GOVERNMENT RELATIONS IN THE POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION SECTOR IN ONTARIO by Peter P. Constantinou A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Theory and Policy Studies University of Toronto ©Copyright by Peter P. Constantinou, 2010 ii GOVERNMENT RELATIONS IN THE POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION SECTOR IN ONTARIO Doctor of Philosophy, 2010 Peter P. Constantinou Department of Theory and Policy Studies University of Toronto Abstract There has been little research on the government relations function within the post- secondary education sector in Ontario. This study explores this topic by reviewing the literature and collecting data from key informants in the college, university and government sector, and those who can speak about the sector associations. The study describes how the leaders of colleges and universities in Ontario perceive and conduct government relations, both as individual institutions and as a sector, and analyzes trends and potential implications. The study utilizes a pluralist model of interest group behaviour and applied the hollow-core theory to the policy community and the findings provide compelling evidence that this theory is a useful theoretical framework for understanding the nature of this policy community. This study also provides valuable insight into the hollow-core theory of pluralism. The leadership of individual colleges and universities shares a similar understanding of government relations and engage a similar approach. Individual colleges and universities work independently to lobby for capital funding and work together through their respective associations to lobby for system-wide funding and reforms. Although the presidents of individual institutions continue to lead the government relations function, the trend in the post-secondary education sector in Ontario is to invest additional resources and time in these activities. This study is the first of its kind in Ontario and makes an important contribution to our ii iii understanding of the way leaders in the post-secondary education sector in Ontario perceive and conduct government relations. Implications of the findings are considered and recommendations are made for further research. iii iv Acknowledgements This was a major undertaking that benefited from the support, both intellectual and otherwise, of many people. I would like to acknowledge the four panelists on this dissertation committee; Dr. Catherine Drea, Dr. Robert (Squee) Gordon, Dr. David Marshall, and Dr. Stacey J. Young. My work has benefited greatly from their varied experiences and direction. Each gave willingly of their time and expertise and for that I am grateful. Their contributions not only made this research project better, but the experience of working with them was quite delightful. Dr. Young spent an inordinate amount of time reviewing various drafts, helping to develop ideas and arguments, and simply helping me to learn and think. Her coaching and mentorship throughout the whole process has had a profound impact on me as a scholar. I would like to thank Dr. Glen A. Jones for agreeing to supervise this dissertation. Beyond the fact that his interest in these matters is so very similar to mine, he was the model supervisor. I enjoyed tremendously the conversations we had as we considered the topic, the data and its implications. He pushed me to think more deeply about ideas and was encouraging throughout the entire process. I learned much from him, and not simply that relating to the topic of study. My time at OISE resulted in some wonderful friendships. In particular, I would like to thank Luisa Barton, Dr. Rosa Braga-Mele, Dr. Joe Mikhael, and Rick Powers. I want to thank all those who agreed to be interviewed for this study. Their contributions were crucial to a better understanding of the sector and its activities. This endeavour benefited greatly from their forthrightness and willingness to engage in an honest discussion and provide such insightful comments. I am grateful for the support I have received from Seneca College. In particular, Dr. Rick Miner read many versions of the proposal and the text, and provided much advice and constructive criticism. Also too, Dr. Valerie Lopes gave much of her time to this project. She contributed greatly to the design of the methodology, she read numerous drafts as they were being prepared, and did a final read of the entire dissertation prior to final submission. Dr. Ian Clark and Dr. David Trick read entire drafts of the dissertation, provided counsel and added greatly to my understanding. Both men were accessible beyond reason, and for that, I owe them a debt of gratitude. Dr. Dan Lang provided very critical advice early on that aided in making the methodology and research questions