UNIVERSITY of GUELPH BOARD OF GOVERNORS Thursday, March 27, 1997, 3:00 p.m. Room 424, University Centre, University of Guelph ***** AGENDA
1. Welcome (D. Dodds) - Welcome
2. Approval of Agenda of March 27, 1997 (D. Dodds) - Motion 20
3. Approval of The Minutes of November 21, 1996 (D. Dodds) - Motion 21 (a) Business Arising - Information i. Ratio of students to faculty ii. Student Rights & Responsibility Policy Committee Composition iii. Hearing Board Committee Composition
4. Presidential Review Process (D. Dodds) - Information 22
5. Audit Committee Report (r. Lonsdale) (a) Semesterly Environmental Health & Safety Report - Information Za (b) Extension of Appointment of External Auditors - Motion
6. Executive Committee Report (D. Dodds) (a) Use of Executive Authority i. Resignation - Information 24 ii. Reappointment - Information iii. Appointment - Information
7. Membership Committee Report (D. Lees) (a) Graduate student election - Motion 25 (b) Undergraduate student election - Motion
8. Proposed Amendments to Faculty Policies (I. Campbell) (a) Policy on Study/Research Leave - Motion a (b) Policy on Transition Leave (currently Leave for Academic Administrators) - Motion (c) Policy on Part-time Appointments - Motion
9. ACCESS Fund (S. Cooper) - Information 22
10. Finance Committee Report (D. Lees) (a) Semester Financial Statements, December 31, 1996 - Information 2 (b) Budget Context i. Overview - Information ii. University Budget, 1997-98 - Information (c) Tuition Fees, 1997-98 - Motion 22
...continued on page 2
Board of Governors agenda Page 2 of 2 March 27, 1997
TAB#
11. President s Report (M. Rozanski) (a) Appointments, Tenure and Promotions - Information 3Q (b) Status Report On University Activities - Information
12. Vice-Presidents Status Reports 31 (a) Vice-President, Research i. Activities Information (b) Senate Report i. Provost s Restructuring Report to Senate, December 1996 - Information ii Report, September 1996 to February 1997 - Information
13. Adjournment
NEXT MEETING SCHEDULED FOR: THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 1997, 3:00 P.M. UNIVERSITY of GUELPH BOARD OF GOVERNORS
Proposed Motions For Thursday, March 27, 1997
2. RESOLVE, That the agenda for the meeting of March 27, 1997 be approved as presented.
3. RESOLVE, That the minutes of the 245th meeting of the Board of Governors held on November 21, 1996, as presented, be approved.
5. (b) RESOLVE, that the Board of Governors approve the extension of the appointment of the external auditors, Coopers Lybrand, through to the completion of the 1997-98 external audit.
7.(a) RESOLVE, that Mr. Christoph Wand be appointed to the Board of Governors as the graduate student representative, for a one year term, effective July 1, 1997.
7.(b) RESOLVE, that Mr. Colin Dawes and Mr. Nathan White be appointed to the Board of Governors as the two undergraduate student representatives, each for a one year term, effective July 1, 1997.
8.(a) RESOLVE, that the Faculty Policies Section H, Part 3, Study/Research Leave, Part 3.04 Application for Leave (ii)(e), and 3.05 Decision Procedures (vi), be amended, as presented.
8.(b) RESOLVE, that the Faculty Policies, Section I, Leaves for Academic Administrative Appointees, Part 1, Transition Leave, 1.01 Purpose of Transition Leave; 1.04 Request For Transition Leave (i)(ii)(iii)(iv); 1.05 Conditions of Transition Leave, be amended, as presented.
8. (c) RESOLVE, that the Faculty Policies, Section B, Part 3, Part-time Appointments, 3.02, 3.03, and 3.04, be amended, as presented.
10. (c) RESOLVE, that the Undergraduate, Graduate and Associate Diploma in Agriculture Tuition Fee Schedule for 1997-98, as presented, be approved. UNIVERSITY GUELPH MEMORANDUM
BOARD OF GOVERNORS TO: Members, Board of Governors
FROM: Betsy Allan, Secretary of The Board of Governors Extension: 3438
SUBJECT: 3. Approval of The Minutes of November 21, 1996 -- Motion (a) Business Arising -- Information i. Ratio of students to faculty ii. Student Rights & Responsibility Policy Committee Composition Hearing Board Committee Composition
MEETING DATE OF: March 27, 1997
Approval of The Minutes of November 21, 1996 -- Motion
Attached are the minutes of the meeting held on November 21, 1996.
The Board of Governors is asked to,
RESOLVE, That the minutes of the 245th meeting of the Board of Governors held on November 21, 1996, as presented, be approved.
(a) Business Arising -- Information i. Ratio of students to faculty
The student to faculty ratio was approximately 27.3 in 1995-96. Guelph has realized a 35.8% increase in its student/faculty ratio from 20.1 in 1980-81 to 27.3 in 1995-96. This represents a movement toward the provincial average from 7.4% below the system average to 3.9% below the system average.
While the enrolment component of the statistic is readily available from Ministry of Education and Training data, the faculty component is more difficult to obtain, due to data availability limitations. Ontario Veterinary College faculty and enrolment are excluded from this statistic, as are faculty with senior administrative responsibility, visiting faculty, part-time faculty and Guelph OMAFRA research faculty.
Detailed statistics are available, please contact the Board Secretariat. ii. Student Rights & Responsibility Policy Committee Composition Hearing Board Committee Composition
Information about these matters will be forwarded to an upcoming Board meeting.
GUELPH • ONTARIO • CANADA • NIG 2W1 • (519) 824-4120, EXT. 3438 • FAX (519) 767-1350 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH
Minutes of the 245th meeting of the Board of Governors, Thursday, November 21, 1996, 3:00 p.m., Room 424, University Centre, University of Guelph.
Members Present: Lincoln Alexander, Chancellor Michele Darling David Prescott Doug Dodds, Chair David Lees Mordechai Rozanski, President Ken Bedasse Tanya Lonsdale, Vice-Chair Jennifer Story Gerrit Bos Beverly Mascoll Michael Walsh Diane Boyd Michael Matthews Betsy Allan, Secretary Greg Clark John Oliver Simon Cooper Daniel Pauze rata: Bill Brock
Also Present: Regrets: John Armstrong, Director, Real Estate Division Keith Conklin Doug Betts, Controller, Real Estate Division Karen Iles kin Campbell, Provost V-P Academic Larry Pearson Dale Lockie, Executive Manager, Pension Investments Louise Tremblay John Mabley, V-P, Development Public Affairs Janet Wood John Miles, Assistant V-P, Finance Larry Milligan, V-P, Research Brian Sullivan, Associate V-P, Student Affairs Nancy Sullivan, V -P Finance Administration
Agenda APPROVAL OF AGENDA 76/96 On motion duly made and seconded, it was
RESOLVED, That the agenda for November 21, 1996, as presented, be approved.
Minutes APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, 1996 77/96 On motion duly made and seconded, it was
RESOLVED, That the minutes of the 244th meeting of the Board of Governors held on September 26, 1996, as presented, be approved.
(a) Business Arising
Business arising from the minutes will be covered during the meeting.
1 BOARD OF GOVERNORS minutes November 21, 1996
Student. STUDENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES POLICY Rights Pol. 78/96 Mr. Sullivan introduced the proposed amendments to the Policy and noted that the revisions included rewriting the narrative introduction to provide greater clarity and emphasis and a reorganization of the regulations to improve readability. The document has been considered internally and reviewed by the University's legal counsel.
Dr. Prescott queried reference to the University's Acceptable Use Policy and Guidelines on Computing and suggested that the World Wide Web may be a more useful electronic location for posting information over and above GRIFF or CCS.
It was noted that the procedure of having new students confirm their receipt of and compliance with the Student Rights and Responsibilities Policy has been successfully implemented by including a signature required section on the course request form.
Mr. Bos queried the committee composition. Mr. Sullivan agreed to consider further the composition and report back to the Board.
Ms. Darling queried how the University evaluated the effectiveness of this policy. Mr. Sullivan explained his perception that the policy is effective - people know about it and it does affect behaviour. He noted that the University of Guelph Policy has been requested for use as a model by a number of Canadian universities.
It was recognized that policies continue to evolve and Mr. Sullivan confirmed the onus is on the student to be familiar with the current policies.
In response to a query, Mr. Sullivan noted that the Judicial Committee may also act as an appeal body to hear appeals regarding actions or penalties of a non-academic nature imposed by a non-academic university department where no other existing appeal process exists.
On motion duly made and seconded, it was
RESOLVED, that the Student Rights and Responsibilities Policy, as amended, be approved.
Hearing Brd. HEARING BOARD - REVISIONS TO TERMS OF REFERENCE AND RULES Terms of Ref OF PROCEDURE 79/96 The Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedure for the University Hearing Board have been revised to provide for consistency with the recently amended Statutory Powers and Procedure Act, and to provide a clear understanding of the procedures and practices appropriate for a Hearing Board.
Mr. Sullivan agreed to consider the participation of staff in the Hearing Board process and report back to the Board.
2 BOARD OF GOVERNORS minutes November 21, 1996
Ms. Story suggested and it was accepted by Mr. Sullivan that a minor editorial change be made to Section 2 - Membership, to make it clear that reference to College Student Governments includes the Central Student Association.
On motion duly made and seconded, it was
RESOLVED, that the amendments to the University of Guelph Hearing Board Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedure be approved.
P B PENSIONS AND BENEFITS COMMITTEE REPORT Report (a) Statement of Investment Policies and Goals 80/96 Mr. Bedasse informed members that the Pension Commission of Ontario (PCO) requires all pension plans Statements of Investment Policies and Goals be reviewed annually and declaration made, as appropriate, to PCO that either there are no changes from the previous year, or provide a revised statement. The Pensions and Benefits Committee has considered and approved the changes, copies of which were included in the Board meeting package. A submission will be made to the PCO prior to December 31, 1996.
(b) Investment Performance Report
Mr. Lockie informed members that the pension fund performance as of June 30, 1996 ranked in the 13th percentile over four years and in the first percentile during the past year. He used a number of overhead charts to elaborate on the funds asset mix comparisons, one year returns and market indices.
The market value at June 30, 1996 was $487 million. Mr. Lockie noted that the investment performance since that period has been very strong and the market value of the fund as of today was approximately $525 million. Mr. Lockie cautioned that the high nominal and real rates of return being experienced are unlikely to continue into the future.
Finance FINANCE commrrrEE REPORT Cttee.Report (a) Budget Update For 1996-97 81/96 Dr. Lees reviewed the 1996-97 Revised MET Operating Budget. He noted that particular to the MET portion of the 1996-97 budget were two cost-saving targets. The $2 million in one-time savings to be achieved through improved revenues and/or departmental cost reductions has been realized, while the $700,000 base savings identified to be realized from compensation savings to be negotiated with employee groups is in progress. It was noted that the financial impact of the Memorandum of Agreement with OMAFRA on the MET Operating Budget in fiscal 1996-97 will be for one month only, April 1997.
3
BOARD OF GOVERNORS minutes November 21, 1996
On motion duly made and seconded, it was
RESOLVED, That the 1996-97 revised MET operating budget, as presented, be approved.
Finance (b) Semester Financial Statements For August 31, 1996 Statements 82/96 Dr. Lees noted that budgets are on target and that there are no major variances in the semester financial statements.
Endowment (c) University Endowment Fund Proposal Fund Proposal 83/96 Dr. Lees recommended delegating responsibility for the investment guidance of the University Endowment Fund to the Investment Management Committee of the Board of Trustees of the University of Guelph Heritage Fund. He considered it prudent to make use of the expertise assembled on that Committee. He noted that the Terms of Reference included Finance Committee authority to rescind the arrangement at any time.
On motion duly made and seconded, it was
RESOLVED, that the investment guidance for the University Endowment Fund be delegated to the Investment Management Committee of the Board of Trustees of the University of Guelph Heritage Fund, per the terms and conditions presented, effective immediately.
Audit Rpt. AUDIT COMMITTEE REPORT Amend (a) Amendment to Audit Committee Rule of Quorum (Second Reading) Quorum 84/96 Mr. Clark introduced for second reading the amendment to the Rule of Quorum. In discussion it was noted that Audit Committee members considered an amendment to quorum for the Audit Committee appropriate given the fiduciary responsibility of the Committee.
On motion duly made and seconded, it was
RESOLVED, That amendment to Board of Governors By-Laws, Section IV Committees(7)(f), as presented, be approved.
Foundation UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH FOUNDATION Annual Rpt. (a) Annual Report, 1996 85/96 Dr. Alexander introduced the University of Guelph Foundation Annual Report. He reviewed the distributions made to the University in the 1995-96 fiscal year and to date in 1996-97.
4
BOARD OF GOVERNORS minutes November 21, 1996
On motion duly made and seconded, it was
RESOLVED, That the Board of Governors approve the form and content of the University of Guelph Foundation Annual Report, 1996, to the Minister, Ministry of Education and Training.
Signing AMENDMENT TO SIGNING OFFICERS Officers 86/96 It was proposed that the list of signing authorities be amended to reflect the deletion of the title Director of Physical Resources and creation of the position, Executive Director, Facilities and Hospitality Services. The limited signing authority granted remains unchanged.
On motion duly made and seconded, it was
RESOLVED, That the individual in the position of Executive Director, Facilities and Hospitality Services, or an individual appointed as acting in that position, be granted co-signing authority for construction contracts on behalf of the University of Guelph, effective immediately; reference to the Director of Physical Resources is hereby deleted.
Pres. PRESIDENT S REPORT Report (a) Status Report On University Activities ..-- 87/96 The Maclean s magazine annual Canadian University survey has been published. The University of Guelph has retained or bettered its ranking in the various categories of the survey.
The University of Guelph made a presentation to MET s Advisory Panel for Post- Secondary Education at the October 30th hearing at the University of Western Ontario. Dr. Rozanski noted that the University has undergone profound and painful changes in response to government cutbacks. He used a number of overheads to demonstrate the disinvestment and under funding to universities since 1978. The province of Ontario is well below the national average for government support; and on a per capita transfer- grant funding basis, Ontario ranks last. He had urged the MET Panel to restore Ontario s funding of post-secondary education to the national average. Ontario is falling behind in sponsored research. Dr. Rozanski noted that the University was commended for its presentation and thought that Panel members shared many of the concerns.
The University has experienced an approximately 22% or $33 million decrease in transfer grant since 1993. Dr. Rozanski elaborated that the reduction in funding has resulted in the reallocation of funds in the operating budget and a reduction in expenditures.
Dr. Rozanski reported that the number of students on campus this fall has increased and the quality of entering students has been maintained. The institution is coping with an
5 BOARD OF GOVERNORS minutes November 21, 1996
approximately 22% reduction in staff and 17% reduction in faculty members. The provincial government's transfer payment cuts resulted in a reduction of some 121 positions. The institution has also reduced its course offerings, is reducing the number of programs offered, merging departments, and considering the merging of colleges. He noted that deferred maintenance is an enormous problem at the institution - approximately $45 to 50 million - and that only approximately $1 million is received from the Province annually to address a priority list estimated at $6 million.
The institution is looking at partnerships and strategic opportunities to replace and increase funding to enhance the teaching and research infrastructure. Dr. Rozanski referred to the innovative relationships formed with GUARD Inc. and OMAFRA. The University is collaborating with other universities on a number of fronts including common library storage facilities and computer systems.
Dr. Rozanski stressed that the University's endowed Heritage Fund will be key to providing for strategic investment at the institution. He estimated that the University Endowment and Heritage Funds, currently valued at approximately $71.5 million, may reach $100 million by the year 2000.
The current ratio of faculty to students was queried. Dr. Campbell will report back on the ratio at the next meeting.
It was noted that for the period of January 1, 1997 to June 30, 1997, Dr. Connie Rooke, Associate Vice-President Academic and Mr. Brian Sullivan, Associate Vice- President Student Affairs will be taking deferred administrative/study leave. Acting on their behalf will be Dr. Alastair Summerlee, Dean, Graduate Studies, and Mr. Dave Copp, Director of Athletics, respectively.
(b) Appointments, Tenure And Promotions
Appointments, Tenure and Promotions material was included for information.
V-P VICE-PRESIDENT'S STATUS REPORTS Status Rpts. 88/96 A Vice-President's status report was included in Board meeting packages for information.
BOT BOARD OF TRUSTEES REPORT Report (a) Audited Financial Statements, April 30, 1996 Fin. Stmts. 89/96 Mr. Brock referred members to the Heritage Fund and Real Estate Division: Audited Combined Financial Statements for fiscal 1995-96. It was noted that the Statements had been reviewed by the Board's Audit Committee and accepted by the Board of Trustees.
6 BOARD OF GOVERNORS minutes November 21, 1996
On motion duly made and seconded, it was
RESOLVED, that the Heritage Fund and Real Estate Division: Audited Combined Fmancial Statements for the year ended April 30, 1996, be approved.
Undis. (b) Undistributed Earnings Earnings 90/96 Mr. Brock reviewed the growth and past distributions from the Heritage Fund. He noted that the Fund has accumulated $2.6 million in undistributed funds. At the Board of Trustees meeting held on October 28, 1996, members supported a disbursement to the University of Guelph of $2.3 million. Mr. Brock stressed that disbursements from Heritage Fund may not be applied toward the operating budget, compensation or deficit repayment. Mr. Brock noted that disbursement of $2.3 million would leave approximately $1.8 million for future distribution consideration. Mr. Brock informed members that Trustees are very committed to enhancing the growth of the Heritage Fund. Trustees do not encourage an early call for disbursement of these funds by the Board of Governors. It was also noted that not all Investment Management Committee members or members of the Board of Trustees support the Trust Document formula which provides for a portion of undistributed earnings to be carried forward on a cumulative basis.
Mr. Dodds encouraged Governors to consider the Heritage Fund as a strategic fund to be used with discretion. Dr. Rozanski appreciated Trustees' consideration but noted that funds are required for strategic activities which cannot be funded through the operating budget. The $2.3 million distribution under consideration will be applied to academic restructuring projects, student and library information systems, and audio video linkages for collaborative teaching with other universities. It is recognized that these funds will be insufficient to cover all these activities including the financial information system.
Mrs. Darling queried whether there were criteria against which the merit of a disbursement might be judged. In the ensuing discussion it was apparent that there was hesitation to establish criteria. Members were concerned that the existence of criteria might create an assumption that if they were met a disbursement was certain to be approved. Dr. Lees supported that each disbursement be looked upon as an exceptional request to deal with an extraordinary situation.
It was noted that a more detailed capital plan will be presented to the Finance Committee.
Mr. Bos queried whether strategic investment was having the desired effect of relieving operating budget pressure. Dr. Rozanski noted that restructuring had been undertaken on the condition that strategic investment be made and the end result will create savings to the operating budget.
7 BOARD OF GOVERNORS minutes November 21, 1996
On motion duly made and seconded, it was
RESOLVED, that a disbursement of up to $2.3 million from the Heritage Fund to the University from the interest accumulated earnings to the end of the previous fiscal year, April 30, 1996, be made at any time during the second half of the 1996-97 fiscal year.
On motion duly made and seconded, it was
RESOLVED, That Mr. Brock, Ms. Sullivan, Dr. Milligan, Dr. Campbell, Mr. Mabley, Mr. Miles, Mr. Armstrong, and Mr. Betts remain for the in- camera session of the meeting.
Dr. Lees retired from the meeting.
END OF OPEN SESSION
8 UNIVERSITY GUELPH MEMORANDUM BOARD OF GOVERNORS
TO: Members, Board of Governors
FROM: Betsy Allan, Secretary of The Board of Governors Extension: 3438
SUBJECT: 4. Presidential Review Process -- Information
MEETING DATE OF: March 27, 1997
Mr. Doug Dodds as Chair of the Board of Governors is also the Chair of the Committee conducting the review of the President. The Board of Governors, via sign-back resolution dated February 26, 1997, appointed external Governors, Dr. David Lees and Mrs. Tanya Lonsdale, to the Committee. The Senate is responsible to elect the staff, faculty, undergraduate student, and graduate student members of the Committee. Senate is in the process of electing the internal members to the Committee. The Senate elections close on Monday, March 24, 1997. Mr. Dodds will speak to this item and provide an update of the Senate election results.
BA/ab
GUELPH • ONTARIO • CANADA • NIG 2WI • (519)824-4120, EXT. 3438 • FAX(519)767-1350 UNIVERSITY .'GUELPH MEMORANDUM BOARD OF GOVERNORS
TO: Members, Board of Governors
FROM: Betsy Allan, Secretary of The Board of Governors Extension: 3438
SUBJECT: 5. Audit Committee Report (a) Semesterly Environmental Health & Safety Report — Information (b) Extension of Appointment of External Auditors -- Motion
MEETING DATE OF: March 27, 1997
(a) Semesterly Environmental Health & Safety Report -- Information
The Audit Committee receives regular updates on environmental health and safety issues which are forwarded to the Board of Governors for information. Attached for information please find a report prepared by Mr. Geoff Byford, Department Manager, Environmental Health and Safety.
(b) Extension of Appointment of External Auditors -- Motion
Coopers & Lybrand were appointed as the University's external auditors in September 1992 for a five-year term which concludes with the 1996-97 audit. The University's fiscal year end is April 30th.
The Audit Committee is recommending Coopers & Lybrand's appointment be extended to include the audit for fiscal year 1997-98 in order to maintain continuity for the implementation period of the both the new Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants reporting requirements and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs Memorandum of Agreement with the University.
The Board of Governors is asked to,
RESOLVE, that the Board of Governors approve the extension of the appointment of the external auditors, Coopers & Lybrand, through to the completion of the 1997-98 external audit.
Betsy Allan
C:\BOARD\97MAR27.MEM
GUELPH • ONTARIO • CANADA • NIG 2W1 • (519) 8244120, EXT. 3438 • FAX (5191767-1350 cc: Board of Governors UNIVERSITY March 27, 1997 (for info) GUELPH
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
TO: University of Guelph Board of Governors Audit Committee (convened 97 02 27)
FROM: G.G. Byford, Manager, Environmental Health and Safety
RE: Health and Safety Report, 96 09 01 to 96 12 31
DATE: 97 02 10
SUMMARY: Environmental Health and Safety is continuing to deliver established programs and services and continues to develop new program initiatives. There are no outstanding orders regarding health and safety or environmental issues.
1. HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES
Central Joint Health and Safety Committee.
The Central Joint Health and Safety Committee (CJHSC) convened on December 10, 1996. Agenda items included progress reports on the confined space safety program, fire emergency planning, and on new initiatives in Environmental Health and Safety (EHS).
The Committee membership will be reviewed in 1997 and new appointments will be made as necessary. Due to turnover, additional employees must become certified.
The Committee was requested to promote all of the health and safety courses in the Winter 1997 Faculty and Staff Development program.
Department Health and Safety Committees.
Most department (local) health and safety committees have had an active semester co-ordinating their workplace inspection programs. However, about 25% of the local safety committees have not accomplished and documented annual inspections in accordance with Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act requirements. Management in all departments is obliged to promote regular local health and safety committee activity. The University offers a course on hazard recognition and workplace inspection in the Staff Development program.
Radiation Safety.
The Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB) conducted radioisotope licence compliance inspections on October 16 and 17, 1996. Laboratories in the following departments were inspected: Environmental Biology, Pathobiology, Chemistry, Crop Science, Botany and Molecular Biology and Genetics. All corrective actions were completed as required and the AECB was notified.
1
GUELPH • ONTARIO • CANADA • N 1 G 2W1 • (519) 824-4120 EXT. 3132 • FAX (519) 824-0364
In October, the Department of Food Science lost a sealed radioactive source inside an instrument that was inadvertently sent away as scrap. The Radiation Safety Officer and the Atomic Energy Control Board were notified. Attempts to recover the instrument and the source were fruitless. The source is not considered to be a threat to public health. The particular radioisotope permit was terminated.
Biohazards Safety.
In consultation with Animal Care Services and the Chair of the Biohazards Committee, EHS is revising biosafety policies and procedures to ensure registration of novel research projects that have unusual implications for occupational health or environmental protection.
The Biohazards Safety Committee is investigating new laboratory safety training initiatives. A course on autoclave operation and safety was repeated for staff on November 22, 1996.
Incident Reports.
The Ministry of Labour (MOL) has concluded their investigation of the critical injury on August 7, 1996. The University still awaits the MOL report.
On October 21, 1996, a contractor at the Crop Science building came close to contacting some high voltage cables with his crane. EHS investigated and requested actions by the contractor.
A non-University employee (construction worker) suffered a critical injury from a fall at the Guelph Food Technology Centre (GFTC) construction site on October 31, 1996. The Ministry of Labour investigated this accident and reported to Jackson-Lewis, the construction manager.
As a result of several incidents where minor renovations were not completed to building code requirements, the University community was reminded in September that alterations and renovations to campus buildings must be approved and co-ordinated through Physical Resources.
Forklift Safety.
During 1996, the Ministry of Labour published draft Guidelines for the Safe Operation of Powered Lift Trucks. A forklift truck safety program that conforms with this guideline is being developed by personnel from V.T.H., Research Station Operations, Physical Resources, and EHS. The new MOL guideline requires that a forklift operator must pass a competency test to become an authorized operator.
Health and Safety Training.
Since August 1996, 292 employees and graduate students have received WHMIS instruction. General safety orientation for new personnel is now incorporated into the WHMIS training. Management in all areas is obliged to deliver workplace specific safety training. WHMIS review sessions were offered to the Electrical Shop and Paint Shop personnel and to staff and students in several academic departments. A safety orientation program has been developed and delivered to Hospitality Services. A similar program is being prepared for Physical Resources.
Annual Inspections.
Safety inspections are in progress or were completed on the following items:
biological containment cabinets - 59 class II cabinets were tested per NSF Standard 49. autoclaves - 42 units were inspected and pressure vessel certificates were renewed. eyewash and safety showers - 244 units in campus laboratories were tested quarterly. chainfall hoists - 48 units are being inspected in accordance with the OHS Act. elevating docks - 9 units are being inspected in accordance with the OHS Act.
2 Confined Space Entry Program.
Eighteen Physical Resources employees and eight Research Station Operations employees successfully completed the two-day confined space entry training program in September 1996. The campus confined space group is finalizing the inventory and identification of campus confined spaces. The agricultural group is developing new silo-entry procedures with assistance from the Farm Safety Association and safety equipment suppliers.
Workplace Assessments.
EHS was involved in several computer workstation ergonomic assessments and has distributed information that promotes good workstation design.
Testing for ammonia, hydrogen sulphide, and carbon dioxide was conducted in barn environments at Elora, Arkell, and in Animal Isolation. Monitoring results and appropriate recommendations were made to facility management personnel.
2. HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES - PREVIOUSLY REPORTED ITEMS
Asbestos Abatement.
Employees in the Microbiology wing of building #27 have registered concerns about working conditions in the basement. The Department has initiated action to relocate one research group and is assessing other occupancies in the basement. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Pinchin Report, Physical Resources is attempting to isolate the perimeter pipe shafts in this wing. A test section is in place and is being evaluated. It is anticipated that this work will be completed in 3 months.
Emergency Preparedness.
During the fall semester, EHS up-dated the hazardous materials emergency response instructions for Security Services and for the Guelph Fire Department. The revised manual for first responders identifies all campus hazardous chemical storage locations and references appropriate emergency action guide numbers in the 1996 North American Emergency Response Guidebook". The manual will permit Fire Department personnel to conduct more thorough facility inspections and to rehearse site-specific emergency response action plans.
Since the summer, there have been more than 110 chemical spill kits installed in teaching and research laboratories in science departments.
Ontario Fire Code (OFC) Part IV Compliance.
EHS distributed new OFC Part IV solvent storage requirements via newsletter to laboratory and management personnel. Additional solvent storage cabinets have been installed in areas of need. Inventories in below-ground solvent storage vaults have been reduced or eliminated. Most departments have finalized their action plans to comply with OFC Part IV. The College of Physical and Engineering Science has requested 1997/1998 capital plan project funds to help implement their compliance strategy.
OMAFRA Merger.
Further discussions were convened during the semester between EHS and the OMAFRA Coordinator concerning safety, occupational health, and environmental issues at the OMAFRA locations that become affiliated with the University on April 1, 1997. Steps have been taken with OMAFRA personnel to ensure that licences, certificates of inspection, and other safety-related documents and inventories are up-to- date prior to the target date. EHS is now establishing communication links with site administrative personnel and site safety committee personnel.
3 During the semester, the Manager of Research Stations and EHS commenced preparation of an agricultural operations safety manual. The manual will consolidate standard operating procedures, safety and awareness information, and useful technical and reference material.
There are no outstanding Ministry of Labour (MOL) orders related to occupational health and safety issues.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Hazardous Chemical Waste.
During 1996, EHS shipped 20,356 L of hazardous waste liquids and 2193 kg of hazardous waste solids to RPR Environmental. Transportation and disposal costs amounted to $54,859. The University made two shipments of PCB waste (2248 kg) to the Swan Hills facility in Alberta. Total cost was $16,743. Two shipments of solid radioactive waste (1461 kg) were sent to Monserco in 1996. The waste management cost was $11,899. EHS recycled 35.7 kg of surplus chemicals to various campus research laboratories. Several research stations were registered with the MOEE as generators of hazardous waste.
Water Quality.
Regular well water testing from July to November 1996 revealed incidents of coliform contamination at the J.C. Taylor Centre, the Arboretum Centre and the Apiculture Laboratory. EHS and Engineering have revised the well water testing protocol to improve water sampling, the timely reporting of Public Health Lab results, and well decontamination procedures. Engineering has prepared cost estimates to place the J.C. Taylor and Arboretum Centres on potable city water. The Apiary is being connected to city water.
4. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES - PREVIOUSLY REPORTED ITEMS
There are no outstanding Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE) orders related to environmental issues.
5. WORKERS COMPENSATION
Employee Injury Statistics.
Injury statistics for the period September 1 to December 31, 1996 and annual totals are summarized below. Comparison statistics for 1995 are shown. The mean and standard deviation of the injury statistics for the last 10 years are also shown for comparison. The figures represent raw data (i.e. not normalized for person-hours worked). 10 year September 1 to December 31 Annual Total mean + std. dev.
1996 1995 1996 1995 lost time claims 13 20 42 41 46 + 9 medical aid claims 42 38 121 123 128 + 29 first aid accidents 118 119 290 317 266 + 46
A NEER (New Experimental Experience Rating) rebate of $36,359.77 was awarded against the University s initial 1995 WCB assessment of $603,433.
WCB Audit.
The WCB audited the University s payroll in May to affirm the assessable earnings against which their premium rate is applied. The audit report is still outstanding.
4 WCB Conference.
The University hosted a conference concerning WCB reform and claims management on November 14, 1996. Claims managers from most Ontario Universities attended.
WCB Appeal.
A former employee s claim for extended WCB benefits arising from an injury in 1992 was denied at an Appeals Hearing on September 9, 1996. The WCB decision was released on October 2, 1996.
6. STUDENT ACCIDENTS
There were 55 student accidents reported in 1996 (58 accidents in 1995). Most of the statistics concerned minor injuries that occurred in laboratory or athletic activities. Student activity supervisors are reminded to constantly promote safety awareness.
A tragic student death during the semester has no liability implications for the University.
7. OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND WELLNESS
A joint working committee is being established to prepare the terms of reference and protocols for a "Joint Return to Work Committee". This committee will have representation from CUPE, Employee Relations, and Occupational Health Services. The draft Accommodation Policy will be reviewed by this committee.
A survey of physical demands for a variety of jobs in Hospitality Services has been completed. The information is essential for successful implementation of modified work plans and for identifying ergonomic concerns.
Occupational Health Services has had increased involvement in the management of short-term disabilities associated with WCB and LTD cases. OHS now offers an on-site physiotherapy service to promote the timely return to work for injured employees.
Cholinesterase monitoring for pesticide users indicated no abnormal levels. Rabies titres for employees at risk provided useful reassurances. Three cases of suspected rabies exposure warranted employee follow-up with Occupational Health Services.
The latex questionnaire results will be tabled at a Staff Development presentation on April 22, 1997. Accommodation for latex allergies has been initiated in the Animal Health Laboratory unit.
OHS has had no reportable public health cases of communicable diseases (eg. meningitis, tuberculosis, or red measles) this past year.
Distribution: President Executive Director, Facilities and Hospitality Vice-President, Finance and Administration Deans, Directors and Chairs Vice-President, Academic Central Joint Health and Safety Committee Vice-President, Research Academic Department Safety Committees Assistant Vice-President, Human Resources Administrative Department Safety Committees Research Station Operations Safety Committee Environmental Health and Safety
5 UNIVERSITY gKGUELPH MEMORANDUM BOARD OF GOVERNORS
TO: Members, Board of Governors
FROM: Betsy Allan, Secretary of The Board of Governors Extension: 3438
SUBJECT: 6. Executive Committee Report (D. Dodds) (a) Use of Executive Authority i. Resignation -- Information ii. Reappointment -- Information Appointment -- Information
MEETING DATE OF: March 27, 1997 i. Resignation -- Information
Board members were previously apprised that Mrs. Michele Darling resigned from the Board of Governors. ii. Reappointment -- Information
Members were previously apprised that Mr. Ken Bedasse was re-instated as Chair of the Pensions and Benefits Committee, effective through to June 30, 1997. iii. Appointment — Information
Members were previously apprised that Mr. John Lahey has been appointed to the Board of Governors. Mr. Lahey will serve on the Pensions and Benefits Committee through to June 30, 1997.
Betsy Allan
C: \BOARD \97MAR27.MEM
GUELPH • ONTARIO • CAN AI)A • NIG 2WI • (519) 824-4120, EXT. 3438 • FAX (519)767-1350 UNIVERSITY GUELPH MEMORANDUM BOARD OF GOVERNORS
TO: Members, Board of Governors
FROM: Betsy Allan, Secretary of The Board of Governors Extension: 3438
SUBJECT: 7. Membership Committee Report (a) Graduate student election -- Motion (b) Undergraduate student election -- Motion
MEETING DATE OF: March 27, 1997
(a) Graduate student election -- Motion
Two graduate students were nominated to fill the one graduate seat on the Board. The election by mail took place from February 6 through February 21, 1997.
The total number of votes cast were 151 with 137 of those being good, 14 were spoiled ballots. The following lists the election results. First Mr. Christoph Wand Second Mr. Danny Le Roy Attached please find biographical information on Mr. Wand.
The Board of Governors is asked to,
RESOLVE, that Mr. Christoph Wand be appointed to the Board of Governors as the graduate student representative, for a one year term, effective July 1, 1997.
(b) Undergraduate student election -- Motion
On January 13, 1997, a call for nominations for undergraduate student candidates for election to the Board of Governors was made. The nomination period closed on Monday, January 27, 1997. Four undergraduate students were nominated to fill the two undergraduate student seats on the Board. The election took place between February 10 and 13, 1997, in conjunction with the Central Students' Association and Senate elections.
The total number of votes cast were 2,798, spoiled ballots totalled 139, and 1,355 were blank. The following lists the election results: Fist Colin Dawes Second Nathan White Third Salima Kassam Fourth Andre Ramdeen ...continued on page 2
GUELPH • ONTARIO • CANADA • NIG 2W1 • (519) 824-4120, EXT. 3438 • FAX (519) 767-1350 Membership Committee report continued page 2 of 2
Attached please find biographical information on Mr. White and Mr. Dawes.
The Board of Governors is asked to,
RESOLVE, that Mr. Colin Dawes and Mr. Nathan White be appointed to the Board of Governors as the two undergraduate student representatives, each for a one year term, effective July 1, 1997.
Betsy Allan
BA/ab
C:\BOARD\97MAR27.MEM 7. Membership Committee Report (a) Graduate Student Election
CHRISTOPH WAND
Christoph is a graduate of the College of Biological Sciences (1996), in Honours Nutritional Sciences. Currently, he enrolled in an M.Sc. program with the Department of Animal and Poultry Science, specializing in Ruminant Nutrition.
In his years at Guelph, he has been and still is involved in a variety of extra- curricular pursuits. During his undergraduate period, he was involved in residence life as both staff and then in student government. In this role he was involved in Interhall Council, representing his constituent building, Johnston Hall. More recently, he has a continued involvement with the University of Guelph Gryphons Football team, as an Offensive Lineman.
Christoph's view of the University is one that has been developed from his youth growing up on a dairy farm. In this setting the University was seen as a flagship for Ontario agriculture. His time of active involvement has given him a great appreciation for how the University's agrarian roots have given rise to a great legacy in many fields beyond the original vision, yet heavily steeped in tradition. 7. Membership Committee Report (b) Undergraduate_student election COLIN DAVID DAWES cacnvesqSuoguelph.ca 2495 Benedet Drive • Mississauga, ON L5J 4H5 • Home: (905) 855-3224 • School: (519) 824-4120 Ext.77392
BIOGRAPHY
My name is Colin Dawes and I am a third year student in Biological Science at the University of Guelph. My permanent residence is in Mississauga, Ontario where I attended Lorne Park Secondary School. My high school life was far from just studying, for I was very actively involved in all aspects of the school including becoming: Student Council Vice-President, a member of the Prefects Society, a Grade 9 Mentor, and part of various student teacher committees. My athletic life at high school involved Wrestling, Track & Field, Basketball, Swimming, and Martial Arts. Outside of school I managed to receive my Royal Conservatory of Music, Grade 6 violin, Grade 4 piano, and Grade 2 theory while still allocating sufficient time to become a level three Ontario Baseball Association Umpire, a National Lifeguard service (NLS) examiner & instructor, an Aquatic Emergency Care (AEC) examiner & instructor, a violinist in the Mississauga Youth Orchestra (MYO), and rise to the position of Acting Aquatic Supervisor at my part time job.
