown Andison reminded Governors that at the previous meeting, the item was sent back to the Ad Hoc Committee for further consideration. She noted that the Ad Hoc Committee has been conscious of wanting to be timely in its decision, while ensuring that the item has the time necessary to give it the thought it deserves. She explained that the divestment request reflects a larger question for the University regarding its’ overall position and policy with respect to the broader goal of carbon reduction and in this light, the Finance Committee had raised five key questions for the Ad Hoc Committee’s consideration. First, does some action with respect to investment in the petroleum industry contribute to the University’s overall goal? Second, what are some of the options that could be considered with respect to future petroleum investments (full, partial divestment, etc.)? Third, what is the nature of the current portfolio of fossil fuel
Approval of April 20, 2018 Minutes [Motion] Page 10 of 189 Page 5 Board of Governors Open Session Minutes | April 20, 2018
investments? Fourth, in the Committee’s best judgement what is the potential fiduciary impact? Finally, given these questions, to come back with a recommendation with respect to the University’s fossil fuel industry investments.
Mr. Gallagher agreed and added that there are two key recommendations. First, that there is a need for a larger, more comprehensive environmental policy at the University. Second, that it is necessary to consider two key points, the potential impact on the investment performance and the potential impact on the reduction of the planets’ greenhouse gases.
A Governor asked for a motion for speaking privileges for representatives of Fossil Free Guelph who were in attendance.
On motion duly moved and seconded, it was RESOLVED, that members of Fossil Free Guelph be granted speaking privileges.
Representatives from Fossil Free Guelph were invited to address the Board. They first reiterated their request for full-divestment in a period of five years. They then noted that there is significant empirical data to support that fossil free optimized portfolios can generate the same or greater returns, with minimal risk. Finally, they noted the seriousness of the issue, and their goal to mitigate a potential climate disaster.
In closing, Ms. Brown Andison noted that the Committee and Ad Hoc Committee will continue to consult with Fossil Free Guelph.
[Paul Gallagher retired from the meeting.]
5. Governance & Human Resources Committee Report
a) Report from Committee Chair
The Chair invited Ms. Shauneen Bruder to present the report of the Governance & Human Resources Committee. Referring to the information included within the meeting materials, the Chair provided an overview of the recent activities of the Committee at its most recent meeting on April 2, 2018.
b) 2018 Elections & Appointment of Students, Staff and Faculty [Motions]
Ms. Bruder explained that the nomination statements were available in the online supporting documents.
[Lindsey Fletcher and Irene Thompson recused themselves from the meeting.]
i) Undergraduate Students
On motion duly moved and seconded, it was RESOLVED, that the Board of Governors accept and approve that Lindsey Fletcher and Cameron Stotts be appointed as undergraduate student members of the Board of Governors for one-year terms effective July 1, 2018 through to June 30, 2019.
Approval of April 20, 2018 Minutes [Motion] Page 11 of 189 Page 6 Board of Governors Open Session Minutes | April 20, 2018
ii) Graduate Student
On motion duly moved and seconded, it was RESOLVED, that the Board of Governors accept and approve that Nick Manuel be appointed as a graduate student member of the Board of Governors for a one-year term effective July 1, 2018 through to June 30, 2019.
iii) Staff
On motion duly moved and seconded, it was RESOLVED, that the Board of Governors accept and approve that Irene Thompson be reappointed as the staff member of the Board of Governors for a three-year term effective July 1, 2018 through to June 30, 2021.
iv) Pensions Committee – Retirement plan representatives
On motion duly moved and seconded, it was RESOLVED, that the Board of Governors accept and approve that Joe Rooyakkers and John Tartt be re-appointed as the retirement plan representatives on the Pensions Committee of the Board of Governors for a two-year term effective July 1, 2018 through to June 30, 2020.
v) Senate-Elected Faculty
On motion duly moved and seconded, it was RESOLVED, that the Board of Governors accept and approve that Professor Stuart McCook be appointed as a Senate-elected faculty member of the Board of Governors for a three-year term effective July 1, 2018 through to June 30, 2021.
[Lindsey Fletcher and Irene Thompson returned to the meeting.]
c) Update on Board Governance Review
Ms. Bruder noted that the Committee is currently reviewing Board governance, to review best practices in the sector. She thanked Ms. Eleanor Fritz for Chairing the ad hoc working group and asked her to comment on the item.
Ms. Fritz explained that one meeting had been held to date, at which time the group established the parameters for their work and plans for moving forward. She explained that they have currently released a survey amongst internal stakeholders to help inform discussions around the perceptions of the Board and how it communicates with these groups. In closing, she noted that while initially they believed one report would be produced, they now believe the report will likely be staged.
d) President’s Annual Performance Review: Process for 2017-18
Ms. Bruder explained that a performance review of the President is completed annually and that enclosed for information was this year’s process.
Approval of April 20, 2018 Minutes [Motion] Page 12 of 189 Page 7 Board of Governors Open Session Minutes | April 20, 2018
6. Pensions Committee Report
a) Report from Committee Chair
On behalf of the Chair, Mr. Bill Hogarth provided an update on the recent activities of the Committee. He noted that they have been looking extensively at the CPP extension, and thanked Mr. O’Leary for his work throughout the year.
b) Annual Review of Statement of Investment Policies & Procedures (SIPP) [Motion]
Mr. O’Leary was asked to speak to the item.
Mr. O’Leary first explained the change resulted from an examination of the entire pension plan process that occurred last fall, from which a recommendation was made that the SIPP should reflect that the University is in the midst of a transition in allocation.
On motion duly moved and seconded, it was RESOLVED, that the Board of Governors accept and approve the proposed amendments to the Statement of Investment Policies and Procedures for each of the Professional Pension Plan, Retirement Pension Plan and Non-Professional Pension Plan, as presented.
c) Negotiated Text Amendments to Pension Plans [Motion]
Mr. O’Leary explained that these changes reflected changes to the contribution rates, which occurred following negotiations.
On motion duly moved and seconded, it was RESOLVED, that the Board of Governors accept and approve the proposed resolutions concerning amendments to the texts of the Professional Pension Plan, and the Retirement Plan, as presented.
d) Update on University Pensions Project
Mr. O’Leary explained that the University continues to work with the University of Toronto and Queens on the creation of a Jointly Sponsored Pension Plan and that progress continues to be made with employee groups. He explained that communication is a significant focus at present time, and noted the goal is to have the plan in place by January 1, 2020.
7. Physical Resources and Property Committee Report
a) Report from Committee Chair
Referring to the meeting materials, Mr. Graham Badun provided an update on the recent activities of the Committee, who explained that there are several ongoing projects.
Approval of April 20, 2018 Minutes [Motion] Page 13 of 189 Page 8 Board of Governors Open Session Minutes | April 20, 2018
8. Board of Trustees Report
a) Report from Committee Chair
Referring to the meeting materials, Ms. McLaughlin provided an update on the recent activities of the Committee, first noting that the Board met recently to review and discuss the implementation of the Real Estate Strategy. In addition, she noted that the Board has been in the process of reviewing its Matrix of Competencies for members of the Board of Trustees, especially as it moves towards more active development and will have a need to recruit new members.
9. Move to Closed Session
a) Adjourn Open Session and Move into Closed Session [Motion]
On motion duly moved and seconded, it was RESOLVED, that the Board of Governors move into closed session and that Daniel Atlin, Annette Blok, Malcolm Campbell, Ted Cogan, Ben Doadt, Jackie Gillis, Martha Harley, Virginia McLaughlin, Mary Murphy, Don O’Leary, Sarah Willey-Thomas and Charlotte Yates be invited to remain for the closed session of the meeting.
______Kevin Golding Genevieve Gauthier-Chalifour Chair, Board of Governors University Secretary
Approval of April 20, 2018 Minutes [Motion] Page 14 of 189
To: Members of the Board of Governors
From: Gen Gauthier-Chalifour, University Secretary
Subject: 2. President’s Report
Meeting: June 8, 2018
a) Report on University Activities
Enclosed is the President’s report to the Board of Governors on recent activities and events of interest. President Vaccarino will provide additional comments and remarks at the meeting.
b) Report on Faculty Tenure and Promotion
The report on faculty tenure and promotion is provided for information in online supporting documents1.
1 URL https://uoguelph.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/151818
N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2017-18\6. June 8, 2018\Cover memos\2_President's Report.docx
Report on University Activities Page 15 of 189 Page 16 of 189 Report to the Board of Governors From President Franco Vaccarino
For June 8, 2018, meeting
Dear Board Members,
The 2017-18 academic year was one of great successes for the University of Guelph. Over the past nine months, we showcased to the world our many and broad areas of expertise, our research excellence, and our commitment to our students, faculty and staff.
Your guidance and counsel have been invaluable in building the University’s reputation as an institution that improves life.
Canada’s Food University Hosts Inaugural Arrell Food Summit From May 22 to 24, the University of Guelph hosted its inaugural Arrell Food Summit, an initiative of the Arrell Food Institute. This cross-campus collaboration highlighted the broad expertise the University will draw from to answer the question: “How will we feed the planet?” The summit brought together some of the most important players in the global food economy.
Presentations hosted by U of G colleges covered areas such as transparency in food supply chains, Indigenous food sovereignty, and robotics and artificial intelligence in agriculture. The College of Arts designed the award presented to winners of the Arrell Global Food Innovation Awards.
The summit’s keynote speakers were Dr. Roberta Bondar and Galen Weston. Other speakers were: Sir Charles Godfray, a zoology professor and director of the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food at Oxford University; Danil Kerimi, head of Information Technology and Electronics Industries at the World Economic Forum; Sheila Watt-Cloutier, Nobel Prize- nominated Inuit activist; Sam Thevasagayam, director of agriculture development for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; and Sebastian Tuenissen, with Solidaridad, the Netherlands- based organization that founded the fair-trade label.
Congratulations to the many individuals who made this event such a success and brought great pride to the University.
Supporting Wellness at U of G At the start of May, U of G celebrated Be Well, Be Safe Week to recognize National Mental Health Week and North American Occupational Safety and Health Week.
Hosted by the Wellness@Work committee and Student Wellness, the week included more than 30 mental wellness and workplace safety events.
The event built on and supported the findings of the recent University-wide Wellness@Work survey and was well received by the community.
My sincere thanks go to all our Board members for your ongoing commitment to and support of
1
Report on University Activities Page 17 of 189 the University. I look forward to meeting with you at our Guelph-Humber campus on June 8.
Sincerely,
Franco J. Vaccarino, PhD, FCAHS President and Vice-Chancellor
SUPPORTING RESEARCH EXCELLENCE
• U of G research projects working to solve industry challenges o Four research projects at U of G are intended to solve specific industry challenges in Ontario and Alberta.
o The projects focus on strengthening global competitiveness in key areas: . Prof. Amir Aliabadi, School of Engineering - optimize high-resolution computational fluid dynamics for large-scale, atmospheric boundary layer investigations; . Prof. Christine Baes, Department of Animal Biosciences - develop breeding strategies in dairy cattle; . Prof. Angela Canovas, Department of Animal Biosciences - research value chain genomics, profitability and customer satisfaction; and . Prof. Eduardo de Souza Ribeiro, Department of Animal Biosciences - redefine trace mineral nutrition in dairy cattle.
o The projects are supported by funding from the Ontario Centres of Excellence. • Research collaborations turning waste into new products and technologies o Two U of G projects will help transform waste products into usable goods and technologies: . A project led by engineering professor Manju Misra will create sustainable packaging from recycled plastic and industrial and food waste. . Another project led by engineering professor Sheng Chang will recover usable resources from sewage sludge and food waste.
o The projects are supported by the Ontario Research Fund’s Research Excellence program. • U of G gets $3.4M from Canada Research Chairs program o The Canada Research Chairs program has invested in a new Tier 2 chair in Machine Learning Systems for Prof. Graham Taylor and a new Tier 2 chair in Indigenous Relationships for Prof. Kim Anderson.
2
Report on University Activities Page 18 of 189 o Three existing chairs were also renewed: . Kari Dunfield, Tier 2 chair in Environmental Microbiology of Agro- ecosystems; . Aaron Berg, Tier 2 chair in Hydrology and Remote Sensing; and . Monique Deveaux, Tier 1 chair in Ethics and Global Social Change. • U of G research leaders get $335,000 in federal support o U of G researchers will receive nearly $335,000 from the federal government to support five research projects, ranging from preventing childhood injuries and food-borne ailments to promoting emotional well-being and data-driven solutions.
o The Canada Foundation for Innovation will fund these projects through the John R. Evans Leaders Fund, created to help universities attract and retain leading faculty and researchers. • 'Wonder pig' helps U of G net $650,000 giant scanner o Esther the Wonder Pig is an Instagram celebrity and the real-life star of a new children’s book. She’s also the force behind a campaign that raised $650,000 to bring a super-sized CT scanner to OVC. • Food waste research receives nearly $1.3M from Walmart o A gift of nearly $1.3 million from the Walmart Foundation will support projects by Profs. Michael von Massow and Mario Martinez to cut household food waste and develop a nutritional supplement from fruit otherwise destined for compost.
COLLABORATING FOR EXCELLENCE
• Building on opportunities through government relations
o The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) recently held a two-day workshop at U of G. . Day one brought together CFIA representatives and U of G faculty to discuss science and policy regulations in gene editing and food safety. . Day two consisted of a joint roundtable with the CFIA and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to discuss plant health science. The roundtable included university counterparts from across Canada.
o The federal Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food visited U of G in May as part of its study of technology and research in the agricultural sector, especially how to grow Canadian exports and trade. . Members of the committee met with University leaders, took part in a roundtable discussion with U of G experts and local industry, and toured the Bioproducts Discovery and Development Centre.
3
Report on University Activities Page 19 of 189 o U of G’s chief librarian and copyright officer presented to the federal Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology at a committee meeting in Toronto. . The committee is reviewing the federal Copyright Act. U of G representatives presented our University’s unique history in managing copyright practices and made a series of recommendations.
• University’s genetic archive now open to world o U of G’s Centre for Biodiversity Genomics has thrown open the doors to its massive genetic archive, providing online access to sample information for universities, government agencies and industry that may help researchers pursue projects ranging from human health to biodiversity. Roughly 1.5 million DNA extracts are plated and stored in ultracold freezers in the centre.
• U of G faculty, staff and students get free access to Lynda.com’s video-based training library o Through a three-year pilot program, U of G and all other Ontario post-secondary education institutions now have access to Lynda.com, an online video-based training library powered by LinkedIn. Learn more at uoguelph.ca/lynda.
FACULTY, STAFF AND STUDENT EXCELLENCE • DNA barcoding pioneer wins global research prize o This fall, Prof. Paul Hebert, scientific director of the International Barcode of Life project, will receive the 2018 Dr. A.H. Heineken Prize for Environmental Sciences from the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. Hebert is being recognized for his pioneering work in developing DNA barcoding – a technology that has positioned the University of Guelph as a leader in biodiversity research. • English prof receives prestigious Killam Fellowship o Prof. Christine Bold, School of English and Theatre Studies, received a 2018 Killam Research Fellowship from the Canada Council for the Arts. Through her research, Bold is exploring the lives and stories of Indigenous vaudeville performers in the late 1800s and early 1900s. • Research associate wins international early-career awards o Hugues Arcis, Department of Chemistry, has been awarded both the Stig Sunner Memorial Award and the International Association for the Properties of Water and Steam’s (IAPWS) Helmholtz Award. The first award recognizes the research contributions of young scientists to thermodynamics and thermochemistry. The second recognizes promising early to mid-career scientists and engineers who are making significant contributions to or defining new directions in research of interest to IAPWS.
4
Report on University Activities Page 20 of 189 • Former Gryphons called up to CFL o Four former Gryphon football players have been drafted by Canadian Football League teams for the 2018-19 season. Congratulations to Andrew Pickett, joining the Ottawa Redblacks; Royce Metchie and Gabe Ferraro, joining the Calgary Stampeders; and Nick Parisotto, joining the Hamilton Tiger-Cats. • Women of Distinction honours U of G women o More than half of the women honoured at the 2018 Guelph Y Women of Distinction Awards have ties to U of G. Congratulations to Prof. Bonnie Mallard, Prof. Shoshanah Jacobs, Prof. Tami Martino, Prof. Sally Humphries, post- doctoral researcher Claire Martin and undergraduate Crystal Gong.
o Congratulations as well to alumnae Hayley Kellett, Jaya James, Rosalind Slater, Tanya Olsen and Teresa McKeeman. • Prof receives national research award o Prof. Emma Allen-Vercoe has received the national Biomedical Ambassador Award from Partners in Research, a Canadian organization that promotes medical and health research. • 2018 Gryphons Care winners announced o Thanks to eight Gryphons Care donors, two groups of U of G change-makers were each granted $1,300 to improve life with their innovative projects: . Andrew Hyde will create a portable canvas labyrinth to provide opportunities for meditation, contemplation or prayer. . Madison Plumb and Murtaza Bahrainwala represented a group of students who will use Gryphons Care funding to take their version of the Guelph Hyperloop transportation system to an international competition in California. • SEDRD prof receives communications award o Prof. Nadia Amoroso, School of Environmental Design and Rural Development, has received the 2018 Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture award for outstanding communications. This award celebrates an individual’s outstanding, innovative and noteworthy communication work. • Doug Goff to receive 2018 academic advising medallion o Congratulations to Prof. Doug Goff, who has been named recipient of the 2018 Excellence in Undergraduate Academic Advising Medallion.
• Prof nominated for RBC’s Top 25 Canadian Immigrant awards o Prof. Mario Monteiro is among 75 nominees for RBC’s Top 25 Immigrant awards. In his nomination, Monteiro was noted as one of the world’s most influential vaccine researchers.
5
Report on University Activities Page 21 of 189 • Top 20 Under 40 list includes U of G faces o The Guelph Mercury-Tribune recently released its 20 Under 40 list, highlighting influential members of the Guelph community who build community while helping to connect and inspire others.
o Seven individuals with U of G connections made the list. Congratulations to Indu Arora (alumna), James Christensen (alumnus), Nathan Skoufis (alumnus), Jason Kerr (associate head coach, track and field team), Sarah Vincett (coordinator, Guelph Student Food Bank), Susan Procopio (student) and Travis Crammer (alumnus). • Eat the Beatles wins award o University professor emeritus David Waltner-Toews has won a gold Independent Publisher Book Award for his book Eat the Beatles! An Exploration into our Conflicted Relationship with Insects. • Engineering profs receive national recognition o Profs. Ed McBean and Anna Lawniczak, both from the College of Engineering and Physical Sciences, were recognized by the Engineering Institute of Canada (EIC) last month. McBean received the Julian C. Smith Medal for achievement in the development of Canada, and Lawniczak was inducted as an EIC Fellow. • Soy-based condoms, vegan cheese, edible utensils tops at ProjectSOY o This year’s ProjectSOY competition saw a variety of innovative, new soy-based products including condoms, golf balls and edible utensils. The annual competition enables students to compete for cash prizes with their creative soy ideas. • Student Life Awards held o Last month, Student Life held its annual award ceremony acknowledging outstanding individuals and groups who contribute to life on campus. Congratulations to our 2018 winners.
INVESTING IN EXCELLENCE • U of G saying goodbye to plastic straws, bags o By fall 2018, U of G’s Hospitality Services dining and retail operations will be straw- and plastic bag-free. The change will keep about 155,000 plastic bags and 175,000 plastic straws out of landfills.
SUPPORTING EXCELLENCE IN THE COMMUNITY • Jumpstart Day comes to U of G o On May 29, U of G proudly hosted the 2018 Canadian Tire Jumpstart Games. During the event, schoolchildren participated in healthful activities promoting accessible play and sport for kids of all abilities.
6
Report on University Activities Page 22 of 189 • 2018 United Way campaign co-chair announced o Prof. Carolyn Kerr, Department of Clinical Studies, will be the United Way campaign faculty co-chair for 2018-19.
o The 2017-18 campaign has officially broken records and is U of G’s best-ever, having raised more than $650,000 for the United Way.
• Argos coming to Alumni Stadium o The Canadian Football League returns to Alumni Stadium June 7 when the Toronto Argonauts host the Ottawa Redblacks in a pre-season matchup.
7
Report on University Activities Page 23 of 189 Page 24 of 189
To: Members, Board of Governors
From: Gen Gauthier-Chalifour, University Secretary
Subject: 3. Governance & Human Resources Committee Report
Meeting: June 8, 2018
a) Report from Committee Chair
The following is provided for the information of Governors. At its meetings on May 8 and 23, 2018, the Governance & Human Resources Committee:
• Received an update on recent sector issues • Considered and approved the 2018 Negotiating Framework • Considered and approved amendments to Sexual Violence Policy and Procedures, for recommendation to the Board [refer to item 3b] • Considered and approved amendments to Human Rights Procedures, for recommendation to the Board [refer to item 3c] • Received the Wellness@Work Survey Results [refer to item 3d] • Considered and approved 2018-19 External Governor and Trustee appointments, for recommendation to the Board [to be addressed in closed session] • Considered and approved the Art Gallery of Guelph Board of Trustees University appointments, for recommendation to the Board [to be addressed in closed session] • Considered and approved the 2018-19 standing committee chairs and membership assignments, for recommendation to the Board [to be addressed in closed session] • Reviewed the 2017-18 Board evaluation results and Governor interviews [to be addressed in closed session] • Considered and approved the President’s annual performance review, for recommendation to the Board [to be addressed in closed session] • Received an update on the Executive Compensation Program [to be addressed in closed session] • Received a report on the annual Canadian Universities Board Association conference • Reviewed its terms of reference and 2018-19 agenda plans
2017-18 Governance & Human Resources Committee Membership Shauneen Bruder, Chair Rich Appiah Nancy Croitoru Eleanor Fritz Paul Gibson Kevin Golding, Board Chair Franco Vaccarino, President Gen Gauthier-Chalifour, University Secretary (non-voting)
N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2017-18\6. June 8, 2018\Cover memos\3a_GHRC - Report from the Chair.docx
Report from Committee Chair Page 25 of 189 Page 26 of 189
To: Members, Board of Governors
From: Gen Gauthier-Chalifour, University Secretary
Subject: 3. Governance & Human Resources Committee Report
Meeting: June 8, 2018
b) Proposed Amendments to Sexual Violence Policy and Procedures [Motion]
Bill 132, Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act (Supporting Survivors and Challenging Sexual Violence and Harassment), 2016, requires all publicly assisted colleges and universities to have a sexual violence policy that must be approved by their respective governing boards. The bill required that such policies be in place by January 1, 2017.
In December 2016, the Board of Governors approved the University’s Sexual Violence Policy, with consultation and discussion on the policy continuing throughout winter and spring of 2017. Recommendations for further refinements to the policy and its related procedures were subsequently approved by the Board in June 2017.
Enclosed is a memorandum from Ms. Brenda Whiteside, Associate Vice-President (Student Affairs), outlining the continuing assessment and work in this area, which has precipitated a further review and proposed amendments to the Sexual Violence Policy and Procedures.
Due to the nature of the changes, a ‘tracked’ version of the proposed amendments is not practical; the above-noted memo refers to the changes. The current version of the policy and procedures may be accessed from the University’s website: https://www.uoguelph.ca/sexualviolence/policies
The Board of Governors is asked to, RESOLVE, that the Board of Governors accept and approve the amended Sexual Violence Policy and Procedures, as presented.
n:\bog\bog meetings\2017-18\6. june 8, 2018\cover memos\3b_ghrc - sexual violence policy amendments.docx
Proposed Amendments to Sexual Violence Policy and Page 27 of 189 Page 28 of 189
MEMORANDUM
To: G. Gauthier-Chalifour, University Secretary
From: Brenda Whiteside, Associate Vice-President, Student Affairs
Date: May 22, 2018
Regarding: Proposed revisions to Policy and Student Procedures
In response to Bill 132, Sexual Violence and Harassment Plan, the University drafted a Sexual Violence Policy and Student Procedures document. The Policy and Procedures received approval from the Board of Governors on December 12, 2017 and came into effect January 1, 2017. The Bill includes a number of requirements that had not been in the previous sexual harassment protocol. It was understood that the university would need to work with these documents to determine gaps and challenges.
Over the course of the academic year 2017-18, the Sexual Violence Case Director as well as staff in Student Housing Services, Campus Community Police and Diversity and Human Rights have been involved in supporting students in a number of cases involving sexual violence ranging from providing support for survivors who did not want to proceed with charges, cases that were investigated through Diversity and Human Rights, and cases where allegations went through the criminal process. A debrief of some of the cases has provided an opportunity to review our policy and procedures for students. A small working group which included legal counsel met a number of times over the winter semester and brought forward suggested changes. The members of this working group consulted with their colleagues at other universities to discuss challenges and best practice solutions.
A number of changes are being presented, many of which are editorial to clarify the process. A summary of the more substantive changes is provided below. These changes have been approved by the Sexual Violence Advisory Committee. Some additional changes were made following a review by the Governance Committee of the Board and have subsequently been reviewed and supported by the Sexual Violence Committee. For comparative purposes, the present policy and procedures can be found on the Sexual Violence Support and Information Website.
Policy Changes The most substantive change is the addition of an alternate resolution process. There have been a number of cases where the survivor has wanted action taken without a formal investigation process,
{G0043731.2} To request this document in an alternative format please contact the Office of Student Affairs by emailing: [email protected]
Proposed Amendments to Sexual Violence Policy and Page 29 of 189 and the respondent has been willing to respond. An alternate resolution process will enable this option. It is hoped that the alternate resolution process will also allow us to address issues more quickly, to the satisfaction of all parties.
There are also a number of smaller but important changes:
• The review period was changed to every three years. While University policy stipulates reviews every 5 years, government regulations require a 3-year review process. • The scope was changed slightly to include the University living environment. Many of the disclosures have involved residence students. It also clarifies that the jurisdiction in the procedures is determined by the relationship of the respondent to the University. • “As appropriate” has been added to the explanation of supports to help clarify that the University can deny unreasonable requests. • Given its importance in the process, a section on interim measures has been added to the Policy. • The Policy refers to survivor, but the Procedures refers to complainant and respondent to align with other investigator procedures. • With respect to multiple proceedings, a revision has been made to make clear that we may defer some or all the internal processes. This would allow us to stop an investigation but still enforce interim measures if needed. It is presently unclear to what extent the University will be required to provide information from an internal investigation for a criminal investigation. We would not release such information unless legally required to do so.
Procedures Most of the changes to the procedures reflect the policy changes and the alternate resolution process. However, there are a few additional changes that are important:
• Resolution: Allows first for the University to determine if the allegation falls within the scope. • Added that the alternate resolution process can occur through DHR, Campus Police or Student Housing Services. This will allow housing, in particular, to address issues within their community. • Formal Complaint: Reference to a fact finding team has been removed. While a team may at times be used, we have found that one trained investigator may be preferable. Survivors have found telling their story to a number of people to be difficult. The use of a single investigator will also make scheduling easier and reduce the time it takes to complete an investigation. • The timelines have changed. These investigations can take time and may involve legal counsel. DHR commits to proceeding as quickly as possible while still allowing for procedural fairness. It is hoped that with the addition of the alternate resolution process, the number of formal complaints will be reduced. However, these will likely be the more complex issues which will take time. • Penalties: Restitution was removed from the list of example penalties as does not normally make sense. However, could occur since it is still part of Judicial’s range of penalties. • Appeal Procedures: For reasons of procedural fairness, an appeal will proceed as a hearing de novo. {G0043731.2} To request this document in an alternative format please contact the Office of Student Affairs by emailing: [email protected]
Proposed Amendments to Sexual Violence Policy and Page 30 of 189 2016 Sexual Violence Policy _proposed revisions_May 15 2018 (G0033521.DOCX;33)
Sexual Violence Policy ______Issued by: Provost & Vice-President (Academic), and Vice-President (Finance, Administration & Risk) Approving Authority: Board of Governors Policy Effective Date: January 1, 2017 Revised: New (reviewed every 3 years, or earlier as required) ______
To receive this Policy in an alternate format, contact the Office of Diversity and Human Rights: Phone: (1) 519- 824-2141 x53000 or Email: [email protected] Contents 1. Policy ...... 2 2. Definitions ...... 2 3. Scope ...... 3 4. Policy Goals ...... 4 5. Information on University and Community Resources ...... 4 6. Disclosure ...... 4 7. Supports ...... 4 8. Initial Assessment ...... 5 9. Resolution Processes ...... 5 10. Interim Measures ...... 6 11. Right to Withdraw a Formal Complaint ...... 6 12. Protection from Reprisal, Retaliation or Threats ...... 6 13. Vexatious Complaints ...... 6 14. Multiple Proceedings ...... 6 15. Confidentiality ...... 7 16. Reporting and Maintenance of Records ...... 7 17. Related University Policies and Procedures ...... 7 18. Training ...... 7 19. Sexual Violence Awareness and Education Programs ...... 7
{G0033521.33}
Proposed Amendments to Sexual Violence Policy and Page 31 of 189 2016 Sexual Violence Policy _proposed revisions_May 15 2018 (G0033521.DOCX;33)
1. Policy The Sexual Violence Policy (“Policy”) is composed of two documents: this Policy Document and the applicable procedures documents. The purpose of this Policy is to set out the principles that apply when allegations of Sexual Violence are brought forward in the University community. The procedures which support this Policy rely on the University having jurisdiction and are determined by the respondent group. The applicable procedures document when a student is affected by Sexual Violence is the Sexual Violence Procedures Document – Students. The applicable procedures document when an employee is affected by Sexual Violence are found in applicable University policies such as Violence Prevention in the Workplace , Workplace Harassment Prevention Program, and employee collective agreements.
