As approved at the May 21, 1999, meeting of Senate. Copies of Exhibits and Appendices not included in World Wide Web information are available from the University Secretariat, Room 290, Stevenson-Lawson Building.
The meeting was held at 1:00 p.m. in A. Brandon Conron Hall, University College.
SENATORS: 76
J. Adams, R. Archibald, D. Banting, A. Belcastro, D. Bell, D. Bentley, D. Braun, R. Bryan, P. Cain, C. Callaghan, P. Canham, J. Clayman, R. Coulter, D. Cunningham, R. Darnell, P. Davenport, J. Davies, P. Deane, H. DeLasa, C. Down, J. Erskine, M. Floryan, L. Francis, B. Frohmann, J. Garnett, T. Garrard, W. Gibson, R. Green, R. Holt, J. Hore, B. Hovius, N. Huner, D. Jorgensen, Y. Kang, G. Killan, M. Kissel, D. Kuntz, S. Lupker, T. Macuda, A. Malowitz, I. Martin, M. Mathur, D. McLachlin, R.Y. McMurtry, M. McNay, K. McQuillan, P. Mercer, G. Moran, D.G. Muñoz, J. Nicholas, A. Norris, K. Okruhlik, A. Oosterhoff, A. Pearson, H. Polatajko, A. Prabhakar, S. Provost, D. Rosner, J. Roth, K. Rowe, C. Russell, E. Singer, D. Small, J. Snyder, D. Spencer, J. Stokes, S. Tan, D. Taub, R. Telfer, I. Thomsen, J. Van Fleet, A. Vandervoort, C. Weldon, D. Williamson, E. Wood, M. Zamir
Observers: I. Armour, R. Chelladurai, D. Jameson, R. Tiffin, A. Varpalotai
By Invitation: R. DelMaestro, K. Goldthorp, D. Riddell, S. Singh, J. Thorp
It was moved by A. Pearson, seconded by G. Moran,
That the Agenda be amended to permit the Report of the Senate Committee on University Planning to be the first committee report presented.
CARRIED
S.99-95 Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The Minutes of the March 19, 1999, were approved with the inclusion of the following amendment:
S.99-75 Academic Accommodations for Students with Disabilities (Policy and Handbook)
- page 11, last paragraph should read [changes shown in italics]:
He argued that the extra time accommodations he has been asked to provide are illegitimate for students with spelling disabilities but not for a blind student who needs to get information from a tape recorder.
Dr. Mercer provided the following responses to questions posed at the last meeting concerning barrier free access:
• Is the University (the Board of Governors) legally responsible for financing projects to ensure all campus buildings are barrier free?
The Board of Governors is responsible for property and finance matters. The University is the owner of the buildings and is responsible for maintaining the legal requirements for barrier free access.
• How much money is budgeted and spent on accessibility projects by the University specifically and solely to eliminate barriers to access that are not tied to other maintenance or the construction of new buildings? (Separate from those funded from the approximately $100,000 collected from undergraduates for accessibility development). Does this money come from deferred maintenance lines? Is it possible to break this amount out as a separate line item in the 1999-2000 budget and in future budgets? Is °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â currently being proactive in fulfilling its obligations and legal requirements to provide a barrier free campus?
The University responds appropriately, subject to its legal requirements in providing barrier free access. The University's capital projects frequently contain a component involving the provision of barrier free access. In 1997-98, barrier free access projects at Althouse College and the Engineering Sciences Building totaled $85,000. In Somerville House, $20,000 will be spent on the conversion of two washrooms and in Middlesex College the conversion of an elevator and barrier free washroom cost $150,000. Typically the University does not precisely break out those components of project budgets relating to barrier free access, but will do so in the future. A full report will be provided that identifies the barrier free access component of a project and will identify those projects funded by the University Students' Council accessibility fee.
Dr. Mercer acknowledged the support received from the University Students' Council through their special accessibility levy which began in 1993-94 and has increased from its initial rate of $4.00 per FTE by 5% each year. In the forthcoming budget year, if one uses the current undergraduate enrolment as a guide, the amount contributed to the fund will be $108,470.