much stronger. Dr. Matthew Platt of Harvard’s School of Government was very kind to spend time with me sharing his understanding of the American system. iv v I am the beneficiary of the time and insight of many who have discussed this project with me. Thanks to Ali Aghassi, David Agnew, Daniel Atlin, Sal Badali, David Barrows, Stewart Braddick, John Canzona, Frank Carnevale, John Capobianco, Charlie Coffey, Dr. Daniel Cohn, Dave Cooke, Don Cousens, David Crombie, Dr. Henry Decock, Steven Del Duca, Claudio DeRose, Richard Donaldson, Donna Duncan, Dr. Patrice Dutil, Rob Esselment, Hon. Jim Flaherty, Linda Franklin, Dr. Paul Genest, Guy Giorno, Dr. Ian Greene, Marsha Josephs, Richard Joy, Ronald Kanter, Mohammed Ali Khan, Dr. Sheldon Levy, David Lindsay, Mark Maloney, Janet Mason, John Matheson, Hon. John McCallum, David McLaughlin, Denzil Mennan-Wong, Dr. Salman Mufti, Jim Murphy, Nik Nanos, Jennifer Norman, Maire O’Brien, Case Ootes, Brian Patterson, Dr. Paul Paton, Rob Peacock, Yves Pelletier, Bob Richardson, Ann Sado, Rob Savage, Peter Sherman, M.P.P., Jeffrey Steiner, Bill Summers, John Tory, David Tsubouchi, Dr. Rob Turner, Sean Morley, Graham Murray, John Weir, and George Zegarac. A note of special thanks to Dr. Darryl Bricker, Chief Executive Officer of Ipsos Public Affairs Canada and Greg Lyle, Managing Director of Innovative Research Group who both played an important role as the expert reference group for the development of the interview guide. I could not have done this without love, support and inspiration at home. My wife, Lucia Cascioli, knew how much this meant to me and did much to make up for my distraction. She was not only supportive, but was also very proud of the fact that I wanted to do this and did. Our lovely daughter Alexia is herself an accomplished student. She always seemed to share my sense for the importance of higher education in general, and this project in particular. I hope that she continues to love learning just as much as her mom and dad. Despite all this support, advice and assistance, any errors or omissions are my responsibility alone. v vi Table of Contents CHAPTER ONE: 1 1.1 Introduction 2 1.2 Background of the Problem 2 1.3 Purpose 9 1.4 Rationale 10 1.5 Objectives and Research Questions 13 1.6 Conceptual and Theoretical Framework 14 1.7 Summary 15 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW: 17 2.1 Introduction 17 2.2 Overview of the Literature 18 2.3 Interest Groups 19 2.4 Policy Communities and Policy Networks 25 2.5 Policy-Making and Decision-Making within the Public and Broader Public Sector 28 2.6 Tactical Guides and How-to’s 31 2.7 Government Relations in the Post-Secondary Education Sector in the United States 35 2.8 Government Relations in the Post-Secondary Education Sector in Ontario 45 2.9 Conceptual and Legal Environment 49 2.10 Summary of the Themes of the Literature 51 2.11 Summary 53 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 55 3.1 Introduction 55 3.2 Overview of the Post-Secondary Education System in Ontario 55 3.2.1 The College System in Ontario 55 3.2.2 The University System in Ontario 58 3.2.3 Funding of Post-Secondary Education in Ontario 59 3.2.4 The Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 60 3.2.5 The Postsecondary Education Quality and Assessment Board 60 3.3 Organization of the Sector 61 3.3.1 Colleges Ontario 61 3.3.2 Council of Ontario Universities 63 3.3.3 The Beginnings of Government Relations 66 3.4 Research Questions 67 3.5 Research Design 68 3.6 Site and Participant Selection and Rationale 71 3.7 Data Collection and Recording 74 3.8 Interview Guide 76 3.8.1 Question #1 78 3.8.2 Question #2 79 3.8.3 Question #3 80 3.8.4 Question #4 81 3.8.5 Question #5 82 3.8.6 Question #6 82 3.8.7 Question #7 83 3.8.8 Question #8 83 3.8.9 Question #9 83 3.9 Data Analysis 84 3.10 Limitations of the Methodology 85 3.11 Ethical Issues and Considerations 89 3.12 Summary 91 vi vii CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH FINDINGS 92 4.1 Introduction 92 4.2 Presentation of Data and Review of Responses 93 4.3 Definition of Government Relations 93 4.4 Definition of Government Relations – Analysis 102 4.5 Percentage of Time Spent on Government Relations 103 4.6 Percentage of Time Spent on Government Relations – Analysis 108 4.7 Buying Tickets to Political Fundraisers 111 4.8 Buying Tickets to Political Fundraisers – Analysis 115 4.9 Responsibility and Structure 117 4.10 Responsibility and Structure – Analysis 120 4.11 Major Thrust of Government Relations 123 4.12 Major Thrust of Government Relations – Analysis 124 4.13 Defining Success in Government Relations 125 4.14 Defining Success in Government Relations – Analysis 133 4.15 Government and Those Who Could Speak About Sector Association Perceptions on Success in Government Relations 134 4.16 Government and