Report: March 10, 2005

UNVERSITY OF TORONTO AT MISSISSAUGA

ERINDALE COLLEGE COUNCIL

MINUTES OF THE ERINDALE COLLEGE COUNCIL meeting held on Thursday, March 10, 2005 at 3:15 p.m., in the Council Chamber, South Building, UTM.

PRESENT: R. Beck (in the Chair), I. Orchard, G. Keyser, R. deSouza, G. Morris, L. Martin, S. McCarthy, L. Collins, L. Gaspini, C. Bryson, A. Wensley, S. Kessler, I. Haq, B. Branfireun, A. Vyas, R. Reisz, G. Richter, I. Still, S. Munro, J. Linley, J. Lim, J. McCurdy-Myers, K. Chadder, M. Overton, K. Krupica, A. Mullin, K. Duncliffe, D. Crocker, S. Kibria, V. TeBrugge, M. Rennie, S. Abrahim, M. Massey, S. O’Connell, M.A. Mavrinac, A.Iwaniw, K. Judge, H. Gunz, J. Tran, H. Aboghodieh, D. Aldouri
In attendance: M. Ahmed, B. Louie, A. Birkenbergs

The Vice-President and Principal noted that a long-time Professor in the Department of French, German and Italian, Professor David Trott had passed away and on behalf of the University of Toronto at Mississauga extended his condolences to Professor Trott’s family, friends and colleagues. He added that a memorial at UTM would likely be held in April and that further details would be distributed to the campus community once arrangements are finalized.

1. Adoption of Agenda

The agenda was approved. (I. Still/I. Orchard)

2. Minutes of Previous Meeting (January 27, 2005)

The report of the previous meeting was approved. (I. Orchard/R. Reisz)

3. Business Arising from the Minutes.

There was no business arising from the minutes.

4. Reports of Standing Committees

a) Meeting of the Resource Planning and Priorities Committee (Report of February 21, 2005) – Professor Robert Reisz

Professor Reisz reported that the Resource Planning and Priorities Committee received an update on capital construction projects and secondary effects and noted that the Committee also approved a motion regarding the alternate delivery of parking services. The current agenda features detailed reports on both of these items. He called on Mr. Ben Louie, Development Manager, Capital Projects to commence the presentation on capital construction projects and secondary effects.

Regarding PHASE 8, Mr. Louie reported that the construction site posed a challenge regarding the integration of the proposed building with the surrounding buildings and residences. Accommodating 424 students in 15 distinct house groups, Phase 8 attempts to incorporate extensive landscaped areas in an effort to sustain the surrounding natural areas. He showed existing architectural renderings of the building and talked about the pedestrian movement from the other surrounding residences of Roy Ivor Hall and Erindale Hall. He noted that the main entrance becomes the focus of the building from the intersection of the inner circle and Residence Road. He also reported that there was a conscious effort to break up the massing of the very large building and respond to the challenge of accommodating a large number of rooms without compromising on aesthetics. This consideration has resulted in the creation of two public areas – a large one at the front of the building and a smaller one located at the back. These areas contribute to the street life around the new phase on Residence Road. The break up of the building’s massing was also achieved concerning its height, with sections at both four and five floor heights. The material palette of Phase 8 is in keeping with the surrounding buildings. He added that the building will house a dining facility, and lounge, study and laundry space.

Regarding the Athletics and Wellness Centre, Mr. Louie reported that the preparatory site work was completed during the summer, with current construction efforts focusing on the foundation. He showed several pictures of the current construction site and the building’s progress, which is scheduled for completion in the fall of 2006.

Mr. Louie reported that the Hazel McCallion Academic Learning Centre construction has progressed well over the past several weeks. Regarding the CCIT building, he noted that it was nearing the completion stage in addressing construction deficiencies. He added that UTM replaced a non-performing subcontractor. The project planning committee is continuing to work on ameliorating existing problems with the building.

Discussing overall campus construction, Mr. Louie remarked that three major capital projects were underway and added that the Transportation and Parking subcommittee was working to maximize the safety of the campus in light of increased construction traffic. Proper signage and other safety measures would be implemented, similar to the Pearson new terminal model.

Regarding the parking garage, the new campus entrance, and Mississauga Road improvements, Mr. Louie reported that these projects were all in the development stage and that he would report on them at future Council meetings. He noted that the 1000-space parking garage consists of three stories, with a roof deck and added that the design has addressed the requirements of safety and security. Mr. Louie also explained that the design of the parking garage has incorporated a new retention pond landscaping area, reinforcing the wood lot and creating a more cohesive natural area around residences and the adjacent ravine.