Dr. Davenport reported that the administration will create a website that lists accomplishments and awards earned by °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â's faculty, staff, and students. The listing will be updated on a monthly basis. A letter will be sent to the University community asking that names of recipients of honors and awards be submitted to the President's Office for inclusion on the website.
Mr. Armour referred to a memo recently circulated by the Registrar about registration process changes. He asked about the status of the changes. Dr. Moran acknowledged that there are concerns regarding the discontinuation of prerequisite checking by the Registrar's Office and advised that the issue will be reviewed by SCAPA.
[Dean Pearson, Vice-Chair of Senate, assumed the Chair]
On behalf of the Senate Committee on University Planning, it was moved by G. Moran, seconded by W. Gibson,
That Senate approve and recommend to the Board of Governors, through the Vice-Chancellor, the 1999-2000 University Operating and Capital Budgets (distributed on April 7), including the University's Quality Improvement Plan and the tuition fees as summarized in the bolded and indented section on page 12 of the Operating Budget.
Overview - Operating Budget
Professor S. Singh, Chair of SCUP, provided a comprehensive overview of the 1999-2000 operating and capital budget, aided by overhead slides (copies of which are appended as Appendix 1 to these Minutes). °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â's extensive annual planning process focused on academic priorities, excellence and accessibility. At the same time, a single theme of underfunding in all units permeated discussions during the recently completed planning cycle. Discussion of student tuition fee levels and financial aid underscored the fact that Ontario's students are now personally funding a greater percentage of the total cost of their education than their counterparts in any other part of Canada.
Last year the Government of Ontario announced that grants to universities would be frozen in 1998-99 and increased by 1% in 1999-2000. In terms of the budgetary context, government underfunding remains the fundamental financial problem at °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â, as at all Ontario universities. A transfer of substantial operating budget funds to the capital budget for deferred maintenance, classroom upgrades, equipment, and other capital needs is required because the annual government capital fund allocation ($1.3 million) is inadequate. Increased revenue from higher tuition fees will bring additional revenue to the University's 1999-2000 operating budget, however, increased revenue from higher tuition fees is insufficient to compensate for the cumulative impact of reductions in government funding and unavoidable expenses.
Professor Singh reviewed the specific components of the Quality Improvement Plan including: student support; faculty renewal; expansion in high-demand programs, including an additional section of HBA, Computer Science (ATOP), Education, Engineering (ATOP), Nursing, and Four-Year Programs; investment in the Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry; investment in the Faculty of Engineering Science; student recruitment; an increase to the Library Acquisitions budget, the Writing Program, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI), and the Ontario Research Development Challenge Fund (ORDCF) initiatives; deferred maintenance and instructional facilities; and academic support initiatives.
There are three revenue sources:
Allocations to Faculties
The budget recommendations begin with an initial reduction of 1.5% to all Faculties, except the MBA portion of Business, and Engineering Science. The reductions are necessary to fund cost increases, particularly during a period when retirement turnover savings are not recovered centrally. Significant budget additions are recommended for a number of Faculties including: the Ivey School for HBA expansion; reinvestment in Dentistry and in Medicine; and reinvestment in Engineering Science, Health Sciences, Law, Music, and Information and Media Studies. The Enrolment Contingent Fund (ECF) provides annual funds to the academic units based on growth in Weighted Teaching Units (WTUs) over pre-established baseline WTUs for each Faculty. An important feature of the ECF is recognition of cross-Faculty teaching by individual members of faculty. Where changes in the enrolment patterns appear stable, ECF funding will be converted to base operating allocations. The Provost's Academic Support Fund (PASF) continues in 1999-2000 and will be allocated to specific instructional and research initiatives within the Faculties.
