Erindale College Council

MINUTES OF THE ERINDALE COLLEGE COUNCIL meeting held on Thursday, January 29, 2004 at 3:15 p.m., in the Council Chamber, South Building, UTM.

UNVERSITY OF TORONTO AT MISSISSAUGA
ERINDALE COLLEGE COUNCIL

PRESENT: R. Beck (in the Chair), I. Orchard, P. Donoghue, S. Aster, J. Linley, J. Lim, A. Vyas, S. Shirdon, S. Karshe, R. Beck, S. Munro, C. Misak, J. Hendricks, S. Kessler, G. Richter, D. Crocker, G. Keyser, I. Still, J. Seel, M. Rennie, M.A. Mavrinac, J. McCurdy-Myers, C. Thibault, J. Stevenson, C. McGrath, S. Qureshi, S. Abrahim, T. Abrahim, C. Boyd, D. Leeies, V. TeBrugge, K. Kaun, K. Duncliffe, A. Bellerby, M. Overton, B. Thompson, J. Sills, M. Massey, S. Al-Abdul-Wahid, J. Poë, A. Vyas, D. Swieton, L. Snowden, B. Gupta, N. Lopez-Woodside, H. Gunz, A. Lange, N. Collins, W. Ghobriel, B. Saville, R. Baker, B. Schneider
REGRETS: S. McCarthy, L. Hopcroft, Q. Shelley
IN ATTENDANCE: Mr. Ben Louie, Mr. Andrew Frontini, Mr. Duff Balmer

1. Adoption of Agenda
The agenda was approved. (I. Orchard/J. Lim)

2. Minutes of Previous Meeting (December 4, 2003)
The minutes of the previous meeting were approved. (I. Still / C. Misak)

3. Business Arising from the Minutes.
None.

4. Reports of Standing Committees
a) Academic Affairs Committee – S. Aster

Professor Sidney Aster reported that the Academic Affairs Committee met on January 6, 2004 and received reports from the Social Sciences curriculum committee, which had two additions to its previous report. These minor changes, which concerned the department of Anthropology and Religion, were approved. The department proposed the creation of a half-year independent study course in Anthropology, in addition to already existing full-year independent study courses. The other proposal concerned the renumbering of a Religion course to a second year course, as there are sufficient first-year offerings.

The Committee also received a report from the Vice-Principal, Academic on UTM’s guidelines for the evaluation of teaching, which were very similar to those formulated by the Office of the Provost. The Committee recommended the guidelines for approval by Erindale College Council. The committee also received a report from Professor Ray Cummins on what he termed the “UTM Academic Internship working Group.” Professor Cummins and others provided a survey of current internship programs, and their various issues and opportunities. It was his hope that the Academic Affairs Committee would take an ongoing and more in depth interest in these matters.

It was duly moved and seconded,
THAT Council approve the two changes to the Social Sciences Curriculum report. (S. Aster/ S. Munro) The motion was approved.

Professor Aster called on the Vice Principal Academic to report on the guidelines for the evaluation of teaching.

i) Guidelines for the evaluation of teaching – C. Misak

Professor Misak noted that earlier in the Fall the Provost distributed a set of new guidelines for developing written assessments of effectiveness of teaching in promotion and tenure decisions. Each academic division was asked to adapt these in the development of its own guidelines for the evaluation of teaching, taking into account its own needs and culture. She explained that UTM’s response was the creation of a foundation document, Guidelines for the Evaluation of Teaching accompanied by three appendices, each of which is a procedural guide to be followed in the evaluation of teaching in three contexts: promotion to Full Professor, promotion to Senior Lecturer and tenure review. Professor Misak reported that UTM’s guidelines correspond very closely with those produced by the Provost, with the exception of a section dealing with the Evaluation of Continued Future Pedagogical / Professional Development (a requirement for promotion to Senior Lecturer), which UTM added in order to have a document that covers all contexts in which teaching is evaluated. The document was developed by the office of the Vice Principal, Academic, and received some minor revisions after being forwarded to the Vice-President and Principal and Chairs for comment. The document is attached hereto as Appendix “A.”