Professor Reisz called on the Chief Administrative Officer to commence his presentation on the alternate delivery of parking services.

ii) Alternate Delivery of Parking Services – Ray deSouza, CAO

The Chief Administrative Officer reported that UTM currently has 2600 spaces and that by 2007, UTM would have to respond to a campus population nearing 13000 with demand for an additional 700 to 900 parking spaces. In order to meet the demand, UTM is planning to build an above-ground parking garage, while continuing to work on filling the CCIT underground parking garage. The cost of the garage is estimated at $22M, which would produce a net increase of 543 parking spaces. He emphasized that UTM is not allowed to use operating funds to build the structure and is limited by a borrowing cap. An additional challenge is an existing storm water management problem.

Mr. deSouza reported that UTM conducted a Request For Information process, followed by a Request For Proposals process, and received three proposals, eventually narrowing it down to one outstanding parking service provider. Currently, UTM is negotiating with Standard Parking and the other partners of the arrangement, Ellis Don, and CIBC, the financier. He noted that the proposed garage would be built on Lot #4 as laid out in the Master Plan and added that planners have and will continue to consult with the Transportation and Parking and the Grounds Monitoring subcommittees to inform UTM’s negotiations.

Mr. deSouza noted that pursuing the alternate service provider for parking would allow UTM to continue its commitment to preserving green space by not creating additional paved surface lots. Moreover, the project allows UTM to avoid the severe financial implications of the CCIT underground parking garage. Mr. deSouza pointed out the per-spot cost differentials between surface ($2600), underground ($35,000) and above-ground ($25,000) parking lots.

Mr. deSouza emphasized that UTM would retain full control and ownership of the parking ancillary, similar to the food services ancillary and its arrangement with the food service provider and that parking policies, procedures and rates would remain the responsibility of UTM and Governing Council. The alternate service provider would have responsibility of the parking operations on campus. He also noted that any human resource implications would be dealt with in accordance with existing collective agreements between the University of Toronto and the relevant collective bargaining unit.

The Chief Administrative Officer explained that UTM had investigated and received positive reports from other institutions with the same service provider, including Trillium Health Centre, the Hospital for Sick Children, the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Durham College, Toronto General Hospital, and Lakeridge Health Corporation.

He referred members to the executive summary that was distributed with the agenda for further information on the proposal.

It was duly moved and seconded,

THAT the alternate delivery of parking services as described in the Executive Summary in Appendix A be approved. (R. deSouza/S. O’Connell)

The Chair opened the floor to discussion.

In response to a member’s question, regarding whether a parking area would be reserved for residents of Phase 5, Mr. deSouza explained that although no dedicated section would be set aside, the number of parking spots would be maximized.

A member asked how finances would be affected if direct costs increased. Mr. deSouza explained that this eventuality was built into the funding model and that several contingency plans would be in place if revenues decreased.

In response to a member’s query about the type of accommodations being made while the garage is under construction, the Chief Administrative Officer explained that plans were underway to fully subscribe the CCIT underground garage and to provide up to 400 temporary parking spots. Also in reply to a member, he reported that control of parking rates would remain with UTM and go through established governance processes. He added that UTM does not currently have the expertise to manage parking services and that this arrangement would address this problem.

A member inquired about the projected completion dates for major capital projects. Mr. Louie noted that Phase 8 is scheduled to open in April of 2007, and September of 2006 would see the completion of the Academic Learning Centre, the Athletics and Wellness Centre, and the parking garage.

In response to a member’s question about the estimated management fee paid to the alternate service provider, the Acting Director of Business Services explained that this figure would represent 2% of gross revenue plus 2% of net operating income.

A member suggested that during the construction phase, UTM should consider implementing van-pooling and an increased number of Mississauga Transit routes to UTM. The Chief Administrative Officer commented that all of these alternative transportation options are currently being investigated.

In response to a member’s query, Mr. Louie replied that the new entrance at The Collegeway is scheduled for completion in September of 2005, with construction occurring throughout the summer in conjunction with the improvements to Mississauga Road. He added that the design process was still underway with regular updates being planned for the Transportation and Parking subcommittee.

In response to a member’s question about the establishment of bike lanes leading into the campus, Mr. Louie explained that the City of Mississauga was not planning such an addition, but that UTM is investigating the possibility of bike lanes at the new entrance. He further noted that discussions with the City of Mississauga will continue to take place on this issue and would be reported to governance bodies in the future.