Scholarships and Bursaries
Overall student support funding will increase by nearly $2.9 million for 1999-2000. Total student support funding has increased from $4.9 million in 1992-93 to $22.0 million in 1999-2000. Undergraduate scholarships are up by $166,000. Needs-based undergraduate student support, generated through the 30% required set-aside of tuition and other sources is expected to exceed $9 million in 1999-2000. Funds generated by the required 30% set-aside of additional tuition fee revenues will be distributed as follows: Work/Study Bursary Program - $4,000,000; and needs-based bursaries - $2,650,000; administration - $350,000, for a total of $7,000,000. Special bursaries will be made available to OSAP-eligible incoming students in the HBA, dentistry and medicine programs. Total graduate student support amounts to over $11 million.
Budget Allocations to Support Units
Base budget allocations for 1999-2000 to support units , detailed on Table 4 of the budget, include allocations to the following units: Educational Development Office, the Effective Writing Program, Information Technology Services, Institutional Planning and Budgeting, the Registrar's Office, and Human Resources.
Corporate Expenditures
Corporate expenditures include the following: the Corporate Contingency Fund will be set at $717,000 which is .25% of the Operating Revenues; the Library Acquisitions budget will be increased by 5%; $350,000 will be allocated to support undergraduate and graduate student recruitment; $750,000 will be added to the Deferred Maintenance Fund; and $600,000 will be transferred from Information Technology Services to the University Systems Replacement Fund.
One-Time Allocations
One-time allocations for 1999-2000, shown in Table 6 of the budget, amount to a total of over $9.8 million. These allocations include targeted funding for specific initiatives critical to the functioning of the University: a transfer to Capital for Dentistry/Medicine facilities; flow-through of Self-Funded Tuition in Medicine & Dentistry; research development and patent support; CFI/ORDCF matching funds; staff development; 125th Anniversary Fundraising Campaign; self-checkout terminals for Libraries; compact shelving for Libraries; Web-based software for Animal Care; labor relations support; Y2K support; and PeopleSoft implementation.
Summary of the Operating Budget
Table 7 of the budget document provides a summary of the University's Operating Budget for 1999-2000. The net position for 1999-2000 is a surplus of $1.1 million, which partially offsets the projected $2.9 million deficit in 1998-99. The net carryforward is projected to be zero in 1999-2000 which is the result of the cumulative impact of budget reductions on Faculties and support units.
Overview - Capital Budget
The 1999-2000 Capital Plan addresses two objectives of prime importance to °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â -- deferred maintenance and classroom and research facility enhancement. The major sources of funding for the Capital Budget are MET's annual capital grants, ATOP infrastructure funds, the operating budget's annual contribution to deferred maintenance, additional contributions from the operating budget in support of facilities renewal in the Dental Sciences Building and the Medical Sciences Building, annual fundraising, and bank loans for the new stadium and the University's new phone system. Capital expenditures address the priority areas of deferred maintenance, instructional facilities, and research facilities, including the academic space realignment project. The Capital Reserve is projected to be $5.2 million which is about $1.1 million below the Board of Governors mandated level of $6.3 million. The double cohort could result in an enrolment increase of 3,700 students which will have significant space implications.
In conclusion, Professor Singh stated that the details of the budget proposals for 1999-2000 make clear the urgency of increasing public funding in Ontario's universities to a level comparable to that provided in other provinces.
Discussion and Debate
Dr. Moran drew Senators' attention to the fact that the net carryforward is projected to be zero in 1999-2000. This is the result of the cumulative impact of budget reductions on Faculties and support units. With the anticipated increase in demand for university education in Ontario, quality assurance and access, increased government funding is required. He stressed that °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â is committed to reinforcing this point of view and will continue to lobby the government.
Dr. Mercer stated that the Capital Budget includes a large number of projects related to classroom expansion and the support of academic programs, including specific projects such as adding classrooms to Somerville House and Elborn College, and general classroom improvements. Approximately 60 general use classrooms will be renovated in the forthcoming year, involving lighting, seating, instructional technology, and painting. The Capital Reserve, which is required by Board policy to be maintained generally at a level of $6.3 million, has fallen to $5.2 million in the projections because the programmatic pressures on the capital budget are such that the University must use $1.1 million of the reserve in order to fulfill academic program needs. However, the University is obligated to return the capital reserve to its Board mandated level and therefore a proposal to this effect will be included in the forthcoming budget year.