It was duly moved and seconded,
THAT the Guidelines for the Evaluation of Teaching be approved. (C. Misak/ I. Orchard)

The Chair opened the floor to questions.

A member expressed her approval of setting out such guidelines, citing that many tenure files had been declined for reasons of inadequate or inappropriate documentation of teaching. However, she stated that some of the guidelines were incompatible with other policies, for example the definition of administrative service guidelines with respect to the promotion to senior lecturer. She suggested that the document be sent to the University of Toronto Faculty Association (UTFA) for review and comments.

The Vice-Principal, Academic explained that the document was meant to provide guidelines, not definitions. In response to the member’s comment that the guidelines of the Faculty of Arts & Science were sent to UTFA for comment, Professor Misak stated that UTM’s guidelines were very similar to those of that Faculty, largely differing in its format.

Another member asked for the differences between the guidelines of UTM and that of the Faculty of Arts & Science. Prof. Misak explained that the UTM document differs in its organization, with a foundation section for general guidelines and expanded sections for each specific kind of evaluation. She added that in the Faculty of Arts & Science guidelines different kinds of promotions are combined ito one section.

It was duly moved and seconded,
THAT approval of the Guidelines for the Evaluation of Teaching be postponed until it is referred to UTFA for comment before the next Council meeting. (J. Poë / S. Al-Abdul-Wahid)

The Chair opened the floor to discussion of the subsidiary motion.

The Vice-President and Principal stated that since UTM’s guidelines followed those of the Faculty of Arts and Science, which already had input by UTFA, members could be assured of a sound and inclusive document.

The motion was called to question. The motion was lost, with 4 members in the affirmative.

The Chair reminded the Council that the main motion was open for discussion.

The member proposed the following amendments to the main motion.

1) The section on the procedures for the promotion to senior lecturer refers to classroom visits by members of a teaching evaluation committee and referees with advance notice and permission of the lecturer. The member pointed out that the “advance notice” condition is not included in the tenure stream section, and asked for its inclusion.

2) The member indicated that the requirement of two classroom visits by both the teaching evaluation committee and three referees was excessive and suggested the removal of the requirement of the referee visits. The Vice Principal Academic while accepting the amendment commented that the general intention of these requirements is to show the importance of classroom evaluation for the senior lecturer stream.

3) The member pointed out that the section on the evaluation of administrative service does not explicitly include service to the faculty association and suggested its inclusion.

The Vice-Principal Academic accepted each of the above three amendments to the Guidelines for the Evaluation of Teaching.

The Motion, with the above three amendments, was called to question. The Motion was carried.

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

b) Computing and Data Communications Committee – J. Lim

Joe Lim reported that the Computing Committee met on January 13, 2004. The Committee received reports from the instructional technology liaison on ongoing programs and the web master on UTM website branding. The meeting also featured a report on the trouble ticket statistics from the department of Micro Electronics. The meeting concluded with a discussion of research support and academic computing needs for input into the White Paper planning process. Members suggested seeking input from the offices of the Vice-Principal Academic and Research, in order to capture essential information.

It was duly moved and seconded,
THAT the report of the Computing Committee be accepted. (J. Lim/B. Thompson)
The Motion was carried.

c) Joint meeting of the Resource Planning and Priorities Committee and the College Affairs Committee (Report of January 12, 2004) – J. Linley

Mr. Jim Linley reported on behalf of the joint meeting of the Resource Planning and Priorities and College Affairs Committee (CAC), which met on January 12, 2004 to review the ancillary budgets. He stated that the four ancillary budgets were approved as presented by both committees and that the discussion included a review of Service Ancillary Review Group (SARG) requirements, parking issues and the effect of SARS on several of the ancillaries.
It was duly moved and seconded,
THAT the joint report of the Resource Planning and Priorities and the College Affairs Committees be accepted. (J. Linley /P. Donoghue) The motion was approved.