In September of 1994 I started as an undergraduate at the University of Guelph. I immediately reverted to my roots and became involved in a large number of activities and groups including: hall council, college government, and intra murals. I am currently a residence assistant in Maritime hall. During the summer I have found time to volunteer at both the Mississauga and Credit Valley Hospitals, and become the umpire scheduled for Clarkson Lorne Park Baseball Association.
""--The skills and knowledge that I have attained since beginning high school will allow me to make educated decisions that will facilitate the climactic changes which are occurring in post-secondary education and ensure the University of Guelph's continued position as a forerunner of science and technology. 7. Membership Committee Report (b) Undergraduate student election
NATHAN WHITE PO Box 019-250 ♦ University Of Guelph ♦ Guelph, Ontario ♦ N1G 2W1 ♦ (519) 824-4120 Ex 77215
I am a third year student working toward a Bachelor of Commerce degree in Housing and Real Estate Management. In my three years at the University of Guelph I have been involved in a number of student organizations. I have held, or hold, executive positions in AIESEC, the Guelph Campus Progressive Conservative Youth Association, and the Housing and Real Estate Management Students Administrative Council (HREM- S AC). As part of these organizations I have participated in government election campaigns, sat as the HREM-SAC representative on the Family and Consumer Studies Students Administrative Council, and attended numerous conventions and conferences. I have also had the opportunity to participate in the London Business Semester at the London School of Economics in London, England. While in England I volunteered with the National Trust for England and Scotland. My interests away from school include art and architecture, travel, photography, and theatre (both stage and screen). I am eager to be a member of the University of Guelph Board of Governors so that I can contribute to the University as a whole in areas of decision making that I feel I would be most effective in. UNIVERSITY gK"GUELPH MEMORANDUM BOARD OF GOVERNORS TO: Members, Board of Governors
FROM: Betsy Allan, Secretary of The Board of Governors Extension: 3438
SUBJECT: 8. Proposed Amendments to Faculty Policies (a) Policy on Study/Research Leave -- Motion (b) Policy on Transition Leave (currently Leave for Academic Administrators) -- Motion (c) Policy on Part-time Appointments -- Motion
MEETING DATE OF: March 27, 1997
The Faculty Policies regulates the academic activity of faculty members, their responsibilities to the University and issues such as tenure and promotion. The Faculty Policies is overseen by the Joint Faculty Policies Committee. This Committee recommends changes to the faculty body and upon receiving faculty approval forwards proposed changes to the President. The President, in turn, makes a recommendation to the Board of Governors.
Attached please find an Overview and the proposed amendments to the Faculty Policies with regard to: Study/Research Leave, Transition Leave (currently called leave for Academic Administrators), and Part-time Appointments.
(a) Policy on Study/Research Leave -- Motion
The Board of Governors is asked to,
RESOLVE, that the Faculty Policies Section H, Part 3, Study/Research Leave, Part 3.04 Application for Leave (ii)(e), and 3.05 Decision Procedures (vi), be amended, as presented.
(b) Policy on Transition Leave (currently Leave for Academic Administrators) -- Motion
The Board of Governors is asked to,
RESOLVE, that the Faculty Policies, Section I, Leaves for Academic Administrative Appointees, Part 1, Transition Leave, 1.01 Purpose of Transition Leave; 1.04 Request For Transition Leave (i)(ii)(iii)(iv); 1.05 Conditions of Transition Leave, be amended, as presented.
... continued on page 2
GUELPH • ONTARIO • CANADA • NIG 2WI • (519) 824-4120, EXT. 3438 • FAX (519) 767-1350 Proposed amendments to Faculty Policies continued page 2 of 2
(c) Policy on Part-time Appointments -- Motion
The Board of Governors is asked to,
RESOLVE, that the Faculty Policies, Section B, Part 3, Part-time Appointments, 3.02, 3.03, and 3.04, be amended, as presented.
BA/ab
C:\BOARD\97MAR27.MEM 8. Proposed Amendments to Faculty Policie! - Overview
OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED FACULTY POLICY REVISIONS (BOARD OF GOVERNORS: MARCH 1997)
The following three sets of changes were drafted by the Joint Faculty Policies Committee (JFPC), circulated to the faculty at large for comment, revised and approved by the JFPC, and approved by the President for presentation to the Board.
POLICY ON STUDY/RESEARCH LEAVE
Presently, the authority for granting leave resides entirely with the Departmental Promotion and Tenure (P&T) Committee. The amendment will have this committee's decisions reviewed at higher level - by the College P&T Committee. The College Committee will have the option of referring Departmental Committee decisions back for reconsideration. This change improves accountability and ensures a more consistent set of standards within each college for the granting of leave.
When considering a leave application, the committees will now have, as part of the package submitted, the written report of the previous leave and any activity derived therefrom; the committees will thus be better placed to judge if a proposed leave will be effectively used.
POLICY ON TRANSITION LEAVE
Current policy provides leave to academic administrators (chairs, deans, etc) after their term of office; this leave is called "administrative leave". The purpose of the leave is to facilitate the transition back from administration to full-time teaching and research. To reflect and to emphasise this, the name has been changed to "Transition Leave". It is important to note that the ever-accelerating pace of change in every field is such that this transition is a non-trivial matter, and that it must be well managed in the interests of the individual and the university.
To increase accountability for the use of transition leave, academic administrators will henceforth apply to their immediate superior for this, providing a plan for how the leave will be utilized. A written report will be furnished after the leave. These requirements are analogous to those for regular faculty members applying for regular Research/Study Leave, and they will provide assurance that transition leaves are used constructively.
PART-TIME APPOINTMENTS
On 23 May 1996, the Board approved changes to the Special Plan Agreement regarding part-time appointments. The present Faculty Policy changes are intended to reconcile the policy manual with the Special Plan. The revisions also recognize that part-time appointments of duration less than 1 year are covered by the CUPE 3913 collective agreement. Accordingly, the former sections 3.03 and 3.04 have been dropped, and the policy now indicates that initial contractually-limited part-time appointments may be from 1 to 3 years in duration, and that renewal is possible. 8. Proposed Amendments to Faculty Policies
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE POLICY ON STUDY/RESEARCH LEAVE JNew material is underlinedl SECTION H: Part 3 STUDY/RESEARCH LEAVE (Current Policy approved March 26, 1987, proposed amendments approved by JFPC October 10, 1996 and further amendments approved on November 19, 1996)
3.01 Purpose of Study/Research Leave In keeping with the statement in the Special Plan Agreement (Article 22), Study/Research Leave with salary is regarded as an essential means of enabling faculty members to maintain and enhance their quality as scholars.- Such leave enables the University, to maintain and enhance excellence through the individual faculty members' subsequent contributions to its teaching and research programs. So long as recognized scholarly objectives are being sought, it is intended that both study and research activities, whether singly or in some combination, should be regarded as eligible to satisfy the purposes of this policy.
3.02 Eligibility
(i) All tenured full-time faculty members are eligible to apply for Study/Research Leave with salary to commence after six years of continuous faculty service (or its equivalent) since appointment at the University of Guelph. Such application may be submitted during the sixth year. Following return from each previous period of leave, tenured faculty are entitled to apply for one semester Study/Research Leave after three years of service, or for two semesters after six years. (iii) Faculty members who have held an academic administrative appointment since a previous leave with salary are eligible to apply for Study/Research Leave with salary when the sum of years of service both prior and subsequent to the term of administrative appointment (and excluding any period of academic administrative leave after the term of appointment) is equal to six years. In addition, a faculty member who has served in an academic administrative position may claim one semester of credit for each year of service towards Study/Research Leave. A minimum of one year must have elapsed between a Transition Leave and a Study/Research Leave, unless otherwise approved by the Dean and the Provost and Vice-President (Academic). (iv) Faculty members holding reduced workload, tenured appointments are eligible to apply for Study/Research Leave with salary after six calendar years of service to the University. The procedures and conditions which apply are those outlined throughout the remainder of this policy statement adjusted to accommodate the reduced workload. The intention of this section is to make available to those holding reduced workload, tenured appointments the same privileges made available to full-time faculty. (v) Prior eligible service for leave with salary as a faculty member at another university or acceptable institution may be counted in determining eligibility to apply for Study/Research Leave with salary. Credit for such service will usually be calculated on the basis of one year for every two years of full-time academic services at another institution, to a maximum equivalent of three years. This equivalent amount of leave to be credited will be specified by the College Dean in the initial letter of appointment. 3.03 Duration of Leave (i) Faculty members who qualify under 3.02 of this policy may apply for a period of leave of one or two semesters' duration with full salary and benefits. A Study/Research Leave will normally include the annual vacation entitlement appropriate to the length of the leave. (ii) On the completion of a period of Study/Research Leave, the faculty member will assume the responsibilities which would normally have been scheduled for that particular semester.
3.04 Application for Leave (i) Written application for Study/Research Leave is to the Department Tenure and Promotion Committee through the Chair of the department. Normally the application should be submitted at least one year prior to the intended starting date, and a decision to approve or deny the leave should be communicated to the applicant at least nine months prior to the intended starting date. (ii) The written application for leave will include: (a) a statement of goals;
(b) a plan of scholarly activity;
(c) an indication of when and where the leave is expected to be taken;
(d) a plan of how contractual research responsibilities (including OMAFRA) will be handled during the period of leave.
(e) the written report from the previous leave (as per 3.06(v)) plus an indication of further scholarly activity, if any, deriving from that leave.
3.05 Decision Procedures (i) The Department Committee will consider all written applications for Study/Research Leave with salary as soon as is practicable following their receipt. Detailed procedures (e.g. recommended submission dates) appropriate to any particular department may be developed and approved by a 2/3 majority of the eligible voting members of the department. (ii) In arriving at its decisions, the Department Committee will assess applications on the basis of their merit and their consonance with this policy's statement of purpose. An applicant's record of using previous Study/Research Leave with salary for scholarly purposes will be a component in the assessment of the application. (iii) Under exceptional conditions determined by department needs and priorities, the Department Chair may inform the faculty member and the Dean that a Study/Research Leave approved by the Department Committee must be delayed. Such delay, however, cannot be for a period exceeding two years, and any service accrued in the interim shall not be lost. The date to be used in establishing eligibility for a subsequent period of Study/Research Leave with salary will be the date of return that would have occurred had the leave not been delayed. Likewise, if exceptional personal reasons intervene such that the leave may not be taken when it has been granted, a faculty member may negotiate a delay in the starting date of the leave of up to two years. Any entitlement towards the next leave accrued during such a delay is not jeopardized. (iv) The Department Chair will inform both the faculty member and the College Dean, in writing, of the Department Committee's decision to approve or deny the leave. Reasons for denial, or for the need to delay the commencement of such a leave, where this situation applies, will also be given in this letter. (v) A faculty member whose application for Study/Research Leave has not received approval from the Department Committee may appeal to the College Tenure and Promotion Committee. Appeals are restricted to consideration of the academic merits of the case, and may not relate to a requirement to delay the leave. The procedure will be the same as for other appeals over Department committee recommendations. Should the College Committee's decision also be negative, the faculty member may appeal to the University Appeals Committee.
(vi) The Department Committee will forward to the College Committee all successful applications. The College Committee may review decisions made by the Department Committee and may ask the Department Committee to reconsider the Department's decision(s). The College Committee will provide reasons to the Department Committee for the request for reconsideration. Should, after reconsideration, a negative decision be made by the Department Committee. then the Faculty Member concerned may appeal the decision directly to the University Appeals Committee.
3.06 Conditions of Study/Research Leave (i) The scheduling of Study/Research Leave is to be granted independently of medical leave, maternity leave, leave without pay, or leave granted for running for and assuming public office. (ii) Where University service commitments (e.g., Veterinary Teaching Hospital) will be affected by the granting of a Study/Research Leave, the Department Chair, in consultation with the faculty member, will be responsible for making any necessary administrative arrangements to enable the leave. (iii) Faculty members are encouraged to seek funding from outside sources to assist in meeting the expenses associated with the leave. Where a faculty member is successful in this, the salary will be adjusted so that the total remuneration will not exceed a maximum of full salary plus 20 per cent. Funds received specifically to support research expenses will not be considered in making any such adjustment. (iv) Faculty members will receive normal University benefits, including classification changes and salary adjustments, as these apply to faculty, but Human Resources should be consulted in order to ascertain whether any special conditions apply. (v) Within two months of the conclusion of the leave period the faculty member will provide a written report describing what has been accomplished, in relation to the initial proposal. The report will be provided to the Department Chair and made available to the Department Committee. (vi) In order best to provide for faculty renewal and exposure to different practices and perspectives, these being distinct objectives of the Study/Research Leave, it is expected that faculty will normally take such leave, or at least a major section of it, away from the Guelph campus. Nevertheless, the conditions and benefits outlined in this policy apply equally to those whose leave is taken on or away from the University campus. (vii) It is expected that a faculty member will return to the University of Guelph for at least one year following a period of Study/Research Leave with salary. *.,... 3.07 Very small departments will be given special consideration by the Office of the Provost and Vice-President (Academic), in consultation with the College Dean, in dealing with applications for leave.
h3-R/S1v.clit Current Policy for Study/Research Leave
SECTION H, Part 3: STUDY/RESEARCH LEAVE (Approved on: March 26, 1987)
3.01 Purpose of Study/Research Leave In keeping with the statement in the Special Plan Agreement (Article 22), Study/Research Leave with salary is regarded as an essential means of enabling faculty members to maintain and enhance their quality as scholars. Thus, such leave enables the University, itself to maintain and enhance its own excellence through the individual faculty members' subsequent contributions to its teaching and research programs. So long as recognized scholarly objectives are being sought, it is intended that both study and research activities, whether singly or in some combination, should be regarded as eligible to satisfy the purposes of this policy.
3.02 Eligibility (i) All tenured full-time faculty members are eligible to apply for Study/Research Leave with salary to commence after six years of continuous faculty service (or its equivalent) since appointment at the University of Guelph. Such application may be submitted during the sixth year.
(ii) Following return from each previous period of leave, tenured faculty are entitled to apply for one semester Study/Research Leave after three years of service, or for two semesters after six years.
Faculty members who have held an academic administrative appointment since a previous leave with salary are eligible to apply for Study/Research Leave with salary when the sum of years of service both prior and subsequent to the term of administrative appointment (and excluding any period of academic administrative leave after the term of appointment) is equal to six years. In addition, a faculty member who has served five years in an academic administrative position may claim two years of service towards Study/Research Leave. A minimum of one year must have elapsed between an academic administrative leave and a Study/Research Leave, unless otherwise approved by the Dean and the Provost and Vice-President (Academic).
(iv) Faculty members holding reduced workload, tenured appointments are eligible to apply for Study/Research Leave with salary after six calendar years of service to the University. The procedures and conditions which apply are those outlined throughout the remainder of this policy statement adjusted to accommodate the reduced workload. The intention of this section is to make available to those holding reduced workload, tenured appointments the same privileges made available to full-time faculty.
(v) Prior eligible service for leave with salary as a faculty member at another university or acceptable institution may be counted in determining eligibility to apply for Study/Research Leave with salary. Credit for such service will usually be calculated on the basis of one year for every two years of full-time academic services at another institution, to a maximum equivalent of three years. This equivalent amount of leave to be credited will be specified by the College Dean in the initial letter of appointment.
3.03 Duration of Leave
(i) Faculty members who qualify under 3.02 of this policy may apply for a period of leave of one or two semesters' duration with full salary and benefits. A Study/Research Leave will normally include the annual vacation entitlement appropriate to the length of the leave. (ii) On the completion of a period of Study/Research Leave, the faculty member will assume the responsibilities which would normally have been scheduled for that particular semester.
3.04 Application for Leave Written application for Study/Research Leave is to the Department Tenure and Promotion Committee through the Chair of the department. Normally the application should be submitted at least one year prior to the intended starting date, and a decision to approve or deny the leave should be communicated to the applicant at least nine months prior to the intended starting date.
The written application for leave will include: (a) a statement of goals; (b) a plan of scholarly activity; (c) an indication of when and where the leave is expected to be taken; (d) a plan of how any non-OMAFRA contractual research responsibilities might be handled during the period of leave.
3.05 Decision Procedures (i) The Department Committee will consider all written applications for Study/Research Leave with salary as soon as is practicable, following their receipt. Detailed procedures (e.g. recommended submission dates) appropriate to any particular department may be developed and approved by a 2/3 majority of the eligible voting members of the department.
In arriving at its decisions, the Department Committee will assess applications on the basis of their merit and their consonance with this policy's statement of purpose. An applicant's record of using previous Study/Research Leave with salary for scholarly purposes may be a component in the assessment of the application.
(iii) Under exceptional conditions determined by department needs and priorities, the Department Chair may inform the faculty member and the Dean that a Study/Research Leave approved by the Department Committee must be delayed. Such delay, however, cannot be for a period exceeding two years, and any service accrued in the interim shall not be lost. The date to be used in establishing eligibility for a subsequent period of Study/Research Leave with salary will be the date of return that would have occurred had the leave not been delayed. Likewise, if exceptional personal reasons intervene such that the leave may not be taken when it has been granted, a faculty member may negotiate a delay in the starting date of the leave of up to two years. Any entitlement towards the next leave accrued during such a delay is not jeopardized
(iv) The Department Chair will inform both the faculty member and the College Dean, in writing, of the Department Committee's decision to approve or deny the leave. Reasons for denial, or for the need to delay the commencement of such a leave, where this situation applies, will also be given in this letter.
(v) A faculty member whose application for Study/Research Leave has not received approval from the Department Committee may appeal to the College Tenure and Promotion Committee. Appeals are restricted to consideration of the academic merits of the case in relation to the Department's "%or standards, and may not relate to a requirement to delay the leave. The procedure will be the same as for other appeals over Department Committee recommendations. Should the College Committee's decision also be negative, the faculty member may appeal to the University Appeals Committee. 3.06 Conditions of Study/Research Leave (i) The scheduling of Study/Research Leave is to be granted independently of medical leave, maternity leave, leave without pay, or leave granted for running for and assuming public office.
(ii) Where University service commitments (e.g., Veterinary Teaching Hospital) or commitments under the OMAFRA contract will be affected by the granting of a Study/Research Leave, the Department Chair, in consultation with the faculty member, will be responsible for making any necessary administrative arrangements to enable the leave.
(iii) Faculty members are encouraged to seek funding from outside sources to assist in meeting the expenses associated with the leave. Where a faculty member is successful in this, the salary will be adjusted so that the total remuneration will not exceed a maximum of full salary plus 20 per cent. Funds received specifically to support research expenses will not be considered in making any such adjustment.
(iv) Faculty members will receive normal University benefits, including classification changes and salary adjustments, as these apply to faculty, but Human Resources should be consulted in order to ascertain whether any special conditions apply.
(v) Within two months of the conclusion of the leave period, a written statement describing what has been accomplished, in relation to the initial proposal, will be provided to the Department Chair and made available to the Department Committee.
(vi) In order best to provide for faculty renewal and exposure to different practices and perspectives, these being distinct objectives of the Study/Research Leave, it is expected that faculty will normally take such leave, or at least a major section of it, away from the Guelph campus. Nevertheless, the conditions and benefits outlined in this policy apply equally to those whose leave is taken on or away from the University campus.
(vii) It is expected that a faculty member will return to the University of Guelph for at least one year following a period of Study/Research Leave with salary.
3.07 Very small departments will be given special consideration by the Office of the Provost and Vice-President (Academic), in consultation with the College Dean, in dealing with applications for leave.
h-srleay.bog PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION I: LEAVES FOR ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATIVE APPOINTEES {New material is
(Current policy approved on January 26, 1978, proposed amendments approved by JFPC on October 10, 1996, and further amendments approved on November 19, 1996)
PART 1: TRANSITION LEAVES FOR ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATIVE APPOINTEES
1.01 Purpose of Transition Leave
Transition Leave is a leave with salary that is intended to provide Academic Administrators sufficient time to re-establish or enhance their research and/or teaching skills to prepare them for return to the professoriate. So long as recognized scholarly objectives are being sought. both study and research activities. whether singly or in some combination, should be regarded as eligible to satisfy the purposes of this policy. This policy also applies to Academic Administrators who will be retiring after the period of Transition Leave.
1.02 Eligibility
This policy on Transition Leave applies to the Provost and Vice President (Academic), Associate Vice- President (Academic), Vice President (Research), Deans, Associate Deans, Chairs of Departments and Directors of Schools. Academic Administrators are eligible to request Transition Leave with salary to commence during a term of appointment (1.03 (i)) or at the end of an appointment (1.03 (ii)).
1.03 Duration of Transition Leave
The duration of the leave will reflect the length and intensity of administrative responsibilities and the planned future activities of the individual administrator.
(i) Duration of Leave During a Term of Appointment
The Associate Vice-President (Academic), Deans, Associate Deans or Chairs of Departments assume their administrative responsibilities for twelve months of each year. However, they are entitled to request transition leave with salary for up to one semester during a term of appointment. If a leave of more than one semester is required, the incumbent will be expected to resign from his/her administrative appointment.
(ii) Duration of Leave At the End of a Term of Appointment
(a) The Provost and Vice President (Academic), and the Vice-President (Research) are entitled to make a request for two semesters of Transition leave with salary at the end of their term of appointment.
(b) The Associate Vice-President (Academic), Deans, Associate Deans, Chairs of Departments or Directors of Schools are entitled to request one semester of Transition leave with salary at the conclusion of their term of appointment in addition to any unused portion of the leave with salary to which they were entitled during their term of appointment (see also Section H, 3.02 (iii)). Such a period of leave must commence within one year of the end of their term of appointment. A period of leave, at the end of term of appointment, is not considered to be part of a term of appointment. (c) Part-time academic administrative appointments and academic administrative appointments of less than 5 years will accrue entitlement to Transition Leave on a prorated basis, and similarly will accrue entitlement to Study/Research Leave on a prorated basis.
1.04 Request for Transition Leave
(i) The Provost and Vice-President (Academic) will make a written request for leave to the President. The Vice-President (Research), Associate Vice-President (Academic) or a Dean will make a written request for leave to the Provost and Vice President (Academic). An Associate Dean or Chair of a Department or Director of a School will make a written request for leave to their Dean.
(ii) The written request should include:
Cal a statement of goals; al an activity plan; () an indication of when and where the leave is expected to be taken; on results of the previous leave; (e) a plan of how duties and responsibilities will be carried out.
(iii) Normally requests should be submitted at least nine months prior to the intended starting date, and a decision to approve or deny the leave should be communicated to the applicant at least six months prior to the intended starting date. The responsible person (as indicated in 1.04 (i)) will inform the Administrator in writing of the decision to approve or deny the leave. Reasons for denial, or for the need to delay the commencement of such a leave, where this situation applies, will also be given in this letter.
(iv) An Administrator whose request for Transition Leave has not received approval may appeal to the University Appeals Committee.
1.05 Conditions of Transition Leave
Within two months of the conclusion of the leave period, a written report describing what has been accomplished, in relation to the initial proposal, will be provided by the faculty member to the responsible person (per 1.04 (i) and OD).
PART 2: LEAVE WITHOUT SALARY DURING A TERM OF APPOINTMENT
Ordinarily, leave without salary is not available to a person holding an academic administrative appointment. Exceptions will be dealt with by the Provost and Vice-President (Academic).
Current Policy for Leave for Academic Administrative Appointees Section I: LEAVES FOR ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATION APPOINTEES Same (Approved on: Jan. 26, 1978) Part I PREAMBLE 1.01 {now part of 1.02 in revised policy} This policy on leave applies to the President, Provost and Vice-President (Academic), Associate Vice-President (Academic), Deans, Associate Deans, Chairs of Departments and Directors of Schools. It also applies to the Secretary of Senate, Directors of Institutes, and Directors of Centres when the incumbent holds an academic appointment. Where the phrase "Chair of a Department" occurs, it is meant to include Directors of Schools, and when the incumbent holds an academic appointment, the Secretary of Senate, Directors of Institutes, and Directors of Centres.
SECTION I: Part 2 LEAVE WITH SALARY DURING A TERM OF APPOINTMENT (Approved on: Jan. 26, 1978) 2.01 {first sentence now in part 1.03 (i), and second sentence in part 1.04 (i) of revised policy} The Assistant-Vice-President (Academic), a Dean, Associate Dean or Chair of a Department assumes his/her administrative responsibilities for twelve months of each year. However, he/she is entitled to leave with salary for up to six months during a term of appointment. The Associate Vice-President (Academic) or a Dean will arrange for leave with the Provost and Vice-President (Academic). An Associate Dean or Chair of a Department will arrange for leave with the Dean and the Provost and Vice-President (Academic). 2.02 {now in part 1.03 (ii)(c) of revised policy} Leave with salary for an Associate Vice-President (Academic), an Associate Dean or Chair of a Department who serves for less than five years will be dealt with by the President and Provost and Vice-President (Academic) for the Associate Vice-President (Academic), and by the Dean and the Provost and Vice-President (Academic) for an Associate Dean or Chair of a Department.
SECTION I: Part 3 LEAVE WITHOUT SALARY DURING A TERM OF APPOINTMENT (Approved on: Jan. 26, 1978)
3.01 (now in Part 2 of revised policy} Ordinarily, leave without salary is not available to a person holding an academic administrative appointment. Exceptions will be dealt with by the Provost and Vice-President (Academic). SECTION I: Part 4 DURATION OF ABSENCE DURING A TERM OF APPOINTMENT (Approved on: Jan. 26, 1978)
4.01 {now in part 1.03 (i) of revised policy) The Associate Vice-President (Academic), a Dean, Associate Dean or Chair of a Department will not be absent for a continuous period of more than six months during a term of appointment. If absence of more than six months is required, the incumbent will be expected to resign from his/her administrative appointment.
SECTION I: Part 5 LEAVE WITH SALARY AT END OF A TERM OF APPOINTMENT (Approved on: Jan. 26, 1978)
5.01 {now in part 1.03 (ii)(a) of revised policy) The President and Provost and Vice-President (Academic) are entitled to twelve months leave with salary at the end of a term of appointment.
5.02 {now in part 1.03 (ii) (b) of revised policy) The Associate Vice-President (Academic), a Dean, Associate Dean or a Chair of a Department is entitled to six months leave with salary at the conclusion of a term of appointment in addition to any unused portion of the leave with salary to which he/she was entitled during a term of appointment. Such a period of leave must commence within one year of the end of the term of appointment to which it is related. A period of leave, at the end of a term of appointment is not considered to be part of a term of appointment. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION B: Part 3 PART-TIME APPOINTMENTS (Approved on: June 26, 1980) (Proposed amendments approved by JFPC on October 10, 1996) {Underlined text indicates where amendments have been made)
(Reduced Workload Appointments)
3.01 Appointments may be made to part-time faculty positions at any rank. Part-time appointments are those in which the duties are specified and constitute during an academic year less than a full workload equivalent. The workload may be reduced on a daily, weekly, monthly or semester basis.
There are three types of part-time appointments:
(i) Appointments with tenure. Reduced Workload tenured appointments may be held by faculty members who have previously held a full-time tenured appointment at the University. Change to a Reduced Workload tenured appointment requires the agreement of the faculty member, the Department Chair, the College Dean, the Provost and Vice-President (Academic) and the President. Pension and benefit arrangements are described in a separate document.
Probationary appointments. A probationary appointment with a workload of not less than two full semesters or equivalent per year, may be considered on its own merits and requires the agreement of the faculty member, the Department Chair, the College Dean, the Provost and Vice-President (Academic) and the President. Such a part-time probationary appointment will be used only in circumstances where the faculty member possesses special expertise needed by the University and at the request of the faculty member. The criteria for tenure and promotion will be as outlined in Section E: Part 2, 2.01 to 2.03 and the faculty member's responsibilities should be clearly explained to him/her at the time of appointment (see Section C: Part 1). The period for consideration of tenure will be seven years. The University will not use part-time probationary appointments in place of regular full-time probationary appointments except in the special circumstances described herein. Pension and benefit arrangements are outlined in a separate document.
(iii) Appointments limited by the terms of a contract.
3.02 Initial contractually limited part-time appointments involving 50% or more of the teaching effort of a full-time faculty member may be from one to three years. They may be renewed.
3.03 Part-time faculty members with tenure will be eligible for promotion. The procedures and criteria for promotion will be mutatis mutandis as in Section E: Part 3, 3.01 to 3.09.
3.04 Faculty members holding reduced workload, tenured appointments are eligible to apply for Study/Research Leave with salary after six calendar years of service to the University. The procedures and conditions which apply are those which are outlined in Section H: Part 3. The intention of this section is to make available to those holding reduced workload, tenured appointments, the same privileges made available to full-time faculty. Such entitlement shall be specified in the initial letter of reduced workload appointment. b3-part.dft Current Policy on Part -time Appointments: SECTION B, Part 3 (Approved on: June 26, 1980) {Underlined text indicates where amendments have been proposed}
(Reduced Workload Appointments)
3.01 Appointments may be made to part-time faculty positions at any rank. Part-time appointments are those in which the duties are specified and constitute during an academic year less than a full workload equivalent. The workload may be reduced on a daily, weekly, monthly or semester basis.
There are three types of part-time appointments:
(i) Appointments with tenure. Reduced Workload tenured appointments may be held by faculty members who have previously held a full-time tenured appointment at the University. Change to a Reduced Workload tenured appointment requires the agreement of the faculty member, the Department Chair, the College Dean, the Provost and Vice-President (Academic) and the President. Pension and benefit arrangements are described in a separate document.
(n) Probationary appointments. A probationary appointment with a workload of not less than two full semesters or equivalent per year, may be considered on its own merits and requires the agreement of the faculty member, the Department Chair, the College Dean, the Provost and Vice-President (Academic) and the President. Such a part-time probationary appointment will be used only in MI circumstances where the faculty member possesses special expertise needed by the University and at the request of the faculty member. The criteria for tenure and promotion will be as outlined in Section E: Part 2, 2.01 to 2.03 and the faculty member's responsibilities should be clearly explained to him/her at the time of appointment (see Section C: Part 1). The period for consideration of tenure will be seven years. The University will not use part-time probationary appointments in place of regular full-time probationary appointments except in the special circumstances described herein. Pension and benefit arrangements are outlined in a separate document.
(iii) Appointments limited by the terms of a contract.
3.02
Initial contractually limited part-time appointments at any rank shall be for no more than twelve consecutive months in duration. No renewal of a part-time appointment shall be for more than twelve consecutive months in duration except as provided for in 3.03.
3.03
A faculty member who has held part-time appointments of twelve months or less in three successive academic years is eligible for a three-year contract after review. A further appointment for twelve months or less shall not be made for such a faculty member unless the offer of a three-year contract is refused. The part-time faculty member being considered for such a contract must be reviewed during his/her third annual appointment, the review to follow the same procedure and to be governed by the same criteria as the review for the continuation of a probationary appointment. 3.04 ,...... A faculty member who holds a three-year part-time contract may be eligible for a renewal of the contract after review. The review shall be held in the third year of the contract as in 3,03. Six months notice should be given of intention to renew the contract.
3.05
Part-time faculty members with tenure or holding a three-year contract will be eligible for promotion. The procedures and criteria for promotion will be mutatis mutandis as in Section E: Part 3, 3.01 to 3.09.
3.06
Faculty members holding reduced workload, tenured appointments are eligible to apply for Study/Research Leave with salary after six calendar years of service to the University. The procedures and conditions which apply are those which are outlined in Section H: Part 3. The intention of this section is to make available to those holding reduced workload, tenured appointments, the same privileges made available to full-time faculty. Such entitlement shall be specified in the initial letter of reduced workload appointment.
b3-ptapp•bog UNIVEkSiTY piGUELPH MEMORANDUM BOARD OF GOVERNORS
TO: Members, Board of Governors
FROM: Betsy Allan, Secretary of The Board of Governors Extension: 3438
SUBJECT: 9. ACCESS Fund -- Information
MEETING DATE OF: March 27, 1997
Attached please find information about the ACCESS Fund. The ACCESS Fund is the University's response to the provincial governments Student Opportunity Trust Fund program. Under this program, cash gifts and pledges made to universities by March 31, 1997 for endowed undergraduate and graduate student assistance will qualify for a matching dollar for dollar grant. Dr. Lincoln Alexander is the Chair of the ACCESS Fund Advisory Committee.
The University has surpassed its $3.1 million unmatched goal. As of March 14, 1997, the total amount of unmatched funds and pledges was $4.8 million. With the government match, approximately $9.6 million in endowed funds will be established for student aid.
Mr. Cooper, Chair of the External Relations Committee, will comment on this item.
BA/ab
C:\BOARD\97MAR27.MEM
GUELPH • ONTARIO • CANADA • NIG 2WI • (519)824-4120, EXT. 3438 • FAX(519)767-1350 .... ACCESS SUPPORT CONSTITUENCIES
INDIVIDUAL FRIENDS CAMPUS COMMUNITY $1,720,700 (35.3%) AND SPECIAL PROJECTS $104,700 (2.3%)
BUSINESS, FOUNDATIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS ALUMNI $1,165,900 (23.9%) $1,879,900 (38.5%)
TOTAL AVAILABLE FOR MATCHING AT MARCH 14, 1997 $4,871,200
WITH MATCHING GRANT $4,871,200
TOTAL FUND AMOUNT $9,742,400
NUMBER OF DONORS: 4,330 February 1997 UNIVEIWTY ciGUELPH Access THE UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH'S STUDENT OPPORTUNITY TRUST FUND
Your generosity will improve access to U of G
hile the University of Guelph set an ACCESS Of the $37 million now in per cent goes to bursaries for Wfund-raising target of $3.1 million, many of Guelph scholarship students with the greatest its constituent groups have even greater ambitions. endowments, 92 per cent financial need. That picture will John Mabley, vice-president (development and public supports scholarships that are change, however, as new affairs), says this enthusiasm and the generous response awarded primarily on the basis awards are established. encourages him to believe the ACCESS Fund will reach of academic merit. Only eight To be eligible for matching a total in excess of $3.5 million. OSOTF funds, gifts to ACCESS In matched funds, that would must be used to establish represent a new $7-million investment permanent endowments that in student awards and almost a will benefit Ontario students 20-per-cent increase in the University's who demonstrate financial need current scholarship endowments. as well as academic merit. More --- Mabley calls that a remarkable feat. important, the University's "We may be able to increase the Senate Awards Committee endowment from $37 million to more (SAC) recently unveiled than $44 million in only 10 months of guidelines for graduate and active fund raising," he says. "What undergraduate scholarships that testimony to the generosity of the also address the issue of University's alumni and friends, and to financial accessibility. the efforts of the many volunteers who SAC chair Peter Brigg, a are working to that end." professor in the Department of Close to 100 volunteers are now English, says fiscal restraint is involved in ACCESS fund-raising affecting the ability of young efforts; many came forward soon after people to afford undergraduate the provincial government announced studies. In addition, study at the its Ontario Student Opportunity Trust graduate level is restricted by Fund (OSOTF) last May. U of G Cheering for ACCESS the decline in stipends from responded to the challenge by launching The Guelph students who are calling research funding and reduced its own ACCESS program to build an alumni to talk about ACCESS get external scholarships from pretty excited as each new pledge endowment for student financial aid. government granting programs. comes in. Frequent cheerleaders are, The ACCESS Fund has raised $2.8 from left, Jessica Arnold of Toronto, The SAC report makes 13 million to date. And the momentum Amanda Justason of Penn field, N.B., recommendations on financial continues to build as the March 31 Suzanne Gray of Halifax, and Luke accessibility, as well as the need deadline approaches, says Mabley. Williams of Trinidad. They re part of a to strengthen graduate Only gifts pledged or received by that team of 60 students who work for the programs, increase cultural Development and Public Affairs date are eligible for matching diversity on campus, encourage telephone outreach program. E" provincial funds. They re now calling for ACCESS and more affordable open learning Whatever the final tally, the ACCESS will continue to talk to about 1,000 programs and provide a greater Fund will have a dramatic effect on alumni and friends each week until number of campus-wide awards U of G student assistance programs. the March 31 deadline. programs. Leaders and volunteers lend their talents to
Lincoln Alexander, former Zoology, she was awarded MP and lieutenant- gover- the University s Medal of ccess THE UNIVERSITY OF GUELPHS STUDENT nor of Ontario, has been Merit in June 1996. OFPC12TUNITY TRUST FUND chancellor of the University of Guelph since 1991. Born to working-class parents in "I was attracted to the ACCESS Fund Toronto, he says education by the fact that the Harris government has been his empower- has committed to giving financial ment. And he believes each generation has a support to universities and students, A 1955 graduate of the Mac- duty to maintain and nurture education — a vi- instead of pulling it back. I d like to see donald Institute, Marilyn tal component of economic prosperity and my tax dollars going into something productivity. Robinson Murray was a that will benefit so many young volunteer adviser and fund people." "Nothing saddens me more than when raiser for U of G long before I hear of a student who has abandoned she came to work on cam- his or her aspirations for a university pus in 1986. Bringing promotional skills devel- education due to lack of funds. For this oped as vice-president of a film-production Hugh Guthrie grew up in reason, I accepted to serve as voluntary company in Guelph, she worked for U of G as chair of the University of Guelph s Guelph and, after being director of development and major gifts before ACCESS Fund." called to the Ontario bar in retiring last year. 1956, returned to the city to establish his law practice. A partner in the firm Hunger- "During my ten years as a university ford, Guthrie and Berry, he fundraiser, I learned that people are A 1967 economics graduate has been a longtime sup- motivated to support our institution if of Guelph, Tony Arrell has porter of the University and an adviser to their money is invested wisely, in ways many prospective donors. His volunteer work more than 25 years of experi- which benefit students. The ACCESS ence in the investment in minor sports, Big Brothers and the Law So- Fund accomplishes this, with the added business. He was chair and ciety of Upper Canada testifies to his interest bonus of a dollar-for-dollar match by CEO of Walwyn Inc., then in young people. Midland Walwyn Inc., before the provincial government." becoming chair and control- "Education is fundamental. ling shareholder of Burgundy Asset Manage- I believe every effort should be made to ment Ltd. in 1993. He is a longtime supporter make it available to those who are of the University and a member of the Presi- willing to work and to achieve." dent s Council. Hank Vander Pol graduated "I have watched with particular from Guelph with an agricul- interest and pride the response at ture degree in 1965 and is co-owner of Rol-Land Farms Guelph to the necessary initiatives Ginty Jocius, the University s Limited, a leader in the pro- government has advanced to balance 1996 Alumnus of Honour, has duction of mushrooms, been a friend to the University priorities for higher education and vegetables and seedlings. of Guelph since the day he research. These actions are especially He has been a campus-wide graduated from OAC in 1970. notable given the high academic volunteer in programs that benefit Guelph stu- His career has taken him from dents, is current chair of the Parents Program performance of the University of government to radio to public Guelph in the recent Maclean s annual relations and marketing. He and led his own family in providing financial support for the President s Scholarship survey of higher education." has been active in the University s alumni as- pro- gram. sociation and on campus committees, and is a strong supporter of the art centre. "I really feel committed to the notion Born in South Wales, Mary of universities being as independent as Beverley-Burton had al- "I believe in ACCESS —government possible. This is a good program from a ready established an helping people help themselves. I also government point of view, and the international reputation as a believe in protecting our childrens University needs to take advantage of parasitologist before coming futures, because there s no tragedy it. From a personal point of view, I see to the University of Guelph in greater than a willing mind unable to ACCESS as an opportunity to make a 1968. A dedicated scientist, learn due to the lack of financial significant impact in a short period of she was also a popular assistance." time." teacher and an advocate for women in acade- mia. Recently retired from the Department of Volunteers Thank value education you . . . "The value of an education is one that cannot be to these ACCESS calculated. Education is the basic tool that is volunteers required to build a life and a career."