In response to Professor Zamir's suggestion that °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â's overall revenues appear to have increased significantly, Dr. Moran explained that only a portion of the increased revenue from tuition can be attributed to general expenses: 30% of the increased revenue from tuition is set aside for student aid; allocations are made from the Operating Budget to support capital fund projects; $750,000 is allocated to the deferred maintenance fund; and funds must be set aside for anticipated faculty/staff salary costs. Dr. Davenport referred to Figure 2, page 3: Percentage Change in Adjusted Real Operating Revenue. He explained that removed from the equation are student support funds, self-funded programs, and operating funds transferred to the capital budget. The resulting figures were corrected for the Consumer Price Index. The graph shows that until 1992-93, revenue, so defined, grew faster than CPI. However, in the years following, increased revenue from higher tuition fees was not sufficient to compensate for the cumulative impact of reductions in government funding and the unavoidable increases in expenses. The dramatic reduction in institutional carryforward over the past three years places increasing pressure on the budgetary planning process.
Responding to Mr. Small's questions about employment at °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â, Dr. Mercer stated that the number of tenured and probationary faculty has been reduced by just over 100 while the number of full-time support staff declined by 500. °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â does not contract out jobs to the same extent as other universities; it is not as if full-time employees have been replaced with contracted employees. By and large decisions to reduce staff were made for budgetary reasons and the people who remain in the unit have absorbed the additional responsibilities.
It was moved by R.Y. McMurtry, seconded by L. Francis,
That the middle paragraph on page 11 of the 1999-2000 Operating Budget be amended to read:
Medicine: Tuition fees for incoming undergraduate Medical students will remain at $10,000 in 1999-2000, in 2000-01, and in 2001-02. Students 'in program' will be grandparented at an annual fee increase of 20%. All students in the program will be paying the maximum fee in 2001-02.
[Words have been deleted from the first sentence, in that the boldfaced section formerly read: "... and increase to $11,000 in 2000-01, to $12,000 in 2002-02. ..."
Dean McMurtry explained that this amendment, in effect, freezes tuition fees. He stated that his reasons for proposing the amendment relate to financial and monetary issues and to human issues. He made the following points in support of the amendment:
• The $400 designated as the cost of service teaching is an average across the system and is incorrect. This figure puts the Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry at a disadvantage because the cost of service teaching is defensibly $1400 in Medicine. From Medicine's standpoint, 3000 student courses (616 FTE) amounts to $3 million.
• The 5 BIU per student in Medicine should appear in the calculations.
• The graph shown in Figure B on page 55 is very misleading in that the data refer to 1997-98. Since then there has been a 106% increase in tuition fees -- from $4800 to $10,000. The Faculty's figures show that the average cost per student year is $26,460 and the tuition as a percent of cost by Faculty is 37.7% in Medicine, not 10% or 11% as shown in the graph.
• The human considerations are such that tuition affects the medical students before, during and after their medical school experience. High tuition fees discourage students who come from poor socio-economic backgrounds. Preliminary studies conducted by the medical students support this fact and a study currently underway will examine the issue in greater depth. Medical students are under duress because of the high tuition fee and the stress affects their academic performance. Medical students normally finish their training in their 30's and the debt load they face has personal consequences. Professionally it is a concern: Will the graduates remain in Canada or will they go to the United States? Will they go to the rural areas or under-serviced domains such as inner cities?
On the matter of program costing, Dr. Davenport reported that when the administration first introduced program costing figures, deregulated fees were unanticipated. When the program costing information was distributed publicly, the former Dean of Dentistry and the Dean of Medicine criticized the method of calculating the costs of cross-faculty teaching. The program costing figures contained in the Looking Forward document were changed in response to their concerns. The Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry has suggested that the service teaching cost allocation -- $400 per full-course-equivalent course registrant or $28,000 for a full course of 70 students -- is inadequate. If the service teaching costs were doubled, to $800 per course registrant, the impact on the data (Tuition as a Percentage of Cost, by Faculty, Figure B, page 55) is minimal. The Faculty of Social Science would drop to 46.8% and Medicine would increase to 10.5%. Dr. McMurtry argued that the cost of service teaching should be $1400 per student per course because teaching science courses is more expensive.
