Minutes: April 9, 2010

REPORT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO MISSISSAUGA ERINDALE COLLEGE COUNCIL meeting held on Friday, April 9, 2010, at 3:15 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Room 3130, South Building

Present: A. Wensley, R.Da Silva, I. Orchard, G.Averill, U. Krull, P. Donoghue, D.Crocker, M. Mavrinac, M.Overton, A.Stelmacovich, A.Vyas, D.Kreuger, L.Paris, G.Richter, D.Mullings, J. McCurdy-Myers, L. Collins, J.Lim, P.Handley, B.McFadden, J.Sterling, A.Burnett, L.Bailey, N.Basiliko, R.Reisz, A.Lange, E. Nikieda, P. MacDonald, S. Kamenetsky, S.Munro, M.Meth, J.Delves, S.McCarthy, S.Speller, C.Bryson, L.Barber, A.Birkenbergs, A.Iwaniw, L.Gaspini, A.Graham, L.Oliver, T. Luke-Gervais, K.Horvath, S.Gonsalves, Y. Poloz, J.Santiago, A.Lalla, M. Pilar Galvez, H. Ssali, V.Bhatt, R.Beck, I.Still, K.Bolesa, J.Cruz, F.Liaqat, A.Modh, N.Persaud.


Regrets: M. Jalland, H. Schepmyer, W. Edgar, A. Madhavji


In attendance: C.Jankowski, K. Turner, T.Breukelman

1. Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting (March 4, 2010)

The minutes of the previous meetings were approved. (I. Orchard/A.Lange)

2. Reports of Standing Committees and Officers

a) Resource Planning & Priorities Committee: Report of March 29, 2010—Prof. Robert Reisz

Professor R.Reisz discussed two reports. One was the Annual Report from the SPMC (Space Planning and Management Committee). D.Crocker and S.Elias presented an overview of the responsibilities of the SPMC. The responsibilities include projects less than $500,000. Projects $500,000- $2M go downtown for approval. S.Elias presented before and after slides on projects that are completed and projects to be undertaken. For example the South Building addition, laboratory renovations, BMC, ERS. Reporting on projects out of phase will be in the Fall of 2010.

Professor R.Reisz called on P.Donoghue to discuss new business of the UTM Campus Master Plan.

Mr. Donoghue gave an overview of the work put into the updating of the Master Plan over the past 10-12 weeks. He discussed the formation of a working group which received a rewarding amount of feedback from small groups, committees and individuals from across campus. It was described as an extensive consultative process which involved email and website methods of communication. Mr. Donoghue expressed his gratitude for the amount of work put into the update, especially by E. Sisam and S. Birtles with Campus and Facilities Planning. There have been extensive discussions at the Resource Planning and Priorities Committee regarding one element of the plan the program was outlined for attendees. The objective is for the Erindale College Council endorsement of core elements of the Master Plan including planning principles, potential future building sites and envelopes. Once endorsement has been received, we will move to the final formats, discussing the projects with outside suppliers and stakeholders including the City of Mississauga and others. Mr. Donoghue thanked everyone for their support in advance.

One of the issues is potential of a huge amount of building; this is meant to provide a blueprint as required as we may be able to afford it; where required etc. Online resources MP2000 – since 2001/02 quite remarkable notice that way in which campus has evolved is quite consistent with the MP2000. Considerations are space requirements: number of undergraduate students, graduate students and the number of NASMS required. NASMS tell us how many square feet should have; UofT says we should be operating at 80% of that standard; there is a huge gap of what we should have and what we actually have. We have gone from 5000 to 11000; we built a lot early to keep falling behind but are still challenged.
E. Sisam noted that we at 68% of space requests from 2004/05, which is at the bottom of all requests across the province (this is consistent with UTSC). This is a significant problem that had to be resolved. When MP 2000 was developed, in order to develop a comprehensive plan we had the objective to move quickly when we have money for development. MP2000 was divided into building parcels or areas: we looked at pedestrian, networking, circulation areas, so “5min walk” etc. really physical planning principles.

E.Sisam asked the question, why do this? The reason is that funding comes with particular parameters; if we had not known where the buildings were to be, then too much time would be spent to meet deadlines imposed by the government for funding. The new plan has gone further and into more detail; we’ve had extensive conversations with people, great comments and analysis around the development phase.

S.Birtles noted that they started out the first working group meeting by drawing from language from the MP2000 for discussion and departure. She noted that over 60 individuals, departments, staff, faculty and students have evolved and have become more refined and more current and touched on what’s important today.

We stared out with the real focus being academic development inside ring road, however as a result of last meetings and feedback we, have taken closer look at outer ring and athletics and parking; S.Birtles noted that surface parking showing in MP2000 has been eliminated. Regarding open space and development sites, we started with open, green spaces. The goal of MP is to preserve the existing green space; the dark green areas on the slides are woodland, meadow and more naturalized space.

P.Donoghue presented on ‘What is a building envelope? It was defined by using an example of Erindale Hall. The building envelope shows the outermost surfaces, minimum setback and maximum height. The buildings are not as massive as the envelopes appear – the building is carved out of the envelope ‘block’. From our own calculations there is a 15% discount in size.

E.Sisam noted that we need to allow for expansion in the next 10-15 years. To maintain open space and juxtapose with pedestrian connections.

P.Donoghue discussed that MP2000 had a surface parking lot behind our neighbours, much discussion was had around the need for it, where it would be and if we continued to include it. The focus for discussion turned out to be very positive and productive; through feedback and a signed petition it was decided to not move forward with the project.