Brent Barton hese are the words of U of G chancellor Bill Bearss TLincoln Alexander, chair of the ACCESS Martin Bosch Fund steering committee. His words outline his Bob Bothwell own commitment to education and seem to John Bradden epitomize the experiences of the six volunteers on Keith Brown his committee. Tony Arrell, Mary Scott Buchan Martin Bosch, a 1969 U of G chemistry Richard Buck Beverley-Burton, Hugh Guthrie, Ginty Jocius, graduate and owner of the Guelph Soap Co., Marilyn Robinson Murray and Hank Vander is personally inviting his industry colleagues to Bruce Christie Pol are successful professional people and support ACCESS efforts in the College of Simon Cooper Physical and Engineering Science. tireless community leaders who value their own Dale Cowan Tom Cowan educational opportunities and want to see those Don Dann same opportunities available to future generations. Honoring the volunteer Derick Eman Their leadership has been instrumental in hen retired professor Mary Murray Gaunt pushing the ACCESS Fund to its current level of WBeverley-Burton approached her Gary Godelle $2.8 million in pledges and outright gifts. colleagues in the Department of Zoology about Fred Gray That money will be matched dollar for dollar by ACCESS, she was surprised to learn they had Hilmar Hofmeyer the provincial government under its Student already set a departmental goal of $30,000 to Dave Johnson Opportunity Trust Fund (OSOTF) and will create support an endowment for travel scholarships to Brian Jones a permanent endowment to provide financial be given in her name as a tribute to her Ian Jones assistance to Guelph students. The OSOTF contributions to research and teaching. Wes Lane Paul Larmer window of opportunity closes March 31, 1997; Brian Little only donations and pledges received by that riends and donors to the Ontario Veterinary Norman McCollum deadline will be eligible for matching. FCollege met Feb. 8 to learn more about Murray McEwen Members of the steering committee have been college goals for ACCESS fund raising. The Neil McGavin joined by close to 100 other ACCESS volunteers evening resulted in $130,000 in donations and Mary Lynn McPherson — alumni, faculty, staff and friends who want to Neil McVittie pledges to the OVC campaign, including four take advantage of this one-time opportunity to Pat Mighton $30,000 gifts from Hills Pet Nutrition Canada build an enduring support system for young Gary Milne Inc., Novartis Animal Health Canada Inc., the Ontarians. Through their efforts, U of G's Ken Murray Pfizer Animal Health Group, and Cormack ACCESS Fund will ensure that financial help is Harold Nash Animal Clinic Ltd., owned by 1949 graduate Ray available to the talented students who need it most. Don Nicholson Cormack. Jeff Peters The University of Guelph and its students are Grant Richardson indebted to these volunteers and to the more than George Robinson 2,000 donors who have already made a Making new friends Tom Sawyer commitment to the ACCESS Fund. embers of the ACCESS steering Kalvin Sharp M committee have made new friends for the Mark Sheridan University by hosting information Tim Shields sessions in Hamilton, Chatham, George Smith Michele Snyder Guelph and Toronto. An Ottawa event Doug Wagner is planned for March 18. Gordon Weeden Don White Harold Whiteside Len Wiley OAC alumni Bill Bearss, left, Mary Lynn Tim Williams McPherson and Ginty Jocius attended the annual Aggie Good Times Banquet Jan. 24 to talk with colleagues about the importance of increasing scholarship endowments at U of G. ACCESS Meet Guelph s endowment students .. . AccessRE UNNERSIN CF GUELPHS STUCEM OPPORIUNIN TRUST FUND will cover Update • Each March, U of G students host more than 30,000 visitors campus Jan. 31, 1997 to campus during College Royal — the largest student-run open house at any Ontario university. College Royal 97 most $2.8 million has been Alumni $1,388,200 runs March 15 and 16. Aommitted to ACCESS, Individuals/Friends $856,500 including more than $1,337,700 that • A campus Safe Walk program, Business/Foundations/Associations .. $445,600 crisis telephone line, has been designated for University- after-hours bus service and wide award programs. These funds will Campus/Special Projects $81,500 first-aid response team are all enable U of G to direct the money to student initiatives at the University. qualified students with the greatest TOTAL $2,771,800 financial need, regardless of their As many as 1,000 U of G MATCHED TOTAL $5,543,600 students do volunteer work in degree program. the Guelph community.
The Ontario Agricultural College, • One-third of the University s and the Ontario Veterinary College students work part time; 1,800 have also received significant ACCESS work on campus. commitments to designated • U of G has one of the highest scholarships. retention rates in the Ontario AccessTFE UNN,ERSITY OF GUELPHS STUDENT university system. OPPGMUNITY1RUST FUND A $350,000 bequest received from • More than 90 per cent of the estate of former OAC professor Designated Guelph alumni find employment William Ewen will be eligible for commitments within two years of graduation. ACCESS matching dollars, as will a • In 1996, 75 per cent of As of Jan. 31, 1997 $25,000 bequest from Margaret Guelph s incoming students Mclean that has been designated for an had averages of at least 80 per cent. entomology scholarship in the name of University-wide awards $1,337,700 • The University has awarded her father, A.W. Baker, a professor at OAC awards $739,300 more than 116 prestigious Guelph from 1911 to 1955. President s Scholarships for OVC awards $554,400 Similarly, scholarship programs in academic merit and leadership CBS awards $86,800 skills. OVC will benefit from a $100,000 bequest from the estate of Pearl Kaine CPES awards $28,100 • U of G ranked second in alumni support in the 1997 Maclean s who farmed with her late husband, CSS awards $11,000 survey of Canadian universities. Percy, and had a particular love for Mac-FACS HAFA $10,300 horses. The endowment will provide Arts awards $4,200 four annual awards of $1,250 to students with the greatest financial TOTAL $2,771,800 need; one enrolled in each of the four This is the first newsletter in a series years of the DVM program. published by Development and Public Affairs as an update on the University of Guelph ACCESS Fund. Gifts and pledges to ACCESS contribute to an endowment fund that will provide A year full of memories financial aid to University of Guelph students under the guidelines of the Ontario Student Opportunity Trust ast fall, Development and Public Affairs produced Fund. For more information, call L a 1997 U of G calendar that has alumni and 519-824-4120, Ext. 6936; email: alumni@ uoguelph.ca. friends thinking about the University every day in Editor: Mary Dickieson, homes and offices from Whitehorse to Miami, from Communications and Public Affairs, Ext. 8706; email: Belfast to Hong Kong. mdickies @fexec.admin.uoguelph.ca A fund-raising initiative for the ACCESS Fund, the Photos by Martin Schwalbe calendar has proven to be the University s most Design by Willustration successful direct-mail venture ever. More than UNIVERSITY $720,000 in matching gifts has been received to date. p/GUELPH UNIVERSITY .( GUELPH MEMORANDUM \kw BOARD OF GOVERNORS
TO: Members, Board of Governors
FROM: Betsy Allan, Secretary of The Board of Governors Extension: 3438
SUBJECT: 10. Finance Committee Report (a) Semester Financial Statements, December 31, 1996 -- Information (b) Budget Context i. Overview -- Information ii. University Budget, 1997-98 -- Information
MEETING DATE OF: March 27, 1997
(a) Semester Financial Statements, December 31, 1996 -- Information
Attached for information is the Semester Financial Statements for the period ending December 31, 1996.
(b) Budget Context i. Overview -- Information ii. University Budget, 1997-98 -- Information
Mr. Miles will present this item for information.
BA/ab
w
GUELPH • ONTARIO • CANADA • NIG 2WI • (519)824-4120, EXT. 3438 • FAX(5K9)767-1350 10. Finance Committee Report (a) Semester Financial Statements, December 31, 1996 -- Information UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Finance Committee of the Board FROM: John Miles, Assistant Vice President, Finance SUBJECT: Semester Financial Statements for December 31, 1996 DATE: February 3, 1997
BACKGROUND:
The attached schedules have been prepared as information to the Finance Committee and the Board of Governors on the fmancial results of major University activities to December 31, 1996. Normal reporting dates are August 31 (semester 1), December 31 (semester 2) and April 30 (semester 3). These dates are based on the University's academic teaching periods.
The University of Guelph operates using the principles of 'fund accounting' in the preparation of the financial statements. Fund accounting classifies resources for accounting and reporting purposes in accordance with activities or objectives as specified by donors, in accordance with restrictions or regulations imposed by outside sources or in accordance with directions issued by the Board. A separate set of self balancing accounts are maintained for each fund, however funds of similar types are grouped into the major fund groups.
This presentation includes 13 statements which summarize four of the University's major funds groups: Operating, Ancillary and Trust and Endowment. (Note: The plant or capital fund is not reported in these statements, however this fund is reported in the audited financial statements.) The following are the statements in this report:
Operating Funds: Statements 1 & 2 - MET (Ministry of Education and Training) Statement 3 - OMAFRA (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs) Ancillary Funds: Statement 4 - Student Housing Services Statement 5 - Hospitality and Retail Services Statement 6 - Parking Administration Statement 7 - Child Care Services Statement 8 - Special Capital Account Statement 9 - Guelph London House Statement 10 - Real Estate Division Statement 11 - University Centre Administration Statement 12 - Summary of Ancillary Units
Trust and Endowment Funds: Statement 13 - Statement of Changes in Fund Balances
I:\FIN\BODDEC67.WPD 1 February 3, 1997 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH Semester Financial Statements For December 31, 1996
OPERATING FUNDS:
Statements 1 & 2 - MET (Ministry of Education and Training):
The attached Statements 1 and 2 summarize the 1996/97 second semester MET Operating results. The 'Revised Annual Budget' column is the updated 1996/97 MET operating budget that was presented for approval to the Board in November 1996. The 'Actual Year to Date' column shows the year to date results to the end of the second semester of fiscal 1996/97 (December 31). Comparisons to budget will be made throughout the following summary. For more details on the updated budget assumptions, please refer to the budget document entitled "MET 1996/97 Operating Budget - Update October 31, 1996" prepared for the Board of Governor's approval in November 1996.
Statement 1 - Statement of Revenue and Expenditures
Statement 1 presents budget and actual results detailed by major institutional revenue source and net divisional expense. Approximately 80% of this budget expenditure is composed of salary and benefit costs. Because these costs are mainly fixed for the year and have a consistent pattern of expenditure, a percentage of annual budget factor is used to monitor financial variances. The December 31,1996 factor is 66 7%
INSMITTIONAI, REVENT TES 1 Major variances to the December 31 budget factor of 66.7% are:
Tuition Fees - 56.9% Tuition revenue received is recognized as income over time based on the number of teaching days in a month, whereas the budget is shown on an annual basis. Most of the tuition revenue is recognized during semester 2 (fall), and semester 3 (winter) consistent with enrolment. Total Tuition Fees are expected to be on budget by year end.
Contract Service Fees - 47 Service fees on research contracts are down and not expected to meet budget by April 30, 1997. This is due to a continued decrease in the numbers of research contracts with overhead contributions. Any shortfall will be covered by positive revenue variances or expenditure reductions in the balance of the budget.
Student Support Service Fees - 55_2% The revenue associated with this fee is recognized on the same basis as tuition revenue. Therefore, most of the revenue for this item is recognized in the fall and winter semesters and is expected to be on budget by year end.
I: TIN\BODDEC67.WPD 2 February 3, 1997 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH Semester Financial Statements For December 31, 1996
Interest &' Miscellaneous Revenue - 54 6% Pension administrative costs, which comprise 11 % of this budget category are recoverable from Canada Trust and are received towards the end of the fiscal year. No major variances are expected by year end.
INSTITITTIONAI. EXPENSES
The University operates a 'carry forward policy' under which budget units may carry forward, unspent funds (up to 5% of net budget), into the following fiscal year. For accounting presentation, carry forward funds are referred to as 'appropriations' and are recorded on Statement 2. Historically, total University carry forward or appropriated funds have ranged between .6% and 2.5% of net budget. Carry forwards from 1995/96 to 1996/97 are $3.659 million (2.3% of budget). Eligible carry forward expenditures include funds committed for outstanding purchase orders or renovations, funds allocated for specific approved projects such as new faculty research support funds, equipment replacement, scholarships, and library acquisitions.
In this presentation, costs are presented by major organizational unit, net of revenues earned from specific departmental activities. eg. Veterinary Teaching Hospital and non- credit courses. Total departmental revenues are estimated at $17 million per year.
Major variances to the December 31 budget factor of 66.7% are:
Computing At Communication Services - 56 4% Implementation of the high speed network project in student residences has been extended to September 30, 1997. Current underspending is due to the timing of this capital item.
Student Services - 771% Athletic and student health fees, which comprise 53% of this unit s revenue, are received mainly in the fall and winter semesters. As the year progresses these fees will offset costs which occur evenly throughout the year.
"Unallocated Savings": This item represents the remaining funds to be found from negotiated compensation savings. To date, $455,000 of the original target of $700,000 have been identified through completed negotiations with 5 of 11 major employee groups.
I: \FIN\BODDEC67.WPD 3 February 3, 1997 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH Semester Financial Statements For December 31, 1996
Statement 2 - Statement of Appropriations
Statement 2 summarizes the overall University surplus/(deficit) position.
In 1995/96, $3.659 million (2.3% of budget) in departmental appropriations were approved for carry forward into 1996/97. For budgetary purposes it is assumed that all carry forwards plus current year allotments will be spent. This however is the maximum approved spending for the year. Normally departments underspend and carry forward funds to the next year. University policy limits carry forwards to a maximum of 5% of net budget.
In 1996/97, $1.850 million will be applied to reduce the $18.685 million restructuring deficit to $16.835 million This deficit rep. n • • i• is • 1111 • .•11 budget and is consistent with the revised plan approved by the Board to eliminate this deficit by the end of 2001/2004
Statement 3 - OMAFRA (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs)
OMAFRA funds are segregated in accordance with the agreement with the Ministry and any surpluses or deficits are contained within the OMAFRA account. Similar to the MET operating budget, approximately 80% of this budget expenditure is composed of salary and benefit costs. Because these costs are mainly fixed for the year and have a consistent pattern of expenditure, a percentage of annual budget factor is used to monitor major financial results.
Included in OMAFRA funding are two major contributions; 'Research Faculty Pool' supporting the cost of 70 IL's of research faculty salaries and 'Service Costs' supporting the cost of utilities, library facilities and services and administrative support.
In 1995/96 the OMAFRA account accumulated $1.671 million in unspent funds (referred to as "Accumulated Advances Net of Expenses at April 30, 1996" on statement 3) which will be used in fiscal 1996/97 on OMAFRA programs. To the end of December 31, 1996 there are no major variances to budget
In should be noted that the 1996/97 financial impact of the enhanced partnership agreement with OMAFRA as presented in the recently signed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is not presented at this time. Implementation of comprehensive detailed budgets for both 1996/97 and 1997/98 are underway and are almost completed. In addition, the financial impact on the University accounts in fiscal 1996/97 occurs in only one month (April 1997) as the effective date of the new transfer payment is April 1, 1997 (the start of the provincial fiscal year). It is therefore planned to present a revised 1996/97 OMAFRA budget incorporating April's revised budget as part of the 1997/98 OMAFRA budget presentation to the Board. In both budgets, total allocations will be within the new $54 million annual net transfer. (The previous 1996/97 annual transfer payment for OMAFRA programs was $33.6 million.)
1: \FIN\BODDEC67.WPD 4 February 3, 1997 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH Semester Financial Statements For December 31, 1996
ANCILLARY FUNDS: The Ancillary Fund presents the operations carried on by the University that are not directly related to the academic or administrative functions funded by the Operating fund. Any deficits are recoverable from future operations and charges are made to these funds for centrally provided services under the category of 'Institutional Charges', referred to as Ancillary Cost Recovery in the MET budget. In addition, Ancillary Fund units repay their own costs of financing capital projects and renovations including principal and interest.
During the year, Ancillary units prepare monthly budgets against which variances are calculated. Following is a comparison of major variances for the Fall 1996/97 semester.
Statement 4 - Student Housing Services
This unit operates over 4,000 beds providing residence accommodation for both single and married students and conference activities in the off peak summer semester. In 1991/92 Student Housing Services received approval to create a temporary deficit to finance the start-up costs of a new 400 bed Family Housing complex. This deficit is expected to be repaid over the next six years. 25% of the Student Housing income is directed toward debt repayment on buildings reflecting the capital intensive character of these operations.
Renovations related to the Mandatory Life Safety Retrofit program were slightly more expensive than anticipated causing a small unfavourable variance.
o is . e - . • I
Statement 5 - Hospitality and Retail Services
This unit operates food services, printing, retail outlets and a University book store. 50% of this unit's expenditures are variable costs of products sold. In addition to paying institutional charges for services, this unit contributes $0.3 million towards the financing of academic buildings in the Special Capital Account. In addition, in 1996/97 a $0.10 million one-time contribution was made to assist the MET Operating budget in meeting the net cost reduction targets. The unit had an approved deficit from prior years of $0.460 million created primarily from the start-up costs of the new book store operations. There has been steady progress to reduce this deficit. It now stands at about $.387 million and will be eliminated over the next several years.
The $255,000 negative variance in Retail Services' revenue is due to the transfer of retail operations to the Bookstore from the University Centre (U.C.) with a subsequent reduction in gross sales. This loss has been mainly offset by increased sales in other areas and reduced lease costs.
It is anticipated that this unit will he on target at April 30 , 1997.
L\FIN\BODDEC67.WPD 5 February 3, 1997 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH Semester Financial Statements For December 31, 1996
Statement 6 - Parking Administration
Parking Administration manages the University parking lots for both staff and students in residence and general locations. 70% of this unit s revenues are from semester or annual permits with the balance from cash sales in metered lots. In addition to paying for centrally provided services and parking lot construction and repair, Parking Administration contributes $0.5 million annually towards the repayment of academic building projects financed from the Special Capital Account. In addition, in 1996/97 a $0.15 million one- time contribution was made to assist the MET Operating budget in meeting the net cost reduction targets.
Revenue fell short of budget_to date by approximately 10% mainly due to a shortfall in the number of annual and semester passes sold. Renovation expenses to expand parking lot P1 have been deferred
Statement 7 - Child Care Services
This unit operates a comprehensive day care operation for both University personnel and the general community. Revenues are from two sources: a grant from the Ministry of Community and Social Services and parent fees. In accordance with an agreement between the University and the Ministry, institutional charges were waived for this unit. All other costs are the responsibility of the Centre. During the year, the Child Care Centre and the College of Family and Consumer Studies entered into a partnership which will merge the Laboratory School with the Centre.
There is a small positive revenue variance due to a decrease in the number of government subsidized children and therefore, an increase in full fee paying parents. Renovations are over spent due to the expansion of a storage shed to accommodate more equipment from the Laboratory School. In addition and subsequent to the approval of the 1996/97 budget, Family and Consumers Studies increased support to the Centre, which is reflected in a positive transfer variance.
Statement 8 - Special Capital Account
This account was created in fiscal 1989/90 to consolidate the financing costs of both major capital projects and shortfalls in funding to complete major academic building projects. The account is divided into two major sections: Phases 1 2 of the athletics facilities (twin rinks and swimming pool and capital renovations) and four academic building projects (OVC Learning Centre, Chiller Capacity project, the E.C. Bovey building and the renovation of Zavitz Hall.) Total debt carried in this account is approximately $20 million and was provided from internal University cash sources. Repayments for the Athletic facilities are funded from a special student capital fee and facilities rental revenues. The
1:\FIEN\BODDEC67.WPD 6 February 3, 1997 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH Semester Financial Statements For December 31, 1996
remaining projects are funded from both ancillary enterprises contributions (Hospitality and Parking Administration) and a $.45 million annual contribution from the Heritage Fund. All of these capital projects are complete and financing costs have been determined using amortization of 15-20 years at 8% (Rates are reviewed annually).
Revenues are over budget due to an increase in ice rental hours as well as a 6% increase in rental rates. This variance is expected to remain at year end and will he applied a . ainst the project debt
Statement 9 - Guelph London House
Guelph London House is a renovated Victorian row house located in London, England. The house is used as an academic centre and residence for the University's London semester program. During the non-academic periods of June through August accommodation is offered to the public. Guelph London House underwent a major renovation during fiscal 1991/92 and is currently carrying a $.152 million loan due in 2004.
This unit is expected to he on budget at year end
Statement 10 - Real Estate Division
The Real Estate division was formed to manage specific University properties. Some properties were designated for sale, others for long term lease development. Net annual proceeds of the Real Estate division are transferred and endowed in the Heritage Trust. Transfers include the transfer of 1995/96 Real Estate net income to the Heritage Fund in accordance with the Heritage Trust document.
There is a positive expenditure variance due to the timing of le gal and consulting costs relating to the running of the Fdinbur . s • s - 118-11 This unit is expected to he within budget at year end
Statement 11 - University Centre Administration
The University Centre is responsible for managing both building and programming activities of the University Centre building. The Centre has its own management and Board which is in turn responsible to the University Board of Governors.
During the year, the University Centre tendered its leasing space. For the latter part of summer and early fall, some space was unoccupied resulting in an unfavourable revenue variance. In addition, renovations had to be made to accommodate new tenants resulting in an unfavourable expenditure variance. The Centre is currently projecting an annual deficit of $83,000 which ill be covered from prior years' appropriated fund balances
I: WINTODDEC67.WPD 7 February 3, 1997 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH Semester Financial Statements For December 31, 1996
($384 , 000 available at the end of fiscal 1995/96)
Statement 12 - Summary of Ancillary Units
Statement 12 is presented for information to provide summary information only. Overall, revenues and expenses were largely on target It is expected that, in total, ancillary units will he within hiidget
TRUST AND ENDOWMENT FUNDS:
Trust and Endowment Funds account for funds provided by benefactors, contracting agencies or general funds allocated for specific purposes. The University operates over 4,000 such accounts each with separate reporting requirements. Statement 13 is a consolidated view of these accounts presented in three major sections:
1. Endowment Funds are inflation protected capital funds from which only the income may be spent and in most cases expenditure is restricted to a specific purpose. Endowment fund cash is transferred to a trustee and managed as a separate portfolio. Approximately 46% of endowment funds are currently designated for student scholarships and awards. Included in endowments is the Heritage Fund portfolio created from the net revenue of Real Estate operations, investment earnings and donations from benefactors. The book value of the University's 100% ownership in the Cutten Golf Club is also reported under the endowment account.
2. Heritage Funds are segregated funds created in 1991 by a trust document, under which proceeds from University Real Estate assets are endowed as a separate portfolio. Proceeds from this fund are restricted under the trust document to first, inflation protect and grow (at 10% of annual earnings) the fund principal. Remaining income is restricted to expenditures for the sole benefit of the University's strategic purposes. The fund is administered by a Board of Trustees appointed by the Board of Governors.
3. Expendable Fund are _fluids received primarily for specific projects and research contracts and grants. These fund balances are fully expendable for the intended purposes and generally earn no interest. The University has invested a large part of the cash available from these expendable funds in University capital projects (recorded in the Special Capital Account) for which internal interest is charged.
Statement 13 - Statement of Changes in Fund Balances
Statement 13 for the most part is a consolidated cash flow report prepared to highlight the major receipts, transfers and disbursements of major categories of all trust and endowment accounts. Budgets are not prepared for these accounts given the variability and number of the accounts involved.
I:\FINTODDEC67.WPD 8 February 3, 1997 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH Semester Financial Statements For December 31, 1996
Results for the second semester of 1996197 year show an increase in total Trust and Endowmentffinclbalancesof$6_.4.67 million The net increase is composed of an increase in the General Endowments ($4.446 million) and the Heritage Portfolio ($4.865 million) reflecting investment income, unrealized and realized gains and fund raising receipts.
Offsetting this increase, is a decrease of $3.4 million in Research Grants and Contracts which reflects both reduced funding for sponsored research due to cut hacks by provincial and federal governments and to a lesser extent, normal timing differences between the recording of revenues versus expenditures that occurs in the fiscal year As expenditures on sponsored research vary directly with revenues there is no immediate direct financial exposure due to these cut backs in 1996/97. The longer term impact of reduced sponsored research is more negative as funds to support graduate research, specialized equipment and departmental and institutional infrastructure force either a diversion of these resources from other funds in the University or a reduced overall research activity.
I: \FIN\BODDEC67.WPD 9 February 3, 1997
STATEMENT 1 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH OPERATING FUND (MET) (EXCLUDING OMAFRA PROGRAMS)
STATEMENT OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996
(IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
REVISED ANNUAL ACTUAL INSTITUTIONAL REVENUES: BUDGET Y.T.D. 0/0
MET OPERATING GRANTS BASE FORMULA GRANTS 86,686 57,659 66.5 FLOW THROUGH GRANTS 984 593 60.3 87,670 58,252 66.4
TUITION FEES 40,909 23,296 56.9
CONTRACT SERVICE FEES 1,171 560 47.8
STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES FEE 747 412 55.2
INTEREST & MISC. REVENUE 2,738 1,494 54.6 4,656 2,466 53.0
TOTAL INSTITUTIONAL vExpvi 153,235 84;014 63.1
INSTITUTIONAL EXPENSES: TEACHING UNITS 83,815 53,414 63.7 ACADEMIC SERVICES 17,612 11,514 65.4 COMPUTING & COMMUNICATION SERVICES 5,151 2,905 56.4 STUDENT SERVICES 3,030 2,338 77.2 DEVELOPMENT & PUBLIC AFFAIRS 2,484 1,670 67.2 PHYSICAL RESOURCES 26,395 16,189 61.3 ADMINISTRATION 9,131 5,828 63.8 GENERAL EXPENSES 3,237 2,005 61.9 OMAFRA COST TRANSFER (7,150) (4,767) 66.7 ANCILLARY SERVICES RECOVERY (7,441) (4,940) 66.4 NET PENSION SAVINGS (975) (653) 67.0 UNALLOCATED SAVINGS (245) N/A
TOTAL INSTITUTIONAL EXP.ENS 85,503 63.3
XPENSE' (1,809) (1,489)
(See accompanying notes for further explanation)
10 STATEMENT 2 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH OPERATING FUND (EXCLUDING OMAFRA PROGRAMS)
STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996
(IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
REVISED ANNUAL ACTUAL BUDGET Y.T.D.
NET INCOME (EXPENSES) IN YEAR (FROM STATEMENT 1) (1,809) (1,489)
DEPARTMENTAL CARRYFORWARD/ APPROPRIATIONS FROM PRIOR YEARS 3,659 3,659
NET INCREASED; CREASE) INIUND BALANCE 1,850 2,170 trri APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE - OPENING (18,685) (18,685) ..,.„„; UNAPPROPRIATED .FUND:13 ... (16;835)': #1 (16,515)
NOTES
This statement summarizes the current year position with any prior year accumulated surpluses or deficits and appropriations.
#1 - DETAILS OF BUDGET UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE
OPENING CHANGE CLOSING
SERP / CRESAP Plans (17,145) 2,200 (14,945) 1996/97 CSR Restructuring (1,540) (350) (1,890)
Total Unappropriated Fund Balance - Closing (18,685) 1,850 (16,835)
Board approved repayment target for 1996/97
STATEMENT 3 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH 0.M.A.F.RA. PROGRAMS
STATEMENT OF ADVANCES AND EXPENDITURES FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996
(IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
REVISED ANNUAL ACTUAL BUDGET Y.T.D. ADVANCES:
OMAFRA CONTRACT 28,404 18,935 66.7
VCEP GRANT 5,246 3,935 75.0
::34;65 68.0
INSTITUTIONAL EXPENSES:
ONTARIO AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE 12,804 7,923 COLLEGE OF FAMILY AND CONSUMER STUDIES 10 10 ONTARIO VETERINARY COLLEGE 8,298 4,807 COLLEGE OF ARTS 78 32 COLL OF PHYSICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE 845 432 COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 169 95 COLLEGE OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE 534 285
TOTAL TEACHING UNITS 22,738 13,584 59.7
ACADEMIC SERVICES 5,433 3,564 65.6
OMAFRA COST TRANSFER 7,150 4,767 66.7
" " " " • ::::: Tiiiiij.60i4TR`E3CPENSES • ::: 35,321 21915: 62.0
ADVANCES NET OF EXPENSES - CURRENT YEAR (1,671) 955
ACCUMULATED ADVANCES NET OF EXPENSES AT APRIL 30, 1996 1,671 1,671
ACCUMULA AliteE, U
Notes:
This statement shows combined advances and expenses compared to the annual budget for both the OMAFRA
research and the VCEP contracts. An advance represents cash received and will be recorded as revenue as claims for actual expenses are made.
STATEMENT 4 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH STUDENT HOUSING SERVICES FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996
(IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
STATEMENT OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES
BUDGET ANNUAL Y.T.D. ACTUAL VARIANCE BUDGET
REVENUE:
STUDENT CONTRACTS 5,747 5,784 37 11,268 FAMILY HOUSING 1,795 1,758 (37) 2,692 MISCELLANEOUS 1,025 1,075 50 1,145 SALES and SERVICES 8,567 • 8,617- 50 15,105
EXPENDITURES:
PERSONNEL 1,768 1,793 (25) 2,652 INSTITUTIONAL CHARGES 3,365 3,365 5,047 OPERATING 1,507 1,472 35 2,415 TRAVEL 46 46 67 TAXES 1 1 126 RENOVATIONS 1,063 1,140 (77) 1,063 DEBT SERVICING - external 2,074 2,074 3,147 ..... - internal 337 337 563 EQUIPMENT 6 6 85 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 10,167 10,234 (67) 15,165
INCOME (EXPENSES) BEFORE TRANSFERS (1,600) (1,617) (17) (60)
TRANSFERS 71 81 10 71
NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (1,529) (1,536) (7) 11
STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES
BUDGET ANNUAL Y.T.D. ACTUAL VARIANCE BUDGET
NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (1,529) (1,536) (7) 11
FUND BALANCE - OPENING (868) (868) (868)
FUND BALANCE - CLOSING (2,397) (2,404) (7) (857)
I3
STATEMENT 5 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH HOSPITALITY SERVICES FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996
(IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
STATEMENT OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES
BUDGET ANNUAL Y.T.D. ACTUAL VARIANCE BUDGET
REVENUE:
EXPRESS COPY and GRAPHICS 926 922 (4) 1,429 HOSPITALITY SERVICES 7,487 7,629 142 13,028 BOOKSTORE 3,469 3,582 113 5,394 RETAIL SERVICES 750 495 (255) 1,234 SALES and SERVICES 12,632' 12,628 (4) 21,085
EXPENDITURES:
COST OF MATERIALS 6,124 6,191 (67) 9,727 PERSONNEL 4,014 3,987 27 6,561 INSTITUTIONAL CHARGES 1,032 1,032 1,532 OPERATING 1,049 1,043 6 1,991 TRAVEL 19 27 (8) 23 RENOVATIONS 95 72 23 95 DEBT SERVICING - external 99 99 146 - internal 340 340 509 EQUIPMENT 153 119 34 153 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 12,925 12,910 15 20,737
INCOME (EXPENSES) BEFORE TRANSFERS (293) (282) 11 348
TRANSFERS (209) (209) (309)
NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (502) (491) 11 39
STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES
BUDGET ANNUAL Y.T.D. ACTUAL VARIANCE BUDGET
NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (502) (491) 11 39
FUND BALANCE - OPENING (387) (387) (387)
FUND BALANCE - CLOSING (889) (878) 11 (348)
14
STATEMENT 6 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH PARKING ADMINISTRATION FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996
(IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
STATEMENT OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES
BUDGET ANNUAL Y.T.D. ACTUAL VARIANCE BUDGET
REVENUE:
SALES and SERVICES 921:: 824 (97) 1,350
EXPENDITURES:
PERSONNEL 128 131 (3) 192 INSTITUTIONAL CHARGES 350 350 501 OPERATING 123 103 20 184 TRAVEL 1 1 4 RENOVATIONS 25 25 290 EQUIPMENT 10 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 627 610 17 1,181
No....., INCOME (EXPENSES) BEFORE TRANSFERS 294 214 (80) 169
TRANSFERS (295) (295) (442)
NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (1) (81) (80) (273)
STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES
BUDGET ANNUAL Y.T.D. ACTUAL VARIANCE BUDGET
NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (1) (81) (80) (273)
FUND BALANCE - OPENING 1,015 1,015 1,015
FUND BALANCE - CLOSING 1,014 934 (80) 742
15
STATEMENT 7 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH CHILD CARE SERVICES
•••■••• FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996
(IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
STATEMENT OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES
BUDG ET ANNUAL Y.T.D. ACTUAL VARIANCE BUDGET
REVENUE:
GOVERNMENT FUNDING 362 364 2 514 CHILD CARE FEES 337 358 21 506 MISCELLANEOUS 3 8 5 3 SALES and SERVICES 702 730: 28 1,023
EXPENDITURES:
PERSONNEL 676 674 2 976 OPERATING 67 61 6 100 TRAVEL 1 3 (2) 1 RENOVATIONS 5 18 (13) 5
EQUIPMENT TOTAL EXPENDITURES 7491 756 (7) 1,082
INCOME (EXPENSES) BEFORE TRANSFERS (47) (26) 21 (59)
TRANSFERS 40 63 23 60
NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE: (7) 37 44 1
STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES
BUDGET ANNUAL Y.T.D. ACTUAL VARIANCE BUDGET
NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (7) 37 44 1
FUND BALANCE - OPENING 37 37 37
FUND BALANCE - CLOSING 30 74 44 38
16 STATEMENT 8 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH SPECIAL CAPITAL ACCOUNT FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996
(IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
STATEMENT OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES
BUDGET ANNUAL Y.T.D. ACTUAL VARIANCE BUDGET
REVENUE:
SALES and SERVICES 716:: 786 70 1,124
EXPENDITURES:
OPERATING 2 (2) 10 RENOVATIONS 45 49 (4) 45 DEBT SERVICING - internal 1,398 1,398 2,097
EQUIPMENT 45 45 45 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,494 (6) 2,197
INCOME (EXPENSES) BEFORE TRANSFERS (772) (708) 64 (1,073)
TRANSFERS 492 492 1,187
NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (280) (216) 64 114
STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES
BUDGET ACTUAL ANNUAL Y.T.D. Y.T.D. VARIANCE BUDGET
NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (280) (216) 6-1 114
FUND BALANCE - OPENING (169) (169) (169)
FUND BALANCE - CLOSING (449) (385) 64 (55)
17
STATEMENT 9 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH GUELPH LONDON HOUSE FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996
(IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
STATEMENT OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES
BUDGET ANNUAL Y.T.D. ACTUAL VARIANCE BUDGET
REVENUE:
SALES and SERVICES 61 3 81
EXPENDITURES:
PERSONNEL 6 6 7 OPERATING 28 32 (4) 40 TRAVEL 1 TAXES 2 2 3 RENOVATIONS DEBT SERVICING - internal 18 18 27 EQUIPMENT TOTAL EXPENDITURES 78
INCOME (EXPENSES) BEFORE TRANSFERS 3 \. 3 TRANSFERS (2) (2) (2)
NETINCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE
STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES
BUDGET ANNUAL Y.T.D. ACTUAL VARIANCE BUDGET
NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE 2 1 (1) 1
FUND BALANCE - OPENING (52) (52) (52)
FUND BALANCE - CLOSING (50) (51) (1) (51)
18
STATEMENT 10 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH REAL ESTATE DIVISION FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996
(IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
STATEMENT OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES
BUDGET ANNUAL
Y.T.D. ACTUAL VARIANCE BUDGET
REVENUE:
SALES and SERVICES 539 35 836
EXPENDITURES:
PERSONNEL 210 192 18 315 OPERATING 194 123 71 323 TRAVEL 5 3 2 7 TAXES 1 9 (8) 2 DEBT SERVICING - external 211 191 20 316 AMORTIZATION 128 128 128 EQUIPMENT TOTAL EXPENDITURES 749 ' 646 103 1,091
OPERATING COSTS CAPITALIZED (113) (99) (14) (170)
INCOME (EXPENSES) BEFORE TRANSFERS (132) (8) 124 (85)
TRANSFERS (1,141) (1,130) 11 (1,121)
NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (1,273) (1,138) 135 (1,206)
STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES
BUDGET ANNUAL Y.T.D. ACTUAL VARIANCE BUDGET
NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (1,273) (1,138) 135 (1,206)
FUND BALANCE - OPENING 1,162 1,162 1,162
FUND BALANCE - CLOSING (111) 24 135 (44)
19 STATEMENT 11 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH UNIVERSITY CENTRE ADMINISTRATION FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996
(IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
STATEMENT OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES
BUDGET ANNUAL
Y.T.D. ACTUAL VARIANCE BUDGET
REVENUE:
BRASS TAPS 583 590 7 1,125 ALL OTHER SOURCES 761 713 (48) 1,400 SALES and SERVICES 1;344 1,303 (41} 2,525
EXPENDITURES:
COST OF MATERIALS 218 227 (9) 444 PERSONNEL 649 628 21 1,135 INSTITUTIONAL CHARGES 241 241 0 361 OPERATING 330 339 (9) 584 TRAVEL 9 11 (2) 11 RENOVATIONS 36 54 (18) 36 EQUIPMENT 6 (6) TOTAL EXPENDITURES -.1,483:. 1,506 . :(23) 2,571
INCOME (EXPENSES) BEFORE TRANSFERS (139) (203) (64) (46)
TRANSFERS (9) (9) 50
NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE.. (212) (64) 4
STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES
BUDGET ANNUAL Y.T.D. ACTUAL VARIANCE BUDGET
NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (148) (212) (64) 4
UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE - OPENING 109 109 109 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE - OPENING 275 275 275
TOTAL FUND BALANCE - CLOSING 236 172 (64) 388
20 STATEMENT 12 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH FINANCIAL SUMMARY OF ANCILLARY UNITS FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996
(IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
STATEMENT OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES
BUDGET ANNUAL Y.T.D. ACTUAL VARIANCE BUDGET
REVENUE:
SALES and SERVICES 25;444:: 25;48B: 44 43,129.
EXPENDITURES:
COST OF MATERIALS 6,342 6,418 (76) 10,171 PERSONNEL 7,451 7,411 40 11,838 INSTITUTIONAL CHARGES 4,988 4,988 7,441 OPERATING 3,298 3,175 123 5,647 TRAVEL 126 140 (14) 159 TAXES 4 12 (8) 131 RENOVATIONS 1,224 1,309 (85) 1,489 DEBT SERVICING - external 2,384 2,364 20 3,609 DEBT SERVICING - internal 2,093 2,093 3,196 AMORTIZATION 128 128 128 ,.....- EQUIPMENT 204 176 28 293 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 28,242 ::28,214 28 44;102
OPERATING COSTS CAPITALIZED (113) (99) (14) (170)
INCOME (EXPENSES) BEFORE TRANSFERS (2,685) (2,627) 58 (803)
TRANSFERS (1,053) (1,009) 44 (506)
NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (3,738) (3,636) 102 (1,309)
STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES
BUDGET ANNUAL Y.T.D. ACTUAL VARIANCE BUDGET
NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (3,738) (3,636) 102 (1,309)
UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE - OPENING 847 847 847 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE - OPENING 275 275 275
FUND BALANCE - CLOSING (2,616) (2,514) 102 (187)
21 STATEMENT 13 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH TRUST AND ENDOWMENT FUNDS
STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES EIGHT MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996
(IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
FUND FUND BALANCE BALANCE AT MAY 1 INVEST. NET DISBURSE AT 1996 RECEIPTS INCOME TRANSFERS -MENTS DEC. 31
GENERAL ENDOWMENTS:
AWARDS AND SCHOLARSHIPS 22,753 192 1,192 2,050 (644) 25,543 UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT 8,110 156 424 400 (489) 8,601 RESEARCH 4,087 0 214 (40) (124) 4,137 CUTTEN CLUB 2,917 0 0 0 0 2,917 OTHER ENDOWMENTS 2,177 236 116 103 (35) 2,597 MACDONALD STEWART 140 0 7 4 (25) 126 UNREALIZED GAINS 1,124 0 709 0 1,833
TOTAL GENERAL ENDOWMENTS 41,308 584 2,662 2,517 (1,317) 45,754
HERITAGE FUNDS:
HERITAGE TRUST 21,958 3,039 1,219 0 26,216 CRUICKSTON PROPERTY FUND 2,637 696 (89) 0 3,244
TOTAL HERITAGE FUNDS 24,595 0 3,735 1,130 0 29,460
EXPENDABLE FUNDS:
DEVELOPMENT FUND 983 2,582 29 (2,088) 0 1,506 ANNUAL FUND 1,963 1,750 59 (867) (217) 2,688 UNTV AFFAIRS DEVELOPMENT 2,946 4,332 88 (2,955) (217) 4,194
RESEARCH GRANTS CONTRACTS 16,519 17,250 0 1,577 (22,222) 13,124 AWARDS AND SCHOLARSHIPS (23) 0 0 33 (377) (367) SPECIAL PURPOSE 8,926 1,309 583 (417) (1,839) 8,562 MACDONALD STEWART FUNDS 208 30 6 0 (25) 219
TOTAL EXPENDABLE 28,576 22,921 677 (1,762) (24,680) 25,732
TOTAL TRUST AND ENDOWMENT 94,479 23,505 7,074 1,885 (25,997) 100,946
22 UNIVERSITY .1GUELPH MEMORANDUM BOARD OF GOVERNORS
TO: Members, Board of Governors
FROM: Betsy Allan, Secretary of The Board of Governors Extension: 3438
SUBJECT: 10. Finance Committee Report (c) Tuition Fees, 1997/98 -- Motion
MEETING DATE OF: March 27, 1997
The recommendation to increase tuition fees for 1997/98 is outlined in detail in the Schedule of Proposed Tuition Fees,1997/98. The document titled "Tuition Fees Proposal 1997/98 Background" provides a summary of the internal discussion process of the proposed increases that has taken place as well as an explanation of the increases for different categories of students (undergraduate, graduate, international). Student financial aid on a non-loan basis will be enhanced both as the result of the University's initiative and government direction.
In its deliberations the Committee carefully considered reports of the Senate Committee on University Planning, dated March 5, 1997 and February 21, 1997 (included in the attachments) and the report from the Student Senate Caucus, dated March 13, 1997 (included in the attachments) which were provided to all Committee members at the meeting of March 6, 1997.
The fiscal context in which the recommendation for tuition increases (which are, on average, less than the maximum permitted by the provincial government) is one in which the University continues to implement the changes necessitated as a result of a 16% permanent reduction in operating grants from the Ministry of Education and Training in 1996/97. The Finance Committee noted that as part of its budget for 1996/97, several one-time strategies had been adopted to deal with this base funding reduction. For 1997/98, the Province has indicated that grants will be frozen at last year's level, thereby failing to take any steps to mitigate the drastic cuts last year which, for this University, totalled $20 million (or 18%), including Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. According to the Board of Governor's mandate, the University is obliged to pay down its $18 million deficit by 2003/2004 fiscal year. This includes the 1996/97 Common Sense Revolution (CSR) restructuring costs of $1.54 million to be repaid over two fiscal years, commencing in fiscal 1997/98.
continued on page 2
GUELPH • ONTARIO • CANADA • NIG 2W1 • (519)824-4120, EXT. 3438 • FAX (519) 767-1350 Tuition Fees page 2
In this very difficult fiscal situation, the University requires additional tuition fee revenue to prevent even further reductions of the quality of its academic programs and services to its students. Again this year, one-time budgeting strategies are being contemplated.
The Finance Committee supports the University Administration's ongoing efforts to lobby the Provincial Government to increase its funding of universities to at least the national average.
The Finance Committee passed the following resolution,
RESOLVED, That the Undergraduate, Graduate and Associate Diploma in Agriculture Tuition Fee Schedule for 1997-98 be accepted and recommended to the Board of Governors for consideration and approval. (March 6, 1997)
The Board of Governors is asked to,
RESOLVE, that the Undergraduate, Graduate and Associate Diploma in Agriculture Tuition Fee Schedule for 1997-98, as presented, be approved.
BA/ab
C:\BOARD\97MAR27.MEM
10. Finance Committee Report (c) Tuition Fees
The attached is included for information with regard to the Tuition Fees Proposal, 1997-98.
Index of Attachments
1. Tuition Fees Proposal, 1997-98, Background
2. Schedule of Proposed Tuition Fees, 1997-98.
3. Tuition Proposal submitted to Senate meeting of March 11, 1997 i. Report to Senate from the Senate Committee on University Planning, February 21, 1997 (Comments on the Proposed Tuition Increase) ii. Report to Senate from the Senate Committee on University Planning (SCUP), March 5, 1997 (SCUP s Further Comments on the Tuition Proposal)
4. Senate Report to the Board of Governors i. Senate Remarks on the Tuition Proposal, March 19, 1997
5. Student Senate Caucus Report to the Board of Governors i. Tuition Fees, 1997-98, March 13, 1997
6. Correspondence to Senate, March 11, 1997 i. 26 letters submitted to Senate
7. At Guelph News Bulletin, March 11, 1997; Tuition Fee Proposal modified after consultation with University community
8. Correspondence to Board of Governors, March 27, 1997 i. 2 letters submitted ii. 1 postcard 1. Tuition Fees Proposal, 1997-98, Background
Tuition Fees Proposal 1997/98, Background (definitions of abbreviations attached)
BACKGROUND
The Ministry of Education and Training (MET) has announced that each university is permitted a discretionary increase in tuition fees of up to a maximum of 10% as an average across the institution; any one program may be increased up to a maximum of 20%. The government has mandated that 30% of an institution's increase in fee revenue must be directed toward student aid.
PROCESS
Recommendations on tuition fee changes were prepared by the Enrolment Management Committee on February 7, and have been discussed with the Central Student Association, Graduate Students' Association, Student Senate Caucus, President's Budget Advisory Group, Vice-President's Academic Council, and the Senate Committee on University Planning (SCUP). The original proposal has been revised on the basis of feedback and the final proposal has been endorsed by SCUP and supported by the Finance Committee of the Board. The final proposal was received by Senate on March 11 as part of the SCUP Report.
ENROLMENT
The University will continue the expansionary undergraduate strategic enrolment direction approved last year. The University has set a goal of 400 additional semester one students on the 1995-96 base. In addition, there is emphasis on additional enrolment of international students, in keeping with the strategic directions of the University, to counteract a significant fall in the number of international students in the past several years. Not only has this had a negative fiscal impact, but also has detracted from the richness of the overall campus experience.
UNDERGRADUATE FEES
Canadian and permanent residents It is proposed that domestic undergraduate tuition fees be increased 10%. The full details are appended, including information on part-time study, course fee charges, etc. The vast majority of undergraduate students will be required to pay an additional $295 per academic year (two semesters); students in professional programs will be required to pay an additional $320 per academic year (two semesters), given their higher existing tuition base.
International students It is proposed that there be no increase in the tuition fees for international students, which are close to the upper end on the Canadian scale. It is further recommended that the BSc(Agr) program fee; $16,760 per academic year (two semesters) be moved from the higher to the lower tier ($10,280) to attract more students into this program. The fiscal impact of this proposal is minimal as there is currently only one international student registered in the BSc(Agr) program.
...continued on page 2 Tuition Fees Proposal 1997/98 page 2 of 3
Summary The average fee increase at the undergraduate level will be 9.5%.
GRADUATE FEES
Canadian and permanent residents It is proposed that the domestic graduate tuition fee be increased by 7%. The full details are appended, including information on part-time study, course fees etc. Graduate students will be required to pay an additional $310 per year (three semesters).
International students It is proposed that there should be no increase in tuition fees for international students.
Summary The average tuition fee increase at the graduate level will be 6.1%.
FINANCIAL AID
30% of new tuition revenue (1997-98), including that from the additional enrolment, will be directed toward student financial aid. In addition there is a flow-through effect of student aid required by the ministry from new tuition fee revenue this year (1996-97).
The Ministry of Education and Training (MET) regulations governing the allocation of this aid are not yet clear. The relevant sum is estimated to be approximately $1.7 million. At this stage it is expected that the aid will be distributed as bursaries, need-based merit awards, teaching assistantships for individuals with identified need, and work study opportunities. In addition, MET may require the University to meet unmet Ontario Student Assistant Program need.
It is proposed to continue the undergraduate entrance awards developed and used for the first time last year. These need-based awards, known as Registrar's Access Awards (RAAs) were successful in helping Guelph to attract new students to the University last year and influenced school counsellors and students in their promotion and selection of Guelph.
GRADUATE ENROLMENT INCENTIVE
On the basis of information from Graduate Co-ordinators, that funding of graduate students is a critical issue for retaining and increasing enrolment. The Enrolment Management Committee is proposing to increase scholarship funding for graduate students by $120,000 in the Operating Budget. It should be noted in this context that with last year's elimination of the subsequent fee, the University of Guelph committed to placing approximately 70% of the resulting increased revenue into University graduate scholarships. The first instalment of this commitment is $250,000 in the 1997/98 budget. The remaining commitment will be made
...continued on page 3
2
Tuition Fees Proposal 1997/98 page 3 of 3
N.— over the period 1998/99 and 1999/2000. In addition, another $250,000 will flow into graduate scholarships from the financial aid set-aside mandated by the province as outlined above in the Financial Aid section .
BUDGET IMPLICATIONS
It is projected that these initiatives will: (i) Generate a net increase of $2.2 million in tuition revenue (equivalent to a net increase of 5.4% in tuition revenue). (ii) Provide $1.7 million in student aid.
lab
C: \ FINANCE‘TUTTION. PRP
3 Definitions of Abbreviations
Diploma Associate Diploma in Agriculture
Undergraduate Degrees Bachelor of Arts - BA Bachelor of Science - BSc Bachelor of Science in Agriculture - BSc(Agr) Bachelor of Science in Engineering - BSc(Eng) Bachelor of Science in Environmental Sciences - BSc(Env) Bachelor of Landscape Architecture - BLA Bachelor of Applied Science - BASc Bachelor of Commerce - BComm Doctor of Veterinary Medicine - DVM firaduateilegrem Doctor of Philosophy - PhD Doctor of Veterinary Science - DVSc Master of Arts - MA Master of Business Administration - MBA Master of Engineering - MEng Master of Science - MSc Master of Landscape Architecture - MLA Master of Agriculture - M.Agr. Master of Fine Arts - MFA Master of Management Studies - MMS Master of Science in Aquaculture - MSc (Aquaculture) Graduate Diploma (OVC)
4 2. Schedule of Proposed Tuition Fees, 1997-98.
University of Guelph
1997/98 Schedule of Proposed Tuition Fees
For presentation to the Finance Committee of the Board, March 6, 1997 & forwarded to the Board of Governors March 27, 1997 !TY UNIVERSITY OF GYM-PH FEES SCHEDULE OF FP074C.)/ .-PosED 997098 .TUITION
1996/97 1997/98 Increase Approved Fee Recommended Fee 1996/97 to 1997/98 (Per Semester) (Per Semester) UNDERGRADUATE TUITION FEES
CANADIAN AND PERMANENT RESIDENTS STATUS STUDENTS: Full-Time Bachelor of Arts $1,465 $1,611.50 10.0% General Studies $1,465 $1,611.50 10.0% Unclassified $1,465 $1,611.50 10.0% Bachelor of Science $1,465 $1,611.50 10.0% Bachelor of Science in Human Kinetics $1,465 $1,611.50 10.0% Bachelor of Science in Agriculture $1,465 $1,611.50 10.0% Bachelor of Science in Environment $1,465 $1,611.50 10.0% Bachelor of Applied Science $1,465 $1,611.50 10.0% Bachelor of Commerce $1,465 $1,611.50 10.0% Associate Diploma in Agriculture $1,465 $1,611.50 10.0% Doctor of Veterinary Medicine $1,590 $1,750.00 10.0% Bachelor of Landscape Architecture $1,590 $1,750.00 10.0% Bachelor of Science in Engineering $1,590 $1,750.00 10.0%
Part-Time: Per Course $293 $322.00 9.9% Auditing of Courses: Per Course $173 $190.00 9.8%
VISA (INTERNATIONAL) STUDENTS
Full-Time - Level 1 All undergraduate programs except those in Level 2 $5,140 $5,140.00 0.0%
Full-Time - Level 2 BEng, BASc, DVM, BLA $8,380 $8,380.00 0.0%
Part-Time - Level 1 Per Course $1,028 $1,028.00 0.0% Part-Time - Level 2 Per Course $1,676 $1,676.00 0.0%
Co-ooerative Education: Per Semester Fee Academic semesters 1, 2, 3 $63 $69.00 9.5% Work term semesters $412 $453.00 10.0%
NOTE: The Associate Diploma in Agriculture is not subject to regulation by the Ministry of Education and Training (MET). The separate 1997/98 fees for the Associate Diploma in Agriculture at the OMAFRA Colleges (Alfred, Kemptville and Ridgetown) have been initiated and approved by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA).
3/14/97 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH Page 2 SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED TUITION FEES FOR 1997/98
1996/97 1997/98 Increase Approved Fee Recommended Fee 1996/97 to 1997/98 (Per Semester) (Per Semester) GRADUATE TUITION FEES
CANADIAN AND PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS STUDENTS
Full-Time• $1,472 $1,575.00 7.0% Part-Time $986 $1,055.00 7.0% Special Non-Degree: Per Course $736 $788.00 7.0%
FOR VISA (INTERNATIONAL) STUDENTS
Full-Time $2,333 $2,333.00 0.0% Special Non-Degree: Per Course $1,165 $1,165.00 0.0%
NOTE: The University continues to honor its 1995/96 commitment to maintain a $380 differential fee for grandparented graduate students eligible for a subsequent fee period because they started their program prior to May 1, 1996.
3/14/97 3. Tuition Proposal submitted to Senate meeting of March 11, 1997 i. Report to Senate from the Senate Committee on University Planning, February 21, 1997 (Comments on the Proposed Tuition Increase)
UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING
Comments on the Proposed Tuition Increases February 21, 1997
The Senate Committee on University Planning reviewed the Enrolment Management Committee's tuition proposal in following context.
the very preliminary budget numbers indicate that the University enters the 1997/98 budget planning process with a preliminary deficit position between anticipated expenditures and identified revenues that must be resolved.
given the government's continued disinvestment in higher education there is little likelihood of increased government funding - which is the University's first priority. Furthermore, every effort must be made to reduce the need for further reductions in expenditures. As a result, the University is forced to find ways to increase its revenue.
• there is student advice to keep tuition increases to a minimum.
the University has been experiencing a 5% decline in graduate enrolment over the last few years and a continual decline in international student enrolments. Steps must be taken to correct this decline.
the applicant pool at the undergraduate level for Fall, 1997 is extremely strong. The University of Guelph is well positioned relative to the other universities in terms of applications.
The University of Guelph's international fee for undergraduate students is the highest in the country. In order to regain a more competitive position, it must be contained and, over a period of several years, effectively reduced. The graduate student international fee - as a result of last years's deregulation - is presently the lowest in Ontario.
graduate support from research councils continues to decline.
In considering the tuition proposal, the Senate Committee on University Planning heard undergraduate and graduate student representation for a tuition freeze. Both the CSA and the GSA do not support a tuition increase of any kind. The students pointed to the fact that tuition has gone up considerably over the last few years. The students argued that the Ontario government has clearly made a decision to move away from government support for higher education and is forcing universities to become self-funding; unfortunately, this will result in students paying a larger share of the cost of university. As a result, accessibility for students will become increasingly more difficult to a large number of students. They contended that by increasing tuition, the University was supporting the government's strategy. They urged that the University take a public stand against the government plan by not raising tuition.
SCUP was sympathetic to the student argument, agreeing that the government was shortsighted in its refusal to fund universities adequately. However, the University has no option but to support the proposal for a reasonable tuition increase that would result in an institution wide average of 9%. Reasons for supporting the increase include:
it is important that the University make every effort to maintain the quality of its programs. Accessibility means accessibility to quality. Not only will society at large benefit from the high quality programs, so too will the University in terms of enrolment, grants from Research Funding Agencies, and external funding support. The result of the student applications this year show that students are increasingly making their choices based on their perception of the quality of the programs. The University must protect itself from further cuts if it wants to maintain quality programs.
• the University cannot ignore the fact that both students and faculty are being lured out of the province to study or do research at other institutions, many with tuition much higher than ours. The quality of the research and teaching programs appears to be a strong factor in selection of institution.
• each year the University only has one chance to raise tuition (ie., a certain maximum each year). If the University adopted a tuition freeze this year, the opportunity for the revenue is lost to the base budget, in both the short term and the long term.
the University must be more aggressive in its recruitment of international students. For this reason, SCUP supports the decision not to increase the international student fees and encourages the Enrolment Management Committee to develop a long term strategy with respect to the differential fee. SCUP also endorses the plan to increase international enrolments.
The Senate Committee on University Planning recognizes that the increasing tuition levels may have an impact on accessibility and recommends that the University continue to increase student aid in the form of needs-based awards. SCUP is pleased to report that the University has already made great strides in this area and the efforts presently underway with the ACCESS program will further increase student support.
The Senate Committee on University Planning also accepted the recommendation of the Enrolment Planning Committee that the increase at the graduate level be differentiated between programs. The University already has differentiated fees at the undergraduate level so this is not a new principle. However, SCUP cautioned that such decisions be made thoughtfully. The Enrolment Management Committee, as it continues to look at the issue of differential fees, should take into consideration the following:
• our graduate programs are crucial in their support of the University's research program. It is important that the funding model encourage high enrolments in graduate programs with a strong research component. This is particularly important in the context of declining research funding and the need for research infrastructure support.
• there are significant differences in the cost of mounting graduate programs. Where possible, students should pay an appropriate percentage of the cost.
there are differences in both the employability and starting salary of students from different graduate programs. It is appropriate to have the fees reflect these differences with the proviso, once again, that student aid be available to ensure that programs are accessible.
The Senate Committee on University Planning reviewed a proposal that had the MFA program in the tier that would see a tuition increase of 10%. The Committee had unease with this proposal. While the MFA program is relatively expensive to offer, students do not have access to funding as research assistants and students graduating from this program are not likely to see the same economic advantages as those graduating from other programs in the 10% grouping. SCUP asked the Enrolment Management Committee to give serious consideration to moving the MFA to the group of programs with the lower increase.
Finally, the Administration agreed, based on discussions with students in the Consultative Forum, to develop a process that would allow students to participate in the enrolment management discussion earlier in the process so that they can more fully and knowledgeably participate in these debates.
Prepared by Brenda Whiteside, Secretary of Senate
01■1r C:\SCUP\TUITION.DOC C:\SCUP\TUITION.DOC 3. ii. Report to Senate from the Senate Committee on University Planning (SCUP), March 5, 1997 (SCUP's Further Comments on the Tuition Proposal)
UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH SENATE REPORT FROM THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING March 5, 1997 a) SCUP s Further Comments on the Tuition Proposal
On February 27, the Senate Student Caucus presented a report to the Senate Executive Committee which spoke to the students' opposition to the proposal to introduce tuition differentiation at the graduate level. In response to this submission, the President asked that the Enrolment Management Committee (EMC) reconvene and meet with the students to discuss their concerns. In light of SCUP's previous endorsement of fee differentiation, he also asked that after this meeting, the Chair of the Enrolment Management Committee meet with SCUP to discuss possible options and that the recommendation of the EMC, accompanied by SCUP's comments, be presented to him before the meeting of the Finance Committee (March 6).
At its meeting on March 5, SCUP supported the recommendation of the EMC to postpone the move to fee differentiation at the graduate level for one year. The EMC was not convinced by the student arguments against fee differentiation; however, it found compelling the student argument that there had been insufficient time for appropriate consultation with students. SCUP continues to endorse the principle of fee differentiation; we already have differentiation at the undergraduate level. SCUP was, however, also sympathetic to the students' claim that there had been inadequate time to consult with the student body on this issue. Normally, the universities receive the tuition announcement in November. This year, the University of Guelph was informed of the announcement on February 5, 1997. In order to take the budget to the April meeting of the Board of Governors (the University's budget runs from May-April), the tuition decisions have to go before the March meeting of the Board. This left the University with less than a month to consult with faculty, staff and students.
Upon receiving the tuition announcement, the EMC prepared a tuition proposal and began the process of consultation. The very short consultation period was further reduced by the winter break. As a result, students had approximately three weeks to respond to the proposal. The students argue that they have not had enough time to fully research the difficult and complex issues relating to fee differentiation and thus have been disadvantaged when presenting their arguments to the respective committees.
SCUP agrees that the duration of consultations has been inadequate. For this reason, it supports delaying the introduction of fee differentiation at the graduate level for one year to allow sufficient time for consultation and for a thorough investigation of the criteria for graduate fee differentiation and its impact. Further, SCUP recommends the adoption of a blended, revenue- neutral tuition increase at the graduate level. If accepted, the graduate tuition for domestic students would increase by 7.0% in all programs. 4. Senate Report to the Board of Governors i. Senate Remarks on the Tuition Proposal, March 19, 1997
UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH SENATE Report to the Board of Governors Senate Remarks on the Tuition Proposal
The Senate, at its meeting of March 11, 1997 reviewed and commented on the tuition proposal. The proposal was presented by Alastair Summerlee, Chair of the Enrolment Management Committee. The Senate had before it all of the attached documents.
1. two reports from SCUP. The first report was prepared after its meeting of February 21, 1997. Further comments from SCUP were prepared after a special meeting of March 5, 1997. Both of these reports were forwarded to the Finance Committee.
2. 26 letters that were received by the Senate Office either in electronic or hardcopy form. The electronic copies were emailed to all Senators prior to the meeting. The hardcopy letters were distributed at Senate. On recommendation by the Senate Executive Committee Student Senators read a random sample of these letters (9).
3. Two reports from Student Senate Caucus on the tuition proposal.
Presentation of Student Senate Caucus
Prior to the formal discussion of the tuition proposal, Jennifer Fletcher, Co-Chair of Student Senate Caucus, presented the Caucus Reports. The reports were supported by the CSA, GSA and Student Senate Caucus. She also presented the President with a copy of 3000 signatures of students opposed to the tuition increase. Her presentation expanded on the points presented in the Caucus Report. The main points follow:
• it was inappropriate for the Enrolment Management Committee and the Senate Committee on University Planning to endorse the concept of differential fees at the graduate level without first analysing the issue carefully against predetermined and agreed to criteria and without consulting widely with students on campus.
The consultation process on the tuition proposal has been inadequate. It is inappropriate to expect students to be able to respond quickly, particularly given their disadvantage of not having before them all the information necessary to consider the impact of the proposal, their lack of resources to prepare a response, and their insufficient understanding of how to manipulate the system.
• One of the arguments used by the Enrolment Management Committee is that differentiation is not new to the University; we already have it at the undergraduate level. However, the students have not been provided with the rationale for why the differentiation at the undergraduate level was approved in the first place. The University should first establish the principles around differentiation, prior to considering implementation at the graduate level.
• the increase in tuition is having an impact on accessibility. The decline in the demand for OSAP reflects the fear students have with the enormous risk of accepting loan based financing.
• Statistics show that the provincial government is moving away from supporting higher education and that the burden is resting increasingly on students.
1 • The University must consider the full impact of the tuition increase, not only to the students, but to society as a whole.
The students urge the University to take a stand against the government's continued under- funding of universities by refusing to raise tuition; they urge the University to work together with the students to proactively lobby the government; they urge the President to take a public stand on what percentage of a university education students should pay; and they urge the President to work closely with other university presidents to take a public stand and oppose the government.
The Student Senate Caucus presented three motions that were approved by the Senate:
MOTION: that Senate establish a Task Force to identify and measure appropriate outcome indicators for the determination of the impact of tuition increases on enrolled undergraduate and graduate students.
MOTION: that the Task Force collect baseline and follow-up data to determine whether increases in tuition have an impact on the accessibility of the University of Guelph to potential students from varied socio-economic backgrounds.
MOTION: that the Task Force report its activities and findings to Senate and the Enrolment Management Committee on an annual basis.
Presentation of the Tuition Proposal
Prior to the presentation of the tuition proposal, J. Miles conveyed some very preliminary budget information to provide a context for the proposed increase in tuition. A. Summerlee then presented the tuition proposal. Senators' comments on the two presentations follow. Responses to the questions asked, provided by either the President, A. Summerlee, Associate Vice-President, Academic, or L. Milligan, Vice-President, Research are noted in italics.
The only source of new revenue being identified is tuition. The University needs to be proactive in finding additional revenue sources to reduce the burden on students. The University is being proactive in finding additional revenue sources. Since 1992-93 revenue, other than tuition and grants, has increased by 38%.
Is there any opportunity for revenues from the Heritage Trust Fund or GUARD? The intent of the Board of Trustees of the Heritage Fund and the Board of Governors was to grow the Heritage Fund for ten years with minimal distributions. Their purpose was to ensure the rapid growth of the endowment fund. However in response to requests by the Administration due to the University's deterioriating financial situation, the Boards have distributed $4.5 million since the Heritage Fund inception, including $2.3 million in 96/97 which was used to support strategic initiatives such as the new computer systems for Student Information and the Library and academic restructuring. This use of resources from the Heritage Fund has relieved the operating budget of the burden of having to fund these strategic investments. With respect to GUARD, the arms-length company is in the first year of a five year business plan. It is anticipated that in the future, proceeds from GUARD will be available to support research and research infrastructure in all parts of the university. However, it will take, at a very minimum, three to five years for any revenue to be realized. It was pointed out that no direct university funds have been invested in GUARD.
• The declining enrolments at the graduate level and of international students are used to justify the
2 decision to not raise tuition by the full 10% in these areas. Logic suggests, therefore, that tuition has an impact on enrolment and accessibility. Why is it not an issue when the students ask for tuition freeze? While the level of tuition is important, it cannot be considered in isolation from financial support for students. An example was given of a university in eastern Canada that has a graduate tuition of $1,400 compared to Guelph's $4,000. However, the support for students there averages $6,000, whereas at Guelph, it is approximately $13,000. The net support for students at Guelph, therefore, is $9,000 as compared to $4,600 in this example. The University has been aggressive in finding external sources of funding for scholarships. The ACCESS Program has raised to date $4.4 million in student aid endowment which will realize almost $9.0 million with government matching.
Will there actually be a positive budget impact as a result of suggested fee increases at the graduate level? Although tuition is proposed to increase, so too are financial support and additional costs for enrolment incentives. The President responded that there will be a positive impact on the budget and expanded on some of the details.
The students argued that the University should not enter into the tuition debate based on the bottom line of the budget. Rather, the University should take some principled stands on certain issues. The University has already taken a stand on international students; it should take a similar stand on tuition for domestic students. The COU has publicly stated that students should pay a larger proportion of a university education. The University of Guelph should clearly identify its position on this principle. Dr. Rozanski responded that the University would prefer that students did not face any substantial increases in tuition. His preference would be for the government to fund university education appropriately. He objects strongly to a level of provincial funding that places Ontario universities 10th out of 10 provinces in terms of funding. He remarked that he and other members of the administration have attended over 80 meetings where attempts have been made to educate the business community, the government and alumni about the importance of public funding of universities. At the same time, the President is committed to maintaining high quality programs at the University of Guelph. For this reason, the tuition increase is essential.
• Rather than increasing tuition, faculty should take a reduction in salary.
The students urged the Senate to take a very strong message to the Board of Governors by rejecting the SCUP motion to receive the report. They argued that rejection of the SCUP motion would send a signal that the Senate does not support the increased tuition. It was also requested that the votes be formally recorded.
The motion to receive the SCUP Report was carried: 59 Senators voted in favour of the motion; 33 Senators opposed the motion; and there were 2 formal abstentions. It was asked by the Co-Chair of Student Senate Caucus that the minutes reflect that the vast majority of the students opposed the SCUP proposal.
March 20, 1997 Prepared by B. Whiteside, Secretary of Senate
3 GAGUEST\SENATE\REMARK.TUI 5. Student Senate Caucus Report to the Board of Governors i. Tuition Fees, 1997-98, March 13, 1997
TO: Report to the Board of Governors meeting of March 27, 1997 FROM: STUDENT SENATE CAUCUS RE: Tuition Fees, 1997-98 DATED: March 13, 1997
The University recently announced their intention to increase students' tuition fees at Guelph. The provincial government will allow a 10% discretionary increase, which means the University could increase fees in different programs by varying amounts up to 20% as long as the total average increase remains 10%.
Last year, against the wishes of the students on senate, Board of Governors and the GSA and CSA, the University differentiated fees at the Undergraduate level by increasing fees in the DVM program by 30%. A proposal this year has come forward from administration to increase all Undergraduate fees by 10% and to differentiate at the graduate level with 6.6% for those degrees which "contribute to the research engine of the University" and 10% for the others. This means that MA, PhD, MSc, DVSc would increase 6.6% and MBA, MLA, MEng, MFA, and MMS would increase 10%. Again, student leaders are asking that if tuition must be increased, it should be an equal increase in fees across all programs, rather than a move to further differentiate fees at Guelph. On recommendation from SCUP the MFA program was recently moved to the lower 6.6% tier, on the assumption that students in the MFA program would not graduate with the same earning potential as the other students in the higher tier. MMS was also moved to the lower tier. After holding a special meeting with Senate Student Caucus co-chair, the Graduate Students' Association President, the Central Students' Association Spokesperson and CSA Internal Commissioner, the Enrolment Management Committee changed their recommendation concerning differential fees and decided to increase the domestic tuition rates at an even 7% across all programs. They also decided to create a task force to investigate the criteria and impact of differential fees at the graduate level.
The following report is the submission of the Senate Student Caucus to EMC, SCUP, Senate and the Board of Governors Finance Committee. This report is endorsed by the Central Students' Association and the Graduate Students' Association.
The issue of fee deregulation is important to students. The ramifications could lead to a decrease in access to specific university programs for financially disadvantaged students. The practice of deregulated tuition undermines the principle of access to education.