Dr. Davenport stated that the administration acknowledges the accessibility issue relative to high medical tuition. The claims that high tuition can be a discouragement to accessibility is equally true throughout the University. Efforts must be made to lobby the government for more public funding.
Dr. McMurtry acknowledged that the issue of accessibility is University-wide, but in the end, medical students face higher debt loads. The average number of years following medical school is 4.77. During medical school students do not have to pay interest on their OSAP debt but they must pay interest on their bank loans. When the students get into residency they must pay interest on all their loans. Students would have 4.2 years of education before entering medical school, 4 years in medical school and on average 4.77 years of residency following, for a total of 13 years. Graduates are 31-32 years of age before they earn an income, and it takes 3-5 years of practice before they have a steady-state income.
In response to a question from Mr. Small, Dr. McMurtry stated that the students' angst and negativity resulting from last year's 106% tuition increase may well affect the Faculty's accreditation review, a process which will take place in March 2000. They have concerns about the high tuition and a perception that there is no change in their learning environment; that is, that there is no evidence of reinvestment. There is a concern about how the accreditation will go because of the directions taken.
Dr. Moran stated that graduates from medicine, dentistry, law, and other professional programs had relatively low default rates on loans in 1998, whereas students in the first-entry programs had much higher default rates. One must take into account the fact that fees have increased considerably since the students to which the data applies began their programs. All students now pay much higher tuition. The incremental costs would still suggest that the fears about accessibility can be managed, particularly for those students who are in financial need. OSAP-eligible students in medicine will be guaranteed a $3000 bursary. The bursary will be adjusted to the financial needs of the incoming medical students. Students in upper years of the program will have access to approximately the same amount of student aid funding. Accessibility is a serious problem that applies across the University. Debt loads are manageable based on the relative of earnings opportunities that medical students will have upon graduation.
With respect to reinvestment, Dr. Moran stated that the revenue from tuition income will be invested in Medicine. The two components of investment include a base allocation of $462,800 to the Faculty operating budget in 1999-2000 to support special new initiatives, including faculty renewal and educational enhancements, and an annual allocation of $500,000 from the general University Operating to the Capital Budget for the next 10 years for a total of $5 million to renew facilities within the Medical Sciences Building.
A number of Senators supported the amendment to freeze medical tuition at $10,000 for the next three years and made the following points:
• Before increasing medical tuition, a study should be conducted to know how current high levels have affected accessibility.
• Accessibility is already being compromised because $10,000 is too high, never mind further increases. If the Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry is willing to go without the potential increase in revenues generated by the tuition increases beyond $10,000, and students are concerned, why approve those increases?
• Last year's 106% increase in medical tuition caused stress and affected medical students' academic performance.
• Given the rising cost of medical tuition, graduates of the program may not be willing to make donations to University.
• It would benefit °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â to provide a three year notice that medical tuition is frozen.
In reply, the following comments were made:
• The actual cost of medical tuition last year was not $10,000, it was $7,600 for every OSAP-eligible medical student because each was given a bursary of $2,400. The mandated 30% set-aside of tuition for student financial aid has had an enormous effect.
• Last year those opposing the $10,000 medical tuition fee could argue that °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â's fee would be the highest in the province. That claim cannot be made this year. In 1999-2000, the medical tuition fee at the University of Toronto will be $11,000. At McMaster, the medical tuition fee is $13,500.
• The issue of accessibility relative to high tuition fees is prevalent across Canada; however, °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â's decisions must be made for the good of the whole University community.