Mr. Linley called on the Chief Administrative Officer to give an overview of the SARG process, followed by the presentation of each Ancillary Budget and Management Report in more detail.

i) Overview of the SARG process – P. Donoghue

P. Donoghue described the four basic operating principles that guide all ancillaries. These are: 1) to operate without subsidy from the operating budget; 2) to provide for all costs of capital renewal, including deferred maintenance; 3) having achieved the previous two points, to create and maintain an operating reserve as a protection against unforeseen events; and 4) having met all these conditions, the service ancillaries contribute their net revenues to the operating budget.

Regarding the third guideline, he added that UTM led a review of this policy and the ancillaries have been restructured to maintain a 10% operating reserve (as opposed to 50%). Mr. Donoghue explained that Business Services develops the services ancillaries annual budgets and long-range plans with input from the ancillaries and several sub-committees. Following Council review, the budgets then go on to the Financial Services Department and obtain final approval by the SARG, which includes members of the University Affairs Board.

Regarding the fourth guideline in relation to the first guideline, a member suggested that net revenues should stay within the ancillaries, instead of being diverted to the operating budget. The Chief Administrative Officer stated that the above guidelines are long standing university policies. He further explained that the first guideline most likely relates to the policy against the diversion of government grants, which are part of the operating budget, to ancillaries.

ii) Parking Ancillary Budget – P. Donoghue

The CCIT underground parking garage is scheduled to open in August of 2004. Mr. Donoghue reported that the sale of parking permits would begin sooner in 2004 than in previous years with an upgraded online registration system. He noted that the parking plan includes two above ground parking structures, scheduled for September of 2006 and 2007. He outlined the difference in parking spot costs, between surface parking ($2200/spot), above ground parking ($23000/spot) and underground parking ($35000/spot). He added the UTM community has made a commitment to minimizing the expansion of surface lots.

The Chief Administrative Officer reported that the operating result for 2003-04 is lower than budget due to the costs associated with the expansion of Lot# 8. He added that initially the addition of 94 spots was planned, but because of the pressure to accommodate more students, the lot was expanded by 286 spots.

It was duly moved and seconded,
THAT the Parking Ancillary report be accepted. (J. Linley / P. Donoghue)

A member stressed the importance of alternative transportation methods, and suggested the introduction of bus passes. The Chief Administrative Officer noted that UTM has been very aggressive in trying to ameliorate pressures on parking demand and cited the introduction of two Mississauga Transit direct bus routes, a carpooling program and ride-matching tool and ongoing discussions with Go Transit.

Asked to give an update on the subject of bus passes, the Dean of Student Affairs explained that QSS continues to consider the possibility of a Mississauga Transit pass for all UTM students through a mandatory student levy. There is particular interest in redirecting the student fee currently used to subsidize the UTM/St. George shuttle when demand for the shuttle declines (as the campus becomes more self-sufficient) and as boundary-crossing to other transit systems (Brampton, Oakville, GO, TTC) is simplified.

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

iii) Conference Services Ancillary Budget – J. Linley

Mr. Linley reported that revenues for 2003-04 are expected to be $379,000 less than the original budget due to cancellations of bookings resulting from SARS. The planned contribution of $125,000 to UTM’s operating budget will be cancelled until the operation recovers to its former business level and can support this contribution. For the 2004-05 budget, total revenues are expected to increase by $184,000 due to a planned recovery for both accommodation and the related food revenues as compared to 2003-04. He added that full recovery is not achieved until the 2005/06 budget year.

It was duly moved and seconded,
THAT the Conference Ancillary report be accepted. (J. Linley / M. Overton)
The Motion was carried.

iv) Food Services Ancillary Budget – J. Linley

Mr. Linley noted that the financial plan is based on current operations, and does not include the new Library, CCIT, and the Residence dining hall and meal plan. Total revenue for 2003-04 is expected to be approximately $259,000 more than the original budget. This is due to a conservative approach to the budget, higher than expected enrolment, the introduction of Pita Pit and Williams Coffee Pub, and the renovation of Tim Horton’s. Total expenses will be approximately $329,000 more than budget. This is due to the cost of sales, which is a direct offset to the sales revenue, the replacement of furniture in Spigel Hall, and the need to replace a walk-in freezer. He reported that UTM issued a “Request for Proposals” in December 2003 due to expansion plans and related significant changes in operations. The Food Committee will be looking at incoming bids during the month of February and will be asking for substantial capital investment from the successful bidder. In the 2004-05 budget, sales are expected to increase due to enrolment increases, a full year’s operation of Williams Coffee Pub, and an improved summer for catering. He also added that UTM has hired a full time food services coordinator.