1 Many students, both undergraduate and graduate, are already experiencing financial hardship, which would be exacerbated if they were faced with deregulated tuition. The average student loan in Ontario for 1994-95 was $6,169 or $24,676 for a four year degree. A 1995 study estimated that the average cost of a year at university, including housing, food and tuition was almost $13,000 before the 20% tuition increases of 1996. Graduating students are already facing large debt • loads which cannot be easily overcome. Between 1985 and 1995 tuition fees have increased over 100% (Post-Secondary Education Information and Resource Kit, 1996). The Canadian Federation of Students--Ontario in their Response to the Discussion Paper on _Future Goals for Ontario Colleges and Universities_ stress that "debt loads in Ontario are definitely higher than the Canadian averages": Indeed, based on the average OSAP loan in 1996 ($6,430) and even assuming no fee increases in subsequent years, an undergraduate student could be looking at an average debt load of $25,720 for a four year degree. A Master's student's debt load would be closer to $33,000, while a PhD student, if they finished their doctorate in five years, would be looking at a $65,000 debt. (22) On average students are facing tremendous debt loads, if fees are differentiated in certain programs, students who do not have the family and financial support to help take on such debt loads will not risk pursuing certain areas of study, ie. professional programs. Even if needs-based awards are available, we are uncertain if these students will go through the stress of applying and risk the chance of not receiving such an award. (If indeed they are aware such awards exist.)
With a deregulation of fees certain programs would experience an increase in tuition which is dictated and controlled only in terms of the "market." Fee structures which are established through market economics will detrimentally and significantly effect the accessibility of education to all students. The implementation of deregulated tuition will result in restricted access to post-secondary education by disadvantaged socio-economic groups. Deregulation would exclude certain classes of society from specific disciplines because of their higher, differential fees. Students who do not have the financial or family support to allow them to undertake the large debt loads associated with post-secondary education will be systematically denied an equal opportunity to higher education. As the Central Students' Association points out in their 1996 position paper which was presented to the Board of Governors in opposition to deregulation at the Undergraduate level: Professional programs have been targeted by the ministry for differentially higher increases. The result will be a decrease in the diversity of current applicants and of future graduates: those who will be most comfortable applying to professional programs will be those who come from more privileged socio-economic and cultural backgrounds; those from backgrounds which statistically make less money and/or claim fewer university graduates will be less likely to apply-- namely women, people of colour, people from working class families and other statistically under-represented groups. Professional programs such as law, medicine, architecture, engineering, and veterinary medicine, then, will become less accessible than arts, science and other non-professional programs. The basis for admittance will shift towards the ability to pay, and away from the ability to perform. (1996)
In addition, the deregulation or differentiation in fees imposes a value system on education where one program is "worth" more than another based not only on the perceived cost of running that program but also based on the perceived monetary gains one _might_ make after graduation. Senate Student Caucus specifically expressed this concern in their position paper addressed to the Board of Governors in March 1996 with respect to the differentiation of fees between the professional and non-professional programs at Guelph University: "A differentiated fee system is predicated on an assumption that may be false given our present fiscal climate. The expectation that graduates of either graduate or undergraduate professional programs will quickly find stable employment upon graduation, which in principle will offset the expense of their education, is unrealistic given the current economic challenges facing the province and more generally, the nation" (1996). Ideally, differentiation in contributions made to the education system should occur after students graduate and receive actual jobs and are required to pay appropriate taxes which correspond to their actual income. In this way students will be contributing to their society and education based on their actual financial success rather than assumed success.
The deregulation of fees may create a class system not only amongst individual programs but also amongst universities. Like some programs, certain universities may have the ability to attract a fiscally richer "consumer" base thus allowing them to charge more tuition. This higher tuition may in turn generate the perception that particular universities or programs are able to provide an education of higher quality. The notion of prestige also comes into play with the idea that certain people can afford to attend certain universities. A fee system without regulation across the province in both programs and institutions would create and reinforce a value system based on economics which systematically discriminates against certain areas of scholarship and certain groups of society. As the Canadian Federation of Students--Ontario concludes in their Discussion paper:
We do not view deregulation, in however partial a form, as a solution to the current funding problems facing Ontario's colleges and universities. It is our belief that deregulation would not only reproduce the current accessibility problems haunting students in Ontario, but would actually magnify these problems through even higher tuition fees and greater debt loads. In addition, deregulation on a scale larger than what we have already seen would effectively tier PSE, thereby creating schools (or pockets within a school) where the only criteria for enrolment would hinge on ability to pay--an occurrence that would make a mockery of the concept of a public PSE system that is both accessible and of high quality. (21)
In addition to differential fees between various programs, students are also concerned about the differential fees charged to International students. In light of the University's commitment to Internationalism as one of its strategic directions, we feel that it is important for the University to continue to lower its International tuition fees. The University of Guelph has shown exemplary leadership within Ontario with respect to its decision to decrease International Graduate student fees last winter when the government announced a deregulation on International fees. The Enrolement Management's proposal to freeze International student fees is supported by the student community.
The current suggestion of fee differentiation at the Graduate level is unacceptable. We feel that differentiation based on a program's "contribution to the research engine of the University of Guelph" is a dangerous precedent to set. It is impossible to assign a measurable value to the diversity of individual programs offered at the University. How does one judge the research contribution of a particular degree or program? What defines research and what defines "valuable research?" If tuition must be increased, then we propose equal increases across all graduate programs for domestic students at 6.8%/6.9%, the average fee increase presented by administration at the GSA/CSA/Admin. meeting on Monday February 24, 1997. Students have expressed their opposition to the deregulation and differentiation of fees on many occasions over the past year at Guelph. The Central Students' Association, Graduate Students' Association, Senate Student Caucus and Student Governors spoke against deregulation at the March 1996 Board of Governors meeting. Student Senators rose again in the September 1996 Senate meeting in opposition to the deregulation of tuition fees and in 1997 at the Senate Committee on University Planning. For reasons of equity in perceived value across programs and for reasons of accessibility to all members of society, the student leaders at the University of Guelph are adamantly opposed to the principle and practice of fee deregulation. To suggest that degrees can be judged based on assumed research contributions and assumed potential future earnings is naive. We hope that in your creation of this year's budget for the University of Guelph that you will take into consideration the points raised here and not fall into the seductive trap of tuition deregulation. One must think of all the social implications that are attached to setting such a precedent in deregulation.
Senate Student Caucus: Rebecca Arthur Becky Bearinger Corey Bennett Fiona Campbell Jeanette Dayman Ryan Denys Isobel Donaldson Adam Dukelow Cynthia Elfers Jennifer Fletcher Mike Ford Tejwant Gidda Laurie Halfpenny Trace Hanlon Megan Harris Karen Iles Andria Jones Jason Koivisto Greg Lamarche Barry Liboiron Gordon Lovell Alison Luke Joan Nandlal Judy Paisley-McLagan Dan Pauze Genevieve Russell Jason Sager Robert Sancton Jennifer Story Michael Swidersky Elliot Welch Jeff Whitty Kimberly Waddell-Holloway
Alison Luke, President, Graduate Students' Association
Lance Morgan, Spokesperson, Central Students' Association
forwarded by Jennifer Fletcher, March 13, 1997 (original memorandum dated March 4, 1997 distributed to the Finance Committee, BOG) 6. Correspondence to Senate, March 11, 1997 i. 26 letters submitted to Senate
Letters from Students to Senate
March 11, 1997
E-Mail Letters - 18 Hard Copy Letters - 8
Samayi Campbell Mark Thomas, GSA Alison Gorbould Lance Morgan, CSA Chantalle Asselin Magali-Meagher David Whyte Vicky Smallman, Canadian Federation S. Cressman of Students (Ontario) Heidi Webb Linelle Mogado Bob McCarthy Andrew Millward Derek Heffernan Rob McMullin Tom Keefer Kristi Adamo Alison Maddison Natasha Mallal S. Vance Lesley Reed Scott McConnell Laura Jean Beattie Rachel Sawatzky Glen McQuestion Sarah Fielden Date sent: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 16:45:54 -0500 (EST) From: Jennifer L Fletcher
Forwarded message Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 03:55:44 -0500 (EST) From: Guelph Socialists
Ms.Sullivan,
The following is a letter to the Senate. I am oppossed to the upcoming tuition increase for the 1997/98 school year. Currently as a first year student I have seen tuition increase 20% just in my enrollement at this unversity. At this present time I cannot afford the tuition as it stands. With this increase it would mean that students like myself will not be able to afford tuition. I would like to see as many students as possible in universities being able to fulfill their goals. This protest against the proposed tuition increase is not just for myself. It is for all the students who will never get the chance that I have had to attend unviversity without having to put themselves in debt and/or declaring bankruptcy at the end of four years. If tuition fees keep rising steadily, as they have been, a tiered education system will be created. This system will be composed of wealthy students being the only people who will be able to attend university which will create a societal structure made up of only the rich. This is unacceptable and intolerable. There is a need for a society where all can be included in order for our societal structure to be effective. As it stands our society is currently headed on steady decline towards a system where only a small proportion of the population will be able to make a contribution in the way it is ran.
I am a student who wants my voice to be heard in the decision making process and would like to make a contribution in a society where we can all have the opportunity of accessible education.
Samayi Campbell 960 094 840 Date sent: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 03:12:18 -0500 (EST) From: Cicatrice
Ms. Whiteside,
The following is a letter to senate. The administration has proven unwilling to provide us with a list of senate members email addresses, therefore, I am forwarding this letter through you. I understand that the rules/process governing senate demand that any communication to senate must be read during the "communications" section of the next senate meeting (March 11th, I believe.) I have also forwarded this letter to Jennifer Fletcher, a member of student caucus, so that she can remind you to have it read -- I m sure you must have a lot on your mind, and I know you wouldn t want to forget!
To the Senate:
I would like to take this opportunity first to congratulate members of senate for selecting a process by which any concerned member of the university community can have their voice heard by way of the mandatory reading of any and all communications in the communications section of senate meetings. I was ever so pleased when this came to my attention -- my dealings with administration in the past would have never lead me to DREAM that anyone actually wanted to know what students thought! It s funny, you know, it s like they re using the same words, but they mean TOTALLY different things! For example "consultation" -- I always thought it meant that you listened to what people have to say and actually took it into consideration! But I must be wrong, because in the press flurry around the occupation, the President, among others, kept talking about the consultation process and students being involved in it, when it had already been stated that they were all already committed to a tuition increase! But I m getting off topic. I would like to point out to the senate that several of the rules in the Students "rights" and responsibilities document contravene an individual s right to ethical and peaceful protest. I point this out because over and over people claiming to represent the university, (for example, Mr. Rozanski) have claimed that they "respect students right to protest." In practice, what this has meant that in response to students standing up for what they believe is right, when administration has proven absolutely unconcerned with the concerns of students, The administration has threatened those students with expulsion. (We have that on tape, by the way, along with all the promises (now broken) made by administration s "negotiator"-- another one of those words with various meanings -- Alistair Summerly.) What this means is that students who have amassed tens of thousands of dollars in OSAP loans, and devoted years of their life to their education would be denied the ability to use those credits towards a degree. I fail to understand how, if one has paid for and successfully completed a credit, that credit can be retroactively taken away. But more importantly, I think it is a morally reprehensible way to punish students who obviously care so much about about education that they are willing to forgo their winter break and undergo probably the most stressful ordeal they will ever experience --all in order to protect the accessibility of education for people OTHER than themselves (as several were in their last semesters and would not personally have to pay the tuition hike.)
Given the University s public stance supporting students right to protest, I suggest that you recommend that THe Students "Rights" and Responsibilities document be changed.
The administration administers the University, it does not own it. THe administration only administers by the grace of the people they govern -- students. If, for example, the student body put their tuition in escrow until their needs were listened to, the administration would not be able to function. Administration NEEDS the support of students, or, to put it in terms they will be more likely to understand, they need our MONEY. When a governing body breaks their half of a "social contract" the governed have no other recourse than to do the same. Punishing people for standing up for what is unquestionably ethically and morally right is disgusting. I m sure you ll agree. I look forward to hearing your responses.
Sincerely,
Alison Gorbould Forwarded by: "Nancy Sullivan"
Ms. Sullivan,
The following is a letter to senate. The administration has proven unwilling to provide us with a list of senate members email addresses, therefore, I am forwarding this letter through you. I understand that the rules/process governing senate demand that any communication to senate must be read during the "communications" section of the next senate meeting (March 11th, I believe.) I have also forwarded this letter to Jennifer Fletcher, a member of student caucus, so that she can remind you to have it read -- I m sure you must have a lot on your mind, and I know you wouldn t want to forget!
I am dissatisfied with the way the administration dealt (did not deal) with the demands of the students. The ways in which the administration communicated with the students who were occupying the admin. offices were inappropriate. It seems to be that the administration has other priorities than the students. Students who make their jobs viable. no students. no school. no you.
I hope that you will think long and hard about how the tuition and privitization will affect our commnunity. sincerly Chantalle Asselin Date sent: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 16:31:54 -0500 (EST) From: Jennifer L Fletcher
Forwarded message Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 23:17:18 -0500 (EST) From: David Whyte
University Senate,
I am concerned about how the proposed 10% tuition hike will affect the accessibility of education at this university. I believe that if tuition continues to be increased post-secondary education will become unavailable to student in difficult economic circumstances. Our university should be open to all those who are pursuing education, not just those who happen to be from a wealthier background. Please use your senatorial powers to fight this tuition hike, and send a message to Ontario that students cannot afford to be targeted any longer. Thank you.
David Whyte Date sent: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 16:13:04 -0500 (EST) From: Jennifer L Fletcher
Forwarded message Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 15:44:18 -0500 (EST) From: Sarah Cressman
This is a communication to the Senete.
As a University of Guelph student I would like to raise my concerns about the tuition increases planned for the fall. The price of an education has been steadily increasing over the past several years and as a result education is becomming more and more elitist. Education should be a right for those who desire to learn, not a priviledge of the rich. I realize that financial times are hard but I feel that money could be saved in other ways without jeprodizing student s (even the poor ones) right to learn.
Thank-you for your time,
S. Cressman
"Life is either a daring adventure or nothing" -Helen Keller Forwarded by: "Nancy Sullivan"
I am writing to you in response to the tuition hikes specifically for 1997-1998 but also for future increases in general. Just out of curiosity, who exactly does the Senate support? The students of the university or the Harris government? It seems to me that the Senate as a collective whole lack in their support for the concerns of students. I am a first year student here at Guelph. I love the campus. I love the courses I am taking. I have learned so much already. But it scares me to think that this opportunity might not last because of finances. Do you realize how scary it is to be in the shoes of a university student in 1997? I don t think you do. Why? Because there is no support from administration. The student occupation was an inconvience to administration. Our attempt at making the University aware that we want and need accessible education became a burden. Thank you so much for your lovely support. All we want is for you to realize that we are the students, the clients of this university. We are the ones paying high prices for our education so we can compete in the labour force. Do you honestly believe this is not worth fighting for? We need you to help us fight for our right to accessible education. You have the power to help us. Please take it upon yourselves to help us - give us your support.
In support of the students in solidarity, Heidi Webb Date sent: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 16:33:06 -0500 (EST) From: Jennifer L Fletcher
Forwarded message Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 23:44:41 -0500 (EST) From: Bob McCarthy
I would very much like to register my concern about the proposed 10% tuition increase. For the purposes of accessability, hiking tuition so soon after the last increase is wrong. I have encountered the people who feel they no longer will be able to afford university, I know that they are out there. Is university only to be available to the most priviledged of high school students? Or will the senior administration listen to the concerns of thousands of U of G students and say no? There are other ways, including publically putting pressure back on the government to put money back into education. Thanks for your time,
Bob McCarthy Date sent: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 16:46:58 -0500 (EST) From: Jennifer L Fletcher
Forwarded message Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 12:34:24 -0500 (EST) From: Derek Heffernan
This message is directed to the senate, please have it read to them at the next meeting. Thank you.
I am a student at University of Guelph who is shocked and appalled at the continuing tuition hikes occurring at this university and across Ontario. It is my opinion that this university must not indicate to the government that this is a valid method of acquiring funds for postsecondary education. Tuition has already increased to a highly unmanageable level for anyone who does not have parental support, and for those that do, it puts increasing financial strain on the parents. Many students are graduating with $40 000 dollar debts, and this is not a good position to be in when we wish to enter the work force, buy a house, or even a car. Furthermore, jobs are few and far between right now, increasing the strain on students. It is ABSOLUTELY INTOLERABLE and tuition hikes must be STOPPED. NOW. We, the students, have put up with the hikes of the past few years, but that is as far as it must go if a university education is to be accessible, feasible, and worthwhile to Ontario students. I vehemently oppose any tuition increases of any kind. Thank you for your time.
Derek Heffernan 4th year International Development Student University of Guelph Date sent: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 16:44:57 -0500 (EST) From: Jennifer L Fletcher [email protected]> To: Brenda Whiteside
Forwarded message Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 03:47:04 -0500 (EST) From: "K.P. Ivanov"
Ms. Sullivan,
The following is a letter to be read at senate.
As way of introduction, let me say that I think that it is crucial that governing bodies of our university such as Senate understand the political rational behind the student movement against the tuition hikes. I beleive that once you become better aware of the implacable committment of those fighting against your implementation of the neo liberal agenda, you will come to a better understanding of our cause and a realization of how your implementation of this tuition hike can be understood in a global context.
Over the past several weeks a number of universities have had their presidential offices occupied by students protesting a recent 10% discretionary tuition fee increase. The spontaneity of the initial occupations at the University of Toronto and of York University spread, and in solidarity, students at Guelph and Carleton occupied their presidential offices beginning on February 13th and 18th, respectively.
Most recently, students in Kingston occupied their Presidential offices on the 26th of February, and student groups in Toronto and Guelph continue their preparations for further actions along these lines.
Given the not inconsequential ability of these movements to organize resistance and develop student consciousness, the question which Senate must now begin to deal with becomes one of where the activists who have carried out these various actions will take the struggle from here.
Indeed, it is essential for any developing movement to begin articulating its experiences so as to better understand them. We need to understand the state of the student movement today, the legacy of our past, and to provide an analysis of our future possibilities as a movement.
There are several reasons why recent string of occupations around the 10% tuition hike represents a tremendous opportunity for the building of a student movement. (And a rather large headache for you administrative types...)
"Ow The current fight for a tuition freeze in Ontario for 97/98 is winnable. We re not taking on the whole corporate agenda, a monolithic trade agreement, or an across the board cut from the federal or provincial government. As a small, isolated embryonic student movement we re faced with one of the only fights we can possibly win. A discretionary tuition hike which universities can implement or not as they choose. What this boils down to is a direct political battle on campus between the student body and its administration.
(Hmm...Could this be why Mord, Nancy and the gang are spending so much student money on walling themselves up on their fourth floor? It s kind of interesting, but the whole fourth floor of our university seems to be on some kind of "auto-destruct" in which in anticipation of another student occupation which could shut it down, it locks itself down, creating much the same effect as an occupation would...)
The provincial government has realized its mistake and knows that the recent occupations represent an Achilles heel in their attempt to restructure education in Ontario. It is our responsibility to take advantage of our opportunity and to win a tuition freeze, a victory which will make it incredibly easier to mobilize students in further struggles. Our struggle is clear. If tuition hikes for this year are pushed through, the tuition in Ontario will have gone up 49% in 4 years. These sorts of numbers and the increased financial hardships evidenced by students suggest that there is a real possibility that even previously apolitical, uninterested students will join in and support our fight.
These students will be fighting for their own objective self interest, a self interest with mobilizational power which we should not underestimate. With a broad base of active student support on the narrow issue of a tuition freeze it will become our responsibility to tie that self interest into the wider political fight against all forms of oppression and all aspects and implications of the globalized neo-liberal offensive.
The fight that we are involved with around the tuition hikes is ongoing in a fashion that previous days of action were not. As opposed to these one day demonstrations which come and go, we can be involved in the fight which builds over the long term for a clear and attainable political goal. Our struggle can go from occupation to demos, to teach-ins to public meetings, to fundraising parties to occupations again until our demands are met.
At the same time, we must remain aware that the potential of student mobilization is real, but that like so many other English Canadian student initiatives over the past several years (Jan 25th 1995, Feb 7th 1996, Toronto Days of Action 1997) the movement can if not generalized, die away after single isolated actions.
We desperately need to bring the core of students involved in the recent occupations at campuses across Ontario together so that we can generalize our struggle and strengthen our movement. Forums and conferences to discuss tactics, strategy and the implication of our actions on the wider anti-corporate movement are essential. More importantly, we need to begin to co-ordinate our occupations and demonstrations and to actively realize our strength in solidarity through the creation of some sort of formal organizational and communicative ties.
Remember Nancy, there are several points which need to be made in regards to understanding the nature and internal contradictions of the anti-Harris movement.
The trade union bureaucracy, the top union leaders, have refused to take a solid lead on any actions which could seriously challenge Harris s corporate agenda and the interests behind it. Following the Toronto DOA, the union leadership split over the question of whether to continue building a mass extra-parliamentary movement to shut Ontario down, or to confine their activity to ensuring the re-election of an NDP government. This split at the top levels of the labour movement has had a pronounced effect upon the student and broader anti cuts movement.
The various anti-cuts coalitions both based on campus and in the wider community have been subject to generalized highs and lows across the province. Coalition activity throughout the province was marked with a flurry of activity and networking in the months after Harris got elected, full fledged campaigns during the fall of 95 and then a fall off, punctuated with bursts of activity around various days of action.
Upon their formation, these coalitions spread rapidly across the province, hooking up students, labour council executives and social justice networks, but never really sunk deep enough roots into their constituent organizations, labour unions and the community to stay alive when the struggle waned. Today most city wide "coalition against the cuts" are dead or at least at low ebb.
One of the most astonishing things about this movement was that the precise rise and fall of it component parts in cities separated by hundreds of miles. In general terms, when coalitions in Guelph and Ottawa were strong, so were those in Windsor and Kingston, when things slowed down in the Toronto coalitions, a similar slowing was taking place elsewhere.
Members of senate should be aware that the movement against Harris is capable of involving enormous numbers of people in direct opposition to the corporate agenda, as the struggles across the province are the product of similar objective conditions. In two of the largest demonstrations in Canadian history, hundreds of thousands of people marched against Harris in the Hamilton and Toronto days of action.
The sustained involvement of thousands against the mega-city project has also shown the opportunities there are for mobilization. The continued imposition of neo-liberalism in Ontario will create opposition in various forms, of course dependent upon the nature of the cut or "reform" instituted.
There exists a marked tendency in many coalitions to paint Harris as an isolated bad guy and not to contextualize him within the context of a global capitalist offensive. Crucial to understanding student struggle today is understanding the state of struggle elsewhere in the world.
The actions of the Harris, Klein, and Chretien governments must be considered in the context of a global offensive of capitalism. Under the catchphrases of "globalization", "down-sizing" and "structural re-adjustment" an intense assault is being launched upon working people and the poor in every country on the planet. The right-wing offensive launched by Thatcher and Reagen has continued, depended and broadened into a full program of international austerity cutbacks implemented by every political party in power.
Now codified as "neo-liberalism", global capital has been entering a period of sustained offensive against the welfare state (in those countries with one) and one of "structural adjustment" in lesser developed nations.
This worldwide offensive has created a response apparent in the actions of millions of ordinary working people. It is impossible for it to be otherwise. Mass strikes in France, Italy, the former Soviet Union, and South Korea have been clear indications that hundreds of thousands have been and will continue to be drawn into direct struggle with the neo-liberal offensive. Wherever neo-liberalism is backed up by dictatorial force, armed resistance to this force is on the rise, and can be seen in the actions of the Zapatistas, Tupac Amaru and a plethora of resistance movements throughout the world.
The resistance to the cuts of the Tory government in Ontario is one and the same as the struggle of Indonesian and South African trade unionists. The radical students of South Korea, France and Quebec are our brothers and sisters, and the enemies of the Zapatistas are our enemies.
Telecommunications and the internet can help us contact our allies across the world but they are no substitute for building resistance ourselves. As the neo-liberal offensive advances and as resistance to it becomes more defined, we will see the rise of a global movement against austerity programs which will be reflected in international communication and co-ordination. As a developing student movement we will need to be aware of these developments and to openly foster such lines of communication and co-ordination.
It should be pretty clear by now that participation in a radical student movement is nothing new. In North America and indeed much of the world, students and youth were key in the civil rights, Black power, feminist and anti-war movements, to the point of seriously shaping and defining the political terrain for years to come. The student movement was widely based enough that we ve all heard from parents, profs and friends of those years as to their past involvement as student radicals, hippies and protesters. (In fact wasn t it you Nancy, who once spoke of her tenure as a "student radical" just like us, way back in the 60 s?)
Now of course popular discourse would have us believe that this is a phenonomen safely relegated to a past golden age of idealism which society has safely passed beyond.
Given the often miserable state of political consciousness on campus it is not difficult for us to buy into this characterization. Nonetheless, it is true that there is currently a student movement in parts of the world today that in its localized struggles matches or surpasses the development and organization of the militant era of student struggle in the late 60 s and early 70 s. In the past year, students in South Korea, France and Quebec have shown as determined and generalized an involvement in struggle as our counterparts of the 60 s and 70 s.
There are of course serious qualitative differences in the student movement of today versus that of the past. It is indeed crucial to note that today s student movement is primarily a reactive one defined by resistance to educational cuts, and not wider social issues such as white racism or imperialist war and thus one lacking the (relative) theoretical clarity of the sixties. Nonetheless, the assault of globalization and neo-liberalism will itself create the opportunities for us to understand the common, international interlinking of our cause.
It is not my intent to go into the history of the movement of the 60s as I do not have the space or time to do so, but the study of the movements against white supremacy, patriarchy and the imperialist war in Vietnam will provide us with important insights into our situation today. Indeed, in many cases the movements of that era provides us with the basic foundations and assumptions of what a "student movement" today means. Those of us who do not learn from the events of May 68 in France, the COINTELPRO offensive against the Black Power and anti-war movement and the nature of reformism will be doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.
We must realize that over the next several weeks we have a fighting chance of winning a tuition freeze in Ontario. Essential to the understanding of our fight against the discretionary fee increase is a recognition that our fight is connected to that of students, indigenous peoples, the poor and the working class across the globe.
In addition, there are ways of organizing which can succeed in bringing us closer to this objective, ways that even if they do not immediately lead to the winning of the tuition freeze, will strengthen and prepare us for future battles to come. We need to define these methods of organization which will maximize the communication and co-ordination of action in the student movement of today.
As our movement grows, our demands should also develop and transcend the limits of a tuition freeze. At this juncture in Ontario politics, focusing on our winnable struggle for a tuition freeze can serve to rekindle a fighting student movement and to concretely inspire our allies in the fight against neo-liberalism.
I hope that by having had the chance to hear this examination of the causes and implications of the cutbacks taking place under this neo-liberal offensive Senate will take these arguments into consideration during its deliberations.
I look forward to being placed under further scrutiny from you and the rest of the administration for my political beliefs and use of my democratic rights. I hope that next time around you will tire of such childish antics as freezing email accounts as an intimidation tactic and will instead attempt to carry out your tyranical threats of expulsion.
Why? Because such repression against student activists will only cause our movement to exponentially grow in strength and take the struggle against your policies one step further. Our movement is not some tired throwback to the 60 s. We understand that we represent part of a world resistence to austerity programs, know our history, have learned from our mistakes and will rise up against you to defend our right to education.
Hasta la Victoria Sempre!
In struggle,
Tom Keefer.
951450920 Forwarded by: "Nancy Sullivan"
The following is a letter to the senate. First off,Im really annoyed at how the administration handled the occupation. Secondly, It seems that with eachl 0 percenthike the university is alienating the "non-elitists" of the world. Why isit that ones income is becoming their ticket to an education, INEQUALITY! everyone has a right to education, by raising the tuition, you are creating a barrier in society. Why should students start out inthe"real world" with 50,000 dollar debts? You are simply targeting the vulnerable. We have a right to education, do not deny us with the opportunity to do so. -concerned student. Date sent: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 16:47:41 -0500 (EST) From: Jennifer L Fletcher
Forwarded message Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 02:25:20 -0500 0 From: Natasha Mallal
Hello,
I would like to express my outrage as a student at the proposed tuition hike to be implemented in 97- 98. I strongly feel that there are other ways to balance the universities budget and that it is the university s responsibility to search these out. Increasing the onus on students may be the easiest way to increase the size of coffers, but it is also clear that we are the hardest hit. Almost 50% increase in tuition in four years is too much!! Why not try an decrease in the salary of upper administration instead of sucking dry people who do not have the means to support such an increase.
Please forward this to the senate meeting on Tues. March 11th. I expect that my email will be read at the beginning of the meeting like all other items in "communications." I an sending this to you because you can pass it along and have a responsibility to let students voices be heard.
Thank You, Date sent: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 16:31:20 -0500 (EST) From: Jennifer L Fletcher
Forwarded message Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 21:59:23 -0500 (EST) From: sarah vance
This is a message to be read at the senate meeting on Tues March 11th, 1997.
Dear Senate peoples,
Tuition alone, now stands at over $3000 a year. Add on vital student fees, housing, food, leisure and other human essentials, it costs a student over $10 000 a year to attend university. This in itself, is nothing short of insane. I am writing this letter to demand a tuition freeze and to stop the present proposed 10% tuition hike from occuring. It is fundamentally important at this time for us to consider the far reaching effects of this decision. If we take a step back and get some perspective on this issue, it will help us in this decision. It will help us to understand the direction in which we wish to take education and the knowledge base of our society. I am writing to demand that this university take a strong and vital stance against funding cuts coming down from both the provincial and federal governments. The less we spend as a society through public money on education, the more inaccessible education becomes to people interested in learning (through tuition hikes). The less we spend as a collective on education, the more private sponsorship begins to control our learning. Private money that goes into the university, compromises the very basis of what constitutes education. Private money in our education system is loaded with motive, specific money making interests and is a subtle, yet extremely severe form of thought control. When private influence on universities and schools exists, true education does not exist. True education is free, critical, exploratory, insightful, thought provoking and promotes truth and freedom. True education has and never will have absolutely anything to do with making money. We must learn to expand our minds and enrich the lives of others. We must NEVER become a part of helping increase the profits of the Royal Bank or of Nestle or of anyone else who has no interested in true education, freedom or human needs. Access to education is defined as a basic human right. It is a direct violation of human rights to continue to make education in our society increasingly inaccessible to an increasing number of people. A Tuition freeze must be occur NOW to stop the continuing attack on learning. A public denouncement against the de-funding to universities must be made, NOW. A declaration of what an education is and what its purpose is must be made, NOW. It is only then that we can begin to make education completely accessible and free of constraints.
It is you who are a voice in this process. Use that voice.
s. vance undergraduate student Forwarded by: "Nancy Sullivan"
Please address this letter to the senate. I am forwarding it to you because the administration has been unwilling to provide me with a list of senate members email addresses.
I am a third year U o G student who has absolutely no financial support from my parents. I have received full OSAP since I started university in 1992. I have already accumalted over $20,000 in debt, with an additional $15,000 expected in order to receieve my education. ALL tution increases hurt me directly. The price of attending university will be a burden when I leave. It influences the type of job I must take and limits the flexibility of my actions since I must be concerned with paying this off and establishing a sufficiently high enough income to do so. More and more in our society a university degree is becoming the minimum a person must attain in order to receieve a decent job, wage and working conditions. Tution increases are a barrier to people attending university. You have the POWER and CHOICE to change this. Please do not dismiss my letter, in your mind, by saying I do not understand the financial constraints the university is under. I DO understand. I ask of you to exercise your FREEDOM of choice and NOT to sell out to capatilist pressures which are artifical and are used as an excuse to keep the present power structure. I am writing this letter because each person has to take a side, they make a choice and be responsible for their actions. It is up to YOU to vote for this increase, please do not rationalise an excuse for the burden you place upon me, my situation or to others like me.
Lesley Reed From: "B. Whiteside"
14101•■• Forwarded Message Follows Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 14:07:57 -0500 0 From: scott mcconnell
Dear Ms. Whiteside:
I. am a first-year graduate student in Rural Planning and Development. I wish to voice my concern over the proposed tuition increase for students of this university. When I entered this university, I made a decision to concentrate on my studies, rather than find a part-time job to work alongside my ful-time studies. As one who worked during the entire time I was an undergrad student at the University of British Columbia, I came to realized that having a part-time job meant compromising my ability to do well in University. I made the decision that I would not and could not afford to compromise my studies as a graduate student. For myself, the results have given me an "A" average for the first time in my life, a result that I know could not have occurred had I needed to devote my time to working a part-time job on the side.
My education is completely reliant upon student loan funding. As it is, the tuition to attend graduate programs at the University of Guelph already makes things quite tight in terms of budgeting. Without the assistance of my Bank, I could not afford to see the term to its conclusion. I can not afford to pay any more tuition than I already am, and I believe that I am not alone.
I am asking the university to take a stand against the government s dictatorial approach to post-secondary education in the province of Ontario by refusing to follow Mike Harris demand of raising the costs of education. If the government is allowed to raise tuition at the same time that it cuts back on its investment in the youth of the province, the university risks becoming an even more priviliged place of learning than it already is.
Please consider your decision in terms of who will and who will not be able to afford to attend the University of Guelph once you have raised your fees.
Sincerely
Scott McConnell 968001550 From: "B. Whiteside"
Forwarded Message Follows Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 17:10:44 -0500 (EST) From: Jennifer L Fletcher [email protected]> To: Brenda Whiteside
Forwarded message Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 14:01:05 -0800 (PST) From: laura jean beattie
To Dr. Rozanski, members of Senate:
I understand that the agenda this evening includes a proposal for a tuition fee increase of 10% for undergraduate students and 7% for graduate students. While I am distressed that tuition is increasing yet again, and again at a substantial rate, I am pleased that the decision to differentiate tuition fee increases has been deferred for at least one year.
I am very much opposed to any move to differentiate tuition fees which potentially limits accessibility and associates a market value to a particular degree. I would remind senate that I posed a question at last years meeting on tuition increases regarding the current existence of differentiated fees in particular programs (BLA and BSc-Eng) as the prior existence of differentiated fees was used to justify further differentiation. The response to my question was that no one knew why they were different to begin with. I am pleased that before this precedent is blindly followed, research will be done to understand and justify a differentiation at the graduate level.
I have read the Caucus report and am in full agreement with it. I hope that Senate members will seriously consider the arguments put forth by the students and the implications of a differential tuition fee.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter.
Most sincerely,
Laura Beattie, BA 96
Past-Chair, Senate Student Caucus President s Scholar Winegard Medalist
Have a good day.
Brenda Whiteside [email protected] (519) 824-4120 ext. 6758 FAX: (519) 767-1350 Date sent: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 14:43:29 -0500 (EST) From: Jennifer L Fletcher
Forwarded message Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 14:31:45 -0500 (EST) From: veggie-girl
ATTN: University of Guelph Board of Governors Senate Meeting, Tuesday March 11, 1997
I would like this letter to be read at the senate meeting, before all of Board of Governors.
I am writing this notice as a concerned student of the University of Guelph. As an undergrad, who has avoided mass debt until this point by Nur working MANY long hours, at numerous jobs I would like to bring forth the issue of tuition increases. Since I have entered my program at the University, tuition has raised over $500, in a period of only 3 years. I am no longer able to afford this amount without assistance. I can no longer find jobs that enable me to make the required amount of money, and I am no longer in a position where I can afford the time, or energy to work more than a single job at once. I am among the few students who actually have had the privilege of living close enough to campus, that I have avoided the costs of living in residence. I realize that I am a minority. Many students who are enrolled in this University come from distances that require them to spend large amounts of money on accomodation alone, without the costs of tuition. The 10% increase that has been proposed not only adds more stress to students who are already living in debt, but makes it more difficult for new students to afford entering University. This increase undermines attempts to keep education accessible to all students. It aids in further privatizing education, and making it an elitist institute, affordable only to those born into wealth. Education should be accessible for ALL, not the privileged few. Education is a right, and it is your responsibility to make sure that right is not taken away from students. The tactics used by the administration of the University to deal with the student occupation, were not acceptable. The students of this university were forced to take such desperate action because their voices were not being heard. The attempt by Administration to isolate these students were unsuccessful. They were not just 17 students acting alone, out of selfishness or craving fame. They were 17 students representing the ENTIRE undergraduate and graduate student body. The mass amount of support that the occupiers received is proof of this. It is time that the student voice is heard. We want to be able to go to University without incurring a debt sentence, and we want to be able to go to university regardless of how much money we have, or our parents have. I urge you to vote against the tuition increase, and keep tuition at its current rate. It is your responsibility, as the highest decision making body in the University to reject the proposed increase and keep University education open to all those who are qualified to enter, not just those who can afford it. Please vote in favour of a tuition freeze. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rachel Sawatzky 3rd Year, Family and Social Relations Honours Program. From: "Glitter"
To the Senate:
I am writing to officially add my voice to the growing chorus of those opposed to the proposed increase in tuition. As I m sure you are already aware, the arguments against this increase are many and varied, and I m sure many of these arguments will come out in letters from other individuals. For my part, I would like to convey to you why I, personally, fear further tuition increases.
As a person from a relatively stable family and financial background, I have been lucky to have been able to afford an undergraduate and graduate education. I worked in the summers to try to finance most of the cost, and my parents helped with the rest. With two children, however, my parents had to obtain a second mortgage in order to fully provide for us. This is not a debt that they can not eventually repay, but it is a burden all the same.
However, my point here is not about my family, because I feel that we are fortunate in that we have options such as I have mentioned. Many of my friends have not come from such stable situations. For these people the financial requirements of higher education, seven years ago, when we began our educations, was overwhelming. Several of these people told me that had it not been for grants and scholorships they would simply not have been able to afford to come to school; in the absence of any assistance it would have been impossible. For these people, the prospect of a large OSAP debt impacted on, and limited their educational choices.