The motion was called to question. The motion was carried.

It was duly moved and seconded,
THAT the report of the Resource Planning and Priorities Committee be accepted (R. Reisz/I. Orchard) The motion was carried.

b) Academic Affairs Committee – Anthony Wensley

Professor Wensley reported that the Committee received two items of business: a report from the Registrar and Director of Enrolment Management on the exam timetable and changes to sessional dates; and a report from the Assistant Dean on the academic discipline process and an account of the status of curricular program changes. Regarding sessional dates, it was reported that starting in winter 2006, sessional dates would change to give students five full days from the end of classes to the beginning of exams, including the long-weekend. UTM would then run two weeks of exams, including on Friday nights and Saturdays, beginning one week earlier than the Faculty of Arts and Science and ending on April 29th, 2006, two weeks earlier. Professor Wensley encouraged members to make themselves familiar with these changes through the Office of the Registrar. In addition, he reported that the Committee received a report from the Office of the Dean on the academic discipline process and provided a summary of the number of cases, which are reported to the Academic Board each year.

It was duly moved and seconded,
THAT the report of the Academic Affairs Committee be accepted. (A. Wensley/S. Munro) The motion was carried.

c) Computing Committee – Joe Lim

Mr. Lim reported that UTM moved to a new mail server to remedy problems with server load and delivery. He noted that the new platform also experienced problems, in particular with the spam filter. UTM installed another server to duplicate Solaris, while the primary server was being repaired by Dell. This gave UTM the opportunity to continue running on Linux and test this server for possible future use and replacement of Solaris. Mr. Lim also reported that Typo3 was changed to a dynamic system, meaning that changes would be reflected instantly, without users having to wait overnight for a batch run. In addition, the Computing Committee discussed the work of the academic computing advisory committee, which included the issue of a Request for Proposal to introduce a faster connection from UTM and the Scarborough campus to the St. George campus, by September of 2005. Finally, Mr. Lim reported that the Committee discussed the updated guidelines for the appropriate use of information and communication technology, which are available on the web site of the Office of the Provost.

It was duly moved and seconded,
THAT the report of the Computing Committee be accepted. (J. Lim/D. Crocker)

The Chair opened the floor to discussion.

A member commented that EPUS was converting its systems from Microsoft to Linux, which can be downloaded at no cost. The member encouraged other organizations to adopt the same practice.

The motion was called to question. The motion was carried.

5. The Vice-President and Principal’s Report

The Vice-President and Principal announced that UTM faculty and staff have won three of seven outstanding teaching and research awards, presented annually at the University of Toronto. Ray deSouza, UTM's chief administrative officer, has won the Chancellor's Award for his outstanding contributions to advancing the university's mission through his work at the Faculty of Arts and Science. Alison Fleming, chair of the Department of Psychology, has won The Faculty Award, which recognizes excellence in teaching, research and professional endeavours. The university has also recognized UTM psychology professor Kirk Blankstein with the 2005 Northrop Frye Award in the faculty category for his exemplary and innovative ways of linking teaching and research. The Vice-President and Principal encouraged members to attend the Awards of Excellence ceremony on May 4 at 5:30 p.m., Great Hall, Hart House, St. George campus.

a) Post Rae-Review Advocacy

The Vice-President and Principal reported that universities and colleges were in the midst of extensive lobbying for the implementation of the Rae Review and in anticipation of the provincial budget in April. He noted that the Council of Ontario Universities (COU) is actively lobbying MPs, MPPs, and leaders in the community and universities are also engaging their alumni to gain support for the Rae Review. Other advocacy activities include newspaper advertisements and television interviews. President Iacobucci also gave a speech on this topic at the Canadian Club, which received much media attention.

Professor Orchard stated that the lobbying activity was to address the lack of funding for Ontario universities. Specifically, he noted that operating grants to Ontario universities have dropped by 25% per student over the past decade and are the lowest in Canada. In addition, Ontario produces less graduate students compared to the United States, which can account for approximately 25% of the prosperity gap. In addition to a recommendation of $1.3B in funding, the Rae Review also suggests an increase in funding to expand graduate programs.

He noted that the following web site was established to help individuals better understand the issue of university funding and its importance to society: www.thinkontario.com.

b) 2005-06 Admissions Cycle

Professor Orchard presented the actual and projected UTM headcount, which for the 2004/05 academic year was at 8800. In 2002/03, UTM admitted additional students as a result of the double cohort, resulting in a higher actual intake of 2600. In the 2005/06 academic year, UTM will admit 2450 students. He commented that recruitment efforts have focused on quality and announced that 500 potential students will receive information about UTM at the yearly Open House event on March 13, 2005.