It was duly moved and seconded,
THAT the report of the Food Services Ancillary report be accepted. (J. Linley / M.A. Mavrinac)

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

v) Residence Ancillary Budget – C. McGrath

C. McGrath, Director of Residence distributed a supplement to the Executive Summary, which compared UTM rates to those of other like sized universities. C. McGrath noted UTM rates compare favourably with those of other institutions - a 6½% increase on average, as compared to a 5-12% increase on average at other campuses. He reported that the 2004-05 year will focus on maintaining the integrity of buildings and will include projects to renovate Leacock lane. The year will see the beginning of a four-year program to upgrade the townhouse. In order to accomplish this, a 6.5% increase in rates will be instituted. He stressed however, that UTM’s residence rates would remain competitive to similar accommodations in Mississauga and the GTA.

He reported on the budget and the long-range financial plan. He explained that the forecast has a planned deficit because of current building projects. Revenues are expected to be close to budget, except for the summer session, which are significantly lower than budget due to SARS and the related reluctance of students to travel to the GTA during the spring and summer of 2003. He reported that salaries, wages, and benefits expense is higher than budget due to the need to hire staff sooner and at higher levels than originally anticipated in setting the budget. Utilities expense is much lower than budget due to the receipt of a large rebate on hydro costs for the 2002-03 year. Major maintenance is also significantly higher than budget due to the need to pay for a retaining wall and the entranceway to Phase 7. The financial model results in an annual breakeven position 3 years after Phase 8 opens and an accumulated surplus 5 years after opening, in 2011-12. UTM will eliminate the deficit in three years, as opposed to the five-year requirement.

It was duly moved and seconded,
THAT the Residence Ancillary report be accepted. (C. McGrath /S. Al-Abdul-Wahid)

A member expressed his satisfaction with the transparency and opportunity for input into the residence ancillary budget process.

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

The Vice-President and Principal commented on the large amount of work in the preparation of the ancillary budgets and expressed his thanks to faculty, staff and students who participated in the process. The Chair added his thanks to members of the joint committees for their participation and to staff for making the ancillary presentations transparent and easy to understand.

5. New Business
a) The Chief Administrative Officer noted that the major building projects were progressing well in their respective design stages and it was appropriate for the UTM community to receive an update on these projects from the design teams. He added that both buildings are scheduled to open in August of 2006. He called on Mr. Ken Duncliffe, Director of the Centre for Recreation, Athletics and Wellness to talk about the work of the project planning committee.

i) Wellness, Recreation and Athletics Centre

Ken Duncliffe stated that the planning committee started its work in 2001 and one of its goals was to create awareness about fitness and wellness throughout UTM. He introduced Duff Balmer from the architectural firm Shore Tilbe Irwin & Partners to give details on the design of the new building.

Mr. Balmer stated that the new Centre will be located on the east side of the existing South Building, and will encompass 70,000 square feet of new space. The new building will provide a strong frontage from the ring road and become a large collector for those entering the campus. The design takes into account the existing courtyard space of the South Building, which will be renovated, while preserving the ecology of the site. Because of the sloping nature of the site, the design incorporates three separate levels and links into the existing levels of the South Building. The main staircase is a feature and connects the entire building, merging the wellness and recreation centre with the collective life of the campus. The building will also have new women’s and family change rooms, an 8-lane, 25 metre pool with a movable floor and a gymnasium with retractable seating for 1000, which can be divided in half. It will also feature a sports medicine clinic and new administrative spaces. Level one of the centre will comprise the fitness areas, which overlooks the pool, while Level two contains the running track. The presentation is attached hereto as Appendix “B.”