In 1990, tuition fees were roughly half of what they are today, and now they seem to be steadily increasing. For the friends I have mentioned, and for many more who are in similar--or worse--financial situations, the prospect of a post-secondary education is becoming more and more sparse. While OSAP does provide assistance, it does also have to be paid back. In an unsure job market, starting a career with a large debt is risky business indeed. This is provided one can afford to go to school in the first place. Ns—, I urge you to freeze tuition fees where they are. Education is a right that should be accessible to ALL people, regardless of economics. At the rate we are going, the higher education system will continue to become the realm of the wealthy, until only the wealthy need apply. Not only does this have a tremendous impact on the experience of individuals, but our social experience, as well, will be limited by the absence of many voices who could have made a difference.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Glen McQuestion MA, Drama Department University of Guelph Forwarded by: "Nancy Sullivan"
I am writing to express my firm opposition to the proposed cuts. Universities should not be elite institutions in the first place but to increse student tuition any further is madening. University education should not be a question of what class you were brought up in but be based upon merit and desire to learn and grow. With these issues, I am reminded of many of the Universities in Europe where University is completely governmentally funded and wonder what has gone so awry in our system that caused us to overlook the importance of quality services (whether it be social, health, education, hospitality) in Canada by cutting funding to an area that is so imperative to our social wellbeing and future generations. Universities should not perpetuate the discrimination and inequalities that exist in society but aim to prevent further oppression.
I recognize that bursaries and loans exists for students from lower income backgrounds but the former are few and far between while the later leaves some people on the verge of extinction after they graduate (so much so that they find it hard to find permanent, field-related work because they are too busy trying to stay off the streets with Banks breathing down their necks).
I would also like to voice my disappointment with the way the administration has dealt with the student opposition offering no support to students or faculty.
Thank you.
-Sarah Fielden. University of Guelph Graduate Students Association Canadian Federation of Students National Graduate Council Local 62
March 7, 1997
Dear Brenda,
I am writing to the University of Guelph Senate on behalf of the University of Guelph Graduate Students Association. I would like to express the GSA s extreme opposition to the Enrollment Management Group s proposal for a 10% increase in undergraduate tuition and a 7% increase in graduate tuition.
On Tuesday, February 11, 1997, the Graduate Students Association passed the following motion:
WHEREAS tuition has risen without a corresponding increase in government support to post- secondary education for several consecutive years; and
WHEREAS student debt loads have consequently risen while job prospects have remained limited
B.I.R.T. the Graduate Students Association call upon the University of Guelph, its Senate, and its Board of Governors, to freeze tuition for the 1997-98 academic year in all programs at the 1996-97 levels; and
B.I.F.R.T. the GSA call upon those same bodies to strike an ad hoc advisory committee with representatives from the GSA, Senate, the Board of Governors, and the Faculty of Graduate Studies to consider the feasibility of returning to a residency fee/subsequent fee structure for tuition.
At the University of Guelph, tuition increases of approximately 10% and 20% have been implemented in the past two academic years. As well, this past academic year, the graduate tuition fee structure was altered, eliminating the subsequent fee for graduate students. Such dramatic increases to tuition are a matter of great concern to graduate students at the University of Guelph, and across the province of Ontario. Over the course of the past decade, tuition fees for graduate students in the province of Ontario have risen by approximately 300%. This has corresponded with a steady divestment of public funding for post-secondary education.
The GSA is adamantly opposed to the use of increased tuition fees to offset federal and provincial funding cuts. Members of the GSA, along with the GSA Executive, have been actively involved in efforts undertaken to raise awareness about the inappropriateness of this University s strategies to compensate for decreased public funding. The GSA Executive has also questioned the consultative nature of the process by which the recommendation for this year s tuition increase was determined.
On behalf of the over 1500 graduate students represented by the University of Guelph Graduate Students Association, I urge you to take these concerns into consideration when discussing the proposals for further tuition increases this academic year.
Sin
Mark Thomas V.P. Internal Graduate Students Association
Rm. 531 University Centre, Guelph Ontario NIG 2WI Tel: (519) 824-4120 ext. 6685 CENTRAL STUDENT ASSOCIATION Local 54 Canadian Federation of Students University of Guelph
March 10, 1997
Senate,
This letter is intended to express our opposition to the recent proposal of a 10% increase for all undergraduate programs here at the University of Guelph. The CSA has a long history of opposing tuition fees as a barrier to accessibility to post-secondary education. In the CSA policy manual under 2.2.1 states "The Central Student Association believes that tuition fees are a regressive form of taxation".
As members of the University community students are often told that the University has no choice in raising tuition, that it is just an unfortunate reality. We believe that there are alternatives to the increasing of tuition fees. While we can debate policy around taxation and the perceived advantage of a University education, one thing is indisputable: tuition has risen drastically. Students understand the current plight of this and other Universities. We understand that the real villains are a provincial and federal government that shamefully under-fund post-secondary education. What students are asking is that the increasing burden of financing Ontario Universities does not fall on the backs of students.
Over the past five years the number of students requiring assistance in Ontario has increased over 76%. Another increase in tuition can not be viewed in terms of percentages. A $295.00 increase is one month's rent for a student, it is food on the table for a sole-support parent, it is the factor that determines whether or not a student returns to the University of Guelph.
If we are to preserve the quality and accessibility of Ontario universities e must demand
greater help from the governments we elect. By only finding new ways 1 cut and raising tuition fees we give the impression that 'we can make the cuts', 'that ther is fat to trim'.
On behalf of the approximately 13,000 undergraduate students here at 1 University of Guelph and students across the province of Ontario we ask that Senate pport students
and Universities as a whole by calling on the Board of Governors to fr e e tuition for the 1997/98 year.
Sincerely,
Lance Morgan, Spokesperson, on behalf of: The Central Student Association
University of Guelph Room 274 University Centre Guelph 0o N1G 2W1 (519) 824-4120 Ext. 6748 fax (519) 763-9603 CFRU 93 . 3 FM Campus Community Radio University Centre Level 2, University of Guelph Guelph, Ontario Canada N 1 G 2W1 Telephone: (519) 824-4120 extension 6919 Fax: (519) 763-9603 (Attention: CFRU-FM) E-mail: [email protected] World Wide Web: http://tdg.uoguelph.ca/-cfru
CAMPUS COMMUNITY NOT-FOR-PROFIT RADIO Senate c/O Brenda Whiteside 4th Floor, University Centre University of Guelph Guelph, ON N1G 2W1 March 10, 1997
Dear Brenda Whiteside,
CFRU is Guelph's campus/community radio station. The paid staff at CFRU would like to state our opposition to the proposed 10% tuition increase. It is our view that education at the university of guelph is not accessible. To begin, the decision making process concerning tuition and other important issues is dominated by senior administration, corporate representative members of the board of governors and faculty. This concerns us greatly. The University of Guelph should be making decisions that reflect the best interests of students. To our knowledge this has not been occurring. _ Please recognize the fact that a consultative process must involve active participation by students. When confronted (through the administrative office occupation )with concerns from students about both the consultative process and the 10% tuition increase the administration reacted in a completely undemocratic manner. This, again makes us wonder what special interests exist at the administrative level. It is in our view essential that during this era of provincial cut backs that organizations and institutions like the University of Guelph take a stand in support of accessible education and the rights of those who are marginalized. CFRU will continue to promote actions and information that advocates accessible and true education. Education should be for the public interest not the private interest. In solidarity ith students
.d Staff
C- c- ckc,4..r- 0C- sAvakevt s.e-vvcj,e- c # 2 1 3 SENT BY: CFS-0 FCEE-0; 3-10-97 5:34PM; 416 925 8774 -> 1 519 783 9603; Canadian Federation of udents-Ontario C FS Federation cancidiehne-des tudiant(e)s-Ontario FCEE , - •••
To the Members of the University of Guelph Senate,
I understand that you are currently considering the imposition of a 10% tuition increase for undergraduates and a 7% increase for graduate students in 1997/1998, and that the University of Guelph is considering a differential tuition fee structure. On behalf of the 400,000 members of the Canadian Federation of Students (which include graduate and undergraduate students at Guelph) I am writing to express our condemnation of fee deregulation and differential fee structures, and our support for (3uelph students' efforts to achieve a tuition freeze for 1997/1998.
The Federation, both nationally and provincially, has long opposed differential tuition fees, whether for international students or for students in different programs. The current trend toward deregulation and fee differentiation as a solution to Ontario universities' funding woes poses some very serious threats.,to the accessibility and quality of our public postsecondary system.
We firmly believe that fee differentiation will lead to considerable inequities within our universities. Already, many students do not have access to a university education, or a graduate or professional program, because of financial constraints. Students from low-income backgrounds, students of colour, aboriginal students, students with disabilities, women, and students with parental responsibilities are particularly affected by skyrocketing costs. Tuition Nom and mandatory user fees, as the highest education-related expense, are the primary financial barrier. As tuition increases, more and more students face the choice of whether or not to pursue higher education, and many are forced to end their studies prematurely because they cannot afford to continue.
Fee differentiation exacerbates this problem. Under a deregulated system, it is almost certain that the cost of some programs will dramatically increase. There will likely be a huge difference in the cost of available programs, with professionally-oriented programs as the most expensive. Students who already experience financial barriers, or those who may not want to risk incurring massive debt, will be forced to make academic choices according to financial considerations. There is no question that certain students will be kept out of certain programs. And for those students who already experience tremendous financial disincentives to education, no amount of student aid will diminish the "sticker shock" associated with the high cost of a degree.
As members of Guelph's Senate, you have a responsibility to ensure the academic integrity of your institution. A differential fee structure will compromise the quality of education at Guelph. It will ensure less diversity in the student population (particularly in the high-cost programs); this will diminish the quality of class discussion and will detract from the culture of your campus. And by forcing students to make fiscally-driven academic choices, you are not fostering an academic environment that encourages the pursuit of learning for its own sake, the love of one's discipline, or the participation in the intellectual and cultural environment of the campus. Instead, you create an environment that values competition, self-
720 SPADINA AVE., SUITE # 201, TORONTO, M55 2T9. (416) 925-3825 * FAX (416) 925-6774 SENT BY: CFS-0 FCEE-0; Z1-1U-Hi :-.3orm; 410 y GO o/!4 I ;Ji7 /WO =UvO, trOf,J
interest, and utilitarian concerns above all else:.
1 urge the members of the Senate to listen closely to the voices of your students, and to support the positions of the Central Student Association, the Graduate Students' Association. and the Senate Student Caucus. Their perspectives are supported by considerable research and analysis, conducted both at the local level and by our National and Provincial offices. They echo the views of students across the province and across the country, who believe that OUT postsecondary system should be universally accessible and free of financial, social, economic and cultural barriers.
During this time of crisis in university funding, it is vital that university administrations, faculty, staff and students all work together to protect the accessibility and quality of our public postsecondary system. Only by making a strong stand against the forces that are advocating for the deregulation and increased privatization of higher education will we be successful. This means that universities must cease viewing students as an endless source of funding with which to make tip for declining transfers from government. This means that senates and boards of governors must take a leadership role, and must take strong stands against tuition increases and fee deregulation. And this means that university administrators must put aside their role as administrators and become advocates, standing together with students instead of against them.
I hope that you will make educational equity at Guelph your highest priority at your meeting this week.
Sincerely,
Vicky Smallman Ontario Chair Canadian Federation of Students linelle mogado 401-14 Home St. Guelph, ON N1H 2E5
March 7 1997 Senate do Brenda Whiteside 4th Floor, University Centre University of Guelph Guelph, ON N1G 2W1
Dear Brenda Whiteside:
I just thought I would write a little note to Senate about some horrifying information I recently found out. It s public information, too - all students should know about it. I have been actively involved with opposing the tuition hike of 10%, and through this, have found that there is overwhelming support against it. Students ARE vehemently opposed to the tuition hikes passed down from the provincial government. Senate should represent real student interest on this issue in every way it can. Political will --and the commitment to true fairness and justice - is the only way we can defend and protect our rights to quality, accessible post-secondary education.
Well: this horrifying information that I am talking about is just who is going to be making the decisions about the tuition freeze. The Board of Governors consists of twenty-five people. One would think that students were prime stakeholders in how a university gets run; I am finding that I am - and likely, the VAST MAJORITY of students at Guelph and across the province are - terribly misinformed on this point. There are, in fact, ONLY THREE STUDENT REPRESEN- TATIVES on this Board: two undergraduates and one graduate student. In fact, I have found that there are an alarmingly large number of representatives who would be hard pressed to oppose a tuition increase on students behalf. So: here come the goods. In fact, there are actually FOURTEEN seats filled by presidents, CEO s (Chief Executive Officers), vice-presidents or partners of businesses, companies or corporations. FOURTEEN! This includes our University President, Mordechai Rozanski, who - no doubt - is heavily influenced by his corporate buddies.
I am shocked to discover how influential the corporate invisible hand has been in this institution. The following is a list of people who control the university heavily - and will be deciding on the tuition hike - but DO NOT represent MY interests as a hard-working student dedicated to true fairness and justice. My parents, who have worked hard to finance my education, will be just as shocked when they hear this, as they should be. So too, will others who care about students, education and a caring and just society. So: we have, on our Board of Governors:
Ken Bedasse Vice-President of Operations at McNEIL CONSUMER PRODUCTS; Greg J. Clark President CEO of JOHN DEERE LIMITED; Keith H. Conklin Executive Vice-President of NESTLE FOODS GROUP; Simon F. Cooper President Chief Operating Officer of DELTA HOTELS AND RESORTS; Douglas W. Dodds Vice-Chairman, President CEO of SCHNEIDER CORPORATION; John F. Lahey Senior V-P of the Ontario South-West region of CIBC; David H. Lees President CEO, CORPORATE FOODS LTD.; Tanya E. Lonsdale Partner, BRAUN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LTD.; Beverley Mascoll President, MASCOLL CORPORATION LTD.; John P. Oliver President, DOW ELANCO CANADA, INC.; Larry J. Pearson President Chief Operating Officer, LINAMAR CORPORATION; Louise Tremblay Senior Vice-President, Resources, CBC; Michael Walsh Vice-President Director, FIRST MARATHON SECURITIES LTD.. The remaining SIX representatives include TWO STAFF REPRESENTATIVES, THREE PROFESSORS (one each from Psychology, Economics and Microbiology) and our Chancellor, Lincoln M. Alexander. Just to illustrate, here s a percentage break-down of the Board of Governors composition:
Presidents/CEO s/partners of corporations/businesses/companies 61% Faculty 13% Students (Undergraduate and Graduate) 13% Staff 9%
WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? There is a real need to question the integrity of the Board of Governors as the decision-making body that will decide whether or not our tuition goes up here at Guelph. The people making this big decision - and those who made the decision last year to raise tuition a WHOPPING 19.6% - DO NOT CARE that they are pushing more and more students towards the poverty line with the decisions they make in their boardrooms and committees. Perhaps the provincial government made this tuition increase DISCRETIONARY because it knew that the University Boards of Governors across the province are stacked with so much corporate representation.
There is ABSOLUTELY no doubt in my mind that STUDENT INTEREST - QUALITY, ACCESSIBLE, EDUCATION - IS NOT ON THE AGENDA OF THIS BOARD. WE - STUDENTS - AND YOU - THE SENATE - HAVE A COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY TO OURSELVES, EACH OTHER AND EVERYONE IN THIS PROVINCE TO ENSURE THAT THE ATTACK ON OUR FUTURES IS OPPOSED AT EVERY LEVEL. These people are going to be deciding on the costs of OUR EDUCATION - and I am asking Senate to do what it can to support all students in our fight for quality and ACCESSIBLE education
I have been elected CSA Board member for SF-OAC for 1997-98. I will work to prevent this tuition increase from affecting students in my college and all other fellow students. This tuition increase is NOT going to improve things for Aggies, nor for any other students, faculty or staff on campus. Raising our tuition by 10% will have virtually NO effect on the quality of education here; it will ONLY AMOUNT TO 1.4% OF THE UNIVERSITY S OPERATING BUDGET.
My request is simple: that you fight the tuition increase - and defend the education that students work so hard for - in whatever capacity you can.
Respectfully,
linelle mogado
Cc: Jen Fletcher, Chair of Student Senate Caucus CSA Students in Solidarity March 10, 1997
Dear Members of the University of Guelph Senate,
Recently I became aware of the University of Guelph s proposal to increase Undergraduate and Graduate tuition for domestic students by seven to nine percent, to commence in the fall semester of 1997. In the wake of tuition increases which occurred in the Fall of 1996, I feel that this new proposal to raise tuition fees again would be irresponsible on the part of the university of Guelph.
As a graduate of the B.Sc.(Env.) program at the University of Guelph, and currently a graduate student in the Department to Geography, I have witnessed a tuition increase of almost 75 percent since I entered university. Certainly this does not reflect the rate of inflation which has occurred in the Ontario economy. Furthermore, job prospects and income levels for graduates have been on the decline. Certainly I recognize that education is expensive; however, I also recognize that it is an investment in the community and in citizens of Ontario, which can only act to make a better society for all. A raise in tuition for the 1997 year will only create further inequity as far as access to the Ontario post-secondary system. Therefore, I demand that the University of Guelph give careful consideration to freezing tuition at current rates for the 1997 school year. It is time that this institution took the needs and concerns of its students to heart and set anti example for others. Accessibility to education should not be restricted to the economically elite--further increases to tuition only heighten this prospect.
The views expressed in this letter not only reflect my own, but also reflect those of many of my colleagues at the University of Guelph. I urge you to consider them with priority.
SincereLy,
ti- kndrew A. Millward Department of Geography University of Guelph Tuition increases is an issue that most students are finding tougher and tougher to swallow each year. My first year attending the University of Guelph I got by spending approximately eighty-five hundred dollars. In my last year it had increased to approximately eleven thousand dollars. Over four years the cost of schooling increased two thousand five hundred dollars of which close to half was from tuition. Now I look at the cost of tuition and the chance for it to increase even more and I am overjoyed that I have graduated. The past year I have been working at the intramural office at the university. I have personally come across four people that were not able to stay in school do to their financial situation. This is becoming more and more common as the years pass and increasing the tuition will only make things worse.
Sincerely;
Rob McMullin
Intramural Coordinator Looking back to my first year at the University of Guelph I remember how expensive I thought it was. At that time tuition was a mere nine hundred dollars, it has since almost doubled. As a graduate student I have a hard time believing that I am paying this much for school. The thought of tuition going up again is devastating. University will soon be a place where only the financially elite will be found. People from even middle class income families just won t be able to afford to attend university and this is discrimination! The injustice of bright students not being able to receive a university education purely for financial reason is certainly going to be realized if tuition fees continue to rise. This is a tragedy. If one does find the means to attend university through loans etc. one graduates highly in debt and with years of payments ahead before they can start earning money. With continuous tuition hikes comes many lost opportunities since enrollment will undoubtably decrease and student debt will continue to grow leaving a very bleak future!
Sincerely
Kristi Adamo Human Biology +
Nutritional Sciences AT GUELPH News Bulletin
7. At Guelph News Bulletin, March 11, 1997; Tuition Fee Proposal modified after consultation with University community
March 11, 1997 Tuition Fee Proposal Modified After Consultation With University Community
The University's original tuition fee proposal, calling for a 10 per cent increase in all domestic undergraduate programs and a set of differentiated increases in domestic graduate programs, has been modified at the graduate level after a series of discussions with the Senate's university planning committee and elected student leaders. The modification involves a blended increase of seven per cent for 1997-98, to be applied to all domestic students enrolled in graduate programs. All other features of the proposal, including the recommendation not to increase fees for graduate and undergraduate international students, remain the same.
The overall result will be a recommended increase averaging nine per cent across all programs (as previously proposed), with no change to the net revenue forecast. This means that Guelph is among those Ontario universities not imposing the full discretionary increase of 20 per cent in individual programs, or 10 per cent overall, permitted by the provincial government. In addition, the University intends to increase the budget available for scholarships and teaching assistantships available at the graduate level. '4,- The effect will be to maintain Guelph's median position relative to other universities in the province.
The adjustment to the proposal was made in response to concerns about the differentiated fee structure at the graduate level. The original proposal was to apply a significantly higher tuition fee increase for a number of professional graduate programs -- MLA, M.Eng., MBA, MFA, MMS, and MSc (Aqua) - than for the other graduate programs offered to domestic students.
The modification emerged after a series of discussions with representatives of the Graduate Students' Association (GSA), the Central Student Association (CSA) and the Student Senate Caucus, and in the Enrolment Management Group and the Senate Committee on University Planning (SCUP). The Student Senate Caucus presented a number of proposals to the Senate Executive, voicing its desire for a tuition freeze and opposition to the concept of differential fees. Concerns also were expressed about the extent of the consultation process. At the request of the President, the Enrolment Management Committee and SCUP reviewed the student suggestions and recommended deferring differential fees during 1997-98, adopting instead the blended increase for domestic students in all graduate programs. SCUP supported the change and will note this in its report to Senate March 11.
"The Enrolment Management Committee and SCUP remain committed to the principle of a differentiated fee structure," said Alastair Summerlee, Acting Associate Vice-President (Academic). "However, both committees acknowledge that the lateness of the provincial government's tuition announcement left insufficient time for consultation on campus." UNIVEF(SITY /GUELPH The President stated that he regrets the necessity of a substantial tuition increase. "We would have preferred an increase in university operating funds that would remedy Ontario's last-place position among the provinces. I and members of the administration have pressed for this, publicly and privately, in more - than 80 meetings with elected officials, government and business leaders, governors/trustees, the press and others. Unfortunately, the government failed to implement the recommendation of its own Advisory Panel on Future Directions for Postsecondary Education to increase operating grants to the national average. This leaves us no viable option but to increase tuition fees, given the $20 million cut in revenues we had to make this year. Nevertheless, we will increase student financial aid to approximately $1.7 million in our operating budget for 1997-98. This is in addition to the ACCESS fund, which with the government match is expected to exceed $9 million in endowed funds for student aid."
Other proposals of the Student Senate Caucus - student representation on the Enrolment Management Committee and the creation of a group to study the impact of tuition increases on accessibility - have been accepted by the Administration. In addition, President Mordechai Rozanski has suggested that earlier student involvement in the enrolment management process be complemented by student representation on the President's Budgetary Advisory Group (PBAG). "It is important for students to be partners in the enrolment management process," said Rozanski. "Student representation on PBAG will give students an opportunity to participate in discussion and analysis of the full bud get context of tuition decisions."
The modified tuition proposal was presented to the Finance Committee of the Board of Governors, who endorsed it March 6, and a final decision will be made by the Board of Governors at the end of March.
Contact: Darlene Frampton Communications and Public Affairs Ext. 3863 8. Correspondence to Board of Governors, March 27, 1997 i. 2 letters submitted University of Guelph Graduate Students Association rrtrit it Canadian Federation of Students n MAR 1 8 1997 National Graduate Council Local 62 ------
March 17, 1997
Members of the Board of Governors,
I am writing to the University of Guelph Board of Governors on behalf of the University of Guelph Graduate Students' Association. I would like to express the GSA's extreme opposition to the Enrolment Management Committee's proposal for a 10% increase in undergraduate tuition and a 7% increase in graduate tuition.
On Tuesday, February 11, 1997, the Graduate Students' Association passed the following motion:
WHEREAS tuition has risen without a corresponding increase in government support to post-secondary education for several consecutive years; and
WHEREAS student debt loads have consequently risen while job prospects have remained limited
B.LR.T. the Graduate Students' Association call upon the University of Guelph, its Senate, and its Board of Governors, to freeze tuition for the 1997-98 academic year in all programs at the 1996-97 levels; and
B.I.F.R.T. the GSA call upon those same bodies to strike an ad hoc advisory committee with representatives from the GSA, Senate, the Board of Governors, and the Faculty of Graduate Studies to consider the feasibility of returning to a residency fee/subsequent fee structure for tuition.
At the University of Guelph, tuition increases of approximately 10% and 20% have been implemented in the past two academic years. If the proposal for this year's increase is implemented, it will amount to a tuition increase of 49.6% over the past four years. As well, this past academic year, the graduate tuition fee structure was altered, eliminating the subsequent fee for graduate students. Such dramatic increases to tuition are a matter of great concern to graduate students at the University of Guelph, and across the province of Ontario. Over, the course of the past decade, tuition fees for graduate students in the province of Ontario have risen by approximately 300%. This has corresponded with a steady divestment of public funding for post-secondary education.
The GSA is adamantly opposed to the use of increased tuition fees to offset federal and provincial funding cuts. Members of the GSA, along with the GSA Executive, have been actively involved in efforts undertaken to raise awareness about the inappropriateness of this University's strategies to compensate for decreased public funding. By adopting the EMC's
Rm. 531 University Centre, Guelph Ontario N1G 2W1 Tel: (519) 824-4120 ext. 6685 proposal for the tuition increase, this University is sending a very direct message to the current provincial government that funding cuts to post-secondary education are both acceptable and manageable.
The GSA Executive has also questioned the consultative nature of the process by which the recommendation for this year's tuition increase was determined. Despite claiming a commitment to consultation, tuition increase proposals have simply been presented to students, with the claim that there is no other choice. The only issue students were asked for input on was that of differentiation.
On behalf of the over 1500 graduate students represented by the University of Guelph Graduate Students' Association, I urge you to vote in opposition to the EMC's proposal for a tuition increase for this academic year.
Mark Thomas V.P. Internal Graduate Students' Association fjrr 1 1 r MAR 0 1997 March 1, 1997
Doug Dodds, Chair, Board of Governors, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ont., N1G 2W1
Dear Mr. Dodds,
As the Board of Governors determines the latest increase in tuition fees for students at the University of Guelph, I would like you to consider the following statement concerning measurement of the impact of tuition increases. Please include this letter in the information packages for Board members.
As the Senate representative for FACS graduate students, I polled the graduate students whom I represent asking for their assessment of the impact of further tuition increases, and have prepared this letter based on their responses and my own observations as a member of Senate.
It has become apparent to students that in considering the impact of further tuition increases at the University of Guelph, the only outcomes of interest to the administration are changes in retention rates and numbers of new applications for enrollment. Students question the validity and reliability of these selected indicators as measures of the true impact of tuition increases. Does a satisfactory retention rate really indicate that past and current tuition increases have had no significant impact on current students? Do the recently reported new application figures indicate that continual increases in tuition have no impact on prospective students? While sufficient numbers of prospective students have applied to satisfy the University s enrollment targets, it cannot be assumed that all students with the desire and requisite academic background to apply to the University of Guelph have done so. Based on these application figures, the University cannot claim that tuition increases had no impact on the accessibility of post-secondary education to prospective students from various socio- economic backgrounds. The data that would support such a claim are not collected at this time.
When asked to describe the impact of further increases in tuition fees, FACS graduate students list effects related to the quality and standard of living that they can maintain. Students find extra money for tuition increases by foregoing other expenses, such as food, dental care, clothing and the purchase of textbooks. In spite of full course loads, eligible students often turn to part-time employment, trading the additional strain on their time for small increases in income. Other students are forced to increase already overwhelming debt loads to meet the increasing tuition costs. Where possible, some students are forced to drop to part-time student status to earn enough money to continue their studies. The impact of these adjustments could be measured by examining the incidence of anxiety, depression, stress, and related health disorders, including disordered eating patterns, inadequate dietary intake, and the reliance on counterproductive coping mechanisms. However, these data are not collected, therefore, the impact of tuition increases on these real and measurable outcome indicators cannot be quantified.
Students support the establishment of baseline measurements for these important outcome indicators, so that the actual impact of future tuition increases on the student population can be quantified in meaningful terms. To accomplish this goal, students suggest the initiation of a Task Force, charged with identifying appropriate, reliable, and valid outcome indicators and initiating a longitudinal study of changes in these indicators within the student population at the University of Guelph. The Task Force would be comprised of graduate and undergraduate students (including international students), senior administrators and faculty from various disciplines, including economics, sociology, psychology and applied human nutrition. This Task Force would examine the impact of changing financial status on enrolled students, as well as the impact of tuition increases on the accessibility of a University of Guelph education to qualified potential applicants from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds.
I hope that these comments will stimulate both discussion and support for these suggestions as the Board of Governors considers the latest tuition increase.
Sincerely,
Judy Paisley-McLagan Ph.D. Candidate, Applied Human Nutrition Graduate Senator for FACS UNIVElkSITY /GUELPH MEMORANDUM `..■••••• BOARD OF GOVERNORS
TO: Members, Board of Governors
FROM: Betsy Allan, Secretary of The Board of Governors Extension: 3438
SUBJECT: 11. President's Report (a) Appointments, Tenure and Promotions -- Information (b) Status Report On University Activities -- Information
MEETING DATE OF: March 27, 1997
(a) Appointments, Tenure and Promotions -- Information
The University's Faculty Policies outlines the process which regulates Committees struck to consider new faculty appointments or promotions. A committee makes the recommendation to the College Dean, who in turn submits the recommendation to the Vice-President Academic and Provost, who in turn makes a recommendation to the President. The President then confirms the recommendation.
Attached please find a list of faculty appointments, tenure and promotions. This report is brought forward for information.
(b) Status Report On University Activities -- Information
Dr. Rozanski will update members on University activities. Please see attached information.
BA/ab
C:\BOARD\97MAR27.MEM
GUELPH • ONTARIO • CANADA • N1G 2W1 • (5191 8244120, EXT. 3438 • FAX (519) 767-1350 11. President s Report (a) Appointments, Tenure Promotions REPORT TO THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS TENURE AND PROMOTION
PROMOTION effective July 1, 1997 TENURE effective immediately
SOCIAL SCIEI
Assistant to Associate Richard Kuhn Geography Associate to Professor Mary Ann Evans Psychology Kevin Kelloway Psychology Tenure Belinda Leach Sociology and Anthropology Theresa Lee Political Studies
LUG
AssistanttaAssaciate Jim B. Kirkland Human Biology & Nutritional Sciences Kelly A. Meckling-Gill Human Biology & Nutritional Sciences Patricia A. Wright Zoology Associate to Professor Glen J. Van Der Kraak Zoology Reggie Y.C. Lo Microbiology
Amy imam_ MEN..
Assistant to Associate Douglas Joy School of Engineering Fei Song Computing and Information Science Warren Stiver School of Engineering Richard Zytner School of Engineering Associate to Professor 0. Brian Allen Mathematics and Statistics
LLE
Assistant to Associate Jonathan LaMarre Biomedical Sciences Howard Dobson Clinical Studies Tenure Ann Hahnel Biomedical Sciences Azad Kaushik Pathobiology Charlotte Keller Clinical Studies Jonathan LaMarre Biomedical Sciences
...continued on page 2 Tenure and Promotion (1997) continued page 2 of 2
MEG mum nro. Assistant to Associate Vinay Kanetkar Consumer Studies Judy Sheeshka Family Studies Jean Turner Family Studies Julia Christensen Hughes School of Hotel and Food Administration Associate to Professor Bruce Ryan Family Studies Tenure Vinay Kanetkar Consumer Studies
Assistant to Associate Susan Brown English Linda Mahood History J.R. (Tim) Struthers English Tenure Peter Goddard History Jean Harvey Philosophy Jay Lampert Philosophy Linda Mahood History Donna Pennee English Howard Spring Music Judith Thompson Drama
ARI alLTURAL
Assistant to Associate Robert Lencki Food Science Alejandro Marangoni Food Science Associate to Professor Shai Barbut Food Science Michael Brookfield Land Resource Science Ellen Goddard Agricultural Economics and Business Andrew M. Gordon Environmental Biology E. James Squires Animal and Poultry Science Tenure Kimberly Rollins Agricultural Economics and Business C.F.M. de Lange Animal and Poultry Science John Gibson Animal and Poultry Science (For Information) BOARD OF GOVERNORS Boa rd of Governors REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT March 27 1997 FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL November 13, 1996 - March 14, 1997
FACULTY APPOINTMENTS
NAME DEPARTMENT/RANK DATE OF APPOINTMENT
Professor Bruce Archibald Associate Professor with tenure, April 1, 1997 Environmental Biology
Professor May Aung Assistant Professor, Consumer February 1, 1997 Studies
Professor Andrew Peregrine Associate Professor, Pathobiology May 19, 1997
Professor Gary Parkin Assistant Professor, Land Resource February 3, 1997 Science
Professor Robert de Loe Assistant Professor, Geography February 1, 1997
ADMINISTRATIVE APPOINTMENTS
Professor Ricky Yada Acting Chair, Food Science December 1, 1996 - August 31, 1997
Professor Stewart Hilts Acting Associate Dean, January 1 - December 31, 1997 Faculty of Environmental Sciences
Professor Donna Woolcott Chair, Family Studies May 1, 1998 - 2nd 5 year term
Professor Kerry Daly Acting Chair, Family Studies May 1, 1997 - April 30, 1998
ADJUNCT APPOINTMENTS
Professor Tanya MacLaurin Food Science January 1, 1997 - 3 years
Professor Gopi Paliyath Food Science January 1, 1997 - 3 years
Professor Brian Ross Computing & Information Science January 1, 1997 - 3 years
Professor Louis Cabri Physics December 1, 1996 - 3 years
Professor Heidi Engelhardt Animal & Poultry Science January 1, 1997 - 3 years
Professor Julie Conquer Human Biology & Nutritional Sc. January 1, 1997 - 3 years
Professor Jonathan Morgan Population Medicine March 1, 1997 - 3 years
Professor Bruce McNab Population Medicine March 1, 1997 - 3 years 11. President's Report (b) Status Report On University Activities
University of Guelph Board of Governors meeting of March 27, 1997
External Items Federal Budget The 1997 federal budget signals that at least Ottawa recognizes the importance of reinvesting in postsecondary education. Provisions will enable universities to restore and enhance research and infrastructure, help students address the rising cost of postsecondary education and encourage donors to give more generously.
Internal Items Applications Secondary school student applications for fall 1997 enrolment to the University are up by 13.6%, an overall increase of 1,340 applicants, the largest increase among the province's 17 universities. The University had the largest numerical increase in first-choice applicants in Ontario. Overall, applications to Ontario universities are down by 2.6%.
Human Rights and Equity Office A Racism Awareness Campaign, March 17 - 28, 1997, is in recognition of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, March 21st. The theme of the campaign is "Resist Racism: You Are the Solution!" The campus-wide initiative is part of the Human Rights and Equity Office's community-wide education program.
Senate The Senate supported 13 recommendations in a report that calls for re-emphasis on the importance of internationalism at the University. The report was prompted by Making Change: The Strategic Plan for the University of Guelph. The Strategic Planning commission defined internationalism as one of the University's strategic directions.
University Coll . boration The University has collaborated with three other institutions in introducing a new computer software that helps manage processes from student recruitment and financial services to room bookings. Guelph, Nipissing, Trent and Laurentian have all purchased the Colleague student system.
General News About 800 students graduated during Convocation Ceremonies held February 13 and 14, 1997.
The University's College Royal Open House weekend, held March 15-16, 1997, was a great success. This is its 73rd year.
The University's Gryphon hockey team won the National Championship in Toronto at Maple Leaf Gardens on March 17, 1997. UNIVERSITY .V.GUELPH MEMORANDUM BOARD OF GOVERNORS
TO: Members, Board of Governors
FROM: Betsy Allan, Secretary of The Board of Governors Extension: 3438
SUBJECT: 12. Vice-Presidents Status Reports (a) Vice-President, Research i. Activities -- Information (b) Senate Report i Provost s Restructuring Report to Senate, December 1996 -- Information ii. Report, September 1996 to February 1997
MEETING DATE OF: March 27, 1997
Status reports for information are attached: Vice-President, Research and a Report from Senate. Included is the Provost s Restructuring Report to Senate, December 1996 and the report to the Board of Governors for the period September 1996 to February 1997.