2. Definitions a. “Alternate Resolution” or “AR” is a form of early resolution and may include facilitation, mediation, coaching or any other AR method, if appropriate. b. “Consent” is the active ongoing, informed and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. Consent cannot be given by someone whose judgment is materially impaired (such as by drugs or alcohol), unconscious, or otherwise unable to understand and voluntarily give consent. Consent can never be obtained through threats, trickery, coercion, pressure or other forms of control or intimidation and may be withdrawn at any time. Consent may be compromised where individuals are in a position of power, trust or authority over the person whose consent is required. The consumption of alcohol or drugs does not provide any excuse from obtaining consent. c. “Disclosure”: means a disclosure of information about Sexual Violence under section 6 of this Policy. d. “Formal Complaint”: means a written complaint which sets out the facts which the Survivor believes are sufficient to support an allegation under the Policy. e. “Formal Complaint Process”: the process initiated by submission of a Formal Complaint. The determination of the appropriate process relies on the University having jurisdiction and is determined according to the stakeholders involved. f. “Interim Measures”: measures imposed by the University on a temporary basis normally during a Formal Complaint Process. g. “Person Accused”: for the purpose of this Policy means any person against whom an allegation or Formal Complaint of Sexual Violence is made. Under the applicable procedures or collective agreements, the Person Accused may also be referred to by other terms such as “Respondent”.
{G0033521.33}
Proposed Amendments to Sexual Violence Policy and Page 32 of 189 2016 Sexual Violence Policy _proposed revisions_May 15 2018 (G0033521.DOCX;33)
h. “Resolution Processes”: include both AR and Formal Complaint Processes. i. “Sexual Harassment” is included in the definition of Sexual Violence and means engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct based on sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome. This can include: implied or expressed rewards or benefits for sexual favours; non-consensual taking or posting of a sexual picture; aggressive or intolerant comment or slur (including cyberbullying or through social media); or uttering any sexual threat. j. “Sexual Violence” means any sexual act or act targeting a person’s sexuality, gender identity or gender expression, whether the act is physical or psychological in nature, that is committed, threatened or attempted against a person without the person’s consent, and includes sexual assault, Sexual Harassment, stalking, indecent exposure, voyeurism and sexual exploitation.1 k. “Supports”: has the meaning provided in Section 8 of this Policy. l. “Survivor”: for the purpose of this Policy means an individual who identifies their experience as Sexual Violence. Under the applicable procedures or collective agreements, a Survivor may also be referred to by other terms such as “Complainant”. m. “University Community Member” includes University of Guelph students, employees, members of the Board of Governors or Senate, volunteers and other individuals who are acting in a capacity defined by their relationship to the University. n. “University Support Services”: means University services or programs provided to individuals based on the individual’s relationship to the University.
3. Scope a. Unless otherwise specified in this Policy, this Policy applies to all University Community Members regardless of where the alleged behaviour took place, if the alleged behaviour materially affects the safety of a University Community Member and is related to: i. the University’s living and learning environment; or ii. the University as a workplace. b. Incidents of Sexual Violence affecting University of Guelph-Humber students and allegations of Sexual Violence against Humber College employees are covered by
1 Definition taken from Bill 132, Sexual Violence and Harassment Plan
{G0033521.33}
Proposed Amendments to Sexual Violence Policy and Page 33 of 189 2016 Sexual Violence Policy _proposed revisions_May 15 2018 (G0033521.DOCX;33)
policies at Humber College. Allegations of Sexual Violence against University of Guelph employees working at University of Guelph-Humber are covered by this Policy.
4. Policy Goals The goals of this Policy are to: a. support Survivors as defined under this Policy. The University believes and respects that Survivors are the final decision-makers about their own best interests; b. ensure procedural fairness and due process for all parties in the Resolution Processes; c. hold those who have committed Sexual Violence accountable; and d. safeguard the safety of University Community Members.
5. Information on University and Community Resources Information related to Sexual Violence including who to contact, FAQs, related policies and procedures, University Support Services as well as resources available in the wider community, is available on the University’s Sexual Violence Support and Information website.
6. Disclosure a. Anyone can make a Disclosure. b. Subject to the University’s legal obligations, a Disclosure does not normally trigger any Resolution Process, but may result in the provision of Supports, as appropriate. c. Except where the University has an obligation to act as determined under Section 8 of this Policy, no actions will be taken against a Person Accused by the University solely on the basis of a Disclosure. d. Disclosures which raise a reasonable concern regarding broader public safety may result in information being shared with police services.
7. Supports a. Survivor Supports Once a Disclosure is made and regardless of whether a formal complaint is submitted, the University will provide Supports, as appropriate which will be sensitive to the circumstances identified by the Survivor and will allow Survivors to: i. be treated with compassion, dignity and respect; ii. be informed about University Support Services and community resources; iii. be informed about disclosing and reporting options and the limits to confidentiality associated with each option;
{G0033521.33}
Proposed Amendments to Sexual Violence Policy and Page 34 of 189 2016 Sexual Violence Policy _proposed revisions_May 15 2018 (G0033521.DOCX;33)
iv. be provided with appropriate forms of academic consideration and other supports based on demonstrated need; v. be provided with assistance in formulating a personal safety plan; vi. decide whether to engage in Resolution Processes under this Policy; and vii. decide whether to access University Support Services and/or community support services and to choose those services they feel will be the most beneficial.
b. Supports during Resolution Processes
All Parties to a Formal Complaint will be: i. treated with dignity, compassion and respect; ii. provided with information regarding relevant polices including limits to confidentiality; and iii. informed about University Support Services and community support services.
8. Initial Assessment a. The University recognizes that Survivors may wish to control whether their experience will be dealt with under the University’s Resolution Processes. Wherever possible, and subject to the University’s legal obligations, a Survivor will retain this control. b. Notwithstanding subsection a, the University has the obligation to act on information that suggests an incident or a pattern of behaviour which poses a clear and ongoing threat to the Survivor or others. If the University has an obligation to act, these actions may include the imposition of Interim Measures or the initiation of investigations, and other interventions consistent with University policies. If the University chooses to act in these instances, attempts will be made to first notify with the Survivor.
9. Resolution Processes University: a. A Survivor can elect to pursue an allegation of Sexual Violence through Alternate Resolution (AR) and/or the Formal Complaint Process. b. A Formal Complaint is filed in accordance with the appropriate University policies or procedures applicable to the Person Accused. (see section 1.0). If the Person Accused is no longer a University Community Member before a Formal Complaint Process has been completed, the process may be suspended.
{G0033521.33}
Proposed Amendments to Sexual Violence Policy and Page 35 of 189 2016 Sexual Violence Policy _proposed revisions_May 15 2018 (G0033521.DOCX;33)
c. Once a Formal Complaint Process is initiated, Survivors have the right to choose the extent of their involvement in the Formal Complaint Process. d. Formal complaints which raise a reasonable concern regarding broader public safety may result in information being shared with the Campus Community or another police service. Criminal: e. Nothing in this Policy precludes a Survivor from filing a criminal complaint directly with a police service or through the Campus Community Police.
10. Interim Measures If an AR process or a Formal Complaint Process is initiated, the University may impose Interim Measures. For employees such Interim Measures will be consistent with University policies or appropriate collective agreements. Interim Measures for students are outlined in the Sexual Violence Procedures Document – Students.
11. Right to Withdraw a Formal Complaint A Survivor has the right to withdraw a Formal Complaint which the Survivor initiated at any stage of the process. However, the University may continue to act on the issue identified in the Formal Complaint to the extent necessary to comply with its legal obligations.
12. Protection from Reprisal, Retaliation or Threats It is contrary to this Policy for anyone to retaliate, engage in reprisals or threaten to retaliate for: a. pursuing rights under this Policy; b. participating or co-operating in an investigation under this Policy; or c. being associated with someone who has pursued rights under this Policy. Anyone found to have engaged in such conduct will be subject to sanctions or discipline in accordance with the relevant policy or procedures.
13. Vexatious Complaints Formal Complaints that are found (following an investigation) to have been made in bad faith may result in sanctions or discipline against the individual who lodged the complaint.
14. Multiple Proceedings Where criminal, civil or administrative proceedings (“External Proceedings”) are commenced in respect of allegations of Sexual Violence, the University reserves the right to conduct its own independent investigation into such allegations, or to defer some or all of its own processes
{G0033521.33}
Proposed Amendments to Sexual Violence Policy and Page 36 of 189 2016 Sexual Violence Policy _proposed revisions_May 15 2018 (G0033521.DOCX;33)
under this Policy. The University will make its own determination in accordance with its policies and procedures.
15. Confidentiality The University strives to maintain confidentiality as an important factor in creating an environment in which Survivors feel safe to disclose and seek supports and both Parties have the opportunity to engage in a Resolution Process which is fair. Confidentiality should therefore be protected to the extent possible, but may be precluded where, for example: a. there are reasonable grounds to believe that one or more University Community Members or individuals in the wider community may be at risk of harm; b. reporting is required by law (e.g. mandatory reporting of a minor); c. an investigation is undertaken; or d. if accommodation or supports are needed, on a need-to-know basis; or e. the allegations are the subject of External Proceedings.
16. Reporting and Maintenance of Records a. Reporting and maintenance of records will be in accordance with provincial regulations. b. An annual report will be provided to the Board of Governors by the Office of the AVP (Student Affairs).
17. Related University Policies and Procedures a. Human Rights Policy b. Residence Community Standards (Student Housing) c. Athletic Code of Conduct Discipline Procedures d. Workplace Harassment Prevention Policy e. Workplace Violence Prevention Policy
18. Training The University will provide or make available appropriate training regarding this Policy to University Community Members including individuals who will be involved in the investigation or decision making process. The Sexual Violence Case Director has the oversight for providing or making available training, as appropriate.
19. Sexual Violence Awareness and Education Programs Working with staff in Student Housing Services, Campus Community Police and the Office of Diversity and Human Rights, the Wellness Education Centre has responsibility for ensuring ongoing Sexual Violence awareness and education programs for students.
{G0033521.33}
Proposed Amendments to Sexual Violence Policy and Page 37 of 189 Page 38 of 189
Sexual Violence Policy – Procedures Documents for Students
______Issued by: Provost & Vice-President (Academic), and Vice-President (Finance, Administration & Risk) Approving Authority: Board of Governors Policy Effective Date: January 1, 2017 Revised: New (reviewed every 3 years, or earlier as required)
______
To receive this Policy in an alternate format, contact the Office of Diversity and Human Rights: Phone: (1) 519- 824-2141 x53000 or Email: [email protected]
Table of Contents
Sexual Violence Policy – Procedures Documents for Students ...... 1
1. Preamble ...... 2
2. Sexual Violence Case Director ...... 2
3. Reporting Incidents of Sexual Violence ...... 2
4. Disclosure ...... 3
5. Resolution Options ...... 3
6. Penalties ...... 5
7. Interim Measures ...... 6
{G0033539.38} 2016 SV Procedures_proposed revision May 15 2018 (G0033539.DOCX;38)
Proposed Amendments to Sexual Violence Policy and Page 39 of 189
1. Preamble a. This Procedures Document for Students (“Procedures Document”) is part of the University’s Sexual Violence Policy (“Policy”) available at: (link) and provides specific information regarding Disclosure, Interim Measures and Complaint procedures for incidents of Sexual Violence involving students. b. Procedures for allegations against faculty and staff can be found at:
Violence Prevention in the Workplace Harassment Prevention in the Workplace or the Human Rights Policy
c. Defined terms in the Policy apply to this Procedures Document. In the event of a discrepancy between the Policy and the Procedures Document, the Policy will apply. Unless otherwise stated, Section numbers refer to this Procedures Document. d. To receive either the Policy or this Procedures Document in an alternate format, contact the Office of Diversity and Human Rights (“DHR”) Ext.53000 or [email protected]
2. Sexual Violence Case Director a. The Sexual Violence Case Director (“Case Director”) provides information about the processes available regarding allegations of Sexual Violence involving students. The Case Director can provide or facilitate the provision of Supports (see s. 7 of the Policy) to Survivors upon receiving a Disclosure. Survivors do not need to initiate one of the Resolution Options (Section 5) in order to receive Supports. b. The Case Director can also provide recommendations to the University regarding Interim Measures as defined in Section 7. Contact information for the Case Director is available on the Sexual Violence Support and Information website: https://www.uoguelph.ca/sexualviolence/resources
3. Reporting Incidents of Sexual Violence a. Incidents of Sexual Violence can be reported to the University in two ways; by making a Disclosure (Section 4) or by initiating one of the Resolution Options (Section 5). b. A criminal complaint may be filed directly with a police service or through the Campus Community Police. Support with this process can be provided through the Case Director. c. Information provided either through Disclosures or one of the Resolution Options which raises a reasonable concern regarding broader public safety may result in information being shared with the Campus Community Police or police services.
{G0033539.38} 2016 SV Procedures_proposed revision May 15 2018 (G0033539.DOCX;38)
Proposed Amendments to Sexual Violence Policy and Page 40 of 189
4. Disclosure a. Anyone can make a Disclosure. The Sexual Violence Support and Information website provides a number of contacts for individuals who may be affected by Sexual Violence: https://www.uoguelph.ca/sexualviolence/resources. b. Subject to the University’s legal obligations, a Disclosure does not normally trigger any of the Resolution Options (Section 5). Survivors may choose not to participate in any of the Resolution Options. c. Once a Disclosure is made and regardless of whether any of the Resolution Options are initiated, the University will provide Supports, as appropriate (Section 7 of the Policy). d. Except where the University has an obligation to act as determined under Section 8 of the Policy, no actions will be taken against a Person Accused by the University solely on the basis of a Disclosure.
5. Resolution Options
In relation to a specific allegation, a party may initiate one or more of the Resolution Options under these Procedures. The Resolution Options are Alternate Resolution or the Formal Complaint Process described below.
a. Alternative Resolution (“AR”) i. At any time, either party may request AR through Student Housing, the Office of Diversity and Human Rights (“DHR”) or Campus Community Police. AR is voluntary, and will only be used if the parties agree and the University determines AR is appropriate in the circumstances. ii. In response to a request for AR, the University will review the allegation(s) to determine if it has jurisdiction. The Assistant Vice- President (DHR) will be consulted as part of that review. The determination of jurisdiction will consider whether the allegation(s) : 1. falls under the Scope of this Policy; and 2. contains sufficient evidence which if true, would support a finding that Sexual Violence occurred (prima facie case) iii. If it is determined that the University has jurisdiction, an assessment will be made by the University as to whether AR is appropriate in the circumstances. The University will consider factors including but not limited to: 1. the University's legal responsibility to provide an environment free from Sexual Violence; 2. other legal procedures that may be initiated to protect statutory rights; and 3. the wishes of the parties.
{G0033539.38} 2016 SV Procedures_proposed revision May 15 2018 (G0033539.DOCX;38)
Proposed Amendments to Sexual Violence Policy and Page 41 of 189
iv. In order to initiate AR, a written statement of the particulars of the allegation (“Statement”) will be provided to the Person Accused. However, AR involves no investigation or fact-finding but is an opportunity for the parties to resolve a complaint with the assistance of a trained facilitator. v. If AR is not successful of if the Parties choose not to undertake AR, the Survivor can choose to proceed to the Formal Complaint Process. The Statement will form part of the materials for the Formal Complaint Process. Other documentation submitted during AR will not automatically be part of the materials for the Formal Complaint Process. vi. Individuals involved in facilitating AR will not be a witness in any proceeding related to the subject matter of the complaint, unless required by law. vii. AR processes under this Policy are confidential and without prejudice. Information obtained by the Survivor or the Person Accused through AR cannot be introduced as evidence in any internal disciplinary process, unless required by law. viii. Any tentative settlement reached through AR must be mutually accepted by the parties and approved by the University. ix. Allegations of a breach of a settlement may be pursued under the Non- Academic Misconduct Policy.
b. Formal Complaint Process i. The Formal Complaint Process is managed by DHR. ii. Under the Formal Complaint Process, the term “Complainant” will be used to identify the Survivor and the term “Respondent” to identify the Person Accused. iii. The Formal Complaint Process involves documentation, investigation and if appropriate, a decision making process. The standard to be used in the determining whether a breach has occurred is one of a “balance of probabilities”. iv. If the AVP (DHR) determines that the Formal Complaint satisfies subsection a(ii) above, the AVP (DHR) will advise the parties as appropriate, and initiate the investigation process. v. The investigation will include among other things, interviewing the parties and relevant witnesses, and requesting and reviewing the relevant documentation. The parties may be accompanied in their interviews by a support person. A support person cannot also act as a witness. vi. Once the investigation has been concluded, a report will be prepared by the investigator(s) (“Report”) which will include: 1. the allegations contained in the Formal Complaint; 2. the nature of the evidence; 3. an analysis of the evidence; and
{G0033539.38} 2016 SV Procedures_proposed revision May 15 2018 (G0033539.DOCX;38)
Proposed Amendments to Sexual Violence Policy and Page 42 of 189
4. one of the following recommendations: a. the Sexual Violence Policy has been breached; b. the Sexual Violence Policy has not been breached; or c. the Sexual Violence Policy has not been breached and the Complaint is vexatious or has been made in bad faith. vii. The Report will be reviewed by the AVP DHR and forwarded to the Vice- Provost (Student Affairs) for a decision. viii. The Vice-Provost (Student Affairs) will consider the Report and may consult with the investigator(s) prior to making a decision. The Vice-Provost (Student Affairs) may meet with one or both of the parties or witnesses prior to rendering a decision. ix. The Vice-Provost (Student Affairs) will normally make a decision within ten (10) University working days of receipt of the Report or after meeting with the parties, whichever is later. The Vice-Provost (Student Affairs) will provide a written decision with reasons to the parties together with a copy of the Report. x. If there is a finding that there has been a breach of the Sexual Violence Policy, the Respondent may appeal the decision (including penalty) in whole or in part to the Appeals Committee. xi. If there is a finding that the Formal Complaint was vexatious or made in bad faith, the Complainant may appeal the decision (including penalty) in whole or in part to the Appeals Committee. xii. Any appeal must be submitted within 15 University working days from the date of the decision. Any appeal to the Appeals Committee will proceed as a hearing de novo in accordance with the rules of procedural fairness. The appellant has the right to be represented by an advisor or legal counsel at the hearing. xiii. If either party appeals under subsections x or xi above, the other party will be advised of the outcome. 6. Penalties
Upon a finding of a breach of the Sexual Violence Policy, the Vice-Provost (Student Affairs) may impose one or more of the penalties available under the Judicial Committee’s Terms of Reference, as amended from time to time. These include but are not limited to:
a. Warning b. Non-academic Probation c. Forbid Entry to Certain Premises d. Restriction of Computing Privileges e. Community Service or Educational Program f. Restricted Access (e.g. restriction of participation in non-academic events or programs) g. Recommendation of Suspension or Expulsion {G0033539.38} 2016 SV Procedures_proposed revision May 15 2018 (G0033539.DOCX;38)
Proposed Amendments to Sexual Violence Policy and Page 43 of 189
7. Interim Measures
a. Once one of the Resolution Options is initiated, the University may impose such Interim Measures as may be appropriate. The decision to impose the Interim Measures will balance the safety and security of the Survivor and University Community Members with the rights of the Person Accused to procedural fairness and due process. Interim Measures may include, but are not limited to: i. separation of individuals in classes or other academic settings or University residences; ii. issuing “no-contact” orders; iii. restricting individuals from certain buildings including student residences; or iv. interim prohibition from certain events. b. Interim Measures do not indicate a finding of a breach under this Policy. Normally, Interim Measures imposed will continue until the complaint is resolved under the respective Resolution Option(s) or as otherwise determined by the University. c. Allegations of a failure to abide by the Interim Measures may be pursued under the Non-Academic Misconduct Policy.
{G0033539.38} 2016 SV Procedures_proposed revision May 15 2018 (G0033539.DOCX;38)
Proposed Amendments to Sexual Violence Policy and Page 44 of 189
To: Members, Board of Governors
From: Gen Gauthier-Chalifour, University Secretary
Subject: 3. Governance & Human Resources Committee Report
Meeting: June 8, 2018
c) Proposed Amendments to Human Rights Procedures [Motion]
Background and Review Phase 1
In Fall 2014 the Board of Governors approved a plan for refreshing the University of Guelph Human Rights Policy and Procedures. Work to review the Policy and Procedures was split into two phases.
Phase 1 of the review was completed and approved by the Board of Governors at its meeting of June 3, 2016. Major considerations arising out of Phase 1 included1:
• Separation of the policy and procedures documents. • Policy amendments to align with 2012 amendments to the Ontario Human Rights Code and include the two new grounds of gender identity and gender expression. • Changes to Procedures section 6, specifically: section 6.3 with respect to filing counter complaints, section 6.5.f with respect to composition of the fact-finding team, section 6.10 to include conclusions in reports of a fact-finding team, section 6.12.1 regarding records related to unsubstantiated complaints. • Addition of Procedures section 9 to articulate the process to be followed for approval of changes to the Procedures and report on implementation annually to the Board of Governors. • Modifications to membership of the Human Rights Advisory Group to increase the number of representatives from the senior executive of the University (from one to “up to three” representatives, as well as the AVP Diversity and Human Rights).
Update and Review Phase 2
Following the completion of Phase 1 in Spring 2016, Phase 2 began in Fall 2016. Dr. Jane Ngobia, Assistant Vice-President (Diversity and Human Rights) has been working with the Human Rights Advisory Group (HRAG)2, on the review of procedures.
1 The memo provided to the Board of Governors in June 2016 is available in online supporting materials3 and provides additional details on the major considerations arising out of phase one. 2 HRAG is the advisory body established within the Human Rights Policy and includes representation from a range of stakeholders. 3 https://uoguelph.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/151828
Proposed Amendments to Human Rights Procedures Page 45 of 189 At its meeting May 8, 2018 the Committee considered proposed amendments to the Human Rights Procedures. Substantial discussion was held regarding the amended procedures, and members of the Committee offered feedback with respect to the following:
• Section 4 – language refinements to clarify expectations regarding outcomes when using the Early Resolution Process (i.e. that the process does not lead to a finding of a violation under the Human Rights Policy).
• Section 6.5 – Composition of the fact-finding team in instances when a complaint involves the President or member of the Board of Governors, and the potential for conflicts of independence.
• Section 7 – One-year limitation period for filing a complaint, and inconsistency with the two-year limitation for filing civil claims.
Through discussion, it was noted that concerns raised with respect to sections 6 and 7 were outside the scope of the current review process (Phase 2), and that such changes require consultation and accordingly may need to be considered in a subsequent review period. It was agreed that Dr. Ngobia would review the Committee’s recommendations and return with information to confirm feasibility at this stage.
At the Committee’s meeting May 23, 2018, Dr. Ngobia confirmed that recommendations for amendments to section 4 had been incorporated into a further revised draft, which was presented to the Committee for consideration. Additionally, Dr. Ngobia advised that in accordance with the Human Rights Policy, recommended changes to the Procedures require a period of consultation with the Human Rights Advisory Group and the University community. Given the Committee’s comments regarding sections 6 and 7 were outside the scope of the current review, they will be noted and considered during the next review cycle.
The following is enclosed for consideration by the Board of Governors:
• May 23, 2018 Memorandum from Dr. Jane Ngobia, in response to the Committee’s suggested revisions. • May 8, 2018 Memorandum from Dr. Ngobia, providing an overview of the revised Human Rights Procedures. • Amended Human Rights Procedures (as of May 23, 2018)
The Human Rights Policy and current procedures are available on the Diversity and Human Rights website: https://www.uoguelph.ca/diversity-human-rights/human-rights-policy-and- procedures.
The proposed amended human rights procedures were also presented to Senate for consultation and feedback at its meeting May 28, 2018. No comments with respect to the proposed “in-scope” changes were received.
The Board of Governors is asked to, RESOLVE, that the Board of Governors accept and approve the amended University of Guelph Human Rights Procedures, as presented.
N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2017-18\6. June 8, 2018\Cover memos\3c_GHRC - Human Rights Amendments.docx
Proposed Amendments to Human Rights Procedures Page 46 of 189 ‘NiV};"siTY' ‘l«U” ” OFFICEofDIVERSITY AND HUMANRIGHTS
May 16, 2018
To: Chair, Governance and Human Resources Committee | University of Guelph
From: JaneNgobia, Assistant Vice—President,Diversity and Human Rights
Re: Suggested Revisions to the Human Rights Procedures
This is regarding the Governance and Human Resources Committee’s (Committee) suggested revisions to the Human Rights Procedures (Procedures) further to the Human Rights Advisory Group (HRAG) recommended changes to Section 4 of the Procedures, which the Committee recently reviewed.
The Committee reserved its decision on the HRAG’srecommendations, pending clarification as to whether some language within the amended procedures could be clarified while remaining faithful to the required consultation process; and, how feedback provided on the Procedures but that was out of scope for the current review of procedures, would be considered and implemented.
In accordance with the Human Rights Policy, developing recommended changes to the Procedures requires a period of consultation with the HRAGand the University community. One that will be particularly extensive in the areas that are outside the scope ofthe HRAG’s current review.
In Scope of Current Review
Section 4, Early Resolution Processes
Specifically, the committee suggested clari?/ing the language in section 4.1.3 and 4.3.4 so that parties to an early resolution process clearly understand the possible outcomes in the early resolution processes.
Accordingly, sections 4.1.3 and 4.3.5 have been updated. Changes have been highlighted in yellow for ease of reference.
Office of Diversity and Human Rights (DHR) 15 University Avenue East Guelph, Ontario, Canada N16 2W1 519-824-4120 X53000 www.uogue|ph.ca/diversity—human—rights/
Proposed Amendments to Human Rights Procedures Page 47 of 189 UNIVEsmz “GU” ” OFFICEofDIVERSITY AND HUMANRIGHTS
Out of Scope of Current Review
Timelines (Policy and Procedures)
— Time limitations,questions were raised about reconciling the time limitation of one year, with the civilprocess and amending so it may be up to 2 years
— — s.6.5(c) composition ofthe fact finding team for the president or board members — clarifying language so that when the president/VPs or a board member is personallyimplicated, there is an automatic external mechanism so as to remove any perceived conflicts of independence. This is also for the next review process, understanding it is out of scope for what was reviewed in this round.
These recommendations are significant and at the same time outside the scope ofthis review. They will be considered and addressed by HRAGduring the next cycle of review.
I hope that my comments are helpful to the Committee in reaching a decision on the HRAG’scurrent recommendations, and suggesting a path forward. Ifl can be of further assistance to the Committee, please do not hesitate to let me know.
