Minutes: ECC, November 12, 2012

Report of the UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO MISSISSAUGA ERINDALE COLLEGE COUNCIL meeting held on Monday, November 12, 2012 at 3:10 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Room 3130, South Building.

Present: G. Anderson (in the Chair), D. Saini, A. Mullin, U. Krull, B. Katz, P. Donoghue, D. Crocker, I. Whyte, A. Burnett, C. Capewell, S. Elias, P. Goldsmith, D. Kreuger, J. Lim, B. McFadden, D. Mullings, L. Paris, L. Bailey, N. Woolridge, L. Kramer, J. Poe, H. Gunz, G. Allen, A. Wensley, L. Barber, M. Berger, A. Birkenbergs, D. Coulson, L. Gaspini, K. Horvath, M. Jamieson, S. Prior, S. Senese, A. Reid, V. Shahani, S. Da Silva, C. Thompson, G. Lu, R. Noronha, F. Santos, A. Ursel, Y. Youssef, N. Adam, R. Correa, S. Elborno, Q. Khan, N. Marchisio, M. Minhas, T. Mukherjee, E. Ogbe-Ogboyi, A. Ramboanga, R. Saafan, S. Shi, G. Slobodian, L. Stasiw, A. Waseem, S. Sumra, D. DiCenso, D. Dunlop, M. Jalland, D. S. Munro, S. McCarthy, C. Boyd, L. Kramer, A. Petersen, Y. Tam-Seguin
Regrets: I. Still, K. Hannah-Moffat, A. Rosenbloom
 

  1. Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting (October 11, 2012)

The minutes of the previous meeting were approved. (M. Berger/P. Donoghue)

2. Reports of Standing Committees and Officers

a) Resource Planning & Priorities Committee: Report of the October 29, 2012 meeting – Professor Lee Bailey

On behalf of the Resource Planning and Priorities Committee, Professor Bailey reported that at its October 29 meeting, members received three reports for information:  Grounds Monitoring Subcommittee report from Paul Donoghue, CAO on behalf of the Chair, Professor Nicholas Collins.  In addition, the committee received preliminary information on UTM ancillary budgets from Christine Capewell, Director of Business Services in preparation for the committee’s next meeting, when they would be presented in detail for consideration and approval.  The committee heard that parking rates would be kept at an increase of 3%.  Professor Bailey noted that the ancillary budgets would be presented for approval to the Committee’s November 26 meeting.  He noted that instead of submitting these budgets to the December 6 meeting of Council, which was deemed a very busy time for members, they would be submitted to the January 14 meeting of Erindale College Council.  This would still allow the university to approximate the relevant Service Ancillary Review Group deadlines.

Professor Bailey reported that members also received a full presentation and report on the UTM academic plan and that the committee endorsed the plan.  He called on the Dean, Professor Mullin to report on any changes to the plan since the last meeting of Council, which received a full report and then to make the appropriate motions.

  1. UTM Divisional Academic Plan – Professor Amy Mullin, Vice-Principal Academic and Dean

The UTM Academic Plan is attached hereto as Appendix A.  The Dean reported that there were a few changes made to the plan as a result of feedback and consultation throughout the UTM community as well as in response to feedback from the Standing Committees of Council.  Stronger language around academic freedom has been added to the plan. The plan has also been amended to reflect feedback on improving the research climate on campus and ways in which various university offices can work together collaboratively to support research activity.  In addition, the academic plan has incorporated plans for improving the writing and numeracy skills of students. 

It was duly moved and seconded,
THAT,
The Erindale College Council endorse the UTM Divisional Academic Plan in principle. (Amy Mullin/ B. Katz)

The Motion was carried.

The Vice-President and Principal expressed his thanks to the Dean for her leadership in developing UTM’s academic plan, and congratulated her on the successful and highly consultative outcome.

b) Academic Affairs Committee: Report of the October 30, 2012 meeting – Professor Nick Woolridge

On behalf of the Academic Affairs Committee, Professor Woolridge reported that at its October 30 meeting, the Vice-Dean Undergraduate talked about curriculum development process in preparation for the approval of curricular changes at the November meeting.  Similar to the RPPC, the AAC endorsed the UTM Divisional Academic Plan.   Members also received for information a course description changes in the Master of Biotechnology program for BTC1600H and approved a new course in the same program:  BTC1850H Creating Life Science Products.  He called on Professor Bernard Katz, acting Vice-Dean Graduate to present this course to members for approval. 

  1. New course in the Master of Biotechnology Program: BTC1850H Creating Life Science Products  For approval

Professor Katz explained that this course builds upon the momentum of the already successful BTC1800H Biotechnology in Medicine and BTC1600H Astrazeneca Seminar Series courses offered by the MBiotech Program. The development of BTC1850H Creating Life Science Products course will expose students to an interdisciplinary perspective by allowing them to work on shared problems as a team. This type of environment will be unique to their training in the MBiotech program and will help to prepare them for similar environments in the workforce.