BA/ab
C:\BOARD\97MAR27.MEM
GUELPH • ONTARIO • CANADA • NIG 2W1 • (519)824-4120, EXT. 3438 • FAX (519)767-1350
UNIVEIWTY /GUELPH
OFFICE OF THE VICE-PRESIDENT RESEARCH
Report to the Board of Governors March 27, 1997
A. . Activities of Collaborative Research and Development: November 6, 1996 to March 4, 1997
1. Predisclosures: Four predisclosure meetings were held during the reporting period. The predisclosure meeting is the first contact between researchers and CR&D. The meeting is informal, but researchers are asked to complete a one-page questionnaire which provides background detail to our office. At the meeting, we explore the technology, possible commercial applications, and any impending publications or claims on ownership.
i) Dr. Paul Hebert, Department of Zoology: "Direct-Termination PCR"
ii) Dr. Lucy Mutharia, Department of Microbiology: "DNA probes and monoclonal antibodies to Mycobacterium paratuberculosis"
iii) Dr. Robert Etches, Department of Animal and Poultry Science: "The use of germ-line competent cells to produce germ-line chimeric chickens"
CR & D has performed a patent search and found that there are no patents related to chimeric chickens or the process of making chimeric chickens. A draft of the U.S. patent application has been made. CR & D will hold discussions with Dr. Etches on the licensing of this technology.
iv) Dr. Robert Etches: "Production of human immunoglobulins in chicken eggs"
2. Patent Searches Eight patent searches were conducted for the following researchers to assess the patentability of a Guelph invention:
Dr. Robert Etches, Department of Animal & Poultry Science, Germ-Line competent cells and somatic cells - January 23
Dr. Lucy Mutharia, Department of Microbiology, Mycobacterium paratuberculosis -January 16 and February 5
GUELPH • ONTARIO • CANADA • NIG 2WI • (519) 824-4120 TELEX 069-56645 UOFG INAT GLPH • FAX (519) 837.1639 Report to the Board of Governors Page 2 March 27, 1997
Dr. Joe Lam, Department of Microbiology, Lipopolysaccharide - January 16 and 20
Dr. Paul Hebert, Department of Zoology, Direct Termination - February 5, 6, and 12
3. Confidentiality Agreements Fourteen confidentiality agreements were prepared by our office to cover discussions between faculty members, between the University and potential commercial partners and between the University and individuals (commercial and academic) providing opinions on University technologies.
4. Materials Transfer Agreements (MTA) There were thirteen MTA's executed over the past six months between the University and external parties for the University to either acquire, or distribute, biological materials for research purposes.
5. License Agreements under Negotiation Dr. Ron Subden, Food Science, Method and Nucleotide Sequence for Transforming Micro-organisms: Wine Yeast - under negotiation. LeSaffi-e is preferred as the licensee and detailed negotiations have recently begun.
Dr. Duane Falk et al., Crop Science, Barley Lines, with C&M Seeds, Secan and other barley breeders (Ontario). Public tender resulted in four companies interested in licensing barley lines. There will be no barley lines available for this year, but these companies will be considered for next year's lines. The license agreement with C&M has gone ahead, and is currently being finalized.
Dr. Reggie Lo et al., Microbiology, Transferrin Binding Proteins, through the Canadian Bacterial Diseases Network (CBDN). Bayer is preferred as the licensee and negotiations have begun.
Dr. Laima Kott, Crop Science, Brassica Rapa, with Northern Plant Breeders Inc. - under negotiation. This Agreement is an advancement made to a previous Agreement put in place January 1994.
Dr. John Sutton, Environmental Biology, Gliocladium Roseum as a Biocontrol Agent Against Botrytis Cinerea. Agreement is being finalized with Plaaskem, for fruit/vegetable crops.
Dr. Mansel Griffiths, Food Science, Rapid Bacterial Monitoring System. In its earlier stages, this Agreement is currently being negotiated with Gem Biomedical Inc.
Board of Governors Page 3 March 27, 1997
Dr. David Wolyn, Horticultural Science, Germplasm Development Leading to Production of Asparagus Seed. This Agreement is in its final stages of negotiation between the University of Guelph, OMAFRA, and the Ontario Asparagus Growers' Marketing Board.
6. GUARD GUARD has 60 days to decide if it would like to commercialize the two inventions disclosed to them by the University.
L. P lligan, Vice-nt (Research) PROVOST'S RESTRUCTURING REPORT
1. BACKGROUND, CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVES
We are, collectively, faculty, staff and students, trying to effect major change at our university. It is a simple, if unpalatable, fact of life that we must now manage with significantly fewer resources than we have had in the past. While most of our community has come to accept this fact, there remain those who think that academic life can go on as before. However, not a single one of us can stand aside from the process of change upon which we are embarked. The industrial terms "restructuring" and "downsizing" have made their way into our lexicon. These are not terms that I have much liking for, because of some of the connotations, often over-simplistic ones, that they bring to us from an arena that is entirely different. For example, academic restructuring is too often defined at universities as nothing more than rearrangement and consolidation of academic units into larger groupings in order to save money and to reduce administrative overhead. While such consolidation is a necessary objective in our drastically reduced financial situation, there are other goals of restructuring that are of more fundamental importance as regards the long-term vitality and the resulting reputation of the institution. Our academic fundamentals are programs and curricula; very simply, our structures should be designed to support these, and to do so with the very minimum diversion of faculty away from the basic activities of teaching and research.
One of our primary goals is to offer the best possible curricula, to serve our students as well as we possibly can. It is abundantly clear, in this increasingly competitive era, that if we fail to meet this challenge, then the quality of our outcomes, and, in turn, our institutional revenue will be adversely affected. Another goal is to utilise our cruelly reduced faculty teaching resource effectively: we can no longer afford to deploy faculty in an unplanned manner in classes where there are only a handful of students; to do so is to deprive students elsewhere in the university of vital faculty contact, to forego opportunities for new curricular ventures, and to hinder the rational development of small group experiences for many more students than experience these now. For these reasons, curriculum revision - the re-design and focusing of curricula - is a matter of fundamental importance to us. It is not simply a matter of cataloguing and then dropping low- enrolment courses; it is a matter of using our diminished resources as effectively as possible to re- build curricula, often based on different courses and course sequences, and on different pedagogies, that serve our students well.
To quite a large degree, curricula are linked to the expertise of the present faculty. With a large number of retirements coming up in the first few years of the next century, now is the time to be planning the major curricular changes (it takes four years to phase out a major or a specialization), and the most effective configuration of faculty to teach the curricula now being designed. Since the President instituted the Hiring Review Committee, requests to fill vacated faculty positions have been scrutinized in much greater depth than was the case a few years ago; this scrutiny will intensify. Any request to fill a vacancy now requires a long-term analysis of staffing in the unit concerned, complete with related curricular planning, and for many departments such requests will be scrutinised in a context that includes complementarity and collaboration with neighbouring institutions. Now is the time to start phasing out those particular areas of low enrolment that are unlikely in the future to attract significant numbers of students; now is the time to plan the focusing of faculty teaching resources into a smaller number of areas. I am pleased to observe that this is happening; it started before SPC and activity has intensified since SPC. Remarkable creativity is being shown. What we cannot have is a crude chopping of courses from curricula. What we are seeing is more creative restructuring that involves merging of similar courses, sharing with neighbouring institutions, and increased use of alternate year offerings. I stress the need to maintain the momentum of our curriculum revision despite the pressure that is so telling on all of us.
Nobody should conclude that the university's systematic review of low-enrolment courses implies a failure to recognise and support the learning experience that takes place when a professor and a modestly-sized class can participate in debate. We must rise to the challenge of placing small class experiences in our curricula in a strategic manner as opposed to the random manner of the past. The new credit system will allow us to create some small group experience within or attached to large classes.
Another primary goal of the university is research and scholarship, i.e. the creation of new knowledge in the service of society. While curricular opportunity was fundamental in two of the department mergers we have already had take place, so also was synergy in research and graduate work. Commonality of research interest and novel research opportunities are further fundamental drivers of new structures. With federal granting councils suffering drastic cuts year after year, the prospects for individuals to secure council funding sufficient to sustain anything but modest research programs is withering. The benefits of forming research partnerships and networks are now widely accepted, and this recognition, together with recognition of complementary interests, is a strong driver for reduction of historic structural impediments.
With the fundamental matters of curriculum revision and research opportunities firmly established as primary goals of academic restructuring, I return briefly to the money-saving and time- saving aspects of reducing the number of administrative units. The budgetary aspect cannot be downplayed; we suffered a 16% cut in our provincial grant last year, and prior to that we were impacted heavily over several years by the previous government's expenditure reduction program. We have argued strongly, in our submission to the Panel on Post-Secondary Education that the government contribution per capita be restored to the average value that pertains in Canada's other nine provinces. Ontario's position at the bottom of the university funding league is a disgrace. We hope fervently that government will be persuaded of the absolute folly of funding Ontario's universities at a level 10% below the average of other provinces. But in the present fiscal and political climate, any restoration is likely to take time. Therefore, every opportunity to recoup some of our losses must be explored; in every college we are desperately short of discretionary funds for equipment, travel and day-to-day operations. The time issue is also critical. With about 16% fewer faculty than we had in 1991/92, our administrative teaching workload per faculty member has sharply increased despite our best efforts at curricular focusing. The peril in which our research effort is placed has been remarked on by many faculty across the institution. What is the point of reducing our faculty by 16% and maintaining the same number of departments and colleges as before? To do
2 so increases the fraction of resources diverted to department and college administration by 16%; is \tar there any way to justify inaction in this circumstance? I have no desire to force unwieldy and impractical amalgamations, or to create academic monstrosities, but I would be derelict in my duty if I did not encourage attempts, at the very least, to reduce administrative superstructure in the colleges by the same 16% that the faculty complement has diminished. And I suspect that the taxpayer and the government will be very interested indeed in whether we can deal with this issue. At 22%, the loss of staff has been even more drastic, necessitating equally careful evaluation of the workloads in this area, and of the distribution of our immensely valuable staff resources across departments.
SPC directed the Provost to report to Senate by December 1995 on progress with regard to four possible mergers involving academic departments. By that date the negotiations in two of these were so delicate that the parties were better left out of the spotlight to continue their debate. SPC recommended that no action be taken with regard to college structure until 2000. SPC also mandated reviews of specializations and curricula; these are occurring and good progress is being made.
But, as the President stated in his "President's Report" in At Guelph, November 13, 1996 presaging this report, we are in an entirely new era at the University of Guelph. Almost everything has changed in a very short period. SPC was intended to guide us into the post-Social Contract era, and to advise us on how to invest the $7.2 million dollar "dividend" created through SERP and CRESAP and available (we thought) after 1997/98, in a manner consonant with our strategic directions. But thanks to the "Commonsense Revolution" (CSR) of the current Ontario government, there is now no dividend to invest. Instead, the university is encumbered with a debt to the year 2003/04. The new government has made significant changes in the area of tuition fees. As part of our budget planning, and with the approval of Senate, our enrolment policy of recent years has been reversed; undergraduate enrolment is now increasing after several years of steady reduction. We are taking a more proactive approach to enrolment management, trying hard to attract students into areas of the university where there are the resources to accommodate them. The panel on post-secondary education has completed its work and will soon report to the government; among its principal concerns will be accessibility (which translates for us into enrolment management), institutional differentiation, and inter-institutional collaboration.
Within this new post-SPC and post-CSR context, the focusing of the institution on its strengths and on areas of potential research success and enrolment growth must continue. This focusing should occur using established governance structures such as the Senate Committee on University Planning. We do not need yet more central committees on these matters. The President and I see it as a fundamental responsibility of the Provost to press these matters forward. Of course it is impossible to accomplish everything at once; efforts to do so often end up accomplishing very little. My intention, with the strong encouragement and complete support of the President, is to identify a number of issues for resolution, and to ask SCUP to work on these in a context of defined timelines; the responsible deans will be involved in the explorations and advice will be sought by them from their VPAC colleagues when previous experience in other colleges is seen to be relevant.
3 But the selection of a small number of immediate objectives does not relieve the pressure to continue focusing the institution on its strengths. Even the President of Yale University has said, very recently, "We must strive for excellence in everything we do, but we cannot do everything". I will mention below various emerging plans to strengthen particular areas and to exit from others. This kind of planning is of the utmost importance. The central administration cannot dictate, in a collegially governed institution, that we should exit from discipline X and build up strength in area Y. But what the administration can do is to introduce a model for resource allocation that is explicit and not subject to provostial whim, that recognises the new fiscal reality, that moves responsibility firmly from the centre to the colleges, that recognises special responsibilities in the university's mission, and that recognises that these responsibilities can only thrive in a balanced institution with strong core disciplines. Within that clearer context, colleges will have to take the hard decisions about where to put their allocated resources. I do not think they will wish to put them into administrative superstructure; I believe they will put them into teaching and research where there is strength and opportunity. And that of course brings me back to the need for planning of faculty complement to start now.
2. A BRIEF LOOK ELSEWHERE
Each of the universities of Ontario is facing the problems that we face here, each is conducting similar debates, and many of the solutions that are emerging elsewhere resemble ones being proposed here. Curricular focusing is very much the vogue, as are decreased numbers of departments and faculties. In some cases, departmental consolidations are being mandated by Senates, while in others mergers are resulting from lengthy collegial discussions. Some of the emerging new faculties and departments are intriguing. For example, one of several faculty mergers in progress at the University of Western Ontario involves bringing together the Faculties of Library Science, Open Learning, and Journalism in a new faculty of Communications. Ventures such as this have the potential to re-invigorate scholarship and to attract excellent students. We cannot afford to stand aside and to assume that our present configuration is perfect, even though it has served us well. We too must take every chance, after careful scrutiny and debate, to create new structures that will maintain and enhance our university's distinctiveness. Other universities are establishing criteria for the continuation of departments that include a defined minimum number of faculty, and this is resulting in proposals for intriguing new disciplinary alignments. There are various moves towards less specialized and more broadly-based degree programs; we know from our own experience (e.g. the Honours Biological Science program) that such programs are seen as very attractive by students.
3. ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND ONGOING WORK
I turn now to an overview of what is presently being accomplished in a variety of areas spanning curriculum, research and administrative structure. I will do this college by college, but I will be at pains to look also at inter-college aspects and collaborative ventures with other universities, especially our three near neighbours who are connected to us via the high-technology, interactive, audio-visual classrooms. Collaboration with our two neighbour institutions in Waterloo
4 has now been facilitated by our new timetable and by our decision to align our winter break with theirs. I understand that McMaster University is in turn likely to increase its alignment with Guelph, WLU and Waterloo, which will, remove more of the practical impediments to cooperation.
Senate has seen some of the matters I will refer to and will soon encounter others in the reports of its various committees. But a unitary presentation will help demonstrate to the community that reform is happening in many parts of the institution. To have a global picture is extremely important if the "everybody else except me" syndrome is to be avoided. However, I do not have time or space to be exhaustive, and so I will touch on high points and good examples, rather than on everything. I will also indicate issues on which I am requesting specific action by deans that would result in recommendations to the appropriate committees of the Senate.
I said earlier that the temptation to downsize by crudely deleting courses has to be avoided. In fact, in department after department, there has been long and thoughtful debate, sometimes occupying a year or more, directed towards rebuilding curricula in a coherent manner. In no case has this debate been easy; nor should anybody expect it to be. The result of these thoughtful approaches has been to inject various new themes into our curricula. I am sure that this process will continue through energetic discussion in and among the colleges.
COLLEGE OF ARTS
This college is making excellent progress on curricular issues, especially through the device of cross-listing the courses of one department as acceptable for the major of another. This is not just a matter of efficiency, but it helps draw the departments of the college together. Example of this are to be found in the Department of Languages and Literatures with the revision of several courses in the Classics section so that they can serve as courses for the History and Fine Art programs, and of several more in the Spanish and German sections so that they can serve as courses for the Drama and English programs. These new variants will be listed as College of Arts inter-disciplinary courses under the 55- prefix. They are a fine example of infra-college cooperation.
Curricular revisions in the Department of Drama include relaxing prerequisite structure, broadening appeal at the 100- and 200-levels, cross-listing courses with the Department of English, and (in 1997/98) implementing cooperative offerings with its counterpart at the University of Waterloo. These changes are likely to lead to increased enrolment. Discussions are in progress on a joint MA program with York and Toronto, both of which wish access to the unique Canadian Theatre Archives and to resources available at Guelph to support the current M.A. program in Canadian Theatre. These discussions have also resulted in an agreement to mount two courses jointly with Toronto's Graduate Centre for the Study of Drama. In the Department of English, a substantial reform is underway (scheduled for completion in early 1997) with the objective of creating a curriculum that reflects various of the developments that are currently occurring in the discipline. The possibility of a joint Ph.D. program in English with Wilfrid Laurier University is being explored; the Drama Department is also involved in this discussion, which opens up the possibility
5 of a three-department co-operation at both M.A. and Ph.D. levels in the two disciplines.
In the Fine Art Department, the Art History courses serve their own purpose and also complement the Studio Art offerings, focussing on the intersection of theoretical and creative work. This linkage must be respected in curricular reform. Five 200- and 300-level courses are being dropped, and six moved to alternate year offerings. Art Historical Studies I and II are reduced to one offering of each per year in fall and winter respectively. Collaboration with Waterloo and further collaboration with the Ontario College of M (OCA) are being explored. There has, of course, been an articulation agreement with OCA since the 1970s. The History Department has just completed the first year of its new Tri-University Ph.D. program in collaboration with Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier. Both Waterloo and Guelph have had doctoral programs in History since the late 1960s, but the new collaboration allows them to expand the fields in which they can offer doctorates, while decreasing the number of graduate courses each university has to offer. The addition of WLU faculty to the program also allows the advisory load at each university to be reduced.
The changes in the Languages Department are sweeping. In the Classics section, forty-four courses have been reduced to twenty-four; six Greek and fifteen Latin language courses have been dropped and the low-enrolment Latin minor has been dropped. An essentially new approach to Classical Languages has been introduced. The General and Honours programs in Classical Studies are replaced by a restructured Honours Program, many of whose courses will serve also as core (see above) for other COA programs. Most of the revamped Classical Studies courses will now be taught in English, and they will be offered on a regular basis. As a result, and also in view of the increasing interest in Classical Studies across the country, the Dean believes that the enrolment potential for the revised approach in Classics is high. Classical Language instruction will, henceforth, take the form of seminars attached to Classical Studies courses. Spanish course offerings will be reduced by four in 1997/98, and three literature courses formerly taught in Spanish will now be taught in English, with parallel seminars provided for the smaller numbers of students who require advanced level instruction in the language. This initiative adapts the Spanish curriculum to the needs of a broader student audience and moves in the direction of multi-purpose inter-disciplinary courses, while still serving the requirements of Spanish majors. More Spanish and German courses are being examined with this change in mind. This "multi-purpose" initiative in Spanish, German and Classical Studies will be greatly assisted by the new credit system, which will provide differential credit for the two modes in which the courses may be taken.
Following considerable loss of faculty via SERP, the French Studies Department has embarked on a detailed exploration of collaboration with its counterparts in the neighbouring universities. This initiative was suggested by the area presidents and provosts; a principal goal is to co-ordinate hiring and share faculty resources so that the region has the broadest possible array of scholarly expertise in French Studies. The department is in the process of condensing its course offerings by about 25% in a commendable manner that does not jeopardize curricular integrity. Five courses were deleted two years ago, and two further reductions, involving integration of course material are scheduled for 1997/98. The remaining courses have been preserved by moving all eight 400-level courses and half of the eighteen 300-level courses to alternate year offerings. The questions
6 of collaborative offerings with neighbouring universities, and the appropriate size for this unit, must be resolved in the next few months.
While the major and minor in Music attract only small numbers of students, an imaginative revision of general interest courses has made these dramatically more attractive, resulting in large increases in enrolment. The revised Introduction to Music course enrols about 200 students in each on-campus offering, and has the potential to enrol as many in the new Distance Education version. The new Music and Popular Culture course has a total annual enrolment of over 1100 students, and cannot satisfy the demand for places. The History of Jazz, another new course, has the clear potential to enrol about 500 students a year in its on-campus and DE versions (DE). Music, vitally necessary in any Arts and Humanities setting, is thus making a major contribution to the vitality and attractiveness of the B.A. program, and its large enrolments in general interest courses balance off its smaller enrolments (in a decreased number of courses) at the upper levels. The Music Minor has been re-designed so that it can flow from some of these large courses, and it has therefore become an attractive option for students in both the B.A. and B.Sc. programs. Another in the remarkable series of innovations from this small department is the offering of the Applied Music course at the 100 level; admission to this performance course is by audition and there has been a significant rise in the level of performance.
There are further curricular aspects that should be explored, and I am asking the Dean to proceed expeditiously with these through the B.A. Program Committee:
Languages and Literatures: There is a growing demand for Spanish, and there are obvious synergies between the Spanish section and both the International Development Studies Program and the Department of Political Studies with its new emphasis on the Americas. At the same time, the demand for higher level courses in German is low, and this area is well served by our neighbour at Waterloo. Obviously, however, German teaching for the important and successful European Studies program must continue. The Italian section is very small, with just one faculty member carrying the minor and making a valuable contribution to the European Studies program. I have asked the dean to consider with her Dean's Council and other colleagues in COA and CSS an orderly withdrawal from the German major with a shift of resources to assist the Spanish area and its various linkages. This would be a significant refocussing of the Languages Department, and one that is made possible by forthcoming retirements. We will also examine the possible provision of service language courses to the B.Comm. program, a step whose resource implications are unavoidable.
Fine Art: This department has a strong national reputation and good enrolments. Imaginative measures have had to be developed in recent years to decrease the number of students enrolled in the major to about 300. Part of the department's strength lies in the balance between studio work and art history. Its resources are stretched, however, and with several positions currently frozen and several retirements about to occur, it is timely to consider reducing or refining the range of studio choices, which presently includes painting, drawing, print-making and sculpture; there is a significant issue of space and operating costs involved here. I have asked the dean to present a plan that also delineates faculty needs in the light of currently frozen vacancies and several upcoming
7 retirements.
Philosophy: Undergraduate offerings have already been substantially reduced (ten courses deleted in 1996/97, and five courses moving to reduced frequency in 1997/98), but continued effort is necessary to revise and rebuild curriculum to cope with the loss of several faculty via SERP. Collaboration with McMaster and other neighbours using the AV Link, and building on the longstanding joint PhD program, is fundamental to this. The department should also continue to develop its linkages with the university's science programs in the areas of Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of the Environment.
The inter-disciplinary European Studies program, whose enrolments are growing at a healthy pace, brings several departments together in a manner that increases intellectual linkages across the college. A re-orientation of the German program to concentrate on supporting European Studies will further assist this growth. The new Centre for Cultural Studies, although at a very early stage, offers further possibilities for integration across the college and also with departments in Social Science. This growing inter-disciplinarity in COA, and the increasing curricular linkages among departments, should help in the development of a new and more appropriate administrative structure.
The College of Arts, to be blunt, is over-administered. Its average number of faculty per department, approx. 10, is the smallest in the university. In OVC, by contrast, each department has a little over 20 faculty. OAC is moving effectively to address a similar, (albeit less drastic in numerical terms) structural problem. It is time for the College of Arts to move to about half the present number of administrative units. The college has been looking since about January 1996 at various choices, and in a recent referendum there appears to be a preference for a model that involves four units. These units would have multiple responsibilities for both conventional and multi- disciplinary programs. It is now time to complete this restructuring process, and I am pleased to report that the dean has already met my deadline by placing the college's proposal (in preliminary form) in the hands of SCUP within the present semester.
COLLEGE OF FAMILY AND CONSUMER STUDIES
The Department of Consumer Studies has made major changes to its curricular focus. The department's themes are now the study of the consumer, decision processes and behaviour, the analyis of markets and their structure, and the interactions of buyers and sellers in the marketplace. The Consumer Studies major in the BASc degree was discontinued last year, and there is now an increased emphasis on the enlarged major in Marketing within the B.Comm. degree. This was a step that took considerable courage and I strongly commend the department. The new major in Housing and Real Estate has the lowest enrolment (40 students) in the B.Comm. program, and a decision about its future viability will be made in 1997. A rationalization of course offerings following the discontinuation of the B.A.Sc. in Consumer Studies has enabled the department to reduce its course offerings by about 25%.
8 There have for some years been jurisdictional problems in the area of Nutrition between the Applied Human Nutrition (AHN) group in the Department of Family Studies and the Department of Nutritional Science. Praiseworthy efforts have resolved these: nutritional biochemistry components will henceforth be the responsibility of the merged Department of Human Biology and Nutritional Science in CBS, and the Department of Family Studies will approach the area from an applied interdisciplinary perspective incorporating social/behavioural sciences and biological components. The course 71-402 has been transferred from AHN to HBNS, and the course 71-401 is team-taught by faculty from both the units. Here we find an example of the cross-college collaboration that is so vital to us.
Over the past three years, curricula in all four B.A.Sc. majors have been reviewed by the Department of Family Studies, and the following changes made: all areas of emphasis within the majors were eliminated; three courses were deleted between 1995/96 and 1997/98, and another two are currently slated for deletion. Several courses which were offered in multiple semesters have had the number of offerings reduced, one from three offerings to one, two from three offerings to two, three from two offerings to one. Experiential learning (practica, field placement, courses) is being expanded within the B.A.Sc. program to ensure that all students are offered opportunities. An effort to develop distance courses using the World-Wide-Web (e.g. 39-210) is under way.
In September 1996, after careful preparation involving the Office of Student Affairs and the Department of Family Studies, the Child Studies Laboratory School formed a partnership with the University's Child Care Centre for the delivery of programs (e.g., 21-317: Practicum - Child Studies I). As a result, the name of the centre changed to the University Child Care and Learning Centre. This initiative has resulted in "state-of-the-art" facilities for program delivery, together with some efficiencies particularly in program administration. New synergies have been created through teaming Family Studies and Child Care Centre staff in teaching students in the course 21-317. This is a superb example of collaboration between a department and a non-academic unit which has both cost and space savings and great benefits for both.
The School of Hotel and Food Administration has launched an M.M.Sc. program, enlarged its effort in cooperative education, and discontinued the low-enrolment major in Institutional Food Management. Various collaborative efforts are being explored with other academic units at Guelph. These include: the field of rural tourism with USRPD and the School of Landscape Architecture, and sensory food/product development with Food Science.
Both HAFA and Consumer Studies play important roles in the B.Comm. program. The Business Studies Council (BSC) has rationalised overlapping courses. Each unit has taken on responsibility for offering particular core courses, and this has involved transferring courses between academic units. For example, the responsibility for organizational theory and organizational behaviour courses was transferred to HAFA, and that for marketing to Consumer Studies; Economics was made responsible for offering courses in the finance area, and Agricultural Economics and Business for accounting.
9 The idea of a four-course "mini-minor" in Business Studies, which would appeal to students all across the campus, has been raised by the Dean of FACS. The Business Studies Council is also in the process of launching an executive, distance version of the existing M.B.A. in Agriculture, targeted specifically at established professionals in agri-business. This is being done in partnership with Athabasca University. Enquiries regarding the first offering of the program are running at an encouragingly high level; as of November 1, there had been nearly six hundred enquiries and nearly four hundred requests for application forms.
FACS continues to develop relationships beyond the campus. The long-standing relationship between Applied Human Nutrition and the Hamilton-Wentworth Teaching Health Unit continues to thrive, and a contractual faculty member (funded by THU) is presently being appointed to underpin this effort. Some ten articulation agreements are now in place with CAATs in the child studies and business areas. Discussions are also taking place between HAFA and its counterparts at Ryerson Polytechnic University and Humber College as to how the units, with their different sets of interests and expertise, can complement one another more effectively. These conversations have the support of industry leaders. An application for funds to help develop a joint diploma/degree program with Humber College has been made.
Administration FACS, and especially the Department of Family Studies, has suffered from having its faculty and graduate students spread over nine buildings, which included five houses in University Avenue. It is difficult for an inter-disciplinary department to function as such when its sections are geographically disparate. I indicated in 1995 that efforts would be made to vacate the houses, and I can now report that the process of moving the outlying Family Studies faculty and graduate students into the main academic buildings of the college is complete; this has been accomplished by renovating disused laboratory and other space using MET renovation funds. The vacated houses are now beginning to generate revenue for the university, as rental accommodation for visiting faculty and others, and as graduate student residences.
Until recently there were separate program counsellors for the B.Comm. and the BASc. As of 1996 there is one counsellor, aided by some part-time assistance and peer helpers in an imaginative experiment that will deserve emulation if it is judged a success. A merging of the administration of graduate programs in CS and HAFA is also being explored.
Priorities FACS is making good progress on many fronts. While encouraging this work, I am directing the dean (who is also designated dean for business studies) to provide me with proposals on two specific possibilities. One of these is the potential business mini-minor, more detail on which is to be brought to VPAC by the end of February 1997. This proposal has clear resource implications, but great potential value for several degree programs. It is not simply a matter of a student choosing four courses from a list of existing offerings; VPAC envisages an integrated set of modules extending
10 across business ethics, pre-competitive development, marketing, information management, and other aspects. The second is the relationship with HAFA's potential urban partner at Ryerson, which offers opportunities with joint appointments, relief in undergraduate teaching via the mutual provision of CD-ROM or WWW course materials, together with the potential to develop an executive degree program in Hospitality and Tourism with industry backing. I am asking the dean to report on this potential by the end of 1996.
COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE
CSS houses six core disciplines of social science, is heavily involved in inter-disciplinary and applied research, and has some professional and work-study programs. The college ranks second in the university in its overall enrolments. Numerous courses are offered by distance education; these are currently being subjected to careful scrutiny in the college. In view of the intensive use of computers in instruction in CSS, the Dean has this year appointed an Assistant Dean for Instructional Technology and Learning.
The Department of Geography has effected two cycles of major curriculum change in the past three years, sharpening its foci to simultaneously build bridges to other areas on campus and maximize its own potential within the University, as well as to consolidate the distinctiveness of the department's niche-role within the provincial system. The large B.A. Human Geography program has been rationalized and strengthened, for its own sake and with reference to other programs' needs, including both Rural Studies and International Development (CIDS). The Physical Geography major in the B.Sc. has been eliminated in the 1997-98 Calendar cycle and replaced by a new B.Sc. major in Earth Surface Science to be jointly offered by Geography and Land Resource Science. A new minor in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Environmental Analysis has been introduced. These changes are accompanied by major changes in course offerings, with six courses removed and five new ones added in 1995/96, two more dropped in 1997/98, and ten courses moved to an alternate year cycle. The necessary doubling of computer laboratory capacity is underpinned by imaginative efforts by the department and its chair to secure external funding. The department is closely involved in the B.Sc. (Env.Sci.) program.
In Political Studies an early step to revise curriculum was taken in 1995, followed by a major revision in early 1996 which generated a totally revamped program. Seventeen courses have been deleted, three new ones introduced, two have been merged, one course split into two, and several courses changed from one level to another. The Department now has sequences of courses in each of the three sub-fields - Canadian Political Studies, Comparative/International Political Studies, and Political Theory. A very topical new course deals with free trade within the Americas. At the graduate level, the Department is among the first in North America to have The Americas as an area of focus, and this has generated country-wide interest among potential graduate students. In addition to this strengthening of the B.A. program, the Department's curriculum now offers attractive electives to students from other areas of study. These include a course on the Politics of Science,
11 Agriculture and Human Well-Being, and a course entitled The Art of Politics, which will serve as an elective to Arts majors and to other students who must meet a Social Science requirement. The Department and COA's Spanish Program have together helped create the CSS's International Development (CIDS) new Latin America area of concentration. The new Chair has initiated discussions with the chairs of five other Ontario universities, with a view to having each draw upon the teaching and course resources of the others.
In the Department of Economics, new innovative uses of computer-assisted instruction and large data sets have been introduced into several courses in order to provide new skills, enhance learner-centredness, and better integrate research and teaching. A new course on Business Economics for non-specialists has been approved. The Department collaborates with Agricultural Economics and Business in the offering of graduate and undergraduate programs and courses and is offering two courses in the campus version of the new MBA program. The two departments are further developing the shared Ph.D. in Environmental and Resource Economics. A new graduate field in Labour Economics and Econometrics has recently been approved by OCGS. Over the last three years, seven undergraduate courses have been deleted, and various sections have been combined, reflecting changes in faculty expertise and the start-up of the Ph.D. program; further efficiencies are currently being sought. Despite reduced resources, teaching quality in critical theory courses has been maintained by the introduction of labs, staffed by Ph.D. students.
A systematic curriculum review of its B.A. and B.Sc. programs has been launched in the Department of Psychology and this will take a year to complete. The use of animals for Psychology instruction is being reduced, with facilities in CSS closed during the CSR budget reductions, and the remaining animals now housed in the Central Animal Facility. The software necessary to effect a switch from animals to simulation remains expensive, and its purchase is a medium-term goal. Together with Open Learning, the department has entered an agreement with a television company for a course on "Death and Dying". The department's Guelph Centre for Organizational Research (GCORI) has expanded as it innovatively provides both resources and work experience for its students. Another such venture is in the preparation stage.
A full-scale curriculum review has also been initiated in the two-discipline Department of Sociology and Anthropology. This department experiences very large enrolments, and is making increasing use of the Audio-Visual classroom to share upper-level courses with its counterpart at McMaster. A range of nested prerequisites has been introduced to improve the educational process for upper level students. An exploration is under way with several community colleges regarding the potential for a shared criminology program.
CSS has responsibility for management of the inter-disciplinary programs in Canadian Studies and International Development Studies. The year-long 200-level core course for Canadian Studies has attracted only low enrolments, the 300-level core course has been given only once, and the 400-level course not at all. There is no evidence to suggest that the enrolment in the Canadian Studies major will increase, and budget cuts have made it all but impossible to fund these courses. The program is, therefore, under review, and a decision as to its future is expected shortly. In
12 contrast, the International Development Studies program is boisterously healthy, having become the fifth largest major in the B.A. program; a new Latin-America area of concentration is being introduced, drawing in particular on strengths in Political Studies in CSS and Spanish in COA. CSS also participates with CPES in the low-enrolment major in Information Systems and Human Behaviour. With recent resignations and upcoming retirements, it seems unlikely that this major can be sustained, and I am asking the dean of CSS to examine phasing it out.
There is at present no intent to modify the departmental structure of CSS, but the administrative/secretarial support for the departments of Political Studies and of Sociology and Anthropology has been integrated in the interests of cost-saving and efficiency; part of this arrangement is a unified administration of the two graduate programs.
SYNERGY BETWEEN FACS AND CSS
Various conversations that occurred over the summer and early fall of 1996 confirmed the President and the Provost in the view that very careful thought should be devoted to the possibility of creating a new college to house the social and behavioural sciences and related applied and professional areas. Guelph has great strengths in these areas, and a number of colleagues are intrigued by the idea of building on these in a way that further enhances our uniqueness and our potential. Accordingly, the President and I sent a detailed letter to all faculty and staff of the colleges in September 1996, laying out this idea, and asking the two deans' councils to examine it and to report back by February 1997. Discussions are now in progress in both colleges, and they include conversations with other units elsewhere on campus but having related interests.
The President and I see this idea as one that would position Guelph very well in the overall context of a more differentiated Ontario system in which various exciting new ventures are coming to pass (see section 2 above). Launching the discussion was, we felt, a necessary discharge of our responsibilities for leadership; but the format of the discussion has been left, as is proper, in the hands of the colleges. In the event that a demonstrably better idea than ours should emerge, we shall most certainly give it serious attention.
COLLEGE OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE
A task force has been established by the dean to examine all aspects of restructuring; it includes faculty and students from each department, an undergraduate and a graduate representative, a CBS alumnus, and a faculty representative from outside the college. The task force surveyed the college's faculty in April 1996 to seek a mandate for change, and it has already examined structural and curricular innovations in jurisdictions as diverse as Canada, USA, Australia and the UK. CBS is unique in being Canada's only college of Biological Science, and its drawing power for students of high quality is very great, as was again demonstrated by the semester one enrolments of Fall 1996;
13 any restructuring must take careful account of this fact.
Within the college, steps were taken in 1996 to centralise the DNA Sequencing Facility, the Illustration Service and the Electron and Confocal Microscope facilities. This assisted the college in coping with loss of technical positions in the CSR budget cuts. In addition, it has lowered costs for researchers and improved services. The College, together with CPES, sees significant additional possibilities to improve infrastructure via access to the very sophisticated equipment housed in the OMAFRA research laboratories. Such a move would enhance our analytical capabilities as well as "grow" external users.
The College is now examining a major change in the introductory biological science courses that are part of the B.Sc. core. At present, all B.Sc. (Biol. Sci.) students take three introductory courses, one in each of Botany, Zoology and Microbiology. B.Sc. (Phys. Sci.) students take two of these courses. The trio would be replaced by a possible two-semester sequence containing a continuum of subject matter ranging from molecules to ecosystems; the delivery of this new course will involve both traditional lecture and laboratory format together with information technology approaches. If a new first-year course sequence is initiated, much of the second-year core will need to be revised. This should lead to a much more stream-lined course sequence.
The College has accumulated considerable experience in the preparation of CD-ROM material. Success in this venture could lead to creation of open learning courses and the marketing of electronic materials. The new Aquatic Environments course, which was instituted this year in this format, has been well received by students. The College is moving to reduce courses, as per the recommendations of SPC, and areas of emphasis will be looked at in line with the new B.Sc. Program Committee recommendation to combine Honours and Majors specializations. One of the exciting curricular changes is the introduction of eight-hour techniques courses in Molecular Biology and Genetics; these will be of great interest to a wide array of students across campus.
Discussion is under way with CPES about collaborative presentation of advanced techniques courses at the senior level. CBS collaborates with OVC in managing the Bio-Medical Science specialization within the BSc program. Demand for this program exceeds capacity by at least three- fold, and possible changes to the program are therefore being examined. However, the research course experience is one of the great strengths of the program, and this limits enrolments.
Some examples of key issues facing CBS departments are as follows:
Botany - the Plant Biology program is functioning well under the guidance of the Council but still faces relatively low student interest in upper division courses. Because only ten courses are listed under the Plant Biology number, and all the remainder under the numbers of the four departments involved, the existence of the integrated program is not immediately obvious. A possible solution being looked at by the Council is to have a single course numbering to provide better identity.
