Board of Governors - March 25, 1999 - APPENDIX V
[All annexes listed below are not available on the Web.]
The CCAC held a public meeting on Monday, March 8, 1999, in the Board Room. There were five presentations:
FOR APPROVAL
Recommended: That the Board of Governors approve the amendments to the Student Disciplinary Code shown in the document attached as Annex 1.
[Secretarial Note: This 13 page draft document is available in the University Secretariat. Contingent on Board approval on March 25, 1999, the revised version of the Student Disciplinary Code will be posted as soon as possible after the meeting at .]
Background:
In November 1996, on recommendation of the CCAC, the Board approved the following:
That the Student Disciplinary Code be revised and expanded within the context of the Student Code of Conduct being developed by the Vice-Provost's Advisory Committee on Student Code of Conduct.
The Student Code of Conduct has not yet been completed for presentation to the Board and Senate. The proposed changes are needed to keep the Student Disciplinary Code functional until it becomes part of the Code of Conduct.
The membership of the Supervisory Board of the Student Disciplinary Code includes:
In his presentation, Mr. Carroll explained that the four major changes are:
• Incorporation of the Wet/Dry program in the Code [sec. E.4, p. 3]. This is a relatively new program and the current Code does not make reference to it. Therefore, there are no adequate sanctions for breaking the Wet/Dry program rules.
• The replacement of Duty Counsel with a provision for Defence Counsel [sec. B.1.(e), p. 2]. Community Legal Services will be available to defendants, but it is not mandatory that CLS provide this service.
• "Attempts" have been added to a number of clauses: e.g., sec. E.1, "Any student who possesses or consumes, or attempts to possess or consume, an alcoholic beverage at any event of the University ... which is specifically designated as a "dry" event ... is guilty of an offence ..."
• A burden of proof -- "on a balance of probabilities" --has been added [sec. F.5, p. 8]. This codifies what has been the practice over the years.
FOR INFORMATION
Background:
Extracts from the Compulsory Ancillary Fee Policy Guidelines of the Ministry of Education and Training:
A non-tuition-related compulsory ancillary fee is a fee which is levied in order to cover the costs of items which are not normally paid for out of operating or capital revenue. [Article 4]
Compulsory non-tuition-related ancillary fees ... which were in effect during the 1993-94 academic year can neither be increased above 1993-94 levels nor expanded to include new fees except through the implementation of a protocol(1) which has been agreed to by representatives of the institution's administration and student government representatives in light of the Minister of Education and Training's announcement of March 23, 1994, and which has received approval from the institution's governing body. [Article 6]
The protocol will set out the means by which students will be involved in decisions to increase compulsory non-tuition-related fees or to introduce new ones. [Article 6]
The Student Services Committee Protocol was approved by the Board of Governors and the student government representatives in 1995. Under the terms of the protocol, the Student Services Committee (SSC) makes annual submissions to the Campus and Community Affairs Committee (CCAC) on changes or increases to fees relating to a number of ancillary operations detailed in the protocol, any user fees collected as a pre-condition for use of a student service, any new fee or service, and the direction and scope of student services. [SSC Protocol, Article 2.00]
According to the protocol, any fee increase or new fee that is instituted without the agreement of the SSC, will be considered to be contrary to the provisions outlined in the Ministry guidelines. [SSC Protocol, Article 3.00]
Consistent with the SSC Protocol the Student Services Committee presented its Annual Report to the Campus and Community Affairs Committee on March 8, 1999. The Report was presented by Mr. Ian Armour in his capacity as Chair of the SSC. Other members of the SSC present were Mr. Nick Iozzo, Ms. Kelly Barrowcliffe, Ms. Carolyn Stoyles, Ms. Bev Greene, and Mr. Wally Gibson.
The Report of the SSC contained four recommendations which are shown in their original form on page 1 of the SSC Annual Report, Annex 2 to this Report. These dealt with, in brief:
1) Mandate of the Student Services Committee: The SSC asks for an external interpretation of certain sections of the Student Services Committee protocol, specifically whether the SSC Protocol prohibits recommendations to reduce ancillary fees.
2) Intercollegiate Athletics Fee: In the absence of any determination that it is precluded from recommending fee reductions, the SSC recommended that the fee for Intercollegiate Athletics be reduced by $3.00 in 1999-2000, by $4.00 in 2000-2001, and by $5.00 in 2001-2002, for a total $12 reduction over the three years.
3) Non-Tuition-Related Compulsory Ancillary Fees for 1999-2000: The SSC recommends $1.00 increases to fees that support two ancillary units, the Student Development Centre and the Student Health Services, for reasons outlined in their brief. With the exception of the Intercollegiate Athletics fee (noted above), all other fees remain at 1998-99 levels.
4) Inflationary Factors: The SSC recommended that members of the Financial Analysis and Budget Administration section of the Division of Financial Services meet with the SSC to discuss inflationary factors anticipated within each of the ancillary units and forecast for student services as a whole, at the beginning of the budgeting and planning cycle, commencing 1999-2000.
After considering the information provided by the Student Services Committee in support of its four recommendations, the CCAC has referred the recommendations to the Property & Finance Committee and to the administration for consideration as they prepare the final proposals for ancillary fee levels for 1999-2000.
Ms. Kelly Barrowcliffe, President of the Society of Graduate Students, and Ms. Carolyn Stoyles, SOGS Vice-President Student Services, addressed the CCAC on the issue of student fees in support of Intercollegiate Athletics. Annex 3 contains documentation circulated to CCAC members.
The presenters stated that the level of ancillary fees at °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â is a deterrent to graduate student recruitment and is contributing to difficult debt loads. At the direction of its members, SOGS reviews ancillary fees and services annually to ensure "value for money" and program relevance for the graduate student population. All ancillary services except Intercollegiate Athletics passed the test in the 1998-99 review.
