Minutes: March 5, 2009

Minutes of the Erindale College Council meeting held on Thursday, March 5, 2009, at 3:15 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Room 3130, South Building

Present: A. Wensley (Chair); S. Al-Abdul-Sahid; D. Kreuger; I. Orchard; G. Averill; P. Donoghue; D. Crocker; M. Mavrinac; A. Vyas; L. Paris; J. