Sir Wilfred Grenfell College Review
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Sir Wilfred Grenfell College Review Report by Consultants Professor John L. Davies, Anglia Ruskin University, UK and Professor John Kelly, University College Dublin, Ireland Submitted to: Department of Education Government of Newfoundland and Labrador 2006 Sir Wilfred Grenfell College Review Table of Contents Page No. Contents 1 Preface 2 Chapter 1. Terms of Reference of Project 4 2. Executive Summary 6 3. Background and Context 9 4. Higher Education at Corner Brook 21 5. Options for the Development of Grenfell College 29 6. Financial Implications of the Options 46 7. Concluding Comments 49 Appendices 1 The Contract Terms of Reference 53 2 Schedule of visits and interviewees 56 3 Discussion Paper from the Joint Committee of the Board of Regents of Memorial University 60 4 Reports and Documents consulted 106 5 Letter from the Senior Executive Committee of Memorial University 107 6 Memorandum from Dr Holly Pike 115 7 Report from Dr Don Downer 119 8 Comments on the Options by Dr. Tom Condon 159 9 Grant Thornton Report on the Financial Implications of the Options 161 10 Listing of email contacts with Consultants concerning the Contract 177 11 Summary of Maclean’s University Ranking ’05 on Memorial University 178 - 1 - PREFACE In undertaking this Contract with the Ministry of Education in the Government of Newfoundland & Labrador, we were aware that for some time there had been ongoing discussions on the relationship between the campuses of Memorial University in St John’s and the Sir Wilfred Grenfell College in Corner Brook, and that on the specific subject of this Contract, it was deeply divided. We were asked to analyse the situation, identify and give our views on the options that could be taken, and report to the Minister for Education who would decide on the action, if any, to be recommended for adoption by the Government of Newfoundland & Labrador. From the great many formal documents and emails which we received , as well as from the meetings and interviews held in both St John’s and Corner Brook, it quickly became clear to us that the senior administrative and academic personnel of Memorial University, based in St John’s, together with its Board of Regents, were of the opinion that no major change in the status or corporate governance in Grenfell College was required, that Grenfell College was well catered for within the university, and that the existing academic structures, with one or two minor changes, were the appropriate and effective ones for the continuing development of that institution within the overall structure of Memorial University. Conversely it was made equally clear to us that the senior personnel in Grenfell College, along with the commercial and political communities in Corner Brook, felt exactly the opposite and wished for a radical restructuring of the College’s academic management links with Memorial in St John’s, giving it greater administrative independence and academic autonomy. It was noted too, that at the academic levels below these senior groups in both campuses, the views were less stringent and definite, and a number of the professors in Grenfell College expressed the fear that a complete break with Memorial in St John’s, specifically in relation to the academic services which are supplied from St John’s, would not be a good idea at all, and indeed could be quite disastrous for the future academic activity in the Grenfell institution. However it must be said that at all levels, the great majority in Grenfell College were less that happy with the current arrangements with St John’s and wished for change. In looking for the perfect academic structure for Grenfell College and its future ideal relationship with Memorial University in St John’s, it should be appreciated that, as enunciated so eloquently by Dr Evan Simpson in his report contained in the Board of Regents “Discussion Paper”, and reproduced here in the appendices, that “Almost any governance structure can be made to work…”. In support of this statement to which we fully subscribe, it can be noted that every possible variation in academic management structures linking universities in a federated or other alliances, can be found in the universities of Canada, and indeed throughout the world, and for the most part, they all work quite well. It is important therefore to emphasise that because one particular structure works well in L’ Universite du Quebec or in the National University of Ireland, but that the one currently in the University of Berlin or in the University of New Brunswick is having difficulties, is all very interesting, but neither can be taken or rejected as a paradigm for the Grenfell College situation. - 2 - Thus whilst any one of a number of management structures can be made to work in any one university situation, successful academic management depends much more on the creation in the faculty and students of pride in, and ownership of, their institution, and on their enthusiastic support for its leadership, than on the actual structures within which they operate. However, complete perfection in academic management is rarely, if ever, achieved, and in almost every university in the world, there are tensions and difficulties with no shortage of splinter groups, eloquent in their criticism of their university management. The “herding of cats” analogy for the management of university academics is not too far off the truth, and in some ways, it reflects the excitement of working in a university. The situation in the Grenfell College / St John’s relationship is however more than a splinter group issue and it must be acknowledged that, despite Memorial University’s standing as one of the leading universities in the Canadian and international academic domains, which reflects great credit on its recent and current leadership, clearly the current structural relationship between the two campuses is not working very well and it must be fixed. Furthermore, this difficult ambience has to be damaging to the normal operation and the future development of that institution and of the region of Western Newfoundland which it principally serves. So whilst we cannot fail to note that both sides in this dispute, as dispute it surely is, have taken up firm and opposing positions on what is the correct future strategy for Grenfell College, it is our earnest hope that when the decision is taken, that all the sectors in Memorial University, in St John’s and Corner Brook, and the communities which they serve, will row fully in behind the Government and its Ministry for Education, inject their good will and enthusiasm into the establishment and smooth operation of the new structures and thereby assist the further development of higher education in Newfoundland & Labrador to even greater heights in the provincial, federal and international worlds of academe. Finally, we wish to express our thanks to the Ministry for inviting us to undertake this challenging and interesting assignment, to the President of Memorial, Dr Axel Meisen, and. the Principal of Grenfell College, Dr John Ashton, and their colleagues for their unfailing courtesy and assistance, to the colleagues at Grant Thornton for their excellent assistance on matters financial, and to the large number of colleagues inside and outside the two campuses, and across Canada and Europe, who provided us with so much informed comment and perspectives. We hope that this Report will be a helpful contribution to the development of higher education in Newfoundland and Labrador. We wish both Memorial University and Grenfell College every success in the realisation of whichever path for development is selected by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Professor John Davies Professor John Kelly 25 September, 2006 - 3 - Chapter 1 TERMS OF REFERENCE OF PROJECT This is the Report on the Contract made on December 20, 2005 between • “The Department of Education in the Province of Newfoundland & Labrador (the Department) and • Professor John L. Davies, Dean of the Graduate School at Anglia Ruskin University in the United Kingdom and Professor John Kelly, Professor Emeritus and Registrar, University College Dublin, Ireland and currently Executive Director of the Ireland Canada University Foundation, (the Consultants) WHEREAS the Department enters into an agreement with the Consultants to conduct a review of the various degrees of autonomy for Sir Wilfred Grenfell College (SWGC) up to and including full university status, (hereinafter called “the Review”) and report their findings to government so that it can make an informed decision on the future of the College with the aim of increasing Grenfell’s autonomy.” The Terms of Reference of the Review are given in full in Appendix 1 to this Report. It provides for a review phase in December 2005 and January 2006, meetings and consultations in January and February, and the write up phase in March, with the scheduled report submission date of March 31, and with the possibility of extension by mutual agreement to the end of April. The Contract also provides for the commissioning of technical reports which the consultants decide, and the Department agrees, are required for this study. In particular, the need for a financial analysis of the separate administrative and academic support systems which may be required for Grenfell College is referred to. The firm of Grant Thornton in St John’s was commissioned to carry out this analysis and its report is reproduced in Appendix 9 to this Report. The review phase was carried out as scheduled and the consultants visited Newfoundland and Labrador, January 21 through 28 when they had an extensive schedule of meetings and consultations in St John’s and Corner Brook. This schedule is reproduced in Appendix 2 to this Report. A second visit to Newfoundland and Labrador, tentatively scheduled for the end of February, was considered unnecessary and did not take place.