While acknowledging that Intercollegiate Athletics (IA) is a benefit to the University as a whole, SOGS asserts that the program's orientation is not compatible with the interests of graduate students. Academic pressures, research and employment commitments, and CIAU restrictions result in very limited opportunities for participation. Generally speaking, graduate students do not attend these sporting events as spectators for the same reasons.
Currently, graduate students pay an additional stipend for year-round access to Campus Recreation (CR) facilities; there is no objection to this surcharge. In light of the incompatibility of the IA program with graduate student interests, SOGS proposed that graduate students be charged a theoretical omnibus fee for "athletics" which would equal in dollar value the sum of the fees (for CR and IA) currently charged to undergraduate students. The conceptual amalgamation of the two fees would preserve the principle of universality across all student populations and allow for some redress of the inequities created by the current fee/program structures. This approach would sustain the higher level of support currently directed to CR by graduate students but would reduce the level of support directed to IA. The proposed scheme is shown in Attachment #2 of Annex 3.
The SOGS representatives suggested that the University look for alternate sources of funding to make up the loss, including: removal of faculty salaries from the IA budget; reduction of the occupancy and administrative fees charged to IA; fund-raising initiatives; increasing alumni support; subsidizing the IA budget from the central operating budget of the university.
The CCAC, in considering the presentation made by Ms. Barrowcliffe and Ms. Stoyles, recognized that the proposal for a change in fees charged to graduate students challenges the principle of universal student ancillary fees which is basic to °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â's ancillary fee structure; the implications of the SOGS proposal go beyond fees for Intercollegiate Athletics. The Committee determined, therefore, that the matter be referred to the administration for its consideration and to the Property & Finance Committee for its information.
Mr. Herbert Brill, VP-External Jr. of the Hippocratic Council, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, presented recommendations on behalf of the Hippocratic Council:
That there be a University-sponsored study of the impact of medical tuition fees on accessibility and that medical tuition be frozen until the study is completed and until financial aid can be effective at current tuition levels; and
That increases to medical tuition for 2000 and 2001 be held to 15% in order to keep the net annual tuition fee below $10,000
He supported these recommendations with data collected through a survey of students who entered the MD program in the Fall of 1997 (before deregulated medical tuition fees) and the Fall of 1998 ($10,000 tuition fee). The survey involved 96 students in each of these classes and collected information about: parents' income, parents' education, and expected debt levels on completion of the medical program. Based on these data, the students concluded:
• Compared to the Class of 2001, the Class of 2002 (currently in Year 1) has fewer students whose parents are in lower income brackets, indicating limited accessibility. This is confirmed by a higher education level of parents of the Class of 2001 as compared to the Class of 2002.
• Compared to the Class of 2001, many more students in the Class of 2002 anticipate a debt load in excess of $100,000 by the time they graduate.
Mr. Brill acknowledged that the data collected in this survey could be challenged because it was not "official", because the questions were "soft", and because the data were collected from and by students. He urged that the University mount a study which would measure the impact of higher tuition fees on medical students' access and debt loads.
In addition to reduced accessibility, the prospect of huge debt loads confronts medical students. Mr. Brill recounted a number of personal stories of medical students who are having a difficult time meeting their expenses while completing a rigorous program of study. He challenged the assumption that graduates of the medical program can expect high incomes. He presented a list of 1998 salaries for medical residents across Canada which ranged from a low of $30,176 in Newfoundland to a high of $37,974 in Ontario. Since medical residents must pay begin paying back student loans, he asserted that a medical resident in Ontario would be well below the cost of living for a third year medical student. (See pages 4-5 of Annex 4.)
After considering the information presented by Mr. Brill, the Campus & Community Affairs Committee referred the recommendations to the Property & Finance Committee and to the administration for their consideration while finalizing recommendations on 1999-2000 tuition fee levels.
Mr. John Gillis, Meds 1999, spoke on "The Future of Medical Residency at °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â: A Financial, Academic, and Social Pitfall". He made four recommendations:
That the medical residency tuition proposed for implementation this year be removed;
That an audit be commissioned to determine if medical residents actually cost the University money;
That °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â commit to a two year freeze (at $0) on residents' fees, as have McMaster, Queen's and Ottawa; and
That the issue of tuition fees for medical residents be fully reconsidered by the Senate and the Board of Governors, including consultation with all stakeholders.
The points made by Mr. Gillis in his presentation are set out clearly in Annex 5-A (text) and Annex 5-B (summary slides). He argued that the Senate and Board based their decision to institute a fee for medical residents in 1998 (for implementation in July 1999) on assumptions that have not been fulfilled, principally:
• That all medical schools in Ontario would be charging a similar fee: Only °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â and the University of Toronto have announced a fee for medical residents. McMaster and Ottawa elected not to do so, and Queen's ultimately rescinded their decision to do so.
• That medical residents might be able to retain their student status, thus forestalling the repayment of student loans: Medical residents are not eligible for loans or for loan repayment deferral, as stated in the Canada Student Loan eligibility criteria. "Individuals in periods of practical training required for acceptance in a professional corporation or for the practice of any trade or profession (such as medical internship/residency, dietetic internship, or legal articles) are not full time students for the purposes of the CSLP."
In conclusion, Mr. Gillis asserted that the decision by the University of °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â Ontario to charge medical residents tuition "does not make sense from a financial, academic, or social point of view."
The CCAC reviewed the points raised by Mr. Gillis on behalf of medical residents and determined that his recommendations would be referred to the Property & Finance Committee and to the administration for consideration as they prepare the final proposals for tuition fees levels for 1999-2000
1. At °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â, this is the Student Services Committee Protocol