Dr. Mercer urged that Senate consider the entire budget and ask whether it is balanced against all the considerations that make up a budget planning exercise and whether the Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry is treated unfairly. In his view, the Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry has not been treated unfairly. The budget planning process is extraordinarily time consuming and it is the responsibility of the administration to balance all considerations in the context of a total budget before it is presented to Senate and the Board. Consequently, if the claim is made that somehow the administration has been unresponsive to the concerns expressed by the medical students, the evidence must be weighed. In January it was planned that 1999-2000 tuition for medical students would be $11,000 and escalate to $13,000 in 2001-02: the proposal now before Senate is to set fees at $10,000 for 1999-2000, increasing to $12,000 in 2001-02. It was planned that the Medical Residents fee approved last year would be implemented in 1999-2000: the proposal now is that it not be implemented. A bursary for all OSAP-eligible medical students responds to the accessibility problem. The administration is conscious of the accessibility problem, but it must be balanced against a number of other considerations that apply broadly across the University, and in that regard, the real question is who is to fairly bear the burden that is disproportionately imposed on the entire University by a public funding system that is totally inadequate.
A motion to close debate was moved, seconded, and carried by a two-thirds majority.
The amendment with respect to medical tuition fees was CALLED and CARRIED on a roll call vote of 34 in favor and 32 against.
Tuition Fees - Honors Business Administration
S.99-99b It was moved by D. Taub, seconded by A. Russell,
[subsequently withdrawn and replaced] That the paragraph on page 11 of the budget document dealing with HBA tuition be amended to read:
That the tuition fee for all students in the HBA program remain at $8,000 in 1999-2000, in 2000-2001, and in 2001-2002.
[Words have been deleted from the sentence, in that the boldfaced section formerly read: "... increase to $9,000 in 2000-01, and to $10,000 in 2002-02."
Mr. Taub asserted that the HBA tuition fees should be frozen because the impact of increased tuition for the HBA program is not known. The amendment also addresses the issue of accessibility, the fact that an HBA student must pay for case studies and purchase a laptop computer, which is mandatory.
Dr. Davenport spoke against the amendment stating that last year's budget contained the announcement that a third section would be added to the HBA program this Fall because many qualified students are denied access to the HBA program each year due to a lack of sufficient spaces. To facilitate the expansion and provide increased access, a substantial proportion of the revenue from tuition fees will be reinvested to support the additional faculty, support staff and space necessary to open the third section. Faculty are being hired to teach the third section, and consequently a $600,000 base budget allocation to the Business School is recommended for 1999-2000 to augment the investment made in 1998-99 and to complete the appointment of faculty members needed to support the program expansion. The 30% tuition set-aside for student aid available to HBA students will increase from $276,000 in 1998-99 to approximately $663,000 in 2001-02. Dr. Davenport stated that the amendment, if approved, would put the expansion of the HBA program in jeopardy. He distinguished the HBA students' situation from that of medical students: the most compelling argument in the case of medical students is the time between the commencement of studies at the entry level and the point at which an individual begins to earn a full salary as a medical doctor; but on the other hand, HBA students graduate after two years of study with high earning expectations.
Mr. Taub then asked that his proposed amendment be changed to strike any reference to the years 2000-01 and 2001-02 because the impact of high tuition on accessibility to the program is not yet known.
With no objections from Senate, the original amendment was withdrawn and substituted with the following:
That the paragraph on page 11 of the budget document dealing with HBA tuition be amended to read:
That the tuition fee for all students in the HBA program remain at $8,000 in 1999-2000 [striking ""increase to $9,000 in 2000-01, and to $10,000 in 2001-02."]
The Vice-Chair clarified that the effect of this amendment would be that tuition fees for all HBA students would be set at $8,000 in 1999-2000 but that fees would not be set for the following two years.
Professor Archibald stated his objections to charging the $8000 fee this year and next, suggesting that a grandfather provision should have applied to students entering the programs in those two years. In his view, the critical issue is whether the additional revenue from the increased fees is passed through to the unit to benefit the students who pay the tuition.