Warm Regards :D:%—\
JaneNgobia Assistant Vice-President, Diversity and Human Rights
Proposed Amendments to Human Rights Procedures Page 48 of 189
To: University of Guelph Senate and Board of Governors thro’ Prof. Charlotte Yates, Provost and Vice President Academic
Date: May 1st 2018
Re: Revised Human Rights Procedures Section 1-5 ______
Background: In October 2014 the Board of Governors (BOG) approved the plan of action for conducting a review of the full document. Given the complex nature of the document, and the numerous stakeholders involved, this plan involved proceeding in stages. Distinct segments of the Policy and Procedures are to be considered in discrete sections, starting first with those areas where there is full consensus amongst stakeholders.
Phase 1 of review led to separation of Policy and the Procedures documents; updating the grounds section; and a comprehensive review of the Formal Complaint Resolution Process. Changes were approved by the Board of Governors on June 3, 2016.
Phase 2 of the review process commenced Fall 2016 and focuses on Section 4 and 5 - Informal Resolution and the Mediation Resolution Process respectively. The review of these sections was informed by 11 priority areas followed by 38 recommendations identified by the Human Rights Advisory Group (HRAG).
Per section 14 of the Policy, Human Rights Advisory Group (HRAG) advises the Assistant Vice President Diversity and Human Rights on matters pertaining to the policy and its procedures. The HRAG is comprised of 4 student reps (2 undergraduate and 2 graduate) 2 reps. from each employee group, 3 reps. from senior executive group Process of Gathering Feedback: This has been a collaborative process. An external reviewer Mr. Mile Komlen, B.A., LL.B. Barrister & Solicitor, was hired to integrate industry-wide best practices with HRAG’s recommendations, as well as align the proposed changes with other internal conflict resolution mechanism. As such, input from internal stakeholders including University’s General Counsel, Human Resources, and Faculty and Academic Relations was sought and incorporated.
Office of Diversity and Human Rights (DHR) 15 University Avenue East Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1 519-824-4120 x53000 www.uoguelph.ca/diversity-human-rights/
Proposed Amendments to Human Rights Procedures Page 49 of 189
Feedback and endorsements have and will be sought from members of the University community (students, staff, and faculty) as follows: Employee Groups (via its HRAG representatives) Students (via Student Leaders And Management- SLAM) Student Affairs Directorate Office of Legal Counsel Vice-President’s Academic Council (VPAC) Vice-President’s Administrative Team (VPAT) Council of Academic Chairs Executive Leadership Team –Approved May 1st 2018 University Senate (via Priorities and Planning Committee) Board of Governors (via Governance and Human Resources Committee)
Highlights of Changes: This is a complete overhaul of the Informal and Mediated Process. The revisions seek to address the following: a. Process: o Streamline the processes and make them more accessible and user friendly. o Create a more expeditious and predictable process that is a viable alternate to the formal complaint resolution procedures. o Preserves “confidentiality” and “without prejudice” nature of an Early Resolution Process. o A process that does not seem to trivialize concerns. Therefore, renamed “Early Resolution Process” previously called “Informal Resolution Process” o Two processes have been recommended as follows; o Personal Resolution, where a complainant could choose to approach the individual engaging in the allegedly offending behaviour, and o Alternative Resolution, offers a spectrum of structured and controlled environment that typically includes a variety of resolution options such as facilitate interventions, negotiation, coaching, mediation b. Repeat Breach: DHR will determine whether matter should be differed to the formal process. c. Interim Measures: Are necessary to safeguard safeguard the environment of all parties. d. Timelines: In order to ensure that the Early Resolution process is timely it will typically be concluded within 15 University business days of beginning the process. e. Role of Persons with Supervisory Responsibilities: Previous version was ambiguous and assigned “supervisors” roles that University could not ensure. f. Facilitators: This version has identified a need to have trained facilitators to support this process.
Proposed Amendments to Human Rights Procedures Page 50 of 189
g. Settlement Discussions and Record Keeping: o Complainant’s determine whether they want to inform their collective bargaining group that an Early Resolution process is being used- unless otherwise stated in their respective collective agreement. o Settlement must be made in consultation with the appropriate University representatives (e.g. HR/FASR), and that a copy of a signed resolution agreement would be provided to all parties and those person(s) with supervisory responsibilities, as reasonably necessary, who may bear responsibility for implementing or monitoring the terms of the settlement. Conclusion The revised Procedures document reflects the priority areas and recommendations identified and seeks to provide easier access to the complaint resolution processes under the Policy. The proposed changes are aimed at a processes resolving concerns and complaints, using a variety of resolution methods to achieve resolution expeditiously, before referral to the formal complaint resolution procedures.
The underlying philosophy of the Human Rights Policy and Procedures is sound and continues to be a basis of unity for the community. The Policy fulfils its intended function and is educational as well as clearly setting out the University’s expectations in terms of the behaviours required of all faculty, staff, students and visitors. The Procedures continue to clearly articulate steps to be taken to address alleged breaches of the Policy.
Perhaps one of the most unique and important features of the University’s Human Rights Policy and Procedures is that it makes protecting, upholding and clarifying human rights a community responsibility. Since its inception, significant numbers of faculty, staff and students have been involved with the office resolving human rights concerns and complaints.
The attached revised Procedures documents continue to foster a community based approach to human rights concerns, disputes and complaints.
Sincerely,
Jane Ngobia | Assistant Vice-President, Diversity & Human Rights Office of Diversity and Human Rights | University of Guelph Fielding House | 15 University Ave E | Guelph, ON N1G 2W1 519-824-4120 Ext. 54713| [email protected] Website | Twitter
Proposed Amendments to Human Rights Procedures Page 51 of 189 Page 52 of 189 Please Note: Phase 2 review focused on Section 1-5 only. [Section 6-9 are out of scope of current review]
University of Guelph Human Rights Procedures Document
The University of Guelph Human Rights Procedures are supplemental to and do not replace individual or group rights or responsibilities arising from the Ontario Human Rights Code.
This document replaces the previous version of the Procedures documented in Human Rights at the University of Guelph, approved by the Board of Governors June 3rd 2016
Approved by the Board of Governors (Date of Approval)
Page 1 of 18
Proposed Amendments to Human Rights Procedures Page 53 of 189 Contents 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION ...... 4 2. THE COMPLAINT RESOLUTION PROCESSES ...... 4 2.1 Overview ...... 4 2.2 Definitions...... 4 2.3 Resolution Processes ...... 4 2.4 Interim Measures ...... 5 3. HUMAN RIGHTS RESOURCE PERSONS, FACILITATORS, FACT-FINDERS ...... 5 4. EARLY RESOLUTION PROCESSES...... 5 4.1 Overview ...... 5 4.2 Personal Resolution ...... 6 4.3 Alternative Resolution (AR) ...... 6 4.4 Potential Conflict of Interest or Apprehension of Bias ...... 7 4.5 Timelines...... 7 4.6 Settlement ...... 8 5. MEDIATION RESOLUTION PROCESS [DELETED] ...... 8 6. THE FORMAL COMPLAINT RESOLUTION PROCESS [Out of Scope of Current Review] ...... 8 6.1 The Formal Complaint ...... 8 6.2 Actions of the Office of Diversity and Human Rights on Receiving a Formal Complaint ...... 8 6.3 Notice and Response ...... 10 6.4 Assistance and Representation for Complainants, Respondents and Witnesses during the Formal Complaint Resolution Process ...... 10 6.5 Composition of the Fact-Finding Team ...... 11 6.6 Potential Conflict of Interest or Apprehension of Bias ...... 12 6.7 Role of the Fact-Finding Team ...... 12 6.8 The Fact-Finding Team: Initial Actions ...... 13 6.8.1 A Settlement...... 13 6.8.2 Participate in Mediation; ...... 13 6.9 Withdrawing a Formal Complaint ...... 14 6.10 Report of the Fact-Finding Team ...... 14 6.11 Process Following Submission of the Report of the Fact-Finding Team ...... 15 6.12 Disciplinary Action ...... 16 6.12.1 Complaints Upheld by the Appropriate Authority ...... 16 6.12.2 Where Disciplinary Action is Disputed ...... 16 6.12.3 Complaints Substantiated against Respondents Who are Other Users of University Premises or Programs ...... 16 6.13 Records ...... 16
Page 2 of 18
Proposed Amendments to Human Rights Procedures Page 54 of 189 6.13.1 Records Held by DHR ...... 16 6.13.2 Unsubstantiated Complaints ...... 17 6.13.2 Records Held in Employee/Student Official File ...... 17 7. TIMELINES [Out of Scope of Current Review] ...... 17 8. STAFF HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW COMMITTEE [Out of Scope of Current Review] ...... 17 9. APPROVAL [Out of Scope of Current Review] ...... 18
Page 3 of 18
Proposed Amendments to Human Rights Procedures Page 55 of 189 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1.1 The University has developed processes for dealing with human rights issues that are fair and equitable to all members of the community. The Office of Diversity and Human Rights (DHR) has the responsibility, through the Assistant Vice President (AVP) of DHR to manage these processes and to provide support for all participants in any process, except in cases where an issue may impinge on the Office or its staff members.
1.2 These Procedures are intended to be used in conjunction with the Human Rights Policy. DHR will be responsible for managing the process leading to the selection and training of human rights resource persons, facilitators and fact- finders. Human rights resource persons will be available to any person or group covered by the Policy.
2. THE COMPLAINT RESOLUTION PROCESSES
2.1 Overview 2.1.1 Where possible the Policy and these Procedures are intended to provide an opportunity for resolution of issues at the lowest level. The Procedures apply to individuals pursuing or responding to concerns or complaints as well as to groups and to systemically based complaints.
2.1.2 The processes are intended to be remedial and seek to understand the consequences and impacts of an incident and who is responsible and to determine what is required of the parties to respond to the harms, encourage action to prevent reoccurrence, and make positive changes in climate and culture for the future.
2.2 Definitions 2.2.1 The terms “concern” and “complaint” are used to refer to separate but sometimes sequential ways in which human rights issues may be raised for resolution. A “concern” refers to a matter raised in an initial/exploratory or informal way that may or may not become a clearer articulation of a “complaint”.
2.2.2 A “complaint” refers to a matter that may be the subject of the Early and Formal Complaint Resolution Processes under the Policy.
2.2.3 The person(s) expressing a concern or complaint is generally referred to as the “complainant(s)” and the person(s) responding to a concern or complaint is generally referred to as the “respondent(s)”. In systemically based concerns or complaints, the University is typically named as the respondent. Collectively, the complainant(s) and respondent(s) are generally referred to as the “parties”.
2.3 Resolution Processes 2.3.1 The Policy and these Procedures provide two (2) general processes for the resolution of concerns and complaints:
1. Early Resolution Process (Section 4), which may include Personal Resolution and/or Alternative Resolution (AR); or 2. Formal Complaint Resolution Process (Section 6).
2.3.2 Initially, each of the parties must be informed of the existence of the Policy and these Procedures, and the steps to be followed must be outlined. All parties should be advised to take notes about the situation, including when the alleged incident or incidents occurred and who was present. DHR shall keep those involved with the matter fully informed as appropriate.
Page 4 of 18
Proposed Amendments to Human Rights Procedures Page 56 of 189 2.3.3 Complainants and respondents are expected to participate in the resolution processes that may apply. Lack of cooperation will not prevent an investigation from proceeding and fact finders may move forward with the information available to them.
2.3.4 Parties have the right to seek the assistance of non-participating support person(s) at each stage of the Resolution Processes. However, during Early Resolution process external legal counsel are not permitted to attend meetings.
2.3.5 The fact that concerns have been raised or resolved in an Early Resolution process does not become part of any performance review or other employment or academic evaluation of the individuals concerned unless consent has been given by the parties or as otherwise provided in a collective agreement or employee group agreement.
2.3.6 Where DHR becomes aware that a party has previously been the subject of a concern or complaint of an egregious or significant nature, DHR will review the matter, give consideration to the wishes of the complainant, and determine whether it should proceed directly to the Formal Complaint Resolution Process in accordance with section 6.1.
2.4 Interim Measures 2.4.1 At any stage of these Procedures, it may be necessary to implement interim measures in order to safeguard the environment of the complainant(s) and/or respondent(s).
2.4.2 Interim measures may be proposed by or to the AVP (DHR), or considered by the AVP (DHR) at the request of the complainant(s) and/or the respondent(s). The AVP (DHR), in consultation with the appropriate person(s) with supervisory responsibilities or academic personnel, will determine if any immediate action or interim measures are required to protect the University community or any of its members.
2.4.3 Interim measures shall not be construed as discipline or as a finding of breach/no breach of the Policy.
2.4.4 For further guidance, section 6.2 of these Procedures dealing with Interim Measures may be referred to.
3. HUMAN RIGHTS RESOURCE PERSONS, FACILITATORS, FACT‐FINDERS
DHR will be responsible for seeking volunteers from the University community to establish a pool of human rights resource persons, facilitators and fact-finders. Volunteers enter a selection process and may be recommended by a sub-committee of the Human Rights Advisory Group (Section 14 of the Policy) to become human rights resource persons, facilitators and fact-finders. The sub-committee will make recommendations to the AVP (DHR), who will be responsible for selecting and appointing human rights resource persons, facilitators and fact-finders. DHR will be responsible for the training provided to the selected volunteers. The term of appointment for a human rights resource person, a facilitator and a fact-finder is twelve months, and any individual may be reappointed for a total of five consecutive terms.
4. EARLY RESOLUTION PROCESSES
4.1 Overview 4.1.1 Early Resolution Processes may include Personal Resolution and/or Alternative Resolution (AR). They typically precede, and are distinguished from, the Formal Complaint Resolution Process. Early intervention and resolution are to be encouraged, as appropriate.
Page 5 of 18
Proposed Amendments to Human Rights Procedures Page 57 of 189 4.1.2 Where either of the parties are members of a union and/or other employee group, they may decline to inform their union that the Early Resolution Processes are being used, although the resolution of a concern or complaint may be required to be supported by a union and/or other employee group or as otherwise provided in a collective agreement or employee group agreement.
4.1.3 Early Resolution processes do not involve an investigation and therefore they do not lead to a finding of a violation of the Policy. The parties may at any time during the Early Resolution Processes choose to withdraw from the process and proceed directly to the Formal Complaint Resolution Process (Section 6).
4.1.4 Once a matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties, the outcome of the Early Resolution process is deemed to be final, unless there is a breach of the terms of the resolution.
4.2 Personal Resolution 4.2.1 A complainant may choose to approach the individual(s) engaging in the alleged behaviour, either in person or in writing, and/or with the assistance of DHR, a support person, or a person(s) with supervisory responsibilities, to advise that the behaviour is offensive and unwelcome to the complainant and request that the behaviour cease. The concern may be resolved at this point and no further action may be required.
4.2.2 This option may not be appropriate in cases where a person(s) with supervisory responsibilities or DHR determines that there is a real or perceived threat to the health and/or safety of employees, the alleged behaviour has impacted other employees, or there is evidence that the complainant fears retaliation.
4.2.3 Where the complainant’s efforts at Personal Resolution are not satisfactory and/or the complainant believes that: the behaviour is continuing; the behaviour is more of a serious nature than can be dealt with by Personal Resolution; or Personal Resolution is not appropriate to the specific case. The complainant may bring their concern to DHR to initiate either the Alternate Resolution or Formal Complaint Processes under these Procedures.
4.3 Alternative Resolution (AR)
4.3.1 Alternative Resolution (AR) may be used to resolve complaints and typically involves a third party acting as a facilitator in direct communication between the parties. A complainant may initiate AR to resolve a concern or complaint with the assistance of a qualified facilitator appointed by DHR. Alternatively, the AVP (DHR) may appoint an external mediator to carry out the mediation.
4.3.2 AR offers a structured and controlled environment that will help the parties reach a fair resolution, and typically includes informal resolution options such as facilitated conversation, intervention, negotiation, mediation, coaching or any other AR method. If any party is not comfortable meeting face-to-face with another party, the facilitator may engage in individual, back-and-forth discussions to attempt a resolution.
4.3.3 A complainant may initiate AR of a concern or complaint through conversation with DHR. The complainant will provide a brief description of the concern or complaint that outlines the following: A general description of the nature of the concern The date and location of the incident causing the concern The number of individuals or witnesses involved in the incident Whether an attempt has been made to resolve the matter Any desired outcomes. Page 6 of 18
Proposed Amendments to Human Rights Procedures Page 58 of 189 4.3.4 Alternate Resolution under these procedures is: voluntary and will only be used when all parties to a complaint agree; appropriate where University has jurisdiction and allegation(s) is/are based on a prohibited ground the most recent alleged incident occurred within the past one (1) year contains sufficient evidence which if true would support a finding of human right policy has been breached (prima facie); can be a practical way to help all sides to a complaint understand the other party’s or parties’ position and allows all parties to be involved directly in the process; not a fact-finding process, nor will the facilitator make any decisions about the resolution of a complaint; not appropriate when only one party is committed to the process; may not appropriate in circumstances where there is a significant power imbalance, or where there are allegations of physical violence, threats to safety, serious emotional or physical abuse or intimidation.
4.3.5 Respondent will receive a copy or summary of the particulars of the concern or complaint and a copy of the Policy and these Procedures usually within five (5) University business days of DHR receiving the concern or complaint. The respondent will be given up to five (5) University business days to provide a written response to the concerns or complaint.
4.3.6 Information obtained during an Alternative Resolution Process or an attempted settlement arising from the process is “confidential” and “without prejudice” and will not be introduced as evidence in any subsequent fact- finding or hearing. The parties to AR will also agree before the start of the resolution that the facilitator cannot be a witness in any proceeding related to the subject matter of the resolution, unless required by law. 4.4 Potential Conflict of Interest or Apprehension of Bias 4.4.1 Any party to an Alternative Resolution Process may challenge the participation of a facilitator (described in Section 3) on the ground that the individual has a potential conflict of interest in the outcome of the matter, that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias on that individual’s part, or that the facilitator does not have the training or qualifications to conduct the process.
4.4.2 A challenge will normally be raised, in writing, to the AVP (DHR) within two (2) University business days upon receipt of such notification. The AVP (DHR) may then appoint a new facilitator. This may include the next person appointed from the pool of volunteers or another qualified facilitator as appointed by the AVP (DHR). If this facilitator is refused by any of the parties, they must provide reasons, in writing, to the AVP (DHR) within two (2) University business days, whose decision shall then be final.
The AVP (DHR) may appoint an external mediator to carry out the process at any time.
4.4.3 For further guidance, section 6.6 of these Procedures dealing with Potential Conflict of Interest of Apprehension of Bias may be referred to.
4.5 Timelines 4.5.1 Meetings required for the Alternative Resolution sessions will be scheduled by DHR. These meetings should take place as quickly as possible after the facilitator is requested and will take into account the availability of the parties and the facilitator.
4.5.2 Reasonable efforts will be made to begin the Alternative Resolution within five (5) University business days after the parties agree to this option. Depending on the option selected and the availability of parties, the Alternative Resolution typically will conclude within fifteen (15) University business days of beginning this process. Should
Page 7 of 18
Proposed Amendments to Human Rights Procedures Page 59 of 189 additional time be needed at any step of these procedures, extension of time will not be unreasonably withheld and parties will be informed accordingly. 4.6 Settlement 4.6.1 If the parties agree to resolve the concern or complaint through an Alternative Resolution process, the facilitator may assist in documenting the outcomes. Any settlement document must be mutually accepted by the parties and must be consistent with the Human Rights Policy as confirmed by DHR. In the case of employees, any settlement must be made in consultation with the appropriate University representatives (e.g. HR/FASR). Subject to section 4.6.2, a copy of the signed resolution agreement will be provided to all parties and will be provided to those person(s) with supervisory responsibilities, as reasonably necessary, who may bear responsibility for implementing or monitoring the terms of the settlement. Alternative Resolution does not lead to disciplinary outcomes unless agreed to by the parties concerned.
4.6.2 A resolution of a concern or complaint may be required to be supported by a union and/or other employee group in the case of parties who are employees. DHR will monitor compliance with the terms of the Policy and these Procedures. Any settlement agreement will be subject to the application of any rights a respondent or complainant may have under a collective agreement or contract with the University or under another University policy or procedure.
4.6.3 Upon resolution of a concern or complaint through settlement during the Early Resolution Process, DHR will keep accurate and complete records specific to the case in a confidential file in accordance with DHR’s record retention protocol.
5. MEDIATION RESOLUTION PROCESS [DELETED]
6. THE FORMAL COMPLAINT RESOLUTION PROCESS [Out of Scope of Current Review] 6.1 The Formal Complaint
To initiate a formal complaint, the complainant must complete, sign and date the prescribed formal complaint form and file it within the time limit set out in Section 6.14 of these Procedures.
Usually, it will be the individual or group affected by the alleged discrimination or harassment who will file a formal complaint. A formal complaint may also be made by persons representing the complainant(s).
Nothing in these Procedures precludes the Vice- President (Academic), the Vice-President (Finance, Administration and Risk), the Vice-President (Research) or the Vice-President (External) from filling a complaint in accordance with these Procedures in a situation where the University reasonably believes that discrimination or harassment may have occurred, even though no person has complained about a violation of this Policy.
A person(s) with supervisory responsibilities who receives a formal human rights complaint on the prescribed form will retain a copy and forward the original of the complaint to DHR.
In all cases, the formal complaint form will be forwarded to the University's Office of Diversity and Human Rights. 6.2 Actions of the Office of Diversity and Human Rights on Receiving a Formal Complaint
On receiving a formal complaint, the AVP (DHR) will review the formal complaint to determine if: Page 8 of 18
Proposed Amendments to Human Rights Procedures Page 60 of 189
(a) the University has jurisdiction; (b) the allegation(s) is (are) based on a prohibited ground; (c) the most recent alleged incident occurred within the past one (1) year; (d) upon initial examination, sufficient evidence appears to exist to support a case for investigation (prima facie).
In case of a systemic complaint, the AVP (DHR), in consultation with the appropriate VP, shall determine who will respond to the allegations.
After determining a, b, c, and d above and upon ensuring that there are no safety and health concerns that require to be addressed immediately, DHR will establish a fact-finding team as described in Section 6.5 to work within the timelines set out in Section 6.14.
The AVP (DHR), in consultation with the appropriate person(s) with supervisory responsibilities or academic personnel, will determine if any immediate action or interim measures are required to protect the University community or any of its members.
These interim measures may include: Limiting access to facilities; Making arrangements for alternative grading or supervisory relationships; or, Discontinuing contact between the complainant and the respondent during the period of the formal complaint resolution process.
Interim measures, if required, are to be recommended by AVP (DHR) and implemented by the appropriate University personnel.
Interim measures may be taken by the University upon the recommendation of the AVP (DHR) in consultation with the appropriate person(s) with supervisory responsibilities or academic personnel where the University determines that:
(a) the continued proximity of the parties will impair the ability of any party or any other person to function in relation to studies or to work or in relation to the University’s residential environment;
(b) there has been a reprisal or there exists the threat of reprisal; or,
(c) a complainant or a respondent poses a safety risk.
If the University determines that one or more of the above three conditions or risks exist:
(1) The respondent (or the complainant, if appropriate) will be relocated to another area in the workplace without loss of wages and benefits, pending final disposition of the formal complaint.
(2) If this is not possible or if it can be shown that the respondent or complainant poses a safety risk to others, pending final disposition of the formal complaint:
(a) An employee respondent (or complainant, if appropriate) will be placed on home assignment without loss of wages and benefits. (b) A student respondent (or complainant, if appropriate) will be excluded from one or more of their classes, University residence or the University in accordance with the University’s regulations governing student
Page 9 of 18
Proposed Amendments to Human Rights Procedures Page 61 of 189 behaviour. Where such precautions are taken with respect to a student, the student’s studies will be supported, to the point of undue hardship pending the outcome of the situation.
(3) To the extent practicable, other users of University premises or premises where University programs take place who are respondents will be required to have no contact, either direct or indirect, with a complainant until the fact-finding has been concluded and its recommendations acted on. Note that a temporary separation pursuant to this provision is without prejudice and should not be viewed as "discipline" or a "transfer" within the meaning of any collective agreement or policy. 6.3 Notice and Response
For the purposes of these Procedures, University working days refer to Monday to Friday of any calendar week on which the University is open.
DHR will:
(1) Within two (2) University working days of receipt of the formal complaint: a) Notify the appropriate person(s) with supervisory responsibilities, in writing, of the formal complaint; b) Notify the complainant, in writing, of receipt of the formal complaint and include a copy of the Policy and these Procedures; c) Notify the respondent, in writing, of receipt of the formal complaint and include a copy of the Policy and these Procedures and the formal complaint form with any attachments.
(2) Inform the respondent, in writing, of their opportunity to submit to DHR a written response to the formal complaint within the following ten (10) University working days;
(3) Communicate to the complainant, in writing, the respondent’s written response and ask the complainant, in writing, to provide to DHR any written reply within ten (10) University working days;
(4) Establish a fact-finding team within five (5) University working days of receipt of the complainant’s reply or the deadline to respond as provided;
(5) After the fact-finding team has been established, DHR will notify parties of the members of the fact-finding team, in writing, within ten (10) University working days after receiving the complainant’s reply or the deadline to respond whichever is earlier.
The fact-finding process will commence on the expiry of the time permitted under (5) above.
The filing of a counter-complaint by a respondent against a complainant regarding matters subject to a fact-finding under these procedures need not result in a separate fact-finding. The allegations raised by the respondent may be addressed within the scope of the original fact-finding. The filing of a counter-complaint must be made within 10 University working days of receiving notice of complaint and supporting documentation. 6.4 Assistance and Representation for Complainants, Respondents and Witnesses during the Formal Complaint Resolution Process
Individuals involved in the formal complaint resolution process are encouraged to seek the assistance of one (1) or more of the following individuals:
• Human rights resource person from a roster maintained by DHR; Page 10 of 18
Proposed Amendments to Human Rights Procedures Page 62 of 189 • Union or association representative or legal counsel; • Representative of a student organization such as the CSA, GSA; Employee, colleague, friend or relative; When requested and at the discretion of the AVP (DHR) the assistance of an individual unassociated with DHR. 6.5 Composition of the Fact‐Finding Team
The fact-finding team will normally consist of three (3) people and will reflect the particular capacity in which a respondent, individual or group was functioning in relation to the University when the event(s) leading to the allegation(s) of the complainant is said to have occurred. DHR will establish a fact-finding team composed in the following ways depending on the position of the respondent. In exceptional circumstances, the AVP (DHR) may appoint an external investigator to carry out the role of a fact-finding team. Any party to a formal complaint may promptly challenge the participation of an external investigator on the ground that the individual has a potential conflict of interest in the outcome of the matter or that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias on that individual’s part. A challenge must be raised, in writing, to the AVP (DHR) within 2 (two) University working days upon receipt of such notification.
For respondents who are: (a) Deans or staff directors • The AVP (DHR) or a Human Rights Advisor of DHR; • The Vice-President to whom the respondent reports, or the Vice–President’s designate; • One (1) additional fact-finder drawn from the pool. (b) Chairs or Academic Directors • The AVP (DHR) or a Human Rights Advisor of the DHR; • The Dean to whom the respondent reports, or the Dean’s designate (determined by the Provost); • One (1) additional fact-finder drawn from the pool. (c) Vice-Presidents, the President of the University or Members of the Board of Governors • The AVP (DHR) or a Human Rights Advisor of DHR; • A University Vice-President; • One (1) additional fact-finder drawn from the pool. (d) Members of DHR* • A Vice-President; • A departmental chair or staff director; • One (1) additional fact-finder drawn from the pool. * The fact-finding team will be established by the University President in this case. (e) Faculty, Librarians and Veterinarians • The AVP (DHR) or a Human Rights Advisor of the DHR; • The Associate or Assistant Dean from within the respondent’s college or that person’s designate (determined by the Provost); • One (1) additional fact-finder who is a member of the faculty, librarians and/or veterinarians and who is drawn from the pool. (f) University Staff • The AVP (DHR) or a Human Rights Advisor of DHR; • DHR to appoint a supervisor to whom neither the complainant nor the respondent report; • One (1) additional fact-finder who is a University peer or staff equivalent (where possible) and who is drawn from the pool. (g) Students • The AVP (DHR) or a Human Rights Advisor of the DHR; • Two (2) additional fact-finders one drawn from the pool, and of whom at least one (1) will be an undergraduate or graduate student, as appropriate. Page 11 of 18
Proposed Amendments to Human Rights Procedures Page 63 of 189 (h) Invitees of University Premises and Programs • The AVP (DHR) or a Human Rights Advisor of DHR; • One (1) senior employee from the University’s Human Resources Division; • One (1) additional fact-finder drawn from the pool.