He continued his report on application statistics. He explained that the target intake figure for 101’s (students coming directly from High Schools) is 1800. UTM has 10,200 applications from this group. He added that 2000 potential students have ranked UTM as their first choice in their applications. This figure is 2200 for second choice and 2300 for third choice rankings. The next step in the process is examining the applicant pool and assigning offers. Professor Orchard also reported that UTM has received 3900 applications from 105’s (students not coming directly from High Schools.) UTM intends to admit 650 of these students as compared to 565 last year.

The Vice-President and Principal commended the Office of the Registrar for achieving enrolment targets and helping UTM expand in a controlled way.

c) Capital Projects and Fundraising

The Vice-President and Principal commented that there is ongoing active fundraising for the following capital projects: Athletics and Wellness, the Hazel McCallion Academic Learning Centre and Alumni House and Gates.

Professor Orchard discussed the process of fundraising at UTM. He noted that UTM decides on fundraising priorities through the Stepping Up plan and through a feasibility study. The Office of Advancement then establishes achievable goals for these priority projects, which include capital projects, scholarships, Chairs, and lecture series. Once these targets are set, UTM has to obtain central approval from the Provost and the Vice-President of Advancement.

Following approval, a campaign strategy is developed for each priority. For example, for the Hazel McCallion Academic Learning Centre (HMALC), UTM has recruited a campaign cabinet, with 16 members and two honorary chairs. Chaired by Michael Cloutier, the President of AstraZeneca, the cabinet works on behalf of UTM to fundraise for this project. As part of the campaign strategy, sectors, corporations and individuals are identified for each campaign priority. Professor Orchard noted that many companies have their own giving strategies, and some do not fund capital projects. He cited the example of AstraZeneca Canada, a company that wished to support the HMALC despite its corporate giving strategy, which prohibits capital gifts. Instead, UTM received a gift for the AstraZeneca Science Liaison Librarianship.

Professor Orchard explained that naming opportunities are also created for each project. Furthermore, once prospects have been identified, UTM must obtain clearance from the central advancement office to initiate contact. This ensures that multiple divisions from the University of Toronto are not approaching the same potential donor at the same time. Once these clearances have been obtained, UTM develops research profiles, and both generic and customized collateral material for each fundraising priority. This process is followed by multiple meetings with each prospect to develop the relationship. Professor Orchard noted that this major gift cultivation process can often take a long time.

The Vice-President and Principal concluded his presentation by discussing the topic of stewardship. He explained that once UTM receives a donation, the Office of Advancement takes on the role of stewarding or thanking that donor. This process includes organizing recognition events and ensuring that the donor is kept in touch with developments at UTM through frequent visits and points of contact.

The Chair opened the floor to discussion.

A member asked why the University of Toronto is supporting the Rae Review and its recommendations in their entirety, given that deregulation is raised as a possibility. Professor Orchard explained that segmenting the recommendations of the Rae Report, would diminish the lobbying efforts of the COU and Ontario universities. He further noted that the University of Toronto believes that the authority to set tuition should be at the level of Governing Council.

In response to a member’s question, the Vice-President and Principal confirmed that the Rae Report included advocating for more funding for capital projects.

In response to a member’s question about whether various cultural community groups were being cultivated for fundraising support, Ms. Kathy Chadder, Executive Director of Advancement explained that the HMALC cabinet is active in this regard. A member asked about any existing regulations protocols for fundraising for faith-based organizations. Ms. Chadder explained that the University’s policy on giving is clear about the purely philanthropic nature of such support. The Vice-President and Principal added that advancement activities are based on approved priorities, with the exception of some scholarships, which can be specifically designated.

A member asked about the budget implications of an increased number international students since the University is not receiving any BIUs (basic income units) for these students. Professor Orchard explained that the tuition for international students has been set to be equivalent to BIU plus tuition, so that the income for this group would be the same as for domestic students. He added that the University of Toronto is advocating for a higher BIU for international students.

6. Other Business

There was no other business.

The Chair reminded members that the next meeting was scheduled for Friday, April 8, 2005, commencing at 3:15 p.m. in the Council Chamber.

The meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m. (S. McCarthy/R. Reisz)

Secretary of Council________________________ Chair _________________

April 1, 2005