Human Biology and Nutritional Sciences - The recently merged department is consolidating its
14 research infrastructure in the Animal Science - Nutrition Building.The freed space has allowed the CBS undergraduate computer laboratory to move to the Powell Building. As a result, Hoad House has been transferred to Student Housing and is in use as a residence. The growing pains from merger are far from over but the new department is working hard towards full consolidation. With the loss of two faculty from the area of Biological Anthropology, the area of emphasis has been deleted, and a reduction in course offerings is presently being worked out as part of the integration process. The department is focusing its teaching in Physiology, Nutrition, and Human Biomechanics. Talks are in progress with the Kinesiology Department at Waterloo on a possible joint graduate venture in the last of these three areas.
Microbiology - This department experienced the greatest impact of the CSR cuts. To overcome the problem of fewer support personnel for the introductory course, the laboratories have been redesigned to have more "hands on" experience for both undergraduates and GTA's; this demonstrated that a shift towards learner-centredness could occur even under conditions of dwindling resources. The new team-taught first year lectures appear to also be well received by students.
Molecular Biology and Genetics - The molecular biologists in this department have been particularly vocal about the need for change in organization in CBS and the university as a whole. Several of them would like to see all faculty with similar interests and equipment needs brought together in a common facility. The need for a critical mass of faculty and staff in MBG is another driving force for this push.
Zoology - The department continues to carry large enrolments in spite of significantly reduced faculty and staff components. Zoology is to be congatulated for its leadership in establishing two new, major research facilities, viz. the Axelrod Institute of Ichthyology and the Hagen Aqua-Lab. The Axelrod Institute comprises faculty from three colleges; the grant application for the Hagen building involved a collaborative effort among faculty from three colleges and five departments.
I intend to monitor the progress of the Task Force closely. Its work promises major change of far-reaching significance for the Biological Science programs at Guelph. Together with VPAC, I strongly encourage the ongoing developments towards a new first year core, supported by information technology, and I wish this project to follow the timelines laid out for it. I am also asking the deans of CBS and OVC to propose solutions to the enrolment limitations in the Bio-Medical science specialization. Given the unprecedented increase in enrolment in CBS this year, I will continue to urge the need for capital funds to improve teaching laboratory facilities in the Axelrod Building, whose age is now very clearly showing.
COLLEGE OF PHYSICAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCE
Thorough reviews of the college's degree programs, undertaken in the early 1990s, i.e., pre-
15 CSR, resulted in a reduction of program complexity, including the elimination of some programs and the removal of many areas of emphasis. A reduction in course offerings in the college, of about 40, also ensued and this has helped to attenuate the impact of SERP on the college. The departments of Chemistry and Biochemistry, of Computing and Information Science and of Mathematics and Statistics conducted far-reaching curricular renovations involving their majors and specializations and essentially every course for which they are responsible. In particular, the difficult, but apparently successful, restructuring by Chemistry and Biochemistry of three first year courses (19-100, 19-101 and 19-179) previously taken by most B.Sc. students into two, without curriculum overload, is a model of efficiency. The department deserves commendation for its success in integrating organic chemistry, previously taught in 19-179, into the new two-course sequence. In the case of Mathematics and Statistics, a more focused curriculum has reduced by about 20 the number of lecture sections taught per year, and bridges have been built between the two disciplines.
In Computing and Information Science, the nature of the discipline is such that the curriculum evolves very rapidly, and, at present, the department is considering increasing its focus on software engineering. The department now offers a major rather than the choice between major and specialised honours that existed until a couple of years ago. It has also taken steps to streamline multiple-semester offerings of several courses. Plans for a new, comprehensive, modular first-year service course which would rely heavily on electronic delivery are presently being re-assessed. In the meantime, the manner of delivery of the current first year courses has been modified substantially. A new hardware platform has been introduced and this has given students new opportunities by exposing them to current "state of the art" software. I am asking the dean to ensure that the department builds on this initiative. Cross-campus input on the matter should be obtained, because it relates directly to the provision of information-processing expertise to all our students. This exploration must take account of the growing fraction of entering students who come to us well- prepared in such matters as word-processing, spreadsheets, etc.
The School of Engineering has refocussed its majors since joining the College. The Agricultural Engineering major was replaced by a successful new major in Environmental Engineering. The low-enrolment Food Engineering major has been reduced to a minor within the Biological Eng. major. Annual first-year intake has increased from under 50 in the mid 1980s to about 130 now. SoE and CIS have merged courses in Microprocessors with the result that four offerings have been reduced to two, and improved lab facilities have been created.
Due to the two joint graduate programs with Waterloo, the graduate course teaching loads in Physics and in Chemistry and Biochemistry are about half of what would otherwise be necessary. In addition, various low-enrolment undergraduate courses have been dealt with by integrating them with graduate courses. As a consequence of the college curriculum review, Physics merged two of its low-enrolment undergraduate Biophysics courses with their graduate counterparts, and the department shares the teaching of the resulting two courses with Waterloo via the AV Link. In addition, Physics provides its "Sub-Atomic Physics" course to Waterloo while Chemistry and Biochemistry contributes, in alternate years, either "Advanced Topics in Analytical Chemistry" or "Biochemistry and Structure of Macromolecules" to Waterloo and receives Waterloo's "Polymer
16 Chemistry" in return. CIS and Physics also share courses with McMaster on the AV Link from time to time.
CPES relies heavily on the cooperative education branches of its programs. These options attract students who desire the coop experience, but they also, by defining the environment, attract students who intend to pursue traditional studies. The Dean will centralise administration of coop in the dean's office. The College is working closely with the Coop Office to generate work semester opportunities and to provide spring courses on an integrated college-wide basis. I support this strongly and hope to see conclusion, with the maximum possible assistance being rendered by the Coop Office in Student Affairs. The College has two articulation agreements with other Ontario institutions, and is presently exploring with several colleges, potential agreements for the movement of students back and forth between each college and Guelph. The intention here is to make it possible for appropriately qualified college students to gain access to some of our courses and programs and, in addition, to provide the opportunity for some of our students to enrich their experience by including in their programs approved courses offered by one of the colleges. In the latter case, the courses would normally have a very heavy technical or laboratory bias.
Little structural change is contemplated within CPES, which has already undergone major administrative restructuring in the merger of the former CPS with the School of Engineering in the early 1990s. However, the outcome of the CSR cuts included the switch of several staff positions to cost-recovery, the transfer of portions of several staff positions to other departments in the college, and the provision of guaranteed levels of various technical services to CBS by two CPES departments.
COLLABORATION BETWEEN CBS AND CPES
Various promising initiatives have been referred to above, including collaboration on new upper-level laboratory courses and the sharing of technical services. In addition to this, the deans have proposed that the two Dean's offices be re-located into the same space. As well as the increased potential for collaboration that would result from the day-to-day proximity of the deans, various other benefits will occur. Academic counselling for the BSc program will be run out of a single office, with considerable benefit for students, and office facilities will be shared, with cost savings. The two student governments will also have neighbouring space.
A coalescence of the deans' offices will permit the withdrawal from academic use of several small buildings operated by CBS, with cost savings for the university. In addition, space freed in MacNaughton could result in improved space for Chemistry and Biochemistry graduate students, too many of whom have their offices in one corner of an active research laboratory. I have undertaken to try to make this relocation happen at the earliest possible juncture, with the second floor of the Reynolds Building being the present preference of the parties.
17 ONTARIO AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE
Under the leadership of the dean there has been streamlining of course offerings all across the OAC, the effort having commenced well before the SPC-mandated reviews of courses and specialisations. The B.Sc.(Agr.) degree program was totally overhauled in the Vision-95 exercise, minors were eliminated and the program now offers five majors, all of which are cross-departmental in their organization; in addition, there is the option for students to build, in consultation with a faculty advisor, a major that reflects their own interdisciplinary interests. This innovative new program makes extensive use of two-semester integrating courses, team-teaching and multi-media technology. With the aid of professionals from the Office of Student Affairs, modules concerned with the world of work are being developed with outside funding for integration into the four years of the degree. These modules attracted considerable interest at a recent meeting of the A.U.C.C. It will, of course, be some time before the outside world appraises the graduates of this new program, but we await with eagerness the consequences for enrolment, which at present remains well below the peak levels of over a decade ago.
The new B.Sc.(Agr.) program involved the phasing in of fifteen new courses from fall 1995 to Winter 1999, and the deletion of twenty-seven courses over the same period. Part of the net twelve course reduction was accomplished by substituting three senior level seminar, problem-solving and research project courses offered through the OAC Dean's Office and under the direction of the B.Sc.(Agr.) Program Committee for equivalent courses that were duplicated across a number of departments. All departments reviewed their disciplinary course offerings in the light of the new degree program and some made considerable changes. Animal and Poultry Science, for example, deleted six 0.5-credit courses (standard 1-semester courses), and is now proposing four new 0.25- credit (6-week) monogastric and companion animal nutrition courses that will provide students with greater flexibility in developing schedules of study.
The OAC is a significant player in the BSc program through its B.Sc. majors in Food Science, Animal Biology, Plant Biology, and Environmental Biology, and in the B.Sc.(Env.Sci.) program, through the majors in Environmental Protection, Resources Management , and Earth and Atmosphere Science. As noted earlier in the CSS section, the Department of Land Resource Science is a partner with the Department of Geography in offering the new B.Sc. major in Earth Surface Science. There has been considerable rationalization of offerings in the Department of Environmental Biology, and a number of courses are team-taught between that unit and the Department of Botany in CBS. Another example of rationalization is in those courses falling under the auspices of the Plant Biology Council; this has resulted in a number of courses being team-taught between the Departments of Horticultural Science and Crop Science.
The College also participates in the B.Comm. and B.A. programs, and houses the B.L.A. program, which was recently reduced in duration from five to four years. The fact that OAC has students in six of the university's nine degree programs is not always recognised elsewhere in the university! Examples of other new collaborative developments involving OAC and other areas on
18 campus include the M.B.A. in Agribusiness (see FACS section above) and the Ph.D. in Rural Studies.
In recent months, the OAC has focused its renewal efforts into issues of structure, and good progress has resulted. The School of Landscape Architecture, the Department of Rural Extension Studies, and the School of Rural Planning and Development have jointly brought to SCUP a proposal to integrate the three units into a single administrative unit. Indeed, support positions have been kept vacant in order to facilitate this integration in an orderly way. In addition, a plan to renovate parts of Johnston Hall, some of which were formerly occupied by OMAFRA, has been prepared, with a view to consolidating the various components of RES and USRPD which are now scattered over the campus. Because of the professional nature of the programs in Rural Planning and Landscape Architecture, their identities must be preserved; professional accreditation demands that a director exist for each of these programs. The units are now preparing to propose to SCUP a revised administrative structure that provides for an administrative leader of the collective (who would represent the group at Senate and at OAC Dean's Council) and two or three program directors (who would represent the professional schools to the public and the accrediting bodies), with a single promotion and tenure committee. This proposal has allowed OAC to effect significant administrative savings, and it promises closer intellectual collaboration in matters of rural communities once the parties become neighbours in the geographic sense.
At the University of Toronto, a proposal is under consideration to phase out the undergraduate degree in Landscape Architecture and to focus the university's remaining resources in this area toward graduate work. Conversations are in progress among the Universities of Toronto and Guelph and Ryerson Polytechnical University as to how the latter two might assume a broadened provincial responsibility for undergraduate landscape architecture if this proposal goes through. I have asked the Dean to make this a high priority, and I understand that there will be close consultation with the relevant professional bodies.
A debate is in progress in the four departments of OAC that concern themselves with plant science, resource issues and environmental matters. Day-long retreats allowed open and in-depth examination of the issues in public fora. The departments involved are Crop Science, Horticultural Science, Land Resource Science, and Environmental Biology. The faculty examined the distribution of their research and teaching activities, ranging from meteorology, resources management and environmental toxicology to plant protection, plant biotechnology and plant production. They endorsed a strengthened plant and environmental sciences focus that should emerge from synergistic collaboration among the existing Land Resource Science and Environmental' Biology Departments and a (geographically as well as administratively combined) Horticultural and Crop Sciences (name to be determined) department. This exercise is being carried through with the OMAFRA enhanced partnership in mind, and with due attention to the forthcoming move to Guelph of parts of the operation of Agriculture Canada.
19 ONTARIO VETERINARY COLLEGE
Historically, the DVM Program has undergone major revision on an 8-10 year cycle, with ongoing revisions in between. The 1990's are no exception with the DVM 2000 project in full swing. The College received a major grant from the Max Bell Foundation to assist with this curriculum renewal and development effort. This is a truly innovative project which will have enormous impact on teaching and learning at OVC, and beyond.
After extensive consultation with faculty, students, practitioners, and other stakeholders, the DVM 2000 Steering Committee developed the document Professional Competencies of Canadian Veterinarians: A Basis for Curriculum Development. This document defines the knowledge, skills and behavioral attributes of the entry level veterinarian and will serve as the basis for the development and evaluation of the new DVM Program. As well, the Steering Committee has written a document entitled Principles of Curriculum Evolution which outlines criteria to be used for curriculum structure and content by describing a set of educational principles. Several possible models for curriculum design have now been developed. The task now becomes one of choosing an approach or model which lends itself to implementation of a competency-based curriculum and which incorporates the educational and strategic principles outlined in Principles of Curriculum Evolution. While all this has been happening, a number of changes have already been initiated in the final year of the DVM program in order to more explicitly document expectations with regard to knowledge and skills for students in clinical rotations. These expectations have been described in a document entitled Mission Statement and Competencies for Final Year Students which will form the basis for more standardized evaluation in clinical rotations.
In addition to the above, the admissions process has been reviewed and changes have been implemented, with other possible modifications to come. The preveterinary year is also under critical examination as is the Externship Program. The Externship is a key component of the clinical training and experience of final year DVM students. At the present time, the Externship is conducted in the Spring semester. Changes in the structure of the final year could provide the opportunity for this experience at other times within the final year.
Given the nature of OVC's mandate, including its Teaching Hospital, management and budgetary planning is more complex than elsewhere, with budget reductions having to be dealt with not only in the MET and OMAFRA context, but also in the context of the Veterinary Clinical Education Program (VCEP). The VCEP Agreement provides funding to meet the continuing need for veterinary graduates who have a high level of appropriate clinical experience and to provide a referral hospital which serves Ontario's veterinary practitioners and animal owners. As such, it supports the clinical education component of veterinary students in the final year of the DVM program, as well as the Externship and the DVSc programs. Recent sweeping cuts to the VCEP grant have necessitated renegotiation with OMAFRA with respect to a number of the VCEP objectives.
20 In 1983, the Joint Review Board of the American Veterinary Medical Association and the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association downgraded the status of the programs at OVC from full accreditation to limited accreditation, largely because of deficiencies in resources relative to its mandate. Given the cuts the College has experienced in recent years, its accreditation status may once again be in some jeopardy. We must not allow OVC to lose its accreditation.
OVC collaborates with CBS in offering the Bio-Medical Science specialization in the BSc program. As I indicated earlier, this is a very successful program for which the demand greatly exceeds the capacity.
A major difficulty currently being experienced by OVC is in attracting faculty, e.g. in clinical specializations such as radiology and ophthalmology. It is very difficult to compete with American schools given our current salary structure and exchange rates.
With the merger of the Departments of Pathology and Veterinary Microbiology & Immunology accomplished in 1995/96, the College now has four academic departments. Each of these has a critical mass of over 20 faculty. Further departmental restructuring is not contemplated. However, considerable change is anticipated as the OVC works with OMAFRA to develop an integrated animal health laboratory as part of the enhanced partnership between the university and OMAFRA.
THE LIBRARY
The Library is a key academic partner in the learning and research programs of the University. As the Colleges reorganize, restructure and refocus, it is essential that the Library participate in these changes and respond appropriately with collections and services. The acquisitions budget has been devastated over the past decade by an explosion in publication, rising costs, inflation and a devalued Canadian dollar. Massive journal reductions have occurred over the past four years. The Library cannot afford a comprehensive collection; it must focus its collections and services on the University's areas of academic strength and focus. At the same time the Library must achieve an overall balance in order to ensure support for interdisciplinary work.
SPC directed the Library to focus on electronic resources, collaboration and collections development. These three key areas are tightly interrelated.
The Library has aggressively moved to form and solidify a strong partnership with the libraries at the University of Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier University. The Tri-University Library Consortium's implicit goal is to form a single library service supporting the learning and research needs of all three institutions. It has already acquired a joint Library Annex facility to store less frequently used materials (saving money, improving access and rationalizing holdings). It has implemented priority document delivery services enabling rapid exchange of journal articles, and in mid-1997 a single, shared library system will be implemented (providing access to the full resources of the libraries and facilitating access to electronic documents and services). The
21 Tri-University Library Consortium has been pursing shared collection development strategies to reduce duplication and maintain overall collection strength. And in one of the truly outstanding successes of the era of increased collaboration, the three institutions have now selected a new library system and are on the verge of making the purchase. In anticipation of this step, development work on our own system was terminated about a year ago.
As the University establishes more collaborative academic programs and initiatives with a wider set of partners, it is important that the Library also develop linkages with the libraries at these institutions. It should be remembered that cooperation and collaboration at this level and with this type of sharing can only proceed where all partners operate from a position of strength. The Library cannot engage in collaborative initiatives if it has little to offer other institutions. It is crucial that the strength of the Library be enhanced in order to support local needs and leverage our ability to participate in cooperative partnerships.
The Library has simplified its administrative structure, directed more staff to client service roles and introduced many efficiencies. It is currently reviewing a major change to the provision of reference service which will maintain the quality of service and allow staff to focus on new initiatives (electronic resources, collections development, collaborative initiatives) which are key to the strengthening of the Library. It is anticipated that the shared library system will dramatically restructure the many technical support functions of the Library.
THE LIBRARY/CCS COLLABORATION
The SPC Task Force 1 report mentioned the desirability of a comprehensive data-librarian service that would assist research activities of faculty in many disciplines. Collaboration between CCS and the Library has now led to the establishment of the data library project which will be housed in the basement of the library next to the government documents section. The project will be supported by personnel from the Library and CCS. It will collect under a single 'roof large, electronic, data bases released by Statistics Canada as well as other national and international agencies. The aim will be to provide easy access to this information to researchers and students.
GRADUATE STUDIES
We have 44 graduate programs at Guelph, all of them presently rated as "good quality" by the Ontario Council of Graduate Studies (OCGS) on the basis of its seven-year appraisals. We can be proud of the quality and the breadth that we have achieved. However, the appraisal process has major costs for us in terms of the time and effort required to prepare and review the three volumes of the appraisal brief for any program, and where necessary meet with the consultants brought in by OCGS.
22 It is time to question whether Guelph needs as many separate graduate programs or whether it would be better to have fewer programs with clearly identified fields of study. The present configuration of programs generates a very large workload for faculty and staff. This workload encompasses program management, preparation of appraisal briefs, and the maintenance of databases. With my support, therefore, the Dean of Graduate Studies will be investigating possibilities for program merger. He will also be asking departments and colleges to consider their programs with the following objectives in mind: to develop and strengthen joint programs with other institutions; to investigate opportunities for distance education in graduate course and program delivery in order to maximise both access and use of resources
4. ACADEMIC SUPPORT AND OTHER AREAS
Up to this point, my report has focused on curricula, programs, colleges and departments. Most readers will know that even before the announcement of the CSR budget cuts, the central administration of the university had launched efforts to restructure various of the academic and administrative support areas. The advent of the cuts accelerated that process. In the end, the average 1996/97 budget cut to non-teaching units was, at nearly 10%, twice that levied on the departments and colleges. In some of these cases, the work of Professor E. Kenneth Grant, now seconded as Director of Institutional Planning, was a major factor in re-designing the work and form of support units. The various changes made have been described in articles in At Guelph, and full detail need not be repeated here. However, it is worth reminding the reader of some of the examples, so that no impression is created that the support side has somehow been exempt from the kind of radical rethinking that is occurring on the academic side.
The six units of the Registrar's Office were merged with the Office of Graduate Studies and the residue of the Student-Environment Study Group to create a five-unit Office of Registrarial Services, occupying a reduced space on the third floor of the University Centre. One of the five ORS units is a new unit, Enrolment Statistics and Systems, whose mandate is to manage the new Student Information System and to maintain and provide data and statistics on enrolments to facilitate enrolment management. The base budget saving accomplished was about $275,000.
Three units of Computing and Communication Services, located on the third and fifth floors of the University Centre and in the Library, were consolidated as University Systems on the fourth floor of the University Centre, with a concomitant base budget saving of $229,000. In addition, two CCS positions were transferred to the Library and one to the new Enrolment Statistics unit in the Office of Registrarial Services.
Within Student Affairs, a number of restructuring initiatives contributed to the 11% budget reduction. A senior professional position, the assistant to the associate Vice-President, was eliminated. The Counselling and Student Resource Centre reduced the number of unit coordinators from five to three, brought all administrative and secretarial/clerical support together in a central
23 pool, and re-engineered the job matching process in Co-op to be much less labour intensive. Student Housing Services reduced the number of residence desks. Student Health services now contributes a full return of space costs. As mentioned in the FACS section earlier, the merger of the Child care Centre with the Family Studies Laboratory School achieved significant savings for both units.
Five directorates in University Affairs and Development (renamed Development and Public Affairs) were merged into three. The new Alumni Affairs and Development unit combines the functions of the former Development, Donor Relations and Alumni Affairs units. The new Communications and Public Affairs unit assumed the responsibilities of the Community Relations unit. As well, all financial, business and personnel functions of D&PA were centralized in a newly created business unit. Additional resources were expended to implement the new D&PA information system which is essential to our fund-raising activities. The base budget savings from restructuring and SERP are estimated at over $232,000.
As a result of this work and earlier exercises such as CRESAP, Guelph devotes one of the highest operating budget fractions (presently 65%) to teaching and research (comparative data from the annual reports of the Council of Financial Officers). In 1987/88, Guelph ranked ninth in the province in this regard at 61%; in 1994/95 it ranked first. Concomitantly, Guelph is near, or at the bottom of the Ontario universities in the fraction of the operating budget (4.8%, compared to a provincial average of 7.6%) devoted to central administration.
5. CONCLUDING REMARKS
It is evident that we are making considerable progress in curricular matters, although the rate varies from one part of campus to another. Since the start of the 1995/96 academic year, there has been a net deletion of about 130 undergraduate courses; the net reduction of course sections offered is significantly larger, at over 200. The concomitant effort to preserve curricular opportunity by students, through devices such as merging similar courses, partnering with neighbouring universities, shifting to alternate year offerings, and blending 400-level courses with graduate courses, attests to our commitment to preserve quality. There is still much to be done in terms of our course offerings, especially in the area of collaboration with other institutions. The upcoming purchase of a portable Audio-Visual Link will assist in this regard; several departments have indicated their need for such a device.
In the four-year period from 1994/95 through until 1997/98, 63 majors, minors, specializations and areas of emphasis have been deleted. The fact that, over the same three-year period, there were also 20 additions, helps provide reassurance that deletion is accompanied by new initiatives. Despite the simplification of our academic programs, attention to our program and departmental counselling remains important. In the near future, therefore, Professor Rooke will be leading an effort to generate departmental counselling documents of high quality.
24 Progress in reducing the number of academic "departments" is necessarily slow, because it is of the utmost importance to accomplish this in a consultative fashion. But there is every evidence that we shall eventually have nine fewer of these, with some interesting new models coming into being. This reduction corresponds closely to the approximately 20% reduction in faculty and staff that we have suffered, and so it appears that we shall succeed in averting the relative increase in academic "overhead" presaged by that figure.
A superficial scan of section 3 above shows the reader that many, many changes, small and large, are occurring. A careful consideration should show that this is much more than just a parade of unlinked, if necessary items. Our changes do have a coherence, and we see the strengthening of existing themes in teaching and research and the steady emergence of new ones, in a way that will help make Guelph distinctive while retaining its balance of strength across the core disciplines. In the months ahead we should be debating larger themes that have the potential to engage many members of the university; examples of these might include, among others, aquatic science and particular areas of biotechnology.
A number of initiatives, both ongoing and new, have been given special mention here, and my intention is to continue pressing these forward. It is worth summarizing these: - the partnership discussions with other institutions on Landscape Architecture and on Hotel/Hospitality point to an enhancement of what are already important roles for Guelph; - the restructuring of the departmental units in the College of Arts to maximise the resources available to both disciplinary and inter-disciplinary work in the arts and humanities; within this initiative a number of curricular focus matters remain to be addressed; some of the initiatives taken to date promise to make COA very much more than the sum of its parts; -an orderly shift of resources from German to Spanish within the College of Arts; -the task force review of structure and curriculum in CBS, a college which has proven to be a powerful attractor of extremely well qualified students; -early introduction of the new sequence of introductory biological science courses; -the restructuring of OAC into a smaller number of larger units with foci in plant science, environmental and resource matters, and rural community matters; given the enhanced partnership with OMAFRA, including the new arrangements with the three colleges for Diploma teaching, coming on top of Vision-95, it is a time of major change and opportunity for OAC; -the creation of a new entity based upon CSS and FACS, which will enhance our profile in the social and behavioural sciences and various related applied and professional areas; -an "enhanced partnership" between CBS and CPES commencing with the co-location of the two dean's offices; the business "mini-minor: an integrated cluster of core courses that could be taken in the B.A., B.Sc. or other degree programs; -careful study of possible workload reduction through mergers of graduate programs and their administration; -decisions on the future of Canadian Studies and of Information Systems and Human Behaviour;
25 In conclusion, we have accomplished much, but our task of refocussing the institution to maintain quality in teaching and research with diminished resources is by no means complete. There is much to do. We may emerge from this difficult period with six colleges, at least nine fewer academic "departments", forty-three fewer majors, minors, specializations and areas of emphasis, a diminution of course sections that exceeds two hundred, and significant condensation of our graduate programs. The resulting institution will be one of greater focus, distinction and synergy in teaching and research, and one of greatly increased collaboration, both internal and external. With continued effort and goodwill by all of us, the University of Guelph will remain an institution that justifies high repute and in which we can continue to take pride.
I thank the Deans for providing me with information and corrections, and the President for his unflagging support and optimism.
26 March 11, 1997 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH SENATE
Report to the Board of Governors
The following summarizes the major activities of the Senate from September, 1996 to February, 1997 inclusive.
1. Continuing Implementation of the Strategic Planning Document Making Change
(I) Credit Implementation
In preparation for the move to the new credit system in the Spring of 1998, Senate finalized the definition of a credit, the number of credits for a degree, and the definition of full-time and part-time status under the new credit system. Program Committees are now involved in the process of substantial revisions to their curriculum as they move to new system.
Also in the Spring of 1998, the University will be moving to the new Student Information System. Many of the Senate committees and sub-committees are actively reviewing policies and procedures that will need to be changed as we move to this system. The goal is to minimize the amount of bureaucracy and paper work involved in many of our activities. The intent is to reduce the amount of time spent on administrative issues, thus allowing faculty and staff to spend more quality time with students who need help on an individual basis.
(ii) Alternate Admission Criteria
The Strategic Plan recommended that the University pay more attention to the needs of the non-traditional learner, and endeavour to reduce barriers that restrict admission of this cohort of students. In response to this direction, the Senate approved the adoption of alternate admission criteria for graduate programs. As a result, students who do not have a four year honours degree but who have significant work experience which has provided them with appropriate background, may be considered for admission to the University of Guelph. Students wishing to apply using alternate admission criteria will be required to submit letters of reference and a detailed letter outlining their accomplishments. No program, except the Executive M.B.A., will admit more than 15% of its students using the alternate admission criteria.
(iii) Co-Curricular Transcripts
The Strategic Plan recommended that the University adopt co-curricular transcripts to formerly recognize student involvement in extra-curricular activities. While the Senate reaffirmed the importance of such involvement, the cost of introducing such a transcript was found to be exorbitant. Rather, the Senate endorsed a recommendation that all units on campus be more aware of the importance of student involvement and recognize such activity with appropriate letters of reference and encouragement. Students should also be given guidance on how to prepare portfolios that outline their accomplishments.
(iv) Memorandum of Agreement: Executive MBA
The Memorandum of Agreement between the University of Guelph and Athabasca University for an Executive MBA in Agriculture was approved. This initiative is in keeping with the strategic plan's recommendation that the University target more effectively life long learners and take advantage of the potential for development opportunities.
1 (v) Report of the Senate International Committee
The University adopted internationalism as one of its strategic directions. The Strategic Planning report also made a number of specific recommendations pertaining to internationalism. In response to these recommendations, the Senate International Committee prepared a strategic report specific to internationalism. This report was tabled at the February meeting of Senate. The main thrust of this report was to emphasize that if the University is committed to internationalism, it must embed internationalism into everything that it does: research, teaching, international exchanges, international development work, and service. To this end the report makes a number of recommendations about how the reward structure could be designed to encourage such initiatives. It also speaks to the need to increase both student participation in international exchanges, and also the number of international students coming to study at the University of Guelph. It outlines a number of barriers that it sees for such goals and makes suggestions for change. A full copy of this report is available in the Senate Office.
2. Approval of New Diploma Programs
Senate approved the proposal for the new Associate Diplomas in Agriculture, Equine Science, Food and Nutrition Management, Horticulture, and Veterinary Technology. These new programs arise out of the enhanced partnership with OMAFRA. A number of Senate Committee are working actively with our College partners to streamline academic procedures and to facilitate synergy between the institutions.
3. Internal Reviews
The Strategic Planning Recommendation 46 stipulated that academic departments undergo a comprehensive review (internal self-assessment and in-depth external appraisal) every seven years. In keeping with this recommendation, the Senate approved the establishment of a Committee on Internal Reviews of Undergraduate Programs. The striking of this sub-committee is also in keeping with the directive of the Ministry of Education and Training, "universities will be required to set institutional quality standards, develop program review procedures, and undertake review of all undergraduate programs at least once every ten years."
Under the Senate proposal the majority of the University of Guelph departments will be reviewed in conjunction with the Ontario Council of Graduate Studies reviews of our graduate programs. In addition to a regular review of the departmental programs, the University is also committing to a review of each undergraduate degree program at least once every seven years. Reviewing the degree program is necessary to ensure that the contributions of each department coalesce into a high quality degree program that meets the University's mission and strategic goals. The Senate Committee on University Planning is in the process of establishing the membership of this committee. Once established, the Committee will prepare a schedule for the review of six departments and one program per year.
4. Undergraduate Curriculum Changes
Last year Senate directed that there be a review of all undergraduate courses and specializations with the aim to rationalize offerings. During this past year Senate approved a significant number of calendar changes to respond to this directive. A summary of these changes was presented at the September Senate. It concludes that the University is making considerable progress in curricular matters. Since the start of the 1995/96 academic year there has been a net deletion of about 130 undergraduate courses. The net reduction of course sections offered is significantly larger at over 200. In the four year period from 1994-95 through until 1997-98, 63 majors, minors, specializations and areas of emphasis have been deleted. At the same time, over this three year period, there were 20 new additions. The course additions helps to provide reassurance that the deletions are being accompanied by new initiatives.
5. Graduate changes 2 In response to the creation of the Department of Human Biology and Nutritional Sciences (as recommended in SPC) a new MSc. in nutritional sciences by course work and major paper has been approved. This will replace the original graduate degree program in both of these departments. In addition, Senate approved a revision to the degree designation Master of Science in Engineering to Master of Engineering.
6. Report from the Senate Awards Committee
At the January meeting of Senate, the Senate Awards Committee submitted a strategic report on the University of Guelph's Awards program. This report included 13 recommendations which will direct the University of Guelph's awards activities over the next number of years. The main thrust of the recommendations is that the University needs to emphasize scholarships with a needs-based component and that more flexibility needs to be built into the system to so that awards are created at the college level rather than at the department level. This would allow the University to allocate awards strategically, in response to enrolment management recommendations. The report also reinforces the importance of faculty involvement in awards development and encourages greater synergy between the academic departments and the Office of Development and Public Affairs. A full copy of this report is available in the Senate Office.
7. Changes to Convocation
Senate approved changes to Convocation that will allow for the use of War Memorial Hall for classes in the Fall and Winter semesters. The use of War Memorial Hall is necessary as the University continues to increase its intake of students at the introductory level. While Senate recognized the need to use War Memorial Hall, it strongly endorsed the continued offering of Convocation three times a year. This caused a conflict in terms of the usage of War Memorial Hall. Senate finally resolved to continue with convocation in the Fall semester but over four evening ceremonies, rather than during the day. In the Winter semester, Convocation will be held during the day but during the Winter break when War Memorial Hall is free. The scheduling of Convocation for the summer will not change.
8. Provost s Report
The Provost presented a report on all of the initiatives underway at the University of Guelph, both in terms of revisions to our academic programs, and in terms of administrative restructuring. The report identifies the steps being taken by all members of the university community to respond to the continual budget cuts. The Senate was impressed with the range of innovative solutions being considered. A copy of the Provost's Report is attached.
3 17: 1 " 7:7CCYM 70 PRES::ENT S 0:F:C: ?1(:02
17— 1 AT GUELPH IF inel7 News Bulletin
ublishod by: Communications and Public Affairs, ext. 6582 Please Post
March 11, 1997 Tuition Fee Proposal Modified After Consultation With University Community
The University's original tuition fee proposal, calling for a 10 per cent increase in all domestic undergraduate programs and a set of differentiated increases in domestic graduate programs, has been modified at the graduate level after a series of discussions with the Senate's university planning committee and elected student leaders. The modification involves a blended increase of seven per cent for 1997-98, .to be applied to all domestic students enrolled in graduate programs. All other features of the proposal, including the recommendation not to increase fees for graduate and undergraduate international students, remain the same.
The overall result will be a recommended increase averaging nine per cent across all programs (as ereviously proposed), with no change to the net revenue forecast. This means that Guelph is among those
"'ft-Ontario universities not imposing the full discretionary increase of 20 , centin individual programs, or 10 .er cent overall • rmitted b the • *vmcial • overnment. In addition, the University intends to increase the budget available for scholarships and teaching assistantships available at the graduate level. The effect will be to maintain Guelph's median position relative to other universities in the province.
The adjustment to the proposal was made in response to concerns about the differentiated fee structure at the graduate level. The original proposal was to apply a significantly higher tuition fee increase for a number of professional graduate programs — MLA, M.Eng., MBA, MFA, and MSc (Aqua) - than for the other graduate programs offered to domestic students.
The modification emerged after a series of discussions with representatives of the Graduate Students' Association (GSA), the Central Student Association (CSA) and the Student Senate Caucus, and in the Enrolment Management Group and the Senate Committee on University Planning (SCUP). The Student Senate C.ancus presented a number of proposals to the Senate Executive, voicing its desire for a tuition freeze and opposition to the concept of differential fees. Concerns also were expressed about the extent of the consultation process. At the request of the President, the Enrolment Management Committee and SCUP reviewed the student suggestions and recommended deferring differential fees during 1997-98, adopting instead the blended increase for domestic students in all graduate programs. SCUP supported the change and will note this in its report to Senate March.11.
"Thc Enrolment Management Committee and SCCIP remain committed to the principle of a differentiated fee structure," said Alastair Sununerlee, Acting Associate Vice-President (Academic). "However, both committees acknowledge that the lateness of the provincial government's tuition announcement left insufficient time for consultation on campus."
_...... .. •■Elks:TY••••‘••• 11..111r 1r 03-.. ]2:35?M . U C.1777 07 77Nt", 1 TO PRESIDENT S OFFICE
The President stated that he regrets the necessity of a substantial tuition increase. "We would have preferred an increase in university operating funds that would remedy Ontario's last-place position among the provinces. I and members of the administration have pressed for this, publicly and privately, in more than 80 meetings with elected officials, government and business leaders, governors/trustees, the press and others. Unfortunately, the government failed to implement the recommendation of its own Advisory Panel on Future Directions for Postsecondary Education to increase operating grants to the national average. This leaves us no viable option but to increase tuition fees, given the $20 million cut in revenues we had to make this year. Nevertheless, we will increase student financial aid to approximately $1.7 million in our operatinaudget for 1997-98. This is in addition to the ACCESS fund, which with the government match is expected to exceed $9 million in endowed funds for student aid."
Other proposals of the Student Senate Caucus - student representation on the Enrolment Management Committee and the creation of a groupto of tuition increases on accessibility - have been accepted by the Administration. In addition, President Mordechai Rozanski has suggested that earlier student involvement in the enrolment management process be complemented by
_student representation on the President's Bud getary Advisory Group (PBAG). "It is important for students to be partners in the enrolment management process," said Rozanslci. "Student representation on PLIAG will give students an opportunity to participate in discussion and analysis of the full budget context of tuition decisions."
The modified tuition proposal was presented to the Finance Committee of the Board of Governors, who endorsed it March 6, and a final decision will be made by the Board of Governors at the end of March.
Contact: Darlene Frampton Communications and Public Affairs Ext. 3863