Dr. Davenport responded that the funds will be reinvested to support the additional faculty, support staff, and space needed for the new HBA section. The base budget cost of the expansion will total $1.2 million. Because of the challenge of hiring qualified faculty, $600,000 of these funds were allocated to the Ivey School in the 1998-99 budget year and the remainder will be allocated in 1999-2000. He submitted that the University would be criticized if it waits until this time next year to set the fees for the following September.
Dr. Mercer reiterated that the administration, in concert with the Dean of Business and Ivey faculty, have plans in place to provide an additional HBA section of 72 students this fall. He stated that it is madness to contemplate delaying funding the program adequately and drawing from other university resources in the name of the speculative problem with accessibility. The data indicate that there is a huge demand for the program, and program entrance level requirements are at such a high standard now that many deserving students are denied access to the program.
A Senator observed that tuition fees at other business schools in Ontario are less than half of °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â's and asked if °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â's business school is twice as good. Dr. Moran stated that °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â is by far the best undergraduate business program in the country and despite the tuition increase last year, the demand for the Early Access Program and the HBA program increased. He urged Senate not to get into the business of thinking that we will arguing about budgets on the basis of the revenue generating capabilities of the various units. If Faculties received only the revenue generated, some would be in very dire straits. There are many units, such as dentistry, medicine and business where the costs of the programs are higher than the revenues they can possibly generate and the Faculty of Music would be in very serious trouble if Senate decided to set its budget based on the revenue generated according to the students' tuition.
The AMENDMENT with respect to HBA tuition fees was called and was DEFEATED.
Dean Mathur sought assurance that there would be sufficient reinvestment of ATOP-related funding in Engineering to ensure the maintenance of quality in those expanded programs. Dr. Moran stated he was committed to working with the Dean in this regard.
The main motion [S.99-99] as amended [S.99-99a] was called and CARRIED.
It was moved by G. Moran, seconded by W. Gibson,
That the Senate approve and recommend to the Board of Governors, through the Vice-Chancellor, the project priorities and Faculty/unit goals summarized in Exhibit IV, Appendix 1, for inclusion in the University of °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â Ontario's fundraising campaign.
Mr. Garrard presented the report on campaign priorities and faculty/unit goals detailed in Exhibit IV, Appendix 1. He highlighted his presentation with the use of overheads, copies of which are attached as Appendix 2 to these minutes. Over the past 18 months extensive planning has been undertaken in preparation for the comprehensive university-wide private fundraising Campaign to support °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â's mission of teaching and research excellence. The Campaign is scheduled to run until April 30, 2004, and will coincide with °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â's 125th Anniversary in 2003.
The question was called and CARRIED.
Professor Thorp reported that SCAPA has prepared another iteration of the proposed policy on Academic Accommodations for Students with Disabilities. It will be distributed to Senators early in response to Senators' request that they receive the documentation well in advance of the Senate meeting when it is to be considered, that being the May meeting.
SCUP has approved on behalf of Senate the terms of reference for the following new scholarships, bursaries, prizes and awards, for recommendation to the Board of Governors, through the Vice-Chancellor.
Senate was advised that SCUP has approved the recommendations of SUPAD for Academic Development Fund grants. Details appear in Appendix 2 of Exhibit IV. The total budget for the Academic Development Fund in 1999-2000 is $1 million. Of this, $133,011 is required to fund the second and third years of projects in the Social Sciences, Arts & Humanities disciplines given multi-year funding in the 1997-98 and 1998-99 competitions. The total amount of the awards recommended for 1999-2000 is $887,558, excluding recommendations for multi-year projects totaling $22,687 for 2000-2001.
The Provost's Statistical Summary on Faculty Appointments by Gender was last provided to Senate in January 1998. One difficulty with the report was that its data did not match with those compiled by Statistics Canada because reporting periods differed. The Department of Institutional Planning and Budgeting has taken on the responsibility to develop a new, more comprehensive report that will use StatsCan data. It is hoped that the report will be available in early fall 1999.