(i) Other Individuals or Groups not Covered by Categories Above • The Vice-President (Finance, Administration and Risk) and the Vice-President (Academic) will determine the composition of the fact-finding team including whether or not to include non-University personnel.
6.6 Potential Conflict of Interest or Apprehension of Bias
At any point in time, after a fact-finding team has been established, the fact-finders will disclose to the AVP (DHR) any potential conflicts of interest that they have with any of the parties to the formal complaint. The AVP (DHR) will consult with the appropriate Vice-President to determine whether a declared potential conflict of interest will result in the replacement of the member in question.
After the fact-finding team has been established, DHR will inform the parties.
Any party to a formal complaint may promptly challenge the participation of one (1) or more individuals to a fact-finding team on the ground that the individual has a potential conflict of interest in the outcome of the matter or that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias on that individual’s part. A party raising the challenge will within two (2) University working days of meeting with fact finding team state the challenge, in writing to the AVP (DHR).
Where the AVP (DHR) has received a challenge to the participation of one (1) or more members of a fact-finding team, the AVP (DHR) will immediately forward all documentation regarding the challenge to the Vice-President (Finance, Administration and Risk) in the case of a challenge by faculty, students or other users of University premises and programs and to the Provost and Vice-President (Academic) in the case of staff challengers. Likewise, challenges raised by chairs, academic directors, deans, or staff directors will be directed to a Vice- President to whom the challenger does not report.
A challenge made by a Vice-President will be directed to the chair of the Board of Governors, whereas a challenge raised by the president of the University, by a member of the Board of Governors, or by a member of DHR will be directed to the Provost and Vice-President (Academic).
The decision of the Vice-President, or the Chair of the Board of Governors, with regard to the potential for conflict of interest or for bias will be made within five (5) University working days of having received the challenge, and the decision will be final.
The nature and decisions of all declared potential conflicts of interests and apprehensions of bias, together with the fact-finding team’s conclusions regarding the matter, will be noted in writing in both the draft and the final report concerning the formal complaint. 6.7 Role of the Fact‐Finding Team
If the fact-finding team determines that a fact-finding should proceed, the fact-finding team will:
Page 12 of 18
Proposed Amendments to Human Rights Procedures Page 64 of 189 (a) Conduct an investigation which includes interviewing the parties and relevant witnesses, and requesting and reviewing the relevant documentation. All reasonable attempts will be made to interview the complainant first. If a party or witness declines to participate in the fact-finding process, the process will proceed to a conclusion and a report will be prepared by the fact-finding team based on the investigation findings. In most circumstances, interviews with witnesses will occur after the parties have been given an opportunity to be interviewed. In cases of alleged systemic discrimination the parties may, at the discretion of the fact-finding team, make submissions in writing without the necessity of being directly interviewed. Any party may seek assistance from any of the individuals referred to in Section 6.4 of these Procedures and, if desired, be accompanied by up to two (2) of these individuals during interviews in the fact-finding process;
(b) Provide the relevant authority through the AVP (DHR) with a written report of the fact-finding team including any recommendations as outlined in 6.10. The relevant authority will be either the Vice-President (Academic), the Vice-President (Finance, Administration and Risk), the Vice-President (Research) or the Vice-President (External) in normal circumstances. 6.8 The Fact‐Finding Team: Initial Actions
Once established, the fact-finding team will devise a written plan under which it will interview the complainant, the respondent and witnesses. In addition, the fact-finding team will list those persons who, although named as witnesses, in its view had no information bearing on the allegations or were not available for interview. If it appears to the fact-finding team that other persons not named by the parties may have information related to the formal complaint, efforts should be made to interview these potential witnesses. It may also be necessary to re- interview the complainant and/or respondent before issuing the draft report.
Meetings required under these procedures should occur as quickly as is reasonably possible. From the initiation of the fact-finding process, to the issuing to the parties of a draft report of the fact-finding team, a fact-finding process will normally be completed within fifty (50) University working days. Requests by the fact-finding team to extend any timeline established under these procedures, based on reasonable grounds, will be submitted to the Vice-President (Finance, Administration and Risk) in the case of a respondent who is a faculty member or a student and to the Provost and Vice-President (Academic) in the case of a staff respondent.
The fact-finding team will attempt to make all decisions by consensus. Where this is not possible, the fact-finding team will vote on the issue and abide by a majority decision. The report of a fact-finding team may reflect, without attribution, a different view of all or any part of the report held by a member of the fact-finding team.
Upon the request of all parties, the fact-finding team may decide to suspend any fact-finding in the event that the parties agree to:
6.8.1 A Settlement Where parties agree to enter into a settlement, DHR in consultation with relevant University stakeholders will provide support in drafting the terms of settlement. This settlement agreement will be subject to the application of any rights the respondent or complainant may have under a collective agreement or contract with the University or under another University policy or procedure.
6.8.2 Participate in Mediation; At any time during formal complaint resolution processes, the parties may request mediation and ask to suspend the process in which they are currently engaged.
Page 13 of 18
Proposed Amendments to Human Rights Procedures Page 65 of 189 The AVP (DHR) in consultation with the fact finding team will determine under the circumstances whether the formal complaint is suitable to mediation or settlement. In doing so they will consider factors including but not limited to:
• the University's legal responsibility to provide an environment free from harassment and discrimination; • whether the matter involves express or implied threats, intimidation or coercion; • other legal procedures that may be initiated to protect statutory rights; • the wishes of the parties; • the recognition that grievances may be filed simultaneously with formal complaints in order to comply with negotiated timelines. Note: Should a grievance proceed under a collective agreement or other policy established with the University rather than through the human rights Policy and these Procedures, the University reserves the right to continue with its own fact-finding to address the matter in compliance with its obligations under the Code; 6.9 Withdrawing a Formal Complaint
A formal complaint may be withdrawn at any time, in writing. The withdrawal of a formal complaint may not stop a fact-finding process if the fact-finding team has a reasonable belief that:
discrimination or harassment may have occurred; the withdrawal of the formal complaint may prejudice the respondent; or, the formal complaint may have been made in bad faith.
In any such circumstance, the fact-finding team may proceed to conduct or to complete the fact-finding into the matter. 6.10 Report of the Fact‐Finding Team
Once the fact-finding process is complete, the fact-finding team will give a copy of its draft report to the parties detailing:
1. the nature and decisions of all declared potential conflicts of interests and apprehension of bias, together with the fact-finding team’s conclusions regarding those matters or the outcome of any challenges as set out in Section 6.6 of these Procedures; 2. allegations giving rise to the formal complaint or counter-complaint if applicable; 3. grounds in the Policy that have allegedly been violated; 4. any responses of the respondent and complainant; 5. the nature of the evidence provided by the complainant, respondent and the witnesses; 6. findings of fact; 7. conclusion: that on a balance of probabilities the Policy has been breached or not; 8. one of five recommendations as follows:
If policy was not breached; a. that the case be closed on the grounds of insufficient evidence of a breach of the Policy; If fact finders determine that the complainant was malicious, vexatious and trivial; b. that procedures be initiated that could result in disciplinary action against the complainant on the grounds of a malicious, vexatious or trivial complaint. If policy was breached; c. that procedures be initiated that could lead to remedial action e.g. education; d. that procedures be initiated that could lead to disciplinary action against the respondent; Page 14 of 18
Proposed Amendments to Human Rights Procedures Page 66 of 189 e. that measures be taken to remedy systemic discrimination;
The outcome of any subsequent process is independent of any recommendations that might arise from consultations between the appropriate Vice-President and DHR.
The parties have the right to comment in writing on the draft report of the fact-finding team before a final report is issued. The parties must submit their comments to the fact-finding team within ten (10) University working days.
Requests by a complainant or a respondent to extend the timeline for commenting upon the draft report of the fact-finding team, based on reasonable grounds, will be submitted to the fact-finding team for consideration. Permission for such an extension will not be unreasonably withheld.
Based on the results of the fact-finding process and the responses to the draft report of the fact-finding team, the fact-finding team will prepare a final report within ten (10) University working days.
Copies of the final report of the fact-finding team will be distributed by the AVP (DHR) to the parties and to the appropriate authority (defined by the respondent’s group) as follows:
• Students - Associate Vice-President (Student Affairs) • Employees - Vice-President to whom the respondent reports • Members of DHR - University President • Vice Presidents - University President • The University President and members of the Board of Governors - Chair of the Board of Governors • Chair of the Board of Governors - Vice-Chair of the Board of Governors • Invitees - either the Provost and Vice-President (Academic) or the Vice-President (Finance, Administration and Risk) as appropriate. 6.11 Process Following Submission of the Report of the Fact‐Finding Team
(a) For members of the University community, the appropriate authority in receipt of the final fact-finding report will decide whether to accept or reject the report with reasons and any subsequent recommendations that might arise from consultations with the AVP (DHR). This decision is final subject to any rights that may exist under another policy or procedure.
In the event the Vice-President receives and accepts the report, that Vice- President shall consult with DHR with a view to establishing recommendations aimed at removing any identified barriers and restoring the learning, living or working environment of the individual parties.
In the event that findings of fact do not support a violation of this Policy, yet, if in the view of the Vice- President in receipt of the report, the facts so warrant, the Vice-President may consult with DHR with a view to establishing recommendations that could serve to ameliorate the circumstances or remove the barriers which in the view of the fact-finding team gave rise to the formal complaint. It is understood that in this instance, ameliorative steps recommended by the fact-finding team do not in any respect reflect upon the culpability of the respondent to the formal complaint.
A violation of this Policy may constitute a basis for discipline of the respondent(s). It is the responsibility of the Vice-President in receipt of the final fact-finding report to determine whether, subject to the application of any rights the respondent may have under a collective agreement or contract with the University or under another University policy or procedure, discipline should apply. Page 15 of 18
Proposed Amendments to Human Rights Procedures Page 67 of 189
A finding in the report that a formal complaint is malicious, vexatious or trivial may constitute a basis for discipline of the complainant. It is the responsibility of the Vice-President in receipt of the final report of the fact-finding team to determine whether, subject to the application of any rights the complainant may have under a collective agreement or contract with the University or under another University policy or procedure, discipline should apply.
(b) In cases involving allegations of systemic discrimination, the appropriate authority in receipt of the final report of the fact-finding team will determine whether sufficient evidence exists to implement in whole, in part or not at all the recommendations of the fact-finding team.
(c) For invitees, the appropriate authority in receipt of the final report of the fact-finding team will determine whether to accept or reject with reasons, the recommendations in the report and this decision is final subject to any rights or contracts with the University.
(d) Once the fact-finding team submits its final report to the appropriate authority through the AVP (DHR), and once, the appropriate authority has consulted DHR about any steps that could ameliorate the circumstances or remove any identified barriers that gave rise to the complaint, the formal complaint process is at an end.
(e) All communications between DHR and the Vice-President or any other appropriate authority in receipt of the final report are confidential.
(f) DHR will monitor the implementation of any recommendations that a Vice-President or the appropriate authority undertakes and will ensure that those involved with the matter are kept fully informed. 6.12 Disciplinary Action
6.12.1 Complaints Upheld by the Appropriate Authority
Complaints upheld by the appropriate authority may result in discipline according to the established procedures applicable to the employee or student in question.
6.12.2 Where Disciplinary Action is Disputed
Respondents who dispute disciplinary action proposed by a Vice-President may have recourse to the established procedures of the tribunal, hearing panel or grievance procedure which is applicable to their status within the University. Members of employee groups without negotiated procedures may seek a review of the decision to impose discipline through the Staff Human Rights Review Committee (see Section 8).
6.12.3 Complaints Substantiated against Respondents Who are Other Users of University Premises or Programs
Outcomes must be deemed appropriate for the individual situation and may include such responses as a letter of disapproval and warning, revocation of permits or contracts, issuance of a no-trespass warning and/or notification to the police of the violation of this Policy. 6.13 Records
6.13.1 Records Held by DHR
Page 16 of 18
Proposed Amendments to Human Rights Procedures Page 68 of 189 Records pertaining to all complaints under the Policy will be retained by DHR. Access to such records will only be in accordance with the applicable University policies, agreements and applicable legislation or law. The retention period for records will be in accordance with the DHR Records Retention Protocol published on University Secretariat website. The Retention Period may be extended if the matter has proceeded to an external proceeding, such as a complaint under the Code. Upon expiry of the retention period, all records regarding the complaint will be destroyed.
6.13.2 Unsubstantiated Complaints
With the exception of a finding that a complaint is malicious, vexatious or trivial (Section 6.11), or that ameliorative steps should be taken, no further action will be taken if a complaint is not substantiated. Records of an unsubstantiated complaint will be kept by DHR. The said records shall be held by DHR in case further action is taken outside the University and only accessed with written approval of the AVP (DHR).
Any records of fact-finding and other processes with a formal complaint under the Policy will be removed from an employee’s official file if an arbitrator under a collective agreement finds that no discipline is warranted.
6.13.2 Records Held in Employee/Student Official File
Where a formal complaint has been substantiated against an employee, a record of the disciplinary outcome will be placed in the respondent employee’s official personal/confidential file in accordance with applicable University policies and/or collective agreements.
Where a formal complaint has been substantiated against a student, a record of the disciplinary outcome will be retained by AVP (Student Affairs) in accordance with any applicable agreement and policies.
If there is a previous record of less than two (2) years* standing on file, a prior disciplinary record established under this Policy may be submitted to the appropriate vice-president to assist in determining the appropriate disciplinary outcome in a subsequently substantiated matter. *As per sunset clauses in the relevant collective agreement(s).
7. TIMELINES [Out of Scope of Current Review]
All complaints must be initiated and filed with DHR within one (1) year of the most recent alleged discriminatory or harassing behaviour. This time limit may be extended where the complainant’s delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.
To seek an extension of the one (1) year time limit for filing a complaint, a complainant who is a faculty member or a student will seek, through DHR, the approval of the Vice-President (Finance, Administration and Risk). For a complainant who is a staff member, approval for an extension of the one (1) year time limit will be sought through DHR from the Provost and Vice-President (Academic).
8. STAFF HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW COMMITTEE [Out of Scope of Current Review]
(For those employees who are not covered by a grievance procedure within a collective agreement or contract with the University).
Page 17 of 18
Proposed Amendments to Human Rights Procedures Page 69 of 189 The Staff Human Rights Review Committee, drawn from a pool of university community members, may, upon request, review the decision made by a Vice-President to impose discipline on an individual as a result of a violation of the Policy. The committee will be comprised of a University department director and two (2) University staff members, at least one (1) of whom will be non-managerial. The committee will, in accordance with the rules of fairness governing such matters, receive, review and consider the records of the fact-finding team. The Committee may interview witnesses and review records and materials from the University relevant to the complaint.
9. APPROVAL The Provost and Vice-President (Academic), Vice-President (External), Vice-President (Research) and Vice- President (Finance, Administration and Risk) will review any proposed enhancements or amendments to the Procedures by AVP (DHR) and make recommendations to the President, with copy to AVP (DHR). The President shall make the final decision. The President will report annually to the Board of Governors on the implementation of the Policy and on any enhancements or amendments made to these Procedures.
Page 18 of 18
Proposed Amendments to Human Rights Procedures Page 70 of 189
To: Members, Board of Governors
From: Gen Gauthier-Chalifour, University Secretary
Subject: 3. Governance & Human Resources Committee Report
Meeting: June 8, 2018
d) Wellness@Work Survey Results
[This material will also be addressed during the Board’s strategy session, preceding the open session.]
In 2017, the University initiated a Wellness@Work Survey, in order to help University leadership to identify and better understand workplace factors that affect the psychological health and safety of University of Guelph faculty and staff.
The results of the survey were presented to the University community at a town hall held on April 4, 2018. For the information of the Board, key findings from the survey are highlighted in the enclosed infographic. The full survey report and supplemental report are available in online supporting materials1.
Don O’Leary, Vice-President (Finance, Administration and Risk) will provide an overview of results at the meeting.
Additional information on the Wellness@Work initiative may be found on the University’s website: https://www.uoguelph.ca/wellnessatwork/
1 URL https://uoguelph.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/151828
n:\bog\bog meetings\2017-18\6. june 8, 2018\cover memos\3d_ghrc - wellness@work survey results.docx
Wellness@Work Survey Results Page 71 of 189 Page 72 of 189 WELLNESS®WORK -° 2017 SURVEY RESULTS ‘tic’w5'\'r'l' r§?§ 9 ‘yoof employees responded psychomgicai ‘ ‘ 7I Suppon Protection of Physical Safety 85% :s.:::ti5e”oi*r:;%:‘g;:m. Engagemem
o leel the current benelits meet ' ' E"i°V "W WW 67 /0 their health and wellness needs a to give extra ellon a|‘:nworwilling 9 10/0tfglktriseaglii-vethe opportunity to - I'm proud ol the work I do OPPORTU NITIES FOR GROWTH Q .E . ¥ 3 8. l!tTt-ll — Organizational Clear Leadership workload Growth 3. Culture & Expectations Management Development
|‘m interested in having WHAT EMPLOYEESTOLD US U°'Gs"Pr>°r"°= o Provide psychological health and safety training be i”‘V5‘°“"V a°""e o Hold social wellness events a Enhance workload management K a Increase health benefits "‘a”“9° ‘"955 ‘Q0 o Address bullying and harassment o Promote awareness of benefits and wellness initiatives I R (,‘\.‘_g,eat a healthy diet C BARRIERS TO WELLNESS PROGRAM USE iuse sirn ier programs in my cornrnuriity 2 Cost : Learn all about the programs rr1orr‘tkirow Ullullqtr about rm - U of G offers: They duri‘l it my wtrettiiie - uogue|ph.caIwel|ness@work ll 2m: arm man tlllll KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
c°"""""icate resuks Review possible actions Td(e Celebrate strengths Action! Complete LL,gbEL.t],[T, or 9anizational review Host focus groups IM»izn\r Ln!
Wellness@Work Survey Results Page 73 of 189 Page 74 of 189
To: Members, Board of Governors
From: Ben Doadt, Associate University Secretary
Subject: 4. Audit and Risk Committee Report
Meeting: June 8, 2018
a) Report from Committee Chair The following is provided for the information of Governors. At its meeting on May 22, 2018, the Audit and Risk Committee:
• Reviewed and discussed the committee’s work plan • Received an update on sector issues • Reviewed the University of Guelph-Humber Audited Financial Statements and met with the external auditor from BDO [refer to item 4b] • Received an update on the activities of the external auditor, Ernst & Young (EY) • Received an update on the activities of Audit Services • Received an update on IT Security • Received an update on Legal Affairs • Received an update on Communications, Public Affairs and Government Relations • Received the annual report on University Risk Management [to be addressed in Closed Session] • Received the results of the Annual Committee Evaluation Survey and completed the annual review of the Committee’s terms of reference and agenda plan.
2017-18 Audit and Risk Committee Membership Neil Parkinson, Chair Rich Appiah Graham Badun Mary Deacon Eleanor Fritz Paul Gallagher Kevin Golding, Board Chair Ben Doadt, Associate University Secretary (non-voting)
N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2017-18\6. June 8, 2018\Cover memos\4a_Audit and Risk - Report from Chair.docx
Report from Committee Chair Page 75 of 189 Page 76 of 189
To: Members, Board of Governors
From: Ben Doadt, Associate University Secretary
Subject: 4. Audit and Risk Committee Report
Meeting: June 8, 2018
b) 2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Guelph-Humber [Motion]
The Audited Financial Statements for the University of Guelph-Humber are reviewed and approved by both Humber College and the University of Guelph through their respective governance processes. Both governing Boards are involved in the final approval of the statements. (The fiscal year for the University of Guelph-Humber aligns with that applied in Ontario’s college sector: April 1 – March 31.)
The enclosed statements were prepared in accordance with the agreement between the College and the University of Guelph and were audited by Humber College’s external auditors, BDO. The external auditors are prepared to provide an unqualified report, subject to governance deliberations.
In addition to consideration by the appropriate governance bodies at Humber College, the statements have also been reviewed by the Audit and Risk Committee (May 22, 2018) and the Finance Committee (May 31, 2018), and are presented to the Board on the recommendation of both committees.
The Board of Governors is asked to, RESOLVE, that the Board of Governors accept and approve the University of Guelph- Humber Audited Financial Statements for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2018.
N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2017-18\6. June 8, 2018\Cover memos\4b_Audit and Risk - 2017-18 Audited Financial Statements.docx
2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Page 77 of 189 Page 78 of 189
University of Guelph- Humber Final Report to the Academic Planning and Finance Committee
May 24, 2018
2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Page 79 of 189 Tel: 905 270-7700 BDO Canada LLP Fax: 905 270-7915 1 City Centre Drive, Suite 1700 Toll-free: 866 248 6660 Mississauga ON L5B 1M2 Canada www.bdo.ca
May 24, 2018
Members of the Academic Planning and Finance Committee University of Guelph-Humber 207 Humber College Blvd Toronto, Ontario M9W 5L7
Dear Academic Planning and Finance Committee Members:
We are pleased to present the results of our audit of the financial statements of University of Guelph-Humber (the “University”) for the year ended March 31, 2018. The purpose of our report is to summarize certain aspects of the audit that we believe to be of interest to the Academic Planning and Finance Committee and should be read in conjunction with the draft financial statements and our draft independent auditor’s report which is included as Appendix B.
Our audit and therefore this report will not necessarily identify all matters that may be of interest to the Academic Planning and Finance Committee in fulfilling its responsibilities.
This report has been prepared solely for the use of the Academic Planning and Finance Committee and should not be distributed without our prior consent. Consequently, we accept no responsibility to a third party that uses this communication.
We wish to express our appreciation for the co-operation we received during the audit from the University’s management and staff who have assisted us in carrying out our work. We look forward to meeting with you to discuss the contents of this report and any other matters that you consider appropriate.
Yours truly,
Bob McMahon, CPA, CA Partner through a Professional Corporation BDO Canada LLP Chartered Professional Accountants, Licensed Public Accountants
BDO Canada LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership, is a member of BDO International Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, and forms part of the international BDO network of independent member firms
University of Guelph-Humber 2
2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Page 80 of 189
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Status of the Audit 4
Independence 5
Materiality 5
Risks and Audit Responses 5-7
Audit Findings 7-8
Fraud Discussion 8-9
Internal Control Matters 10
BDO Resources 11
Appendix A - Other Required Communications
Appendix B – Draft Independent Auditor’s Report
Appendix C - Representation Letter
University of Guelph-Humber 3
2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Page 81 of 189
STATUS OF THE AUDIT
As of the date of this report, we have substantially completed our audit of the 2018 financial statements pending the completion of the items highlighted below. These items will need to be completed prior to issuance of our audit report on the financial statements.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS • Approval of financial statements by the Boards of Humber College and University of Guelph
COMPLETION OF AUDIT • Subsequent events review through to the financial statement approval date • Receipt of signed management representation letter
We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. The objective of our audit was to obtain reasonable, not absolute, assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement. The scope of the work performed was substantially the same as that described in our Planning Report to the Academic Planning and Finance Committee, dated February 22, 2018.
University of Guelph-Humber 4
2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Page 82 of 189
INDEPENDENCE
At the core of the provision of external audit services is the concept of independence. Canadian auditing standards require us to communicate to the Academic Planning and Finance Committee at least annually, all relationships between BDO Canada LLP and its related entities and the University of Guelph-Humber, that, in our professional judgement, may reasonably be thought to bear on our independence with respect to the audit of the University.
Our annual letter confirming our independence was previously provided to you.
MATERIALITY
Misstatements, including omitted financial statement disclosures, are considered to be material if they, individually or in aggregate, could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of users taken on the basis of the financial statements.
As communicated to you in our Planning Report to the Academic Planning and Finance Committee, preliminary materiality was $1,025,000 and preliminary performance materiality was $768,750. Final materiality amounts remained unchanged from our preliminary assessment. Materiality was calculated based on 1.5% of the University’s prior year revenues and performance materiality was calculated at 75% of materiality.
RISKS AND AUDIT RESPONSES
Based on our knowledge of the University’s operations, our past experience, and knowledge gained from management and the Academic Planning and Finance Committee, we have identified the following significant risks; those risks of material misstatement that, in our judgment, require special audit consideration.
Significant risks arise mainly because of the complexity of the accounting rules, the extent of estimation and judgment involved in the valuation of these financial statement areas, and the existence of new accounting pronouncements that affect them.
Grant Revenue, Deferred Grant Revenue and Grants Receivable
Risk Approach Results
There is a risk that grant revenue Audit procedures include All audit testing in this area was may be incorrectly deferred into analytical procedures over the executed as planned and no errors future periods or recognized in the deferred and recognized portions were noted. current year in error or to manage of grant revenue as well as the current year results. reliance on other procedures performed by the auditors of The University of Guelph.
University of Guelph-Humber 5
2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Page 83 of 189
RISKS AND AUDIT RESPONSES (CONTINUED)
Tuition Revenue and Deferred Tuition Revenue
Risk Approach Results
Risk is due to the magnitude of Audit procedures included All audit testing in this area was tuition revenue, the estimate analytical procedures over the executed as planned and no errors involved in calculating the deferred deferred and recognized portions were noted. component and the potential of tuition revenue as well as misallocation between accounting reliance on other procedures periods. performed by the auditors of The University of Guelph.
Management Override of Controls
Risk Approach Results
Management, due to its authority, is Tested the appropriateness of a All audit testing in this area was in a unique position to override sample of journal entries recorded executed as planned and no errors internal controls, which can in the general ledger and other were noted. potentially result in misleading adjustments made in the information. consolidated financial statements.
We also obtained an understanding of the business rationale for significant transactions that we became aware of that were outside the normal course of operations for the University, or that otherwise appeared to be unusual given our understanding of the University and its environment. In addition, we reviewed accounting estimates for potential biases and evaluated whether circumstances producing the bias, if any, represented a risk of material misstatement due to fraud.
University of Guelph-Humber 6
2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Page 84 of 189
OTHER AUDIT AREAS
Payroll
Risk Approach Results
Although not inherently risky by Payroll was tested using a All audit testing in this area was nature, the magnitude of payroll combination of internal controls executed as planned and no errors expenditures at the University testing and analytical procedures, were noted. creates a higher risk of material including analysis of the misstatement. instructional fees charged by University of Guelph and Humber College.
AUDIT FINDINGS
As part of our ongoing communications with you, we are required to have a discussion on our views about significant qualitative aspects of the University’s accounting practices, including accounting policies, accounting estimates and financial statement disclosures. A summary of the key discussion points are as follows:
ACCOUNTING AND AUDIT MATTERS
Work Performed by Other Auditors
We relied on the work of Ernst & Young LLP (EY) relating to certain transactions that are processed at the University of Guelph. These include tuition and grant revenue as well as certain administrative expenses that are incurred at the University of Guelph and are allocated to the joint venture. We agreed the terms of this work with EY prior to the beginning of the audit engagement and instructed them on the timing and extent of their audit procedures.
SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES
Management is responsible for determining the significant accounting policies. The choice of different accounting policy alternatives can have a significant effect on the financial position and results of operations of the University. The application of those policies often involves significant estimates and judgments by management. Based on the audit work that we have performed, it is our opinion that the estimates in the financial statements are reasonable and the disclosures relating to accounting estimates are in accordance with the requirements of Canadian accounting standards for not-for-profit organizations. Significant estimates include:
University of Guelph-Humber 7
2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Page 85 of 189
SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES (CONTINUED)
Capital Asset Amortization - $364,881 (2017 - $208,573) Capital assets are amortized based on their estimated useful lives. Refer to Note 2 of the financial statements for amortization policy.
Deferred Tuition Revenue on Winter Term - $3,864,335 (2017 - $4,000,381) A portion of the winter term’s tuition related to services provided after March 31 is deferred based on an estimate made by management.
ADJUSTED AND UNADJUSTED DIFFERENCES
There were no audit adjustments, unadjusted differences, or financial statement disclosure omissions noted during our audit.
MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIONS
During the course of our audit, management made certain representations to us. These representations were verbal or written and therefore explicit, or they were implied through the financial statements. Management provided representations in response to specific queries from us, as well as unsolicited representations. Such representations were part of the evidence gathered by us to be able to draw reasonable conclusions on which to base our audit opinion. These representations were documented by including in the audit working papers memoranda of discussions with management and written representations received from management.
A summary of the representation we have requested from management is set out in the management representation letter included in Appendix C to the report.
FRAUD DISCUSSION
Canadian auditing standards require us to discuss fraud risk with the Academic Planning and Finance Committee on an annual basis. As an update to the discussion held with the Academic Planning and Finance Committee during the planning of our audit, we have prepared the following comments:
Question to Required Discussion BDO Response Academic Planning and Finance Committee Details of existing Based on our discussions during the Are there any new oversight processes planning of our audit, the Academic processes or changes with regards to fraud. Planning and Finance Committee’s in existing processes oversight processes include: relating to fraud since the date of our • Academic Planning and Finance previous discussions, Committee charters;
University of Guelph-Humber 8
2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Page 86 of 189
that we should be • Discussions at Academic Planning aware of? and Finance Committee meetings;
• Review of related party transactions; and
• Consideration of tone at the top.
Knowledge of actual, Currently, we are not aware of any Are you aware of any suspected or alleged actual, suspected or alleged fraud. instances of actual, fraud. suspected or alleged fraud affecting the University?
AUDITOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES FOR DETECTING FRAUD
We are responsible for planning and performing the audit to obtain reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free of material misstatements, whether caused by error or fraud.
The likelihood of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than the likelihood of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from error, because fraud may involve collusion as well as sophisticated and carefully organized schedules designed to conceal it.
During our audit, we performed the following procedures in order to fulfill our responsibilities:
• Inquire of management, the Academic Planning and Finance Committee, and others related to any knowledge of fraud, suspected fraud or alleged fraud; • Perform analytical procedures and consider unusual or unexpected relationships identified in the planning of our audit; • Incorporate an element of unpredictability in the selection of the nature, timing and extent of our audit procedures; and • Perform additional required procedures to address the risk of management’s override of controls including; o Testing internal controls designed to prevent and detect fraud; o Examine a sample of journal entries and other adjustments for evidence of the possibility of material misstatement due to fraud; o Review accounting estimates for biases that could result in material misstatements due to fraud, including a retrospective review of significant prior years’ estimates; and o Evaluate the business rationale for significant unusual transactions.
University of Guelph-Humber 9
2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Page 87 of 189
INTERNAL CONTROL MATTERS
During the course of our audit, we performed the following procedures with respect to the University’s internal control environment: • Documented operating systems to assess the design and implementation of control activities that were relevant to the audit. • Discussed and considered potential audit risks with management. As a result of this review, we noted no significant deficiencies in the design or implementation of the systems conversion process. The results of these procedures were considered in determining the extent and nature of substantive audit testing required.
We are required to report to you in writing, significant deficiencies in internal control that we have identified during the audit. A significant deficiency is defined as a deficiency or combination of deficiencies in internal control that, in the auditor's professional judgment, is of sufficient importance to merit the attention of those charged with governance.
As the purpose of the audit is for us to express an opinion on the University’s financial statements, our audit cannot be expected to disclose all matters that may be of interest to you and, as a result, the matters reported may not be exclusive. As part of our work, we considered internal control relevant to the preparation of the financial statements such that we were able to design appropriate audit procedures. This work was not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control.
DEFICIENCIES IN INTERNAL CONTROL
During the course of the audit, no significant deficiencies in internal control were identified.
University of Guelph-Humber 10
2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Page 88 of 189
BDO RESOURCES
BDO is one of Canada’s largest accounting services firms providing assurance and accounting, taxation, financial advisory, risk advisory, financial recovery and consulting services to a variety of publicly traded and privately held companies.
BDO serves its clients through 95 offices across Canada. As a member firm of BDO International Limited, BDO serves its multinational clients through a global network of over 1,100 offices in 110 countries. Commitment to knowledge and best practice sharing ensures that expertise is easily shared across our global network and common methodologies and information technology ensures efficient and effective service delivery to our clients.
Outlined below is a summary of certain BDO resources which may be of interest to the Academic Planning and Finance Committee.
ASSURANCE AND ACCOUNTING PUBLICATIONS
BDO’s national and international accounting and assurance department issues publications on the transition and application of Accounting Standards for Not-for-Profit Organizations (ASNPO) as well as common differences between ASNPO and Canadian generally accepted accounting principles.
For additional information on ASNPO including links to archived publications and model financial statements, refer to http://www.bdo.ca/library/publications/assuranceandaccounting/index.cfm.
University of Guelph-Humber 11
2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Page 89 of 189
APPENDIX A – Other Required Communication
Audit Audit Planning Results Auditor Required Communication Presentation Presentation Comments 1. Our responsibilities under Canadian Included in our Auditing Standards (CAS) engagement letter dated November 28, 2016. 2. Our audit strategy and audit scope Included in our audit planning letter which was presented to the Academic Planning and Finance Committee on February 22, 2018. 3. Fraud risk factors Included in our audit planning letter which was presented to the Academic Planning and Finance Committee on February 22, 2018. 4. Going concern matters None. 5. Significant estimates or judgments See pages 7-8. 6. Audit adjustments None. See page 8. 7. Unadjusted differences None. See page 8. 8. Omitted disclosures None. See page 8. 9. Disagreements with management There were no disagreements with management. 10. Consultations with other None. accountants or experts
2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Page 90 of 189
11. Major issues discussed with None. management in regards to retention 12. Significant difficulties encountered No difficulties during the audit were encountered during our audit. 13. Significant deficiencies in internal None. See page control 10. 14. Material written communication No material between BDO and management written communications were noted. 15. Any relationships which may affect No our independence independence issues noted. 16. Any illegal acts identified during No illegal the audit activities identified through the audit process. 17. Any fraud or possible fraudulent No fraud acts identified during the audit identified through the audit process. 18. Significant transactions with None noted. related parties not consistent with ordinary business operations 19. Non-compliance with laws or No legal or regulations identified during the regulatory non- audit compliance matters were noted as part of our audit. 20. Limitations of scope over our audit, None. if any 21. Written representations made by See Appendix C. management 22. Any modifications to our opinion, if None. required
2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Page 91 of 189
APPENDIX B Draft Independent Auditor’s Report
2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Page 92 of 189
Independent Auditor’s Report
To the Board of Governors of Humber College and University of Guelph
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of University of Guelph-Humber (“Joint Venture”), which comprise the statement of financial position as at March 31, 2018, and the statements of operations, changes in net assets and cash flows for the year then ended and a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory information.
Management's Responsibility for the Financial Statements
Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with Canadian accounting standards for not-for-profit organizations and for such internal control as management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of the financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
Auditor's Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we comply with ethical requirements and plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement.
An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor's judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity's preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion.
Opinion
In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of University of Guelph- Humber as at March 31, 2018, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian accounting standards for not-for-profit organizations.
Chartered Professional Accountants, Licensed Public Accountants Mississauga, Ontario REPORT DATE
2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Page 93 of 189
APPENDIX C Representation Letter
2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Page 94 of 189
University of Guelph-Humber 207 Humber College Blvd. Toronto, Ontario M9W 5L7
REPORT DATE
BDO Canada LLP Chartered Professional Accountants 1 City Centre Drive Suite 1700 Mississauga, ON L5B 1M2
Dear Sirs/Mesdames:
This representation letter is provided in connection with your audit of the financial statements of University of Guelph-Humber for the year ended March 31, 2018 for the purpose of expressing an opinion as to whether the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position as at March 31, 2018, and the results of its operations and cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian accounting standards for not-for-profit organizations.
We confirm that:
1. We have fulfilled our responsibilities, as set out in the terms of the audit engagement dated November 30, 2016, for the preparation of the financial statements in accordance with Canadian accounting standards for not-for-profit organizations; in particular the financial statements are fairly presented in accordance therewith.
2. Significant assumptions used by us in making accounting estimates, including those measured at fair value are reasonable.
3. Related party relationships and transactions have been appropriately accounted for and disclosed in accordance with the requirements of Canadian accounting standards for not-for- profit organizations.
4. All events subsequent to the date of the financial statements and for which Canadian accounting standards for not-for-profit organizations require adjustment or disclosure have been adjusted or disclosed.
5. The financial statements of the University use appropriate accounting policies that have been properly disclosed and consistently applied.
2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Page 95 of 189
Information Provided
6. We have provided you with:
- access to all information of which we are aware that is relevant to the preparation of the financial statements, such as records, documentation and other matters;
- additional information that you have requested from us for the purpose of the audit; and
- unrestricted access to persons within the entity from whom you determined it necessary to obtain audit evidence.
7. We are responsible for the design, implementation and maintenance of internal controls to prevent, detect and correct fraud and error, and have communicated to you all deficiencies in internal control of which we are aware.
8. We have made available to you all:
- minutes of the meetings of the Board of Governors and Academic Planning and Finance Committee
9. The minute books of the organization are a complete record of all meetings and resolutions of the Board of Governors and the Academic Planning and Finance Committee throughout the year and to the present date.
10. We have disclosed to you all significant matters contained in the minutes of all meetings and resolutions of the Board of Governors and the Academic Planning and Finance Committee throughout the year and to the present date.
11. All transactions have been recorded in the accounting records and are reflected in the financial statements.
12. We have disclosed to you all known instances of non-compliance or suspected non-compliance with laws and regulations whose effects should be considered when preparing financial statements.
13. We have identified to you:
- guarantees
- Indemnifications against damages, liabilities, costs, charges or expenses suffered or incurred by officers or directors as a result of their service, and/or by any subsidiaries; and
- non-monetary transactions and transactions for no consideration.
14. We have disclosed to you the identity of the University’s related parties and the related party relationships and transactions of which we are aware.
15. We are aware of the environmental laws and regulations that impact our organization and we are in compliance. There are no known environmental liabilities or contingencies that have
2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Page 96 of 189
not been accrued for or disclosed in the financial statements.
Fraud and Error
16. We have disclosed to you the results of our assessment of the risk that the financial statements may be materially misstated as a result of fraud, and have determined such risk to be low.
17. We have disclosed to you all information in relation to fraud or suspected fraud that we are aware of and that affects the entity and involves:
- management;
- employees who have significant roles in internal control; or
- others where the fraud could have a material effect on the financial statements.
18. We have disclosed to you all information in relation to allegations of fraud, or suspected fraud, affecting the University’s financial statements communicated by employees, former employees, analysts, regulators, or others.
19. We have reviewed and approved all journal entries recommended by the auditors during the audit.
20. We believe that the effects of unadjusted misstatements are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole.
Existence, Completeness and Valuation of Specific Financial Statement Balances
21. All assets, wherever located, to which the University had satisfactory title at the year end, have been fairly stated and recorded in the financial statements. There are no liens or encumbrances on the organization's assets.
22. All financial instruments have been appropriately recognized and measured in accordance with Canadian accounting standards for not-for-profit organizations. Significant assumptions used in arriving at fair value of financial instruments are reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.
23. Where the value of any asset has been impaired, an appropriate provision has been made in the financial statements or has otherwise been disclosed to you.
General Representations
24. The nature of all material uncertainties have been appropriately measured and disclosed in the financial statements, including all estimates where it is reasonably possible that the estimate will change in the near term and the effect of the change could be material to the financial statements.
25. We have provided you with significant assumptions that in our opinion are reasonable and
2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Page 97 of 189
appropriately reflect our intent and ability to carry out specific courses of action on behalf of the entity when relevant to the use of fair value measurements or disclosures in the financial statements.
26. There were no direct or contingent liabilities (including those associated with guarantees or indemnification provisions), unusual contractual obligations nor any substantial commitments, whether oral or written, other than in the ordinary course of business, which would materially affect the financial statements or financial position of the organization, except as disclosed in the financial statements.
27. We have informed you of all outstanding and possible claims, whether or not they have been discussed with legal counsel. When applicable, these claims have been appropriately disclosed in the financial statements.
28. We confirm that there are no derivatives or off-balance sheet financial instruments held at year end that have not been properly recorded or disclosed in the financial statements.
29. We have disclosed to you all significant customers and/or suppliers of the organization who individually represent a significant volume of business with the organization. We are of the opinion that the volume of business (sales, services, purchases, borrowing and lending) done by the organization with any one party is not of sufficient magnitude that discontinuance would have a material negative effect on the ongoing operations of the organization.
30. There have been no plans or intentions that may materially affect the carrying value or classification of assets and liabilities.
31. No significant matters, other than those disclosed in the financial statements, have arisen that would require a restatement of the comparative financial statements.
Yours truly,
Signature Position
Signature Position
2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Page 98 of 189
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
University of Guelph-Humber
March 31, 2018
2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Page 99 of 189 University of Guelph-Humber
TABLE OF CONTENTS
For the year ended March 31, 2018
Financial Statements
Independent Auditor’s Report
Statement 1 Statement of Financial Position Statement 2 Statement of Operations Statement 3 Statement of Changes in Net Assets Statement 4 Statement of Cash Flows
Notes to Financial Statements
2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Page 100 of 189 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH-HUMBER Statement 1 Statement of Financial Position
March 31, 2018 March 31, 2017
ASSETS Current assets Due from The Humber College Institute of Technology $ 29,758,653 $ 29,295,745 and Advanced Learning (note 3(a)) Grants receivable (note 3(b)) 3,745,828 4,669,857 Prepaid expenses 2,026,522 1,947,252 Total current assets 35,531,003 35,912,854 CAPITAL ASSETS (note 4) 2,266,654 1,265,561 TOTAL ASSETS $ 37,797,657 $ 37,178,415
LIABILITIES Current liabilities Accounts payable and accrued liabilities $ 1,376,308 $ 1,330,872 Deferred revenue 3,864,335 4,000,381 Due to University of Guelph (note 3(a)) 5,420,501 4,588,548 TOTAL LIABILITIES 10,661,144 9,919,801
NET ASSETS Unrestricted 23,069,859 24,193,053 Internally restricted (note 6) 1,800,000 1,800,000 Invested in capital assets (note 5) 2,266,654 1,265,561 TOTAL NET ASSETS 27,136,513 27,258,614 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS $ 37,797,657 $ 37,178,415
See accompanying notes to the financial statements
On behalf of the Joint Venture:
______Franco J. Vaccarino Chris Whitaker President & Vice-Chancellor President & CEO University of Guelph Humber College ITAL
2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Page 101 of 189 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH-HUMBER Statement 2 Statement of Operations
March 31, 2018 March 31, 2017
REVENUE Government grants $ 33,927,826 $ 33,908,314 Tuition and other fees 34,478,188 34,566,601 Other 128,160 50,226 TOTAL REVENUE 68,534,174 68,525,141
EXPENSES (note 3(c)) Salaries and benefits 10,365,526 9,449,894 Contract services 20,402,708 19,705,546 Maintenance, utilities and municipal taxes 448,518 1,353,993 Advertising and marketing 719,638 763,166 Supplies, equipment and other expenses 7,194,535 7,572,496 Information technology, software and licences 106,477 117,307 Student assistance 4,860,939 4,963,991 Amortization of capital assets 364,881 208,573 TOTAL EXPENSES 44,463,222 44,134,966 EXCESS OF REVENUE OVER EXPENSES FOR THE YEAR $ 24,070,952 $ 24,390,175
See accompanying notes to the financial statements
2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Page 102 of 189 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH-HUMBER Statement 3 Statement of Changes in Net Assets
March 31, 2018 Internally Invested in Restricted Capital assets Unrestricted (note 6) (note 5) Total
Balance, beginning of year $ 24,193,053 $ 1,800,000 $ 1,265,561 $ 27,258,614 Excess of revenue over expenses for the year 24,070,952 - - 24,070,952 Distribution of unrestricted assets to venturers (24,193,053) - - (24,193,053) Net change in invested in capital assets (note 5) (1,001,093) - 1,001,093 - Balance, end of year $ 23,069,859 $ 1,800,000 $ 2,266,654 $ 27,136,513
March 31, 2017 Internally Invested in Restricted Capital assets Unrestricted (note 6) (note 5) Total
Balance, beginning of year $ 23,180,293 $ 1,800,000 $ 1,068,439 $ 26,048,732 Excess of revenue over expenses for the year 24,390,175 - - 24,390,175 Distribution of unrestricted assets to venturers (23,180,293) - - (23,180,293) Net change in invested in capital assets (note 5) (197,122) - 197,122 - Balance, end of year $ 24,193,053 $ 1,800,000 $ 1,265,561 $ 27,258,614
See accompanying notes to the financial statements
2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Page 103 of 189 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH-HUMBER Statement 4 Statement of Cash Flows
For the years ended March 31, 2018 March 31, 2017
NET INFLOW (OUTFLOW) OF CASH RELATED TO THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES
OPERATING Excess of revenue over expenses for the year $ 24,070,952 $ 24,390,175 Non-cash items: Amortization of capital assets (note 5) 364,881 208,573 24,435,833 24,598,748 Net change in non-cash working capital items (note 7) 1,123,194 (1,012,760) Cash provided by operating activities 25,559,027 23,585,988
INVESTING Purchase of capital assets (note 5) (1,365,974) (405,695) Cash used in investing activities (1,365,974) (405,695)
FINANCING Distribution of unrestricted assets to venturers (24,193,053) (23,180,293) Cash used in financing activities (24,193,053) (23,180,293)
Net change in cash during the year and cash, end of year $ - $ -
See accompanying notes to the financial statements
2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Page 104 of 189 University of Guelph-Humber NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS For the year ended March 31, 2018
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE ORGANIZATION
With the approval of the Ontario Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development (the “Ministry”), the University of Guelph (“Guelph”) and The Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning (“Humber”) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated June 10, 1999, to develop and deliver joint programming as the University of Guelph-Humber, an unincorporated joint venture (the “Joint Venture”). The first classes commenced September, 2002.
The Joint Venture undertakes to:
Serve the needs of students who intend to enter the workforce upon graduation by providing unique educational experiences, resulting in well-educated and trained individuals. Improve accessibility to quality post-secondary education by making relevant education more affordable to non-residential students. Expand programmatic and vocational learning opportunities for students by providing students in the Greater Toronto Area with increased accessibility to programs at the University of Guelph. Create a unique partnership between Humber and Guelph in first class facilities on the Humber campus. Unite the strength of theoretical and applied studies. Focus on learning outcomes relevant to societal demands. Develop diploma/degree programs that will be delivered in a compressed format to reduce the overall time commitment for undergraduate students in the combined diploma/degree programs. Use joint admission standards to attract and admit students demonstrating a capacity for high academic achievement. Outline the processes that will be used to monitor and review progress and the high quality of the programs.
As per the agreement between the two institutions, the Joint Venture is managed by the following committees, namely: Executive; Academic Planning and Finance. The role of the Academic Planning and Finance Committee is to advise the Executive Committee on capital and operating budgets, tuition, ancillary fees and reserve accounts.
The Joint Venture is not taxed as the venturers are responsible for income taxes. The venturers are not- for-profit organizations and are exempt from income taxes.
2. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
The financial statements of the Joint Venture have been prepared in accordance with Canadian accounting standards for not-for-profit organizations (“ASNPO”). The significant accounting policies are as follows:
2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Page 105 of 189 University of Guelph-Humber NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS For the year ended March 31, 2018
2. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued)
Capital Assets
Purchased capital assets are recorded at cost while contributed capital assets are recorded at their fair value at the date of contribution. Capital assets are amortized on a straight-line basis over their useful lives, which have been estimated to be as follows:
Furniture and equipment 5 to 10 years Computer equipment 3 years Leasehold improvements 5 to 10 years
Revenue Recognition
The Joint Venture follows the deferral method of accounting for contributions. Government grants are recorded as revenue when the programs are delivered. Student tuition fees are recorded rateably over the term to which the tuition fees revenue applies.
Pension Benefit Plans and Employee Future Benefits
The human resources of the Joint Venture are the employees of either Guelph or Humber. Liabilities with respect to pension benefit plans and employee future benefits vest with the employer and, as such, are not reflected in these financial statements.
Financial Instruments
Financial instruments are recorded at fair value when acquired or issued. In subsequent periods, financial instruments are reported at cost or amortized cost less impairment, if applicable. Financial assets are tested for impairment when changes in circumstances indicate the asset could be impaired. Transaction costs on the acquisition, sale or issue of financial instruments are charged to the financial instrument for those measured at amortized cost.
It is management’s opinion that the Joint Venture is not exposed to significant credit, interest or foreign currency risks from its financial instruments.
Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with Canadian accounting standards for not-for- profit organizations requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting period. Due to inherent uncertainty involved in making such estimates, actual results could differ from those estimates.
2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Page 106 of 189 University of Guelph-Humber NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS For the year ended March 31, 2018
3. RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS AND ECONOMIC DEPENDENCE
As described in Note 1, Guelph and Humber are separate organizations from the Joint Venture in which each entity is responsible for various ongoing financial arrangements. The transactions amongst the entities include the expenses incurred or funding received for the purposes of the Joint Venture.
(a) The amounts due from Humber and due to Guelph are non-interest bearing and due on demand.
(b) Grants receivable represent amounts due from the Ministry, collected by Guelph on behalf of the Joint Venture.
(c) During the year, fees totalling $24,276,381 (2017 - $23,698,469) were paid to Guelph (2018 - $11,364,780; 2017 - $11,392,529) and Humber (2018 - $12,911,601; 2017 - $12,305,940) for services provided at agreed upon exchange amounts.
(d) The building, which houses the activities of the Joint Venture, is the property of Humber and does not form part of the assets of the Joint Venture.
4. CAPITAL ASSETS 2018 Accumulated Cost Amortization Net Book Value Furniture and equipment $ 6,207,767 $ 4,960,936 $ 1,246,831 Computer equipment 2,442,174 2,382,823 59,351 Leasehold improvements 1,617,869 657,397 960,472 $ 10,267,810 $ 8,001,156 $ 2,266,654
2017 Accumulated Cost Amortization Net Book Value Furniture and equipment $ 5,198,334 $ 4,712,582 $ 485,752 Computer equipment 2,428,734 2,350,048 $ 78,686 Leasehold improvements 1,274,768 573,645 $ 701,123 $ 8,901,836 $ 7,636,275 $ 1,265,561
5. INVESTED IN CAPITAL ASSETS
The change in invested in capital assets is calculated as follows:
2018 2017 Amortization of capital assets $ (364,881) $ (208,573) Purchase of capital assets 1,365,974 405,695 Total change in invested in capital assets $ 1,001,093 $ 197,122
2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Page 107 of 189 University of Guelph-Humber NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS For the year ended March 31, 2018
6. INTERNALLY RESTRICTED NET ASSETS
The Joint Venture, by resolution of the Academic Planning and Finance Committee, internally restricted $1,800,000 of net assets to cover anticipated expenses relates to:
2018 2017 Operating $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Facility renewal 800,000 800,000 Total internally restricted net assets $ 1,800,000 $ 1,800,000
7. STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
The net change in non-cash working capital balances related to operations consists of the following:
2018 2017 Due from The Humber Institute of Technology $ (462,908) $ (900,174) and Advanced Learning Grants receivable 924,029 (390,494) Prepaid expenses (79,270) (184,603) Accounts payable and accrued liabilities 45,436 153,523 Deferred revenue (136,046) 245,615 Due to The University of Guelph 831,953 63,373 Net change, non-cash working capital $ 1,123,194 $ (1,012,760)
2017-18 Audited Financial Statements: University of Page 108 of 189
To: Members, Board of Governors
From: Ben Doadt, Associate University Secretary
Subject: 5. Finance Committee Report
Meeting: June 8, 2018
a) Report from Committee Chair
The following is provided for the information of Governors. At its meetings on May 31, 2018, the Finance Committee:
• Reviewed and discussed the committee’s work plan • Received an update on sector issues • Considered the University of Guelph-Humber Audited Financial Statements [refer to item 4b] • Received an update on the development of the Key Performance Indicators [refer to item 5b] • Considered the proposed 2018-19 University of Guelph: OMAFRA Agreement Budget [refer to item 5c] • Considered the North Wing MacKinnon project and the Greenhouse Gas Funded project [refer to item 5d] • Received an update on Fundraising, Capital-Related Fundraising and Annual Gift Acceptance Report [to be addressed in closed session] • Considered the proposed Capital-Related Fundraising for the Ontario Veterinary College [to be addressed in closed session] • Received the Outcome of Fundraising Review • Reviewed the Expendable Fund Annual Report (see online supporting materials1) • Received the Annual Report on the “Code of Conduct for Suppliers and Subcontractors” (see online supporting materials) • Received the results of the Annual Committee Evaluation Survey and completed the annual review of the Committee’s terms of reference and agenda plan
2017-18 Finance Committee Membership Nancy Brown Andison, Chair Andrew Marsh Carolyn Augusta Coral Murrant Nancy Croitoru Prashant Pathak Lindsey Fletcher Irene Thompson Kevin Golding, Board Chair Franco Vaccarino, President Ben Doadt, Associate University Secretary (non-voting)
1 URL https://uoguelph.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/151818
N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2017-18\6. June 8, 2018\Cover memos\5a_Finance - Report from Chair.docx
Report from Committee Chair Page 109 of 189
Report from Committee Chair Page 110 of 189
To: Members, Board of Governors
From: Ben Doadt, Associate University Secretary
Subject: 5. Finance Committee Report
Meeting: June 8, 2018
b) University of Guelph Key Performance Indicators
[This material will also be addressed during the Board’s strategy session, preceding the open session.]
Dr. Charlotte Yates, Provost and Vice President (Academic) will present an update on the development of Key Performance Indicators for the University. Material will be circulated with the materials for the Board’s strategy session, proceeding the open session and added as an addenda to the meeting package.
N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2017-18\6. June 8, 2018\Cover memos\5b_Finance - Report on KPI's.docx
Report on Key Performance Indicators Page 111 of 189 Page 112 of 189
To: Members, Board of Governors
From: Ben Doadt, Associate University Secretary
Subject: 5. Finance Committee Report
Meeting: June 8, 2018
c) Proposed 2018-19 OMAFRA Agreement Budget [Motion]
Enclosed is the proposed University of Guelph, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) 2018-19 Budget, incorporating information about the University’s multi-year agreement with OMAFRA.
On January 30, 2018 the University of Guelph signed a new 10 year agreement with OMAFRA. Since that time the joint leadership and program management has proceeded with detailed budget development and program implementation planning. Due to the timing of the signing of the new agreement and the required planning and other approvals, the OMAFRA Agreement Budget was not included in the 2018-19 University of Guelph Annual Budget Plan, approved by the Board of Governors on April 20, 2018.
This timing of the approval of the OMAFRA Agreement budget subsequent to the Annual Budget Plan aligns with the approach taken from 2012 to 2015.
The Board of Governors is asked to, RESOLVE, that the Board of Governors accept and approve the University of Guelph, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs 2018-19 Budget, as presented.
N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2017-18\6. June 8, 2018\Cover memos\5c_Finance - OMAFRA budget.docx
Proposed 2018-19 OMAFRA Agreement Budget [Motion] Page 113 of 189 Page 114 of 189
OMAFRA Agreement 2018 2019 Preliminary Budget
May 31 2018
Proposed 2018-19 OMAFRA Agreement Budget [Motion] Page 115 of 189 University of Guelph OMAFRA Agreement – 2018 2019 Preliminary Budget
Contents
A: The OMAFRA Agreement ...... 2 B. Renewal of the OMAFRA Agreement 2018 to 2028 ...... 3 C. Summary of Budget Assumptions for 2018 2019 ...... 4 Key Revenue Assumptions ...... 4 Key Expenditure Assumptions ...... 4 Other Agreement Assumptions and Potential Changes to the Property Management program ...... 5 D. Major Program Groups...... 6 E. Committed Research Program Funds and “Uncommitted” Program Funds ...... 7 Appendices ...... 8 Appendix F.1 OMAFRA Agreement –Budget Summary Table ...... 8 Appendix F.2 OMAFRA Agreement – Major Program Funding ...... 9 Appendix F.3; Table of Preliminary 2018 2019 Budget, By Unit and Major Expense Category: ...... 10 Notes to Appendix F.3 ...... 11 Appendix F.4 – Table of 2017 2018 Forecast Results, Net Expenses by Unit ...... 12 Appendix F.5 – Table of OMAFRA Funded Full Time Equivalents (FTE’S)...... 13 Notes to Appendix F.5 ...... 14 Appendix F.6 – OMAFRA Supported Research Facilities ...... 15
1
Proposed 2018-19 OMAFRA Agreement Budget [Motion] Page 116 of 189 University of Guelph OMAFRA Agreement – 2018 2019 Preliminary Budget
A: The OMAFRA Agreement Since its formation in 1964, the University of Guelph has had a unique relationship in the province with OMAFRA (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs) in which research and other services are provided to the agri-food sector in the province of Ontario. This relationship which supports major structural components of the University’s research enterprise is reflected in the Agreement between the University and OMAFRA which commits OMAFRA funding levels and details the University’s operational responsibilities. In January 2018, the Agreement was renewed for a ten year period (to March 31, 2028) with a (mid-term) five year funding review in 2023.