The Chair opened the floor to questions.

In response to a member’s question about roof garden plants, it was explained that it would consist of low maintenance, thin growing medium and ground cover. Also in response to a member’s question, it was noted that the entire building is fully accessible. A member asked about the privacy of the fitness room. Mr. Balmer explained that the fitness room, which will be open to the track, the lobby and the staircase, incorporates a smaller, private section. The plans also incorporate glazing in differing amounts of transparency to balance openness with privacy. In response to a member’s query about the security of locker rooms, Mr. Duncliffe explained that anyone entering the fitness areas would have to check in at the centrally located control desk with their swipe cards.

ii) Academic Learning Centre

Mary Ann Mavrinac, Chief Librarian, acknowledged students for the $214,000 contribution from the Student Library Enhancement Fund. These funds are directed towards group study space, which will be expanded by 70% as compared to the current facility. She emphasized that the Academic Learning Centre (ALC) will feature so called ‘people’ space over collections space. It will house 170 computers, be wired and fully wireless and accessible. The Academic Learning Centre will also house the Academic Skills Centre and a Library Café. The ALC will offer a host of specialized services and integrative programming, including Geographic Information Systems and instructional technology.

Andrew Frontini, from the architectural firm Shore Tilbe Irwin & Partners continued the presentation. He explained that the design of the building is based on the concept of a puzzle box, a metaphor for accessing knowledge. The inner space, or box houses the collection, while the space around it is designated as people space, which engages the outdoors and natural features of the site. The building is three and a half storeys, and approximately 96,000 square feet. The plan includes a roof garden with raised planters and seating benches. The landscaping features grasses and other low maintenance plants to add texture and colour throughout the year. The building will be encased in a wood laminate paneling suitable for exterior use in cold climates, again articulating the idea of a wooden box. The presentation is attached hereto as Appendix “C.”

The Chair opened the floor to discussion.

A member asked where the new entrance to the campus would meet the ring road. The Chief Administrative Officer explained that the existing construction access road would be reconfigured to meet the ring road and will be the new entrance to the campus. In closing, he also stated that the architectural plans were still being developed and were not in their final state.

The Chair thanked the architects for their presentations.

b) Naming of UTM’s proposed Welcome Centre – K. Chadder
Ms. Kathy Chadder, Interim Director of Development, Alumni and Public Affairs, distributed a proposal to Council regarding the naming of the Springbank property, planned to be UTM’s new welcome centre. The proposal is to name the entrance therein, “Alumni Gates” and the welcome centre, “Alumni House.” Ms. Chadder noted that in addition to a Welcome Centre, the potential inclusion of student recruitment services, and the School of Continuing Studies within the 5,000 square foot facility would philosophically represent the transition of a student from first point of contact, to becoming an Alumnus, to becoming a lifelong learner. She added that Alumni House and Alumni Gates would offer an important funding potential for UTM through the launch of an Alumni Campaign that would support the naming of the building, targeted to be approximately 2.0M to $3.5M. She added that alumni leaders have volunteered to become active champions on an Alumni Advancement Cabinet to facilitate an exciting Alumni Campaign.

It was duly moved and seconded,
THAT Erindale College Council recommend the naming of the new entrance and the welcome centre as “Alumni Gates” and “Alumni House,” respectively, for Governing Council approval. (K. Chadder / R. Baker)

The Chair opened the floor to discussion.

A member expressed concern about the possible historical significance of the Springbank name and potential reaction from the surrounding community regarding its change. The Chief Administrative Officer explained that the name is relatively new and the property was originally called Erindale Public School.

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

6. Other Business

There was no other business.

7. Next Meeting:
The Chair reminded members that the next meeting was scheduled for Thursday, March 4, 2004, commencing at 3:15 p.m. in the Council Chamber.

The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.

Secretary of Council _____________________ Chair__________________


February 24, 2004