Dean Pearson recalled that when Senate first began meeting in the A. Brandon Conron Hall in University College in January 1999, it was difficult to hear speakers because of loud fan noise. Since that time, the fans have been changed with the result that fan noise is no longer the problem. The acoustics of the room are such, however, that Senators must be mindful to project their voices. He referred members to the list of suggestions (Exhibit I) for ensuring that they are heard.
Some Senators asked that the Operations/Agenda Committee consider holding Senate meetings in IR40 of the Ivey Business School. Dean Pearson agreed to refer that request to the Committee.
Dean Pearson informed Senate that the Operations/Agenda Committee has established an ad hoc subcommittee of its members to investigate an allegation regarding the operations of Senate Review Board Academic, pursuant to its general responsibility to review the role and operation of standing committees of the Senate. He referred Senators to the terms of reference and composition of the subcommittee, detailed in Exhibit I.
Professor Cain read a statement from Professor Katz who was unable to attend the Senate meeting. In it, Professor Katz noted that the terms of reference of the ad hoc subcommittee are limited to investigating whether or not members of SRBA were influenced by "a request or directive from higher ups in the administration", and do not include investigating the possibility that "the presence of ex officio members on SRBA could very well lead to the perception by some that any comment from an ex officio member was in fact the policy position of the administration." He encouraged the subcommittee to broaden its investigation to include the more general possibility that the "requests and directives" were more indirect comments made by ex officio members of the committee.
Dean Pearson advised that Professor Katz had brought this issue to his attention. He referred Senators to the report of the Operations/Agenda Committee, and advised that the terms of reference were set by the Operations/Agenda Committee, not by the subcommittee itself. The terms of reference, as set, respond to a request from Dr. Mike Atkinson, Chair of SRBA, which arose from letters from Professor S. Lupker to the Editor of °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â News. He quoted Professor Lupker's letter from the February 19 edition of °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â News: "I was informed by a member of SRBA word had come down from higher ups in administration that SRBA had to rule in favor of the student and thus the committee members held their noses and voted as requested." Dean Pearson stated that the scenario described in Professor Katz's statement is very different from the one that appeared in °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â News and that the Chair of SRBA asked Operations/Agenda to investigate. He confirmed that the ad hoc subcommittee will be acting on the original request from Dr. Atkinson.
I. Connidis, S. Dunn, and V. Tumanov were reappointed to the Senate Grievance Committee for three-year terms (to April 30, 2002).
P. Cavers will serve as Alternate on the Senate Grievance Committee for T. Lookman who is on leave (term to June 30, 1999).
R. Green (term to May 2001) and M. Kertoy (term to May 2000) were elected to the McIntosh Gallery Committee.
A. Malowitz, D. Phillipson, and E. Singer were elected to the Senate Committee on Housing Policy for a one year term (to April 30, 2000), and R.A. Haines, and G. Weese were elected to SCOHP for two year terms (to April 30, 2001).
P. Auksi was re-elected to the Coordinating Committee for the Office of the Ombudsperson (term May 1, 1999, to April 30, 2001).
SCAPA has approved on behalf of the Senate the terms of reference for the following new scholarships and bursaries, for recommendation to the Board of Governors through the Vice-Chancellor:
The sessional dates for the calendar year 2000 for the Faculty of Law are listed below:
Announcements and Communications, detailed in Exhibit V, were provided for information. Dr. Davenport reported that the Board of Governors has appointed Dr. Greg Moran to a second five-year term as Provost & Vice-President (Academic).
Mr. W. Gibson expressed his dismay, as a long-serving Alumni Association representative on Senate and as a member of the general London community, that Senators at this meeting spent so much time debating one tuition fee rather than considering all aspects of the budget. He noted, as well, that little or no attention was paid to other issues on the agenda, such as the 125th Anniversary Campaign with a target of $270,000,000.
Dr. Moran announced that on May 1, Dr. Davenport will begin his three month study leave at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris, France. Senators joined him in wishing the President well with his research.
The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m.
(Signed)
P. Davenport, Chair
J.K. Van Fleet, Secretary