Activities covered in the Agreement include: the operation of two major animal health and food testing laboratories located in Guelph; managing extensive agri-food research facilities across Ontario; supporting veterinary capacity in the province; providing a significant source of faculty- based research grants funding across a wide range of disciplines and commodities; support for graduate student development; and transfer and commercialization of discoveries.
Under the terms of the OMAFRA Agreement all resources, including any income earned from the use of the OMAFRA supported facilities are managed as a segregated, self-supporting fund and are reported separately within the University’s OMAFRA Agreement Operating Budget.
While the OMAFRA Agreement is segregated for accounting and reporting purposes, the level of funding and the nature of expenses supported also mean the OMAFRA relationship is both complex and critical in the University’s overall multi-year planning. At the University level, the OMAFRA Agreement generates $96.6 million in total revenue1 (refer to the chart). Within the University this funding provides: • 12% of total University revenues; • 39% ($55 million annually) of total research funding; • 11% of the total University UGFA1 and UGFA2 positions (95 FTE’s in total); • 18% of the total University regular non-faculty appointments; • $10.5 million for Guelph campus indirect support costs (physical plant, library and administration); • $5.2 million in support of the OVC veterinary capacity development in farmed animal health and veterinary public health; and • $20 million for property costs at major research stations across the province and the Ridgetown regional campus.
Following the University’s policy on carryforwards and sound financial planning practices, OMAFRA agreement funds are carried forward by each responsible research program and operations unit where it was originally budgeted. Just as it is understood that different operations contribute to the $96.6 million in revenue, the carryforward of each operation or program is a result of different planned expenditure cycles and commitments.
1 The “Annual Provincial Transfer” provides the structural core funding for agreement programs. “Laboratory” and “Program Revenues” are earned from services provided under the Agreement to external clients e.g., lab testing and the sale of commodities from farm operations. ”Provincial Minor Capital” are additional funds designated for maintaining provincially owned facilities managed within the Agreement.
2
Proposed 2018-19 OMAFRA Agreement Budget [Motion] Page 117 of 189 University of Guelph OMAFRA Agreement – 2018 2019 Preliminary Budget
B. Renewal of the OMAFRA Agreement 2018 to 2028
On January 30, 2018 the University of Guelph signed a ten year renewal of the OMAFRA-U of G Agreement to continue the long-term partnership for discovery and innovation. The renewed agreement includes confirmation for annual funding of $71.3 million. The agreement continues the support for U of G faculty, staff, research and facilities across five programs namely Research, Veterinary Capacity, Animal Health Laboratory, Agriculture and Food Laboratory and the Research Station Property Management. The agreement acknowledges and builds upon long standing relationships and synergies that benefit Ontario, its rural economic development and the agri-food sector by employing the Province’s facilities and properties and the University’s knowledge and expertise.
As a result of significant changes to provincial requirements governing transfer payment agreements, the renewed agreement has greatly expanded shared responsibility through joint governance around planning, risk management, reporting and accountability. The Agreement requires that a three-year business plan be filed by December 15 of every year (June 1 for this first transition year), which includes: an Environmental Scan/Risk Assessment and the plan for mitigation and management of the identified risks; a high-level description of the actions required for the university to deliver on the stated agreement outcomes and objectives, including changes to delivery that are planned or proposed and how they are to be implemented; and the three-year budget forecast. The budget forecast is broken down by program activities in the schedule budget, then by standard accounts for Revenue (minor capital and repairs; sales, goods and services; investment income; other) and Expenses (salaries and wages; non-salary benefit costs; faculty pool costs; travel; operating; internal recoveries; and carryforwards). Interim Actuals for Q2 are reported for comparison to the three-year outlook, with Q2 Interim Actuals to be updated in the event of a catastrophic change. The standard accounts structure used in the Business Plan, listed above, will be used in the quarterly reporting process, broken down by program (AHL, AFL, Research, VCP and PM), then by the updated standard accounts. Travel is excluded from quarterly reporting. Forecasted spending to the end of the fiscal year by program and actuals to date will be combined into a complete forecast to the end of the fiscal year, for comparison to budget to identify forecasted surplus/overspending for Q2 and Q3 quarterly reporting using the standard accounts structure.
The joint governance structure is headed by the Agreement Leadership Committee (ALC) composed of the President of the University and the Deputy Minister of the Ministry; this committee meets twice per year and receives the consolidated annual business plan and budget as well as the annual report, which it approves. The Executive Committee is composed of the Vice President Research at the University and the Assistant Deputy Minister, Research and Corporate Services Division at the Ministry, and it meets at least four times per year. This committee is supported by the Research Program/Property Management Committee co-chairs. It is responsible for: championing this agreement within and across both organizations to create a supportive culture and to promote success; approving and endorsing the various reports; and has the authority to change the funding allocation that is currently set out in the program schedules for each program. The Coordinating Committee is composed of the RIB Director for the Ministry, the AVPR (AgriFood) for the University, the director of Business Planning and Financial Management for the Ministry, and the Associate Vice-President Finance for the University. This committee provides information to the Executive Committee on the oversight and controllership of this Agreement’s financial matters, strategic issues, opportunities and trends that cut across programs and may impact this Agreement’s outcomes and program objectives. This committee also periodically reviews and tests the performance indicators for continued relevance and may recommend adjustment of same to the Executive Committee.
3
Proposed 2018-19 OMAFRA Agreement Budget [Motion] Page 118 of 189 University of Guelph OMAFRA Agreement – 2018 2019 Preliminary Budget
C. Summary of Budget Assumptions for 2018 2019 The following is a summary of the major assumptions used for the preparation of the OMAFRA budget for 2018 2019.
Key Revenue Assumptions • The annual maximum funds for major programs total $71.3 million is confirmed by the Province for the 2018 2019 fiscal year. • Any net cost amount greater than the annual maximum funds provided will be funded by OMAFRA reserves held from the previous agreement. For 2018 2019, the approved amount is $0.056 million (See Section E). • Provincial funding for minor capital programs will be $4.5 million.
Key Expenditure Assumptions • All Program budgets will align with the 2018 2019 net expense allocations according to the renewed agreement Schedules totaling $71.356 million (see adjacent table). • The Program budgets for 2018 2019 include a 2% allowance for cost increases on the net expense total. This cost increase was funded by targeted internal Program Net Expense Budget $ Millions reallocations as part of the five year funding plan in the renewed agreement Research Program $37.926 Schedules. • Salary and benefit costs assumptions Property Management $15.024 reflect those used within the University’s overall General Operating Budget and contain provisions for increases for Animal Health Laboratory $7.548 University employee groups charged to the Agreement. It is estimated that total Agriculture and Food Laboratory $5.610 cost increases associated with compensation for regular full-time employees will be $0.640 million in 2018 Veterinary Capacity Program (VCP) $5.248 2019. The university has negotiated Total Budget – Expenses, Net of Program agreements in place with all employee $71.356 groups in the Agreement except OSSTF. Revenues This group includes a range of research program and property management staff positions representing approximately 2.0% of total agreement direct compensation. • For non-salary expenses, such as direct infrastructure costs (e.g., variable operating expenses on the research stations), increases will be covered through either 2% inflation allowance, increases in net program revenues or support from unallocated funds within the Agreement total funding envelope.
4
Proposed 2018-19 OMAFRA Agreement Budget [Motion] Page 119 of 189 University of Guelph OMAFRA Agreement – 2018 2019 Preliminary Budget
• There are a number of contributions in the Agreement Program Activities that will be transferred to the General Operating budget to support Agreement costs at a fixed level:
o $11.145 million toward 67.8 FTEs of research faculty the main campus and Ridgetown UGFA1 and UGFA2 members. o Veterinary Capacity Program $5.248 million envelope towards 11 faculty FTEs and approximately 26 staff FTEs in the teaching hospital with the balance for payment to students (ie DVSc, internships, externships). o $10.5 million for the indirect costs of research and services.
Other Agreement Assumptions and Potential Changes to the Property Management program • In the renewed agreement, the University committed to obtaining a minimum of $0.25 million per year in “leveraged” third party funding to match the OMAFRA agreement Highly Qualified Personnel program allocation of $0.25 million.
• Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario (ARIO2), as property owners of the sites managed by the University under the Property Management program, are in the process of determining the future usage of the legacy properties at Kemptville and Alfred where the University no longer operates any program activities. A portion of Kemptville Campus has been sold by ARIO to the Municipality of North Grenville, and a portion of Alfred Campus has been sold to a farm organization. ARIO is also expected to initiate the process to sell portions of New Liskeard Research Station that includes non-core buildings and land and buildings that will become surplus once new facilities are built within other parts of the Station. The University will continue to manage the retained portions of the properties, including the delivery of projects to prepare the properties for sale on behalf of ARIO. At this point the outcomes of these possibilities have not been factored into the revenue and expense estimates for the Property Management program as presented in the Preliminary budget. These potential property changes to non-core program sites will have no effect on the University’s ability to deliver the required program outcomes within the Agreement. Budget changes resulting from the transition of leased and occupied land and buildings to new owners will be incorporated into the University’s budget plans as impacts are evaluated and verified.
2 ARIO is a services agency reporting to the Minister of OMAFRA. It is provincially incorporated under the ARIO Act (1962). In 2007/2008, the province transferred ownership of most of the facilities (excluding the Laboratory Services building in Guelph) to ARIO. At the same time, OMAFRA amended the Agreement transferring the responsibility for buildings operations and maintenance to the University. Responsibility for the Laboratory Services building in Guelph remains with the province, through Infrastructure Ontario.
5
Proposed 2018-19 OMAFRA Agreement Budget [Motion] Page 120 of 189 University of Guelph OMAFRA Agreement – 2018 2019 Preliminary Budget
D. Major Program Groups All funding allocations in the OMFRA Agreement are managed within five Programs. These programs are created around major provincial funding priorities and are the major focus of all reporting to the ministry with a series of targeted Program Activities with fixed budget net targets in the renewed agreement schedules. The chart below shows the current projected distribution of total gross costs by program for 2018 2019.
“Research” includes: o “Competitive Project Awards” - $9 million allocated as research operating grants to high priority research projects in 8 themes; support for graduate students and knowledge transfer. o “Faculty” - $11.1 million to support approximately 68 FTEs (full-time equivalents) for researchers at the University (a fixed contribution). o “Research Staff and Support” - $8.0 million in costs for direct support of researchers. o “Indirect” - $10.5 million for indirect support for all programs.
• “Property Management” - $19.6 million in costs for operating major research facilities across Ontario and the Ridgetown campus facilities. • “VCP” - $5.3 million is designated for funding of veterinary faculty, contributions to the operation of the veterinary teaching hospital and advanced clinical experiential opportunities for DVM students through the Ontario Veterinary College (OVC). • “Laboratory Services” - $28.6 million includes two major units; the Agriculture and Food Laboratory and the Animal Health Laboratory, which generate about 55% of their total funding through sales of testing services. • “Minor Capital Repairs” - $4.5 million for high priority maintenance and equipment costs at provincially owned facilities.
6
Proposed 2018-19 OMAFRA Agreement Budget [Motion] Page 121 of 189 University of Guelph OMAFRA Agreement – 2018 2019 Preliminary Budget
E. Committed Research Program Funds and Uncommitted Program Funds
The 2018 to 2028 renewed agreement includes specific accountability for the balance of funds budgeted in programs in prior years that remain unspent and are carried forward into future years under the University’s policy for carryforwards. OMAFRA agreement funds have been carried forward within the program where it was originally budgeted to encourage sound financial planning and long term risk management. The Agreement generates funds from program revenues and recoveries (e.g. lab testing, produce sales) which cover approximately 23% of the Agreement total program expenses (the two Labs generate testing revenues which fund approximately 55% of their gross operating costs). This practice of revenue generation and carryforward policy has been in place for many years. With the many complex programs and facilities being managed by the University as part of the Agreement responsibilities, keeping a prudent amount of reserves and plan usage accordingly is a priority. Specifically, the “uncommitted” program funds noted below will be used to offset inflationary increases in cost to deliver the programs, in years 2018-2028. In addition, most projects awarded funding through the competitive Research Programs are multi-year with funding released on an annual basis pending satisfactory progress. Thus, these committed but not yet disbursed Research Program Funds must be held centrally for the future years of the research projects. The table below details the Agreement carry-forwards in the categories required for reporting on the 2018-2028 agreement.
OMAFRA Agreement Carryforwards $ Thousands
Carryforward in Carryforward in Program Funds $ 2017/2018 2018/2019
Research Program Funds –Unspent in Colleges $8,218 $9,155
Research Program Funds – Held in Central Reserves $11,791 $12,738
Total Research Program Committed Funds $20,009 $21,893
Property Management $3,689 $4,159
Animal Health Laboratory / Agriculture and Food $5,312 $5,116 Laboratory
Veterinary Capacity Program (VCP) $23 $6
General and Inflation Reserves $6,414 $7,588
Total Other Program Funds $15,438 $16,869
Remaining Growing Forward 2 (2013 – 2018) Funds $2,568 $1,081
Total OMAFRA Agreement Unspent Carryforward Funds $38,015 $39,843
7
Proposed 2018-19 OMAFRA Agreement Budget [Motion] Page 122 of 189 University of Guelph OMAFRA Agreement – 2018 2019 Preliminary Budget
Appendices
The following appendices provide further context and detail on the OMAFRA Agreement for 2018 2019.
Appendix F.1 OMAFRA Agreement –Budget Summary Table
OMAFRA Agreement $ thousands % Change 2016/2017 2017/2018 2017/2018 2018/2019 Budget To Actuals Budget Pre-Audit Budget Forecast REVENUES 66,800 71,840 71,840 OMAFRA Agreement 71,300 -0.8% 4,801 4,500 4,345 OMAFRA Minor Capital 5,000 15.1% 18,002 17,582 19,813 Sales of Goods and Services 19,303 -2.6% 166 100 327 Investment Income 300 -8.3% 1,860 694 1,927 Other Revenues 734 -61.9% 91,629 94,716 98,252 Total Revenues 96,637 -1.6%
EXPENSES 32,560 33,598 33,920 Salaries 33,527 -1.2% 8,230 9,092 8,519 Benefits and Pension 8,914 4.6% 520 401 463 Scholarships and Bursaries 250 -46.0% 3,415 2,320 3,548 Utilities 2,959 -16.6% 22,595 24,180 24,849 Operating 24,149 -2.8% 67,320 69,591 71,299 Total Expenses 69,800 -2.1%
UNIVERSITY TRANSFERS 5,200 5,200 5,200 To Operating for Veterinary Capacity Program 5,248 0.9% 8,900 9,425 9,425 To Operating for Research Faculty Costs 11,145 18.2% 10,500 10,500 10,500 To Operating for Indirect Costs 10,500 0.0% 24,600 25,125 25,125 Total University Transfers 26,893
(291) - 1,828 Operating Results After Transfers (56)
38,306 38,015 38,015 Opening Fund Balances 39,843 38,015 38,015 39,843 Closing Fund Balances 39,787
8
Proposed 2018-19 OMAFRA Agreement Budget [Motion] Page 123 of 189 Agreement Budget [Motion] Proposed 2018
University of Guelph OMAFRA Agreement – 2018/2019 Preliminary Budget In Thousands of Dollars
Appendix F.2 OMAFRA Agreement – Major Program Funding - 19 OMAFRA Table F2 shows a summary of the major grant allocations, other revenues earned from program activity (i.e., lab testing revenue, produce and milk sales), the purpose and any restrictions on the funds, FTE’s (486 full time, 160 temporary appointments) associated with the program (Faculty, Staff and Temporary Appointments including students) and a discussion of risk factors and limitations related to the program. Program Provincial Program Purpose Restriction Positions Funding Revenue Fac Staff Temp. Total Vets (Note 1) FTE’s Research Programs $9.0 Research project operating awarded to Faculty (7 themes, 69 69 commercialization, HQP and KTT) Research Faculty $11.1 Funding for 68 faculty FTEs at the Guelph and Ridgetown 68 68 campus based on a fixed dollar pool Research Support and $22.3 $5.4 Facilities and operations for 14 Research stations and the 156 40 196 Property Management Ridgetown campus including staff salaries, benefits, program operating and space (maintenance, utilities) Indirect Support $10.5 Funds provided to the MAESD budget for indirect costs of research (space, library etc) and central admin. support to all programs and locations Labs – AHL, AFL $13.2 $15.4 Regulatory, diagnostic and analytical testing services 16 209 48 273 provided by the Agriculture and Food Laboratory (AFL) and Animal Health Laboratory (AHL) VCP $5.2 Restricted to OVC for veterinary capacity development. 11 26 3 40 Funding for all positions is based on fixed dollar transfers. TOTAL Core Funding $ 71.3 $ 20.8 95 391 160 646
OMAFRA – Minor Capital $4.5 For jointly approved facility repairs and upgrades Focussed
Page 124 of 189 Investment on animal care standards and research health and safety TOTAL OMAFRA Agreement $ 75.8 $ 20.8 95 391 160 646
Note #1: Temporary employee FTE are estimates based on 2017 2018 actual expenditures on temporary full time and part time positions using an average annual cost calculation by employee classification.
9 Agreement Budget [Motion] Proposed 2018 University of Guelph OMAFRA Agreement – 2018/2019 Preliminary Budget In Thousands of Dollars
Appendix F.3; Table of Preliminary 2018 2019 Budget, By Unit and Major Expense Category: Agreement Budget One Time Allocations Total -
19 OMAFRA (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) Revenues Total Transfers to Operating Dept Cost Total Base 2018/2019 2017/2018 Total Personnel General Recovery Budget Minor Capital Pre-Audit Preliminary Agreement Revenues Operating Projects Results Budget Provincial Funding - Current Year 71,300 - - - 71,300 71,300 Minor Capital Funding 500 500 4,500 5,000 Program Revenue 20,337 - - - - 20,337 20,337 Revenue Deferred from Prior Years - 39,843 39,843 Total Agreement Revenues 92,137 - - - - 92,137 4,500 39,843 136,480
Teaching Units College of Arts - - - - - 3 3 College of Biological Science 62 1,054 - - 1,115 218 1,333 College of Social & Appl. Human Science 16 154 - - 170 81 251 College of Business & Economics 27 144 - - 171 150 321 OAC Guelph 3,638 5,659 305 (245) 9,357 4,625 13,982 Alfred/Kemptville Legacy Sites - - 2,250 - 2,250 900 485 3,635 Ridgetown Campus 2,169 1,450 2,059 (848) 4,831 1,000 1,659 7,490 Northern/Eastern Stations 1,492 - 1,022 - 2,514 800 3,314 Total: Ontario Agricultural College - 7,299 7,109 5,637 (1,092) 18,952 1,900 7,569 28,421 Ontario Veterinary College - Research 481 2,183 22 - 2,685 884 3,569 Ontario Veterinary College - VCEP - 5,248 - - 5,248 11 5,259 Coll of Physical & Engineering 141 503 - - 644 420 1,064 Total Teaching Units - 8,025 16,393 5,659 (1,092) 28,985 1,900 9,335 40,221 Support Units and Services Guelph Stations/Animal Facilities 7,211 - 6,434 (186) 13,459 2,600 2,508 18,567 AVP Agrifood / Facilities O&M 594 - 184 - 778 1,698 2,475 Page 125 of 189 Lab Services Division (AHL and AFL) 21,229 - 9,829 (2,500) 28,559 5,206 33,765 Central Support Costs - 10,500 - - 10,500 - 10,500 Research Project Multi Year Awards 5,106 - 2,442 - 7,548 13,508 21,056 Central Contingency & Inflation Reserve 276 - 2,088 - 2,364 7,588 9,952 Total Support Units and Services - 34,416 10,500 20,977 (2,686) 63,208 2,600 30,508 96,315
Total Agreement Expenses 42,442 26,893 26,637 (3,778) 92,193 4,500 39,843 136,536 Net Agreement Budget 92,137 42,442 26,893 26,637 (3,778) 56 0 0 56
10 Agreement Budget [Motion] Proposed 2018
University of Guelph OMAFRA Agreement – 2018/2019 Preliminary Budget
Notes to Appendix F.3 - 19 OMAFRA Column A: Total Base or Core revenues of $92.137 million include both agreement advances from OMAFRA and revenues within units. Program revenues are external cash charges for services provided by agreement locations primarily through the sale of goods and services.
Column B: Total Personnel includes the salary and benefit costs for all faculty and staff charged directly to OMAFRA projects including approximately 381 FTE’s of regular full-time positions (see table F.5).
Column C: Faculty Pool Costs are fixed transfers to the MAESD budget in support of faculty effort on research projects (68 FTE's) and VCP (11 FTE's).
Column D: Operating expenses include all non-personnel expenses including travel, utilities, supplies and facility maintenance.
Column E: Dept Cost Recovery are non-cash transfers based on inter-departmental services provided such as laboratory test to other University departments and administration services recovered from MAESD at regional campus locations.
Column F: Total Base Budget is the total revenues and total departmental expenses less cost recoveries for each major unit for the base portion of the Renewed Agreement. This amount is before the one-time minor capital allocations and the pre-audit results from the 2017 2018 net operating position (See Col G, H,).
Column G: The proposed allocation for Minor Capital projects represents additional funds from OMAFRA in support of jointly approved renovations and repairs to facilities and equipment at provincially owned properties managed by the University under the Agreement.
Column H: The total $39.843 million in funds projected (pre audit results) at the end of 2017 2018 from agreement revenues deferred for committed projects and program activities planning in subsequent years subject to the provisions new agreement around the treatment of uncommitted funds (see appendix F.4 on the next page for detailed results and discussion in section E).
Column I: The Total Preliminary Budget is the total preliminary 2018 2019 OMAFRA allocation committed for approved agreement projects and programs. Page 126 of 189
11 Agreement Budget [Motion] Proposed 2018
University of Guelph OMAFRA Agreement – 2018/2019 Preliminary Budget In Thousands of Dollars
Appendix F.4 – Table of 2017 2018 Forecast Results, Net Expenses by Unit -
19 OMAFRA 2017/2018 Pre Audit Results Plus Budget Total 2017/2018 Net Annual Revenue/ Ne t Variance Carryforward Expenses Budget Budget Recoveries A ctuals + (-) fr om Carryforward Institutional Revenues and Recoveries 2016/2017
Total Provincial Revenues 71,840 71,840 71,840 - - - Teaching Units College of Arts 9 8 8 1 2 3 College of Biological Science 1,310 1,302 1,302 8 210 218 College of Social & Applied Human Sciences 255 317 317 (62) 143 81 College of Business & Economics 410 332 332 78 72 150
OAC - Guelph 15,146 77 14,648 14,571 575 4,050 4,625 Alfred Campus 599 157 715 558 41 384 425 Kemptville Campus 1,652 2,662 4,532 1,870 (218) 278 60 Ridgetown Campus 4,971 1,414 6,513 5,099 (128) 1,787 1,659 Northern/Eastern Stations 1,680 1,253 2,539 1,286 394 406 800 Total Ontario A gricultural College 24,048 5,563 28,947 23,384 664 6,905 7,569 Ontario Veterinary College - Research 3,145 3,222 3,222 (77) 961 884 Ontario Veterinary College - VCEP 5,205 5,369 5,369 (164) 175 11 Total Ontario Veterinary College (OVC) 8,350 - 8,591 8,591 (241) 1,136 895 College of Engineering & Physical Sciences 1,625 1,664 1,664 (39) 459 420 Total Teaching Units 36,007 5,563 41,161 35,598 409 8,927 9,336
Page 127 of 189 Research Programs - Committed Multi Year Project Awards 909 - (41) (41) 950 12,558 13,508 Guelph Research Stations and Animal Facilities 9,425 5,085 14,249 9,164 261 2,247 2,508 AVP Agrifood / O&M Reserves 594 165 711 546 48 1,649 1,697 Laboratory Services Division 13,231 15,600 29,845 14,245 (1,014) 6,220 5,206 OMAFRA Indirect Costs 10,500 10,500 10,500 - - - Total Revenue & Expenses from Operations 70,666 26,413 96,425 70,012 654 31,601 32,255
Central Contingency and Inflation Reserves 1,174 - 1,174 6,414 7,588 Net Income (Expense) - 98,253 96,425 1,828 (1,828) 38,015 39,843
12
University of Guelph OMAFRA Agreement – 2018/2019 Preliminary Budget
Appendix F.5 – Table of OMAFRA Funded Full Time Equivalents (FTE’S)1 18/19 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 Prelim Teaching Units OAC Guelph Faculty 0.3 - - - - Staff 33.3 34.1 37.4 37.5 38.0 OAC Guelph Total 33.5 34.1 37.4 37.5 38.0 Alfred Campus Faculty 1.9 - - - - Staff 10.1 - - - - Alfred Campus Total 12.0 - - - - Kemptville Campus Faculty 0.9 - - - - Staff 22.8 10.0 - - - Kemptville Campus Total 23.7 10.0 - - - Ridgetown Campus Faculty 7.1 7.1 6.4 6.4 - Note Staff 32.0 33.0 25.0 25.8 22.0 #2 Ridgetown Campus Total 39.0 40.0 31.4 32.2 22.0 Northern / Eastern Stations Staff 9.7 9.3 13.9 13.8 13.8 Ontario Veterinary College - Research Total 9.7 9.3 13.9 13.8 13.8 Ontario Veterinary College - Research Staff 7.4 7.2 7.1 6.5 6.4 Ontario Veterinary College - Research Total 7.4 7.2 7.1 6.5 6.4 College of Physical & Eng. Services Staff 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 College of Physical & Eng. Services Total 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 Teaching Units Total Faculty 10.1 7.1 6.4 6.4 - Staff 116.5 94.7 84.8 84.9 81.4 Total 126.7 101.8 91.2 91.3 81.4
Other Programs And Services Guelph Research Station Operations Staff 69.7 69.9 69.0 73.7 74.4 69.7 69.9 69.0 73.7 74.4 Lab Services Division (AHL and AFL) Faculty Vets 13.6 13.6 15.4 15.6 15.6 Staff 187.2 192.4 203.5 209.0 209.2 200.8 206.0 218.9 224.6 224.8 Other Programs And Services Total Faculty 13.6 13.6 15.4 15.6 15.6 Staff 257.0 262.3 272.5 282.7 283.6 Total 270.6 275.9 287.8 298.3 299.2
TOTAL Faculty 23.7 20.7 21.8 22.0 15.6 Staff 373.5 357.0 357.2 367.6 364.9 Grand Total 397.3 377.7 379.0 389.6 380.5 Note #1 Table F.5 excludes 79 FTE’s of Research Faculty, College Professors and VCP Faculty; and 28 Veterinary Health Science Centre staff FTE’s supported by cost transfer to the MAESD Budget (See next page). Note #2 Ridgetown Faculty (6.4) and College Professor FTEs (3.9) moved from direct charge to the Faculty Pool for 2018 2019. 13
Proposed 2018-19 OMAFRA Agreement Budget [Motion] Page 128 of 189
University of Guelph OMAFRA Agreement – 2018/2019 Preliminary Budget
Notes to Appendix F.5:
FTE: Full Time Equivalents measuring budgeted positions for full time UGFA1 and UGFA2 members and staff charged directly to the OMAFRA Agreement.