It was duly moved and seconded,
THAT Erindale College Council Committee approve BTC1850, Creating Life Science Products, in the Master of Biotechnology program as described in the attached proposal effective September 1, 2013.  (B. Katz/M. Berger)

The motion was carried.

3.  Report from the Registrar and Director of Enrolment Management – Diane Crocker  For Information

The presentation of the Registrar and Director of Enrolment Management on enrollment and new intakes based on September data is attached hereto as Appendix B.   

4. Vice President and Principal’s Report

Professor Saini updated Council on the progress of governance review.  He reported that last week there were three consultation sessions (one on each campus) on the proposed 2013 Elections Guidelines.

He indicated that as the governance review process was coming to end and was transitioning into the implementation phase, it was time for UTM to support the new governance structure, which exemplified the devolution of powers recommended by the university's Task Force on Governance (TFOG).   UTM was becoming a comprehensive institution within the U of T system, with a broad range of programs, conducting its affairs more autonomously, while still linked into U of T’s overall governance bodies.

Following the recommendations of the report of the TFOG, which in itself was a long and well considered and researched process, UTM assembled its own Governance Review Committee (GRC), which worked over the course of the last academic year to produce its recommendations.  The GRC’s membership was made up of representatives from all constituencies, including the heads of the three student unions and concurred with the recommendations of TFOG and the creation of the new Campus Council structure. Professor Saini acknowledged that the proposed structure, which was approved in principle by Governing Council in June 2012, did not satisfy everyone’s ideas of campus governance, but emphasized that it was based on extensive consultation and research of university governance.  During the consultation process and even up to this day, a number of good suggestions from the university community have been accommodated in the proposal.  Other suggestions, while they appeal to some constituencies, do not meet effective governance standards.   

In order to preserve the spirit of the consultative nature of ECC, it has been proposed that both UTM and Scarborough should create opportunities for two town halls per academic year.  He noted that consultation was the responsibility of administration and not governance.

The Vice-President and Principal reported that some of the more recent changes that were being contemplated were with respect to the number and composition of various constituencies on Council and its Standing Committees.

With respect to the issue of granting automatic ex-officio status for student union leaders on various governance bodies, Professor Saini explained that in order to serve the best interests of the university, governors should bring a constituency perspective and not a constituency interest to bear on their deliberation of issues.  The same rationale would apply to discussions of quorum, whereby having stringent requirements of who must be present at a meeting in order for it to start conducting business, participants could stall matters by not attending meetings.

In closing he noted that the proposed governance structure reflected sound governance principles and even very recently, incorporated most of the suggestions made throughout the consultation process.

The Chair opened the floor to questions. 

A member commented that the GRC just embraced the recommendations of the TFOG.  Professor Saini noted that the TFOG recommendations were incorporated into the final proposal after much consultation, including three town halls on the subject.

Another member, who was a member of the GRC, noted that while he believed the overall structure was sound, its implementation was being rushed.

In response to a member’s statement that the new governance structure should be brought to ECC for approval, the Vice-President and Principal explained that the creation of divisional councils was under the authority of Governing Council, which had already approved it in June of 2012, following much preliminary work and consultation as had been expressed before.  The relevant offices needed time to work on a careful implementation of the structure.   

A member noted that while there has been a lot of progress through various means of consultation and discussion, there are still issues that could be addressed as follows:

  1. Quorum: the proposal still does not ask for a specific number from each constituency, but rather a specific balance between internal elected and external people.
  2. The proposal has essentially cut the membership of Governing Council in half and when that is done, UTM’s Campus Council ends up with 26 people because it must keep the four ex-officio members of the President, the Chancellor, and the Chair and Vice-Chair of Governing Council.  In a counter proposal by the coalition on governance, there is a suggestion to increase this membership somewhat to try and restore elected positions.
  3. Administrative staff:  this new structure represents a big change for them since all heads of administrative departments, all librarians, and 10 elected staff, who all sit on ECC are cut down to 1 seat in the new structure.  Moreover, as expressed at last week’s town hall on the elections guidelines, in addition to these limitations, some of the people on the Campus Council would also be governors, so it is conceivable that a member who is not from UTM could hold this post.  The university should do better than that for its dedicated administrative staff.
  4. Librarians:  under the U of T act, librarians are considered administrative staff.  The coalition on governance suggests that in light of the extremely important work that librarians do, the Campus Council should have a librarian as a presidential appointee position.

The Vice-President thanked the member for raising the above points and for acknowledging that much progress had been made through consultations.  He noted that each of the above points was currently under discussion and careful consideration by the Governing Council Implementation Committee.  Professor Saini promised to report back to Council on any changes in the approval process or any new modifications to the proposal based on the points outlined above.

There was no other new business. 

The Chair announced Council’s next meeting was scheduled for Thursday, December 6, 2012.

The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m. (L. Bailey/J. Lim)

 

Chair _________________________  Secretary ________________________