There was discussion:

A student stated that he was glad to see that main entrance plan being developed. He inquired about the Student Centre expansion, the envelope appears small, is there a further opportunity to discuss it? P.Donoghue responded that it is really only a planning guide, a maximum outline – we can do things differently once we receive approval during the project planning phase. He also stated that you shouldn’t be too disappointed by what appears to be a small envelop size, it’s a very decent size; it was purposefully tucked behind the back edge because we didn’t want to jeopardize the architecture. S.Birtles noted that it is possible to send her an email and she will respond with details on size. You may be surprised now large it is. E.Sisam noted that it is a high caliber design and can be tweaked.

A member asked for an explanation of building envelope #5, the Kaneff Centre potential expansion. He wondered about the difference between the old MP and the new one. He stated that originally there was a project planning report for new office and classroom space that never came to be.

It was duly moved and seconded,

THAT Erindale College Council approve the following key components of an updated Master Plan:
i) Planning Principles
ii) Future Development and Building Sites
iii) Possible Building Envelopes (Site Specific)

Be approved. (P.Donoghue / R.Reisz)

b) Academic Affairs Committee: Report of March 29, 2010 —Prof. Angela Lange

The annual reports of the Committee On Standing, Academic Appeals Board and Academic Discipline are posted for information on the Academic Affairs Committee March 29, 2010 meeting agenda.

A.Lange emphasized that the reports are posted online. D.Crocker discussed the COS, late withdrawals and listed types of petitions. A lot of these issues are dealt with in the Office of the Registrar, then go to deferred exam writing right after instead of waiting four months. She noted that the students would be more successful if they waited longer. Late withdrawal policy was brought in awhile ago; allowing 3.0 FTE late from courses, students have been using these. If a student is refused by COS, it can be appealed to the AAB. G.Anderson then discussed the AAB. Students have the opportunity to meet with the AAB in person and discuss why the appeal should be granted. This past cycle we had 48 appeals, seven meetings, out of 48, 18 were granted and 29 were refused.

L.Gaspini then presented on the procedures with code of behavior matters. If a plagiarism case goes through procedure, it goes to the instructor first, then the Chair of the Department, then to the Office of the Dean. In 2008-09 there were 389 academic offenses at UTM. The Chair encouraged people to check the website for further information.

3. New Business:

a) University of Toronto at Mississauga – Name revision: Removing “at” from name

I. Orchard explained that the memo you have before you self explanatory; in 1998 renamed Erindale College to UofT at Mississauga part of restructuring process. Now we’d like to propose as a formality dropping the “at” so becomes University of Toronto Mississauga. It has become common usage in both spoken and written communications. In 2007 a variety of focus group meetings were held including internal and external and these meetings showed wide acceptance of this.

It was duly moved and seconded,
THAT the name of the University of Toronto at Mississauga be changed to the University of Toronto Mississauga, effective immediately. (I. Orchard / G.Averill)

b) Update on South Building Naming – Andrew Stelmacovich, Executive Director of Advancement

A.Stelmacovich stated that in April of 2009, the renaming of the South Building had been approved. The official ceremony has been scheduled for October 14, 2010.

c) QSS update – Rosa DaSilva, Chair

R.Da Silva discussed that QSS is UTM’s joint student and administrative forum for quality of service including child care service and health and counseling. Highlights include a number of initiatives, including and health and counseling consultation generally within one working day.

4) Vice President and Principal's Report

The Chair thanked and recognized I. Orchard for his dedication to the governance process, respect for it, and the protection of the Chair and thanked I. Orchard for his report.

I. Orchard commented on the recent Ontario budget. He is delighted to hear that post secondary education is a cornerstone of their plan for Ontario. There is a commitment to increase post secondary attainment rate to 70%. He discussed the $155M to required to fully support enrollment to date; while originally guaranteeing funding of all BIU’s between 2004 and 2009, this money is to replace unfunded BIU’s – a $16.3M share for UofT. I. Orchard noted that it is the government’s intention to aggressively promote post secondary institutions abroad and increase enrollment by 50% so a new 18,000 students. There was only a goal stated, not further information.

I. Orchard also discussed the Ontario Online Institute has no further plants. The government is also interested in credit transfer systems within Ontario, but concerned with integration of colleges and university and integration of the system so as to easier navigate with post secondary institutions.

Mr. Orchard wanted to recognize an upcoming retirement coming up; Gale Richter. Gale has been a member of ECC for a long time. She has run lots of events at Lislehurst. Started at Erindale College in 1987 as a clerk of Housing department, moved to a conference assistant , then in 1998 a conference manager On behalf of UTM and the Principal, we’d like to recognize her work. We wish her all the best.

I. Orchard wanted to formally thank all members of council and the entire faculty, staff and students who have participated in the process. There has been a great amount of selflessness, volunteering of time and contributions that have allowed us to realize goals.

There was no other business. The Chair made the following announcements:


1. Excellence Awards: see handouts

2. ICC renewal passed GC yesterday;

3. He thanked Cindy Ferenz-Hammond for her diligence and is looking forward to working with Tamara Breukelman, who will be replacing Cindy while on maternity leave.

The Chair thanked all who attend ECC and stated that it is a vital opportunity to exchange information and opinions.

The next meeting of Council is scheduled for the fall of 2010.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:18pm (I. Orchard /J.Santiago)

Chair _____________________________________ Secretary ________________________________