Table D.4 contains the FTE counts by organizational unit detailing UGFA1 and UGFA2 Members, and Staff positions for the fiscal years 2014 2015 to 2018 2019 (Preliminary) directly charged to the OMAFRA agreement. In addition, the agreement supports faculty positions in the General Operating budget by a fixed cost transfer.
Notes:
1. The total direct funded positions in the preliminary budget for the renewed OMAFRA agreement totals 380.5 budgeted full-time positions for 2018 2019. In addition, there is support for positions by fixed transfer to the MAESD budget where the base costs for the positions are covered by the OMAFRA agreement but all salary and benefit inflation falls to the Operating budget. This includes support for 26 FTE of staff positions in the OVC Health Sciences Centre. With the indirect or pooled positions, the total 2018 2019 effort for full time positions in the OMAFRA agreement totals 486 full time equivalents (475 in 2017 2018).
2. In total there is support of 95 FTE’s of UGFA1 and UGFA2 full-time positions in the OMAFRA budget. (Refer to the table below).
Of these 95 FTE’s, 16 are Veterinarian positions in Lab Services. The actual salaries and benefits for these positions are charged directly to OMAFRA funds. In addition there are 10.8 VCP faculty and veterinarians and 67.8 research faculty supported by fixed transfer (pooled) to the MAESD Budget.
OMAFRA Funding for Lab Ridgetown OAC OVC OVC Other Total Academic position FTE’s Services Campus Guelph Research VCP Colleges
Veterinarian – Direct 16 16
Faculty – “Pool” 10 39 9 11 10 79
Total FTE’s 16 10 39 9 11 10 95
14
Proposed 2018-19 OMAFRA Agreement Budget [Motion] Page 129 of 189
University of Guelph OMAFRA Agreement – 2018/2019 Preliminary Budget Appendix F.6 – OMAFRA Supported Research Facilities The OMAFRA Agreement supports the operations of real properties across the province. Under the Agreement the University is responsible for the day to day operation of these facilities (the University does not own the properties). These include a wide variety of buildings used as residences, research labs, barns and administrative offices located on 6,600 acres of land. More specifically these facilities consist of:
1. Those owned by the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario3 across Ontario including: • regional campus of the OAC (Ontario Agricultural College) at Ridgetown in south-western Ontario; legacy campus sites at Alfred and Kemptville, both discontinued from current programming, and, • 14 agricultural research stations located across Ontario. 2. A Laboratory Services building in Guelph owned by the Province; the responsibility for operations and maintenance of the Laboratory Service building remains with the province.
$20 million or 21% of total Agreement revenue is allocated for the day-to day operations of these facilities. This funding consists of program revenues of $5 million derived mainly from farm operations with the balance of $15 million from provincial transfers. Costs range from basic utilities to farming operations costs such as staff, supplies and minor renovations. In addition, for ARIO-owned properties, the costs of minor capital projects are funded by a $4.5 million annual transfer from ARIO. Priorities for capital project spending under this fund are determined as part of a joint (OMAFRA, ARIO and University) planning process where priorities are health and safety, animal care, energy efficiencies and program effectiveness.
3 ARIO is a services agency reporting to the Minister of OMAFRA. It is provincially incorporated under the ARIO Act (1962). In 2007/2008, the province transferred ownership of most of the facilities (excluding the Laboratory Services building in Guelph) to ARIO. At the same time, OMAFRA amended the Agreement transferring the responsibility for buildings operations and maintenance to the University. Responsibility for the Laboratory Services building in Guelph remains with the province, through Infrastructure Ontario. 15
Proposed 2018-19 OMAFRA Agreement Budget [Motion] Page 130 of 189
To: Members, Board of Governors
From: Ben Doadt, Associate University Secretary
Subject: 5. Finance Committee Report
Meeting: June 8, 2018
d) Capital Activities [Motions]
i) North Wing MacKinnon Project
At the Board of Governors meeting held January 23, 2018, the Board received and reviewed the Capital Plan for 2018-19. The Capital Plan for 2018-19 set out the proposed capital projects for 2018-19. Several elements of the plan were presented for approval by Board of Governors and were approved on that date. Approval for some projects was not sought and the Board was informed that approval for the remaining projects would be brought forward as finalized.
At this time, University Administration is seeking approval for the North Wing MacKinnon project. The Physical Resources and Property Committee (PRPC) toured the MacKinnon building at the start of its meeting on November 24, 2017. The project was considered and is recommended for approval by PRPC (May 14, 2018) and the Finance Committee (May 31, 2018).
At this time, University Administration is seeking approval for the North Wing MacKinnon project. The PRPC Committee toured the MacKinnon building at the start of its meeting on November 24, 2017. Details on the project are included in the enclosed memo and renderings. The 2018-19 Capital Plan, as reviewed by the Committee at its December 21, 2017 meeting is available online1. The associated project, the Community Improv Theatre, was approved by the Board of Governors on January 23, 2018. The Community Improv Theatre was approved at a total construction cost of $4.6 million and the North Wing MacKinnon is presented at a total project cost of $15.7 million for a total combined cost of $20.3 million.
The Board of Governors is asked to, RESOLVE, that the Board of Governors accept and approve, that the University Administration be authorized to proceed with the North Wing MacKinnon project including that: a) The total project cost not exceed $15.7 million, $5 million of which is to be paid from Heritage Trust funds and $10.7 million of which is to be paid from internal financing; and, b) The Administration present a schematic design and detailed design drawings for the project to the Physical Resources and Property Committee; and c) The University Administration be authorized to determine on behalf of the Board of Governors decisions concerning appointment of architects and
1URL: https://uoguelph.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/151818
Capital Activities: North Wing MacKinnon Project, Greenhouse Page 131 of 189 consultants in a manner consistent with relevant University purchasing and tendering policies; and, d) The University Administration be authorized and directed to do all acts and things as may be necessary and desirable to complete the transaction contemplated herein, and that any two Officers of the University are hereby authorized to execute and deliver any and all documents, which in their opinion, are necessary or desirable to give effect to the foregoing; and, e) That the Physical Resources and Property Committee and Finance Committee receive regular updates regarding the budget, design and materials, and completion schedule; and, f) Requests for adjustments to the project will follow the normal capital project review and approval processes of the Board of Governors.
ii) Greenhouse Gas Funded Projects
The enclosed memo outlines the University’s success in receiving a $9.5 million grant under the provincial government’s Greenhouse Gas Campus Retrofit Program and sets out the projects to be implemented. The Physical Resources and Property Committee (PRPC) received an initial memo, detailing the University’s application for the funding, at their meeting of November 24, 2017. The project was considered and is recommended for approval by PRPC (May 14, 2018) and the Finance Committee (May 31, 2018).
Mr. Don O’Leary, Vice-President (Finance, Administration and Risk) will speak to the proposed projects: • Expansion of the Central Plant heat recovery system. • Addition of electric boilers to our fleet of gas burning boilers.
The Board of Governors is asked to, RESOLVE, that the Board of Governors accept and approve that the University Administration be authorized to proceed with the Greenhouse Gas Campus Retrofit Program projects including that: a) The total construction cost not exceed $9.5 million, which is to be paid from grants secured under the Greenhouse Gas Campus Retrofit Program; and, b) The Administration present a schematic design and detailed design drawings for the project to the Physical Resources and Property Committee; and, c) The University Administration be authorized to determine on behalf of the Board of Governors decisions concerning appointment of architects and consultants in a manner consistent with relevant University purchasing and tendering policies; and, d) The University Administration be authorized and directed to do all acts and things as may be necessary and desirable to complete the transaction contemplated herein, and that any two Officers of the University are hereby authorized to execute and deliver any and all documents, which in their opinion, are necessary or desirable to give effect to the foregoing; and, e) That the Physical Resources and Property Committee and Finance Committee receive regular updates regarding the budget, design and materials, and completion schedule; and, f) Requests for adjustments to the project will follow the normal capital project review and approval processes of the Board of Governors.
Capital Activities: North Wing MacKinnon Project, Greenhouse Page 132 of 189
To: Physical Resources & Property Committee Finance Committee
From: Don O’Leary, Vice President (Finance, Administration & Risk) Date: May 14, 2018 Subject: MacKinnon Building – North Wing Renovation
______Background: The North Wing of the MacKinnon Building is home to the Music and Performing Arts programs. The building is 50 years old and in dire need of renewal. Proposed renovations would include the following key elements: • Re-working and upgrading of the Luscombe Theatre and Goldschmidt Room; • Improvements to costume design and set design workshops; • Complete renewal of circulation and support spaces; • Accessibility improvements throughout; • Acoustic treatment of music practice and performance areas; • Building envelope improvements; • A new well defined entranceway; • A new elevator; • Two new barrier free transgender washrooms; • Complete renewal of building infrastructure including mechanical, electrical, lighting, data and communication systems.
The above will transform a dark and tired space into a space that defines the Music and Performing Arts programs and facilitates fresh collaboration and innovation. The building infrastructure renewal associated with the project will address $3 M in deferred maintenance. The new entranceway will welcome students, faculty, staff and the community at large into a bright, modern and fully accessible facility for all to enjoy.
The proposed renovations will bring Guelph on par with many Ontarian Universities which have updated their performing arts facilities in recent years including Brock’s Marilyn I. Walker School of Fine and Performing Arts (2015) and Queen’s Isabel Bader
Capital Activities: North Wing MacKinnon Project, Greenhouse Page 133 of 189 Centre for the Performing Arts (2014). These facilities present direct competition for student recruitment. Through this renovation, the North Wing of the MacKinnon Building will be a facility that the University will be proud to tour perspective students and their families through.
Scope: The 2018-19 Capital Plan approved by the Board of Governors in January, 2018 included an approval for the Community Improv Theatre Project at a project cost of $4.6 M as well as a $14.8 M estimate for the North Wing MacKinnon Renovation. However, further project design and costing of the North Wing project was required prior to requesting Board approval to proceed. The total project cost for the North Wing is $15.7 M. The funding is $5M from the Heritage Trust and $10.7M from internal financing. As reported in the 2018-19 Capital Plan, these projects can be delivered as one. There are distinct advantages to one project including expected total cost savings, a shorter time frame for completion of all work, and less disruption, noise, inconvenience, etc. to all users and the University community in general. Recommendation: Now that project scope and better cost estimation have been undertaken the University Administration is recommending the project be approved at a total cost not to exceed $20.3M.
Capital Activities: North Wing MacKinnon Project, Greenhouse Page 134 of 189 Capital Activities: North Wing MacKinnon Project, Greenhouse Page 135 of 189 Capital Activities: North Wing MacKinnon Project, Greenhouse Page 136 of 189 Capital Activities: North Wing MacKinnon Project, Greenhouse Page 137 of 189 Capital Activities: North Wing MacKinnon Project, Greenhouse Page 138 of 189 Capital Activities: North Wing MacKinnon Project, Greenhouse Page 139 of 189 Page 140 of 189
To: Physical Resources and Property Committee
From: Don O’Leary, Vice President (Finance, Administration & Risk)
Dan MacLachlan, Interim Associate Vice President (Physical Resources)
Date: May 14, 2018 Subject: Greenhouse Gas Campus Retrofit Program
______The University has received a grant of $9.5 million from the Province’s Greenhouse Gas Campus Retrofit Program (GGCRP). This investment in energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction is part of Ontario's Climate Change Action Plan and is funded by proceeds from the province's carbon cap and trade market. The project has two components: 1. Expansion of the Central Plant heat recovery system. Rather than losing heat energy out the stack at the Central Plant, that energy will be recovered and used to heat an additional seven buildings.
2. Addition of electric boilers to the fleet of gas burning boilers. The University regards the move to electric based heating as another step towards the long term strategy of being carbon free.
This project builds on the efficiency of our existing district heating/cooling system and will include retro-commissioning of the affected systems and equipment. It also builds on the enormous success of the Green Gryphon Initiative, our recently completed $26.2 million energy project. When this project is complete in spring 2019, we will have reduced our GHG emissions by 37% (relative to 1990 emissions). This meets the reduction target required in Ontario's Climate Change Action Plan by 2030: a major accomplishment! President Vaccarino had this to say about receiving the funding, "The University of Guelph is committed to improving life through environmental, economic and social sustainability. This extends beyond teaching and research to the administration and operation of our campuses. The government's investment, through this important fund, will allow us to continue to reduce our collective carbon footprint while also addressing
Capital Activities: North Wing MacKinnon Project, Greenhouse Page 141 of 189 maintenance issues and showcasing new technologies." (from news release from MAESD, Feb. 12. 2018). This project was one of two applications made to the GGCRP's Innovation Grant Fund. It is a single year project that must be complete by April, 2019. To that end, MCW Custom Energy Solutions, our energy service provider from the Green Gryphon Initiative has been engaged, and design is well underway. The other application was to the multi-year portion of the Innovation Grant Fund. There is currently no GGCRP commitment by the Ontario government beyond 2017-18. But, should that funding become available, the University are well poised to move forward with yet another project. Among other things, our multi-year proposal includes retrofitting the Arboretum Centre into the first net-zero building on campus.
Capital Activities: North Wing MacKinnon Project, Greenhouse Page 142 of 189
To: Members, Board of Governors
From: Ben Doadt, Associate University Secretary
Subject: 5. Finance Committee Report
Meeting: June 8, 2018
e) Annual Review of Endowment Investment Policy [Motion]
The University’s Endowment Investment Policy specifies that the policy is to be reviewed at least annually. The annual review begins with the policy’s review by the Investment Subcommittee. The Subcommittee’s advice is then forwarded for consideration to both the Board of Trustees (viz Heritage Trust endowments) and the Finance Committee (viz the University’s General Endowment Fund).
The University Administration undertook an initial review of the document did not propose any amendments. The policy was most recently amended during the annual review process in 2017. The Endowment Investment Policy, as approved on April 21, 2017, is enclosed.
The Investment Subcommittee (April 27, 2018) accepted and recommended that the current Endowment Investment Policy be confirmed. The policy was also accepted and recommended by the Finance Committee (May 31, 2018) and the Board of Trustees (May 29, 2018, via electronic sign-back).
The following motion is presented with recommendation for approval from the Investment Subcommittee, the Board of Trustees and the Finance Committee.
The Board of Governors is asked to, RESOLVE, that the Board of Governors accept and approve that the Endowment Investment Policy, as approved by the Board of Governors on April 21, 2017, be confirmed.
N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2017-18\6. June 8, 2018\Cover memos\5e - Finance - Annual Review of Endowment Investment Policy.docx
Annual Review of Endowment Investment Policy [Motion] Page 143 of 189 Page 144 of 189 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH
Endowment Investment Policy
Approved by the Board of Governors on April 21 2017
Annual Review of Endowment Investment Policy [Motion] Page 145 of 189 Endowment Investment Policy 2017
A. Contents B. Purpose ...... 2 C. Background ...... 2 D. Governance ...... 3 a. Oversight ...... 3 b. Custodian ...... 3 c. Investment Managers ...... 3 E. Policy Asset Mix and Permitted Ranges ...... 4 F. Fund Benchmark ...... 4 G. Permitted Asset Classes ...... 5 H. General Guidelines ...... 5 a. Derivatives ...... 5 b. Securities Lending ...... 6 c. Voting Rights ...... 7 d. Valuation of Investments ...... 7 e. Performance Monitoring ...... 7 I. ESG Considerations ...... 8 J. Related Parties and Conflict of Interest ...... 8 a. Definition of Related Party ...... 8 b. Related Party Transactions ...... 9 c. Conflict of Interest ...... 9 K. Policy Review ...... 10
1
Annual Review of Endowment Investment Policy [Motion] Page 146 of 189 Endowment Investment Policy 2017
B. Purpose This document constitutes the Investment Policy (the “Policy”) applicable to the invested assets in respect of the University of Guelph (the University) Endowment Funds. There are two major components of total Endowment Funds, the General Endowment Fund and the Heritage Fund, each having different governing polices with respect to purpose and spending. For the purposes of investing, however, these funds have been combined into one portfolio to which this Policy applies.
C. Background The primary objective of the University’s Endowment Funds is to provide a permanent source of funding by investing the principal amount of the initial capital and making a portion of the total investment return available for spending. Spending levels and investment categories are established to preserve the purchasing power of the endowment account over the long-term by spending only a portion of total investment returns and investing in asset classes that yield sufficient investment returns to provide inflation-protected spending.
Annual spending levels from the Endowment Funds are governed by separate Board of Governor’s approved policies that limit annual disbursements in order to preserve capital and the real spending capacity of these funds. The University’s Endowment Funds consist of two major components: 1. The General Endowment Fund consists of funds mainly from external, non-operating fund sources such as donations and government. The majority of these funds are designated for student aid in the form of scholarships and bursaries. Other designations include research support, endowed faculty chairs, equipment or library acquisitions and special academic activities such as support for visiting lecturers, student semester abroad programs and on-going support toward the operating costs of academic facilities.
2. The Heritage Fund was created with the intention that the capital of the fund be held in perpetuity for University of Guelph strategic purposes. The main sources of growth for the Heritage Fund are proceeds of real estate sales, leases from designated properties and investment income earned on the capital of the fund. Spending is designated primarily for special projects of a limited duration.
2
Annual Review of Endowment Investment Policy [Motion] Page 147 of 189 Endowment Investment Policy 2017
D. Governance
a. Oversight . The University through its Board of Governors (the "Board") has ultimate responsibility for the Endowment Funds. . The Board of Trustees of the Heritage Fund was established by the Board of Governors to oversee the investment and growth of the Heritage Fund. . The Board delegated oversight of the investment and growth of the General Endowment Fund to its Finance Committee. . The Board has delegated responsibilities with respect to investment of the Endowment Funds to the Investment Subcommittee (the “IS”), a committee established by the Board of Governors with the mandate to provide expert advice and oversight in regards to the investment responsibilities for the Endowment Fund and pension assets. . Terms of Reference for the IS are contained under separate cover; however, major responsibilities of the IS include: - Review and recommend changes to the investment policies including asset allocation and allowable investment classes; - Determine and approve asset allocation and investment classes within the scope of the relevant University policy. - Appoint, review and replace, as necessary, investment managers; and - Monitor and report on investment performance. . In fulfilling its responsibilities, the IS is supported by employees of the University through the Office of the Vice-President Finance, Administration and Risk. In addition, the IS may rely on independent experts for certain aspects of the Endowment Fund’s operations where expert knowledge is required or where a perceived or actual conflict of interest exists. b. Custodian
The custodian of the Endowment Funds (the “Custodian”) shall be a trust company duly registered in Canada. All investments and assets of the Endowment Funds shall be held by the Custodian. c. Investment Managers
Assets of the Endowment Funds shall be managed by external investment managers (the “Managers”) as appointed by the IS. The duties and responsibilities of the Managers are as follows:
. Invest the assets of the Endowment Funds, through the Custodian, in accordance with their Investment Manager Mandate and Performance Standards (the “Mandate”) and the Policy; . Provide a signed quarterly compliance certificate attesting to compliance with the Mandate & the Policy; . Meet with the IS to review investment performance and other investment issues relevant to the Endowment Funds; . Provide written reports on a quarterly basis detailing the investment portfolio and performance and adhere to the best practices for standards of professional conduct such as those in the CFA Institute Code of Ethics. 3
Annual Review of Endowment Investment Policy [Motion] Page 148 of 189 Endowment Investment Policy 2017
E. Policy Asset Mix and Permitted Ranges The Target Asset Mix and Permitted Ranges for the Endowment Funds have been determined as set out in the following table.
Asset Class Market Index Target Asset Mix Permitted Ranges Min Max Universe Bonds FTSE TMX Canada 30% 10% 50% Universe Bond Cash FTSE TMX Canada 91 0% 0% 20% Day T-Bill Total Fixed Income 30% 20% 50%
Infrastructure CPI+5% 7.5% 0% 10%
Canadian Equities S&P/TSX Composite 17.5% 7.5% 27.5% U.S. Equities S&P 500 ($Cdn) 20% 10% 30% International Equities MSCI EAFE Net ($Cdn) 20% 10% 30% Emerging Markets Equities MSCI EM ($Cdn) 5% 0% 10% Total Equities 62.5% 50% 80%
If the asset mix deviates outside the permitted ranges at the end of any quarter, the IS will bring the asset mix back within the permitted ranges as soon as practical.
F. Fund Benchmark The Benchmark Return is based on a blend of the individual passive asset class indices in proportion to the “Target Asset Mix”. The IS may choose to establish actual asset mixes that differ from the “Target Asset Mix” within “Permitted Ranges”.
4
Annual Review of Endowment Investment Policy [Motion] Page 149 of 189 Endowment Investment Policy 2017
G. Permitted Asset Classes The Endowment Funds may invest in any or all of the following asset categories and subcategories of investments either directly or through pooled funds or exchange traded funds which hold only these investments. For purposes of this Policy, "governments" includes supranational, Canadian federal, provincial or municipal governments, sovereign issuers and securities guaranteed by these governments. Equities: Securities publicly traded and listed on recognized stock market exchanges including, but not limited to, common shares, convertible debentures, share purchase warrants, share purchase rights, preferred shares, depositary receipts, interests in limited partnerships, and units of real estate investment trusts (REITS) and income trusts that have limited liability protection by statute. Equity holdings shall be diversified by company, region, industry and country.
Fixed Income: Debt instruments must be issued in Canadian currency or fully hedged to the Canadian dollar and include, but are not limited to, bonds, debentures, mortgages, notes, real return bonds, asset-backed securities or other debt instruments of governments or corporations (public and private) and maple bonds (foreign instruments issued in Canadian currency). With the exception of issues of the government of Canada, fixed income holdings shall be diversified by issuer and industry. The majority of fixed income holdings shall be invested in investment grade debt instruments which are rated A (low) or higher.
Infrastructure: Tangible assets that provide key services to an economy, including transportation, communication, utilities, social services, and business related to those sectors, that are expected to provide long-term stable cash flows. Infrastructure investments shall be held through open or closed-end pooled funds structured as trusts, limited partnerships or corporations formed to invest in infrastructure. Investments shall be focused on mature infrastructure in regulated economic sectors. Direct ownership of infrastructure is not permitted.
Cash or Cash Equivalents: Cash or money market securities issued by governments or Canadian corporations (public and private) with term to maturity of one year or less.
All debt ratings shall be issued by Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations (NRSRO) as defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
H. General Guidelines
a. Derivatives Any use of derivative investments must be in accordance with a program that has been specifically considered and approved by the IS whether done directly in the Endowment Funds or in a pooled fund. Derivative instruments may not be used to create exposures to securities which would not otherwise be
5
Annual Review of Endowment Investment Policy [Motion] Page 150 of 189 Endowment Investment Policy 2017
permitted under this Policy or which would be outside the limits under this Policy had the exposure been obtained in the cash markets through direct investment. Derivative instruments may be used only to: Replicate the investment performance of permitted direct investments; Increase the Endowment Funds’ current revenue by selling covered calls; or Manage risk as part of a hedging strategy; But in any case may not be used to leverage the Endowment Funds, unless approved by the IS.
b. Securities Lending Permitted Circumstances: The IS may lend securities of the Fund as a means of generating incremental income or cash for investment or otherwise supporting an investment strategy. Such loans shall be in writing. When the IS lends securities of the Fund, the document shall provide for the IS’s right to recall the loaned securities. Use of Agents : Management may delegate, through the University’s custodial trustee, to a lending agent the authority to select borrowers, negotiate terms and rates and invest cash or securities collateral under written procedures which specify securities available for loan, pre-approved borrowers, loan terms, and instruments for the investment of collateral as well as administrative, risk management and reporting arrangements. Collateral and Margin Requirements: When the IS lends securities of the Fund as a means of generating incremental income or cash for investment, the following rules shall apply. The IS or its lending agent shall receive from the borrower collateral equal to no less than 105% of the market value of the securities loaned at the time of the transaction. The amount of collateral margin taken shall reflect best practices in local markets. Both loaned and collateral securities must be marked to market daily to account for increases in the market value of the securities loaned or decreases in the market value of the collateral. Shortfalls in the amount of collateral must be rectified by the following business day unless otherwise agreed to in writing. The collateral obtained to secure a loan of securities or any securities purchased with such collateral must be either cash or high quality, readily marketable securities acceptable as a direct investment under the IS’s investment policies. Title to all collateral must be clear.
6
Annual Review of Endowment Investment Policy [Motion] Page 151 of 189 Endowment Investment Policy 2017
c. Voting Rights The responsibility of exercising and directing voting rights acquired through the Endowment Fund’s investments shall normally be delegated to the Manager, who shall at all times act prudently and in the best interests of the Endowment Funds. The Manager shall provide the IS with its proxy voting guidelines and notify the IS of any changes to these guidelines. The Manager shall maintain a record of how the Endowment Funds’ voting rights have been exercised and provide the IS with quarterly proxy voting results.
In case of doubt as to the best interests, the Manager shall request instructions from the IS regarding the best interests of the Endowment Funds and shall act in accordance with such instructions.
The IS reserves the right to direct, or override, the voting decisions of a Manager, if in its view such action is in the best interests of the Endowment Funds, except for investments held in a pooled fund.
It is recognized, however, that the above constraints and policy on voting rights may not be enforceable to the extent that part of the Endowment Funds are invested in pooled funds.
d. Valuation of Investments Investment in publicly traded securities shall be valued by the Custodian for the Endowment Funds no less frequently than monthly at their market value. Investment in pooled funds comprising publicly traded securities shall be valued according to the unit values calculated at least monthly by the Custodian of the pooled funds. The Custodian shall be responsible for requesting and recording the unit values on a monthly basis. Where a security or asset is publicly traded but not frequently, the Custodian will determine the appropriate market value of the particular security or asset and, in the event of a conflict, the value that the Custodian has determined will be deemed as correct. If a market valuation of an investment is not readily available, then a fair value shall be determined at the direction of the IS. For each such investment, an estimate of fair value shall be supplied by the Custodian with input from the Managers no less frequently than quarterly. Such fair value may be determined by reference to the most recent independent expert appraisal or by other means such as risk-adjusted discounted cash flows or comparison with similar assets which are publicly traded. In all cases the methodology should be applied consistently over time.
e. Performance Monitoring The IS shall review on a regular basis, as needed, and at least quarterly: The current asset mix of the Endowment Funds relative to the Target Asset Mix and permissible ranges; 7
Annual Review of Endowment Investment Policy [Motion] Page 152 of 189 Endowment Investment Policy 2017
The investment performance of the Endowment Funds and each Manager relative to the objectives of the Policy and of the Mandates; and Risks relevant to the investment of the fund
The IS shall report on their activities and the performance of the Endowment Funds to the Board of Trustees, Board of Governors through the Finance Committee at least twice a year, as at June 30th and September 30th. The primary focus of Manager performance assessment will normally be on a moving four-year basis, but performance over shorter time periods may also be considered. The Manager will not necessarily be faulted for under-performing the Mandate performance objectives over short time periods. At least once a year each Manager shall be assessed on the basis of investment performance, risk measures, investment strategies, expected future performance and any changes in the Manager’s organization, investment processes and professional staff.
I. ESG Considerations The Board of Governors recognizes that the consideration of environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) factors in making investment decisions is a developing area for consideration in the context of the Endowment Funds’ investments. Due to its evolving nature, ESG integration is addressed by the IS in the following way:
Encourage the Managers to incorporate ESG risk factors in their investment research, analysis and decision-making; Undertake monitoring of the Managers’ portfolios in the context of ESG factors at least on an annual basis; Consider ESG capabilities when hiring new managers, and Monitor the development in this area, review ESG considerations in this policy annually, and recommend changes as needed.
From time to time, the University may be asked by stakeholders to address ESG and issues of responsible investing with regard to a specific investment or investments in the Endowment Funds. Should such issues arise, they will be addressed under the Special Action Policy For the Endowment Portfolio.
J. Related Parties and Conflict of Interest
a. Definition of Related Party For the purposes of this Policy, a Related Party means: 1. A member of the Governing Bodies; 2. An officer, director or employee of the University;
8
Annual Review of Endowment Investment Policy [Motion] Page 153 of 189 Endowment Investment Policy 2017
3. A person responsible for investing the assets of the Endowment Funds, or any officer, director or employee thereof; 4. An association or union representing employees of the University, or an officer or employee thereof; 5. The spouse or a child of any person referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (d); 6. An affiliate of the University; 7. A corporation that is directly or indirectly controlled by a person referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (e); 8. An entity in which a person referred to in paragraph (a), or the spouse or a child of such a person, has a substantial investment. b. Related Party Transactions The assets of the Endowment Funds shall not be used to invest in securities of Related Parties or lent to any Related Parties unless such securities are publicly traded and selected by a Manager acting independently on behalf of all that Manager’s discretionary accounts or pooled funds having mandates similar to that of the Endowment Funds. Where applicable, a Manager shall provide the IS with its internal guidelines on purchasing securities of the members of the Manager’s organization or affiliates. Notwithstanding the above, the assets of the Endowment Funds shall not be invested in any securities of the University or an affiliate of the University unless such securities are publicly traded, held within a pooled fund, and selected by a Manager acting independently. Any other transactions with a Related Party can only be undertaken if the transaction is required for the operation or administration of the Endowment Funds and must be on terms and conditions that are not less favourable to the Endowment Funds than the then market terms and conditions.
c. Conflict of Interest To assist in identifying real, potential or perceived conflicts of interest and, in so doing, to ease the operation of the Governing Bodies in the conduct of their work, all members of the Governing Bodies are asked each year to review the University’s “Conflict of Interest Policy Regarding Board of Governors, Board of Trustees, and Committees” and to disclose any obligation, commitment, relationship or interest that may conflict or may be perceived to conflict with their duties as a member of a Governing Body. If any agent of or advisor to the Governing Bodies, or any person employed in the investment or administration of the Endowment Funds not covered under the “Conflict of Interest Policy Regarding Board of Governors, Board of Trustees, and Committees” has or acquires any material interest, direct or indirect, in any matter in which the Endowment Funds is concerned or may benefit materially from knowledge of, participation in, or by virtue of an investment decision or holding of the Endowment Funds, the person involved shall within three business days after the individual becomes aware of the conflict of interest disclose in writing this conflict of interest to the Chair of the relevant Governing Body.
9
Annual Review of Endowment Investment Policy [Motion] Page 154 of 189 Endowment Investment Policy 2017
The disclosure should also be made orally if awareness of the conflict occurs during the discussion of the Endowment Funds’ business. The Chair shall then immediately advise all members of the relevant Governing Body, and the Governing Body shall decide upon a course of action. Any such person will thereafter abstain from any decision making with respect to the area of conflict including the exercise of his/her votes, until the issue causing the conflict of interest is resolved independently by the remaining individuals with voting rights. Every disclosure of interest, with the name of the individual declaring the conflict and how the conflict was resolved, under this Section shall be recorded in the minutes of the relevant Governing Body meeting. The failure of a person to comply with the procedures, described in this Section, shall not of itself invalidate any decision, contract or other matter.
The IS shall satisfy itself that an appropriate policy regarding conflicts of interest exists and is followed by any Manager appointed by the IS. As a minimum, the Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct adopted by the CFA Institute shall be expected to apply to such Manager.
K. Policy Review
This Policy shall be reviewed at least annually by the Board of Trustees of the Heritage Fund and the Finance Committee of the Board. Such review shall consider, but is not limited to, whether there has been: 1. A fundamental change in the spending policies of the Endowment Funds; 2. Revisions to the expected long-term trade-off between risk and return on key asset classes; 3. A shift in the financial risk tolerance of the University; 4. Shortcomings of the Policy that emerge in its practical operation; 5. Changes to ESG considerations; 6. Recommendations by a Manager or third party; or 7. Changes in applicable legislation.
A review of the asset mix policy shall normally be conducted every five years. At any time, the IS may make recommendations as to changes to be made to the Policy. A copy of this Policy, or relevant sections thereof, shall be delivered to each Manager and to the Governing Bodies.
10
Annual Review of Endowment Investment Policy [Motion] Page 155 of 189 Page 156 of 189
To: Members of the Finance Committee
From: Ben Doadt, Associate University Secretary
Subject: 5. Finance Committee Report
Meeting: June 8, 2018
f) Annual Report on Responsible Investing
(i) Status report on WGRI Recommendations
In fall 2014, an ad hoc Working Group on Responsible Investing (WGRI) was created by the Board of Governors to help consider responsible investment policy and practices for the University’s endowment funds. The Final Report of the WGRI1 was issued in July 2015 and formally presented to the Finance Committee, Investment Subcommittee and Board of Governors at their meetings in fall 2015. Overall, strong support was expressed from the Board for the report and its recommendations.
Following the report, regular updates on the status of recommendations outlined in the Final Report have been provided. Enclosed is an update for 2018. Not fully reflected in the report, but significantly relevant is the activity that the Board has been undertaking since April 2017 in responding to a Special Action Request under the Special Action Policy established following a recommendation from WGRI.
(ii) Update on the ad-hoc Committee on Special Action Requests
An oral update will be provided on the current status of the work of the ad-hoc Committee on Special Action Requests.
1 URL: https://uoguelph.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/110096
N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2017-18\6. June 8, 2018\Cover memos\5f_Annual Report on Responsible Investing.docx
Annual Report on Responsible Investing Page 157 of 189 Page 158 of 189 Investing Annual Report on Responsible Working Group on Responsible Investing (WGRI) Update on Status and Implementation of Recommendations – May 2018
Recommendation Status Notes 1. UoG BOG develop and incorporate “Statement of Investment Beliefs” into Completed Statement of Investment Beliefs approved by the Board of Endowment Investment Policy that addresses RI Governors June 3, 2016. Statement to incorporate RI concepts drawn from UN Principles for RI, and Completed Endowment Investment Policy revised and approved by include ESG considerations the Board of Governors with ESG-related components Amended Endowment Investment Policy be formally reviewed no later than (Section J) June 3, 2016. within first five years to assess impact on the University’s endowment funds Policy will be reviewed 2021-22 and identify new opportunities (includes consideration of whether Policy should be adapted to align with Strategic Plan) 2. BOG direct Investment Subcommittee to operationalize amended Endowment Investment Policy, particularly RI-related provisions, in the following ways: Complete an assessment of current endowment fund managers in light Underway ESG benchmarking of portfolio was undertaken. The of ESG considerations portfolio returned a slightly below benchmark result on ESG. Request that fund managers identify their capacity to adjust investment Completed As part of regular review of managers ISC reviews approaches to accommodate ESG analysis manager assessment and consideration of ESG factors in their investment process. Contract fund managers who are best able to fulfill the revised mandate Completed ESG considerations and capacity have been added to of the Endowment Investment Policy manager selection process. Obtain proxy voting policies from existing fund managers and require Underway Present plans are to join through university networks a that major exceptions to these policies be reported group to pursue proxy voting. 3. Amended Endowment Investment Policy incorporate provisions for a Complete Special Action Policy for the Endowment Fund approved transparent process to consider and implement recommendations in by Board of Governors April 20, 2016. Policy includes a response to stakeholder expectations for action on specific RI issues defined process to consider “divestment”, subject to (including existing calls re fossil fuel divestment) Board approval. Page 159 of 189 4. BOG consider establishment of an “impact investment fund” based on best Underway/ Socially responsible investments were included as a practices at other institutions that would dedicate a portion of endowment hold recommendation of the ad-hoc committee’s report. assets to investments associated with the well-being of communities and/or Awaiting confirmation of direction from final conclusion of the environment. ad-hoc process. Investing Annual Report on Responsible Working Group on Responsible Investing (WGRI) Update on Status and Implementation of Recommendations – May 2018
Recommendation Status Notes 5. UoG establish collaborative relationships with other Canadian universities to On-going The University of Guelph is a member of the Council of increase public awareness of RI, including considerations concerning current Ontario Universities (COU) and the Canadian Association issue of fossil fuels and climate change - this may include: of University Business Officers (CAUBO); both Working with Responsible Investment Association to host an RI organizations have a growing interest in pursuing RI and outreach/educational event during Responsible Investment Week ESG-related investing research and impact on university Joining research projects, forums, conferences and networking endowments across Canada. opportunities through Coalition of Universities for Responsible Investing Further action such as signing on to UN-PRI and joining Joining signatories of UN-PRI to advance RI principles by actively the RIA (Responsible Investment Association) are under engaging with companies to improve ESG performance and disclosure consideration. Implication of resourcing (e.g., staff time through letter-writing campaigns and direct dialogue and fiscal resources) needs to be assessed to ensure meaningful engagement.
N:\BOG\BOG Standing Committees\3. Finance Committee\Working Group on Responsible Investing\Implementation\WGRI_Update on Implementation (2018 May).docx
Page 160 of 189
To: Members, Board of Governors
From: Ben Doadt, Associate University Secretary
Subject: 6. Pensions Committee Report
Meeting: June 8, 2018
a) Report from Committee Chair
The following is provided for the information of Governors. Historically, the May meeting of the Pensions Committee has been cancelled when little or no substantive business remains for the Committee. In consultation with the Chair, the May 18, 2018 Pensions Committee meeting was cancelled and replaced with an electronic meeting sign-back package. The Pensions Committee:
• Considered the proposed Text Amendments to Pension Plans [refer to item 6b] • Received an update on the University Pensions Project [refer to item 6c] • Received the Investment Performance Reports (Pensions) for the 1st Quarter 2018 (see online supporting materials1) • Received the year-end affirmation report regarding compliance with the Statement of Investment Policies and Procedures (SIPP) and the Terms of Reference • Received the results of the Annual Committee Evaluation Survey and completed the annual review of the Committee’s terms of reference and agenda plan.
2017-18 Pensions Committee Membership
Governors Plan/Retiree Representatives Paul Gallagher, Chair Doug Badger (retiree) Nancy Brown Andison Chris Lee (professional plan member) Kevin Golding, Board Chair Neil MacLusky (UGFA professional plan member) Bill Hogarth Joe Rooyakkers (retirement plan member) Neil Parkinson John Tartt (retirement plan member) Prashant Pathak Franco Vaccarino, President Ben Doadt, Associate University Secretary (non-voting)
1 URL https://uoguelph.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/151818
N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2017-18\6. June 8, 2018\Cover memos\6a_Pensions - Report from Chair.docx
Report from Committee Chair Page 161 of 189 Page 162 of 189
To: Members, Board of Governors
From: Ben Doadt, Associate University Secretary
Subject: 6. Pensions Committee Report
Meeting: June 8, 2018
b) Plan Text Amendments [Motion]
The Pensions Committee is responsible for advising the Board of Governors on text amendments to the University pension plans.
Attached are documents outlining amendments to the Professional Plan for those Members of the plan not represented by a union, association or group. A summary overview of the changes, provided by Willis Towers Watson (plan actuary), is enclosed and is followed by Board resolutions to effect the amendment. Resolutions are provided in both ‘clean’ and ‘tracked’ versions.
The proposed contribution rate change and effective dates are included in the enclosed materials.
The following motion is presented on recommendation of the Pensions Committee.
The Board of Governors is asked to, RESOLVE, that the Board of Governors accept and approve the proposed resolution concerning amendments to the text of the Professional Pension Plan, as presented.
N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2017-18\6. June 8, 2018\Cover memos\6b_Pensions - Proposed Text Amendments.docx
Plan Text Amendments [Motion] Page 163 of 189 Page 164 of 189 Plan Text Amendments [Motion]
University of Guelph Pension Plans Professional Plan Amendment Members not represented by a union, association or group
For Distribution to the Pensions Committee May 23, 2018 Page 165 of 189
willistowerswatson.com © 2018 Willis Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Plan Text Amendments [Motion]
Overview
§ Purpose is to present an amendment resulting from pension changes affecting member contribution requirements § Details summarized on the following page § Change affects the Professional Plan § Members not represented by a union, association or group § Amendment to be filed with FSCO and CRA once formally adopted by University Page 166 of 189
willistowerswatson.com 2 © 2018 Willis Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. For Willis Towers Watson and Willis Towers Watson client use only. Plan Text Amendments [Motion]
Change to Professional Plan Amendment 5
§ Article 5 (Member Contributions) § Effective July 1/18, section 5.01(a) amended to reflect the following contribution change:
Rates (Below/Above YMPE)
Group Current New Members not represented by a 7.30/9.00 7.70/9.40 union, association or group Page 167 of 189
willistowerswatson.com 3 © 2018 Willis Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. For Willis Towers Watson and Willis Towers Watson client use only. Page 168 of 189 BOARD RESOLUTION
PENSION PLAN FOR PROFESSIONAL STAFF
OF UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH
AMENDMENT 5
WHEREAS the University of Guelph (the “University”) has established the Pension Plan for Professional Staff of University of Guelph (the “Plan”), amended and restated effective June 30, 2015;
AND WHEREAS the Plan provides in Section 17.01 the right of the Board of Governors of the University to amend the Plan;
AND WHEREAS the University wishes to amend the Plan to reflect contribution rate changes for Members not represented by a union, association or group;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT
1. Effective July 1, 2018, the contribution rate table in Section 5.01(a) of the Plan shall be deleted and replaced with the following:
“ Applicable Contribution Rate % of Earnings % of Earnings Union, Change Date Up to or Equal Above the Association or to the YMPE YMP E Group ONA May 1, 2018 8.66 10.36 P&M May 1, 2018 7.69 9.39 UGFA July 1, 2016 7.78 9.48 UGFA Unit 2 May 1, 2018 7.50 9.50 Members not July 1, 2018 7.70 9.40 represented by a Un ion, Association or Group ”
http://natct.internal.towerswatson.com/clients/600497/2018UofGGeneral/Documents/UG Prof Plan Amendment 5 clean final.docx
Plan Text Amendments [Motion] Page 169 of 189 University of Guelph Pension Plan for Professional Staff of University of Guelph Board Resolution Page 2
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above amendment is a true copy of a Resolution passed by the Board of Governors of the University of Guelph at a meeting called and held on the day of , 2018 at which a quorum was present, and that such Resolution is in full force and effect.
DATED AT Guelph, Ontario, this day of , 2018.
Signature Signature
Title Title
http://natct.internal.towerswatson.com/clients/600497/2018UofGGeneral/Documents/UG Prof Plan Amendment 5 clean final.docx
Plan Text Amendments [Motion] Page 170 of 189 BOARD RESOLUTION
PENSION PLAN FOR PROFESSIONAL STAFF
OF UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH
AMENDMENT 5
WHEREAS the University of Guelph (the “University”) has established the Pension Plan for Professional Staff of University of Guelph (the “Plan”), amended and restated effective June 30, 2015;
AND WHEREAS the Plan provides in Section 17.01 the right of the Board of Governors of the University to amend the Plan;
AND WHEREAS the University wishes to amend the Plan to reflect contribution rate changes for Members not represented by a union, association or group;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT
1. Effective July 1, 2018, the contribution rate table in Section 5.01(a) of the Plan shall be deleted and replaced with the following:
“ Applicable Contribution Rate % of Earnings % of Earnings Union, Change Date Up to or Equal Above the Association or to the YMPE YMP E Group ONA May 1, 2018 8.66 10.36 P&M May 1, 2018 7.69 9.39 UGFA July 1, 2016 7.78 9.48 UGFA Unit 2 May 1, 2018 7.50 9.50 Members not July 1, 20142018 7.3070 9.0040 represented by a Un ion, Association or Group ”
http://natct.internal.towerswatson.com /clients/600497/2018UofGGeneral/Documents/UG Prof Plan Amendment 5 tracked final.docx
Plan Text Amendments [Motion] Page 171 of 189 University of Guelph Pension Plan for Professional Staff of University of Guelph Board Resolution Page 2
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above amendment is a true copy of a Resolution passed by the Board of Governors of the University of Guelph at a meeting called and held on the day of , 2018 at which a quorum was present, and that such Resolution is in full force and effect.
DATED AT Guelph, Ontario, this day of , 2018.
Signature Signature
Title Title
http://natct.internal.towerswatson.com /clients/600497/2018UofGGeneral/Documents/UG Prof Plan Amendment 5 tracked final.docx
Plan Text Amendments [Motion] Page 172 of 189
To: Members, Board of Governors
From: Ben Doadt, Associate University Secretary
Subject: 6. Pensions Committee Report
Meeting: June 8, 2018
c) Update on University Pensions Project
Enclosed is a memorandum from Mr. Don O’Leary, Vice-President (Finance, Administration and Risk), providing an update on the current status of the development of a Jointly Sponsored Pension Plan (JSPP) for Ontario Universities, in conjunction with Queen’s University and the University of Toronto. The memo was originally circulated to the Pensions Committee as part of the information package received in lieu of May 18, 2018 meeting.
N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2017-18\6. June 8, 2018\Cover memos\6c - Pensions - Update on University Pensions Project.docx
Update on University Pensions Project Page 173 of 189 Page 174 of 189
To: Pensions Committee From: Don O’Leary, Vice President (Finance, Administration & Risk) Date: May 23, 2018 Subject: JSPP Initiative ______University administrations, faculty associations, USW, and staff groups at the University of Guelph, University of Toronto and Queens University continue to work collaboratively to develop a new pension plan that would provide a sustainable defined benefit plan at all three Universities. The significant achievements to date are: (1) Governance The proposed Governance model is similar to other JSPP’s with a Sponsor Board represented equally by employer/employee representatives. The Sponsor Board mandate is primarily focused on plan design and funding policy. In addition to the Sponsor Board there will also be a Board of Trustees appointed by the Sponsors comprised of professionals in various areas of expertise such as actuaries, lawyers, investment experts to oversee administration of the plan.
(2) Plan Design The defined benefits plan has been finalized for the most part. Significant design components have been agreed to and secondary issues are now being resolved.
(3) Plan Approval Process The Ontario Financial Services Commission (FSCO) rightful requires a new JSPP to follow a very detailed prescribed process of consultation, information sharing, membership consent and legal documentation and contracts. In a recent meeting with FSCO representative’s very clear direction was provided about how to proceed to final JSPP approval. FSCO advised that a plan inception date is likely to be January 1, 2020. A consent process giving members the opportunity to agree to the JSPP will likely be in the January to March 2019 timeframe. Two thirds of active members and one third of retirees need to consent to the plan.
Update on University Pensions Project Page 175 of 189
Present Communications Initiatives An extensive communications plan has been implemented including: UPP website found at http://www.universitypension.ca/ Town hall meetings are underway organized by faculty, USW and professional staff groups. Union news letters have been regularly circulated. Union groups opposed to the JSPP also have a communications plan of town house meetings and newsletter. More town halls and on-going communications will continue. It’s vital to address questions members have and to assure them of the benefits and security of the plan.
Funding of the Initiative To date the Province has provided funds to assist with the costs of engaging the professional services required, primarily lawyers and actuaries. The allotted funds have been used and a request for additional funds is not likely to be considered for some time while a new provincial government takes leadership. Therefore the 3 Universities have agreed to pay for the professional services the union groups require until such time when additional funding is received.
Update on University Pensions Project Page 176 of 189
To: Members, Board of Governors
From: Ben Doadt, Associate University Secretary
Subject: 7. Physical Resources and Property Committee Report
Meeting: June 8, 2018
a) Report from Committee Chair
The following is provided for the information of Governors. At its meetings on May 14, 2018, the Physical Resources and Property Committee:
• Toured the Ontario Veterinary College • Reviewed and discussed the committee’s work plan • Received an update on sector issues • Received an update on Real Estate Strategy • Considered the North Wing MacKinnon and Greenhouse Gas Funded projects [refer to item 5d] • Received the 2017-18 Annual Reports for the Campus Master Plan, the Arboretum, Athletics & Recreation and OVC [refer to item 7b] • Received a status report on approved major capital projects (above $2M) and the review of capital project activity 2017-18 (below $2M) • Received the Annual Report on Space Management (see online supporting materials1) • Received a report on Capital-Related Fundraising, and considered proposed Capital-Related Fundraising [to be addressed in closed session] • Received a memo relating to Naming Opportunity Plans (NOP’s) for the coming fiscal year [to be addressed in closed session] • Received a report this year’s Student-Funded Energy Retrofit Project (see online supporting materials1) • Received the results of the Annual Committee Evaluation Survey and completed the annual review of the Committee’s terms of reference and agenda plan.
2017-18 Physical Resources and Property Committee Membership Graham Badun, Chair Gerrit Bos Paul Gibson Kevin Golding, Board Chair Sally Hickson Bill Hogarth Andrew Kuttain Nicola Mercer (Board of Trustees cross-appt) Byron Sheldrick Franco Vaccarino, President Ben Doadt, Associate University Secretary (non-voting)
1 https://uoguelph.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/151818 N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2017-18\6. June 8, 2018\Cover memos\7a - PRPC - Report from Chair.docx
Report from Committee Chair Page 177 of 189 Page 178 of 189
To: Members, Board of Governors
From: Ben Doadt, Associate University Secretary
Subject: 7. Physical Resources and Property Committee Report
Meeting: June 8, 2018
b) Campus Master Plan: Annual Reports
On January 30, 2013, the Board of Governors approved amendments to the Campus Master Plan (CMP). The CMP offers a strategic framework for the consideration of recommendations for the development of the University’s main Guelph campus.
The Campus Master Plan, and Master Plans for the Arboretum, Athletics and the Ontario Veterinary College are available online.1
Annual reports on the Arboretum Master Plan, the Athletics and Recreation Master Plan, and the Ontario Veterinary College Master Plan – all components of the Campus Master Plan – are presented to the Physical Resources and Property Committee (PRPC) each year, to offer assurance that work continues the implementation of the approved Plan.
At its meeting of May 14, 2018, the PRPC received and reviewed this year’s annual reports. The reports are available in online supporting materials2. Reporting against the Ontario Veterinary College Master Plan was considered against the documentation provided for item 3a of the Closed Session.
1 https://www.pr.uoguelph.ca/projects-planning/master-planning 2 https://uoguelph.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/151818
N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2017-18\6. June 8, 2018\Cover memos\7b - PRPC Campus Master Plan - Annual Reports.docx
Campus Master Plan: Annual Reports Page 179 of 189 Page 180 of 189
To: Members, Board of Governors
From: Gen Gauthier-Chalifour, University Secretary
Subject: 8. Move to Closed Session
Meeting: June 8, 2018
a) Adjourn Open Session and Move into Closed Session [Motion]
The Board of Governors is asked to,
RESOLVE, that the Board of Governors move into closed session and that Daniel Atlin, Annette Blok, Ted Cogan, Ben Doadt, Murray Perkins, Don O’Leary, and Charlotte Yates be invited to remain for the closed session of the meeting.
N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2017-18\6. June 8, 2018\Cover memos\8a_Move to Closed Session.docx
Adjourn Open Session and Move into Closed Session Page 181 of 189 Page 182 of 189
To: Members, Board of Governors
From: Gen Gauthier-Chalifour, University Secretary
Subject: Addenda Item
Meeting: June 8, 2018
Material in support of the following item was circulated under separate cover in advance of the meeting:
3b) Proposed Amendments to Sexual Violence Policy and Procedures – Sexual Violence Reporting
N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2017-18\6. June 8, 2018\Addenda\BoG - Addenda Memo_additional material.docx
Item 3b) Proposed Amendments to Sexual Page 183 of 189 Page 184 of 189 MAY 1, 2018
SEXUAL VIOLENCE REPORTING OFFICE OF THE SEXUAL VIOLENCE CASE DIRECTOR
STUDENT AFFAIRS UNIVERISTY OF GUELPH Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Item 3b) Proposed Amendments to Sexual Page 185 of 189 Introduction
In Ontario, Bill 132, the Sexual Violence and Harassment Plan Act created requirements for colleges and universities addressing sexual violence on campus. The Office of the Sexual Violence Case Director offers coordinated care through the provision of information and referral service to survivors of sexual violence.
The office provides the following supports, as required: a) completes a thorough non-clinical assessment of needs, and risk b) helps the survivor develop a personalized safety plan c) explains service and reporting options to the student, if desired d) coordinates service and/or reporting connections with the student e) supports the student in request for academic accommodations (such as late drops, extensions, or deferred privileges) f) advocates for accommodations on behalf of student (if required) g) follows-up with the student as appropriate
The office strives to create opportunities to rebuild, foster hope, and to promote a safer and healthier living and learning community.
While the Act requires universities to report only on cases that have gone through a formal complaint process, the Case Director retains statistics regarding all contacts with the office. This collection of statistics will help the University to identify any trends, and areas for improvement.
Impact
The Case Director works collaboratively with many partners, both on and off campus, to best support students impacted by sexual violence. The scenario below is just one example of the power of this collaborative process.
In under 48 hours of a referral and with only 2 points of contact for the student, a student impacted by sexual violence was able to receive the following support:
a) Seen by Student Counselling Services b) Referred to the office of the Case Director from Counselling Services c) Received an In-Take Meeting, Risk Assessment, and Safety Plan from the Case Director d) Received the option to relocate from off-campus to on-campus from Student Housing Services (Admissions and Residence Life) e) Received information from Off-campus Living regarding the Landlord Residential Tenancies Act to break the lease agreement with little penalty
1
Item 3b) Proposed Amendments to Sexual Page 186 of 189 f) Received a Financial Needs Assessment and was provided funding to support the relocation (that was not an option without financial support) from Student Financial Services g) Relocated to residence with support from Student Housing Services (Residence Life) h) Connected with temporary academic support from Student Accessibility Services i) Connected with a doctor at Student Health Services j) Connected with a service that provide specialized care for trauma from Guelph General Hospital (Sexual Violence Care & Treatment Centre)
Usage Statistics
The data presented below was collected between August 21, 2017 and April 30, 2018.
Points of Contact: Numbers reflect the total unique points of contact from survivors or referrals regarding sexual violence – not including training inquires/requests.
87 (in-take meetings with students – students who connected with the service) 26 (known students who were provided with the Office contact but did not connect with the service)
Total = 113
In-Take Meetings: August: 5 September: 9 October: 10 November: 13 December: 4 January: 13 February: 10 March: 14 April: 9
Total = 87
2
Item 3b) Proposed Amendments to Sexual Page 187 of 189 Incident Context: Numbers reflect disclosures from in-take meetings.
Historical - Before attending the University of Guelph: 14 While attending the University of Guelph: 59 Historical and while attending the University of Guelph: 4 Unknown: 5
Total = 87
Meetings with Students: The numbers reflect the number of meetings with students who were impacted by sexual violence - including in takes and follow-up meetings – not including case management hours.
August: 7 September: 24 October: 44 November: 44 December: 12 January: 37 February: 28 March: 33 April: 17
Total = 245 Note: There was less than 5 no-shows from students who made an appointment to meet.
Referrals to the Office of the Case Director: Referral numbers include in-takes, multiple referrals, and referrals where the student did not connect with the office. Numbers do not include referrals that were not shared with the office.
Athletics: 2 Campus Community Police and Police Services (Guelph or other): 11 Co-operative Education: 1 Diversity & Human Rights: 7 Faculty Members: 4 Guelph General Hospital (Sexual Violence Care and Treatment Centre): 14 Program Counsellors: 6 Student Accessibility Services: 1 Student Counselling Services: 31 Student Health Services:5 Student Housing Services: 6 Student Judicial Services: 1 The Wellness Collaborative: 1
3
Item 3b) Proposed Amendments to Sexual Page 188 of 189 The Wellness Education Centre: 3 Women In Crisis (WIC): 2 Writing Services: 1 Office of the Associate Vice-President (Student Affairs): 2 Other University: 1 Other (mostly by finding information online): 16 Victim Services Wellington: 5
Total = 120
Academic Support: Academic supports include extensions, deferred privileges; alternative examination date and/or location; etc.
105 academic requests were facilitated and granted for 39 students. Note: Less than half of students request academic support of this nature. However, those who do, tend to use the support more than once.
Reported: The following numbers have been collected from disclosures only and don’t necessarily reflect reports that resulted in an investigation and/or charges. Additionally, the numbers do not necessarily reflect if a student decided to withdraw or enter into a process without disclosing to the Office.
University of Guelph’s Sexual Violence Complaint Process: 7 Campus Community Police and Student Judicial: 5 Criminal (Guelph and other):19 Alternative Administrative Process: 3
Total = 34
4
Item 3b) Proposed Amendments to Sexual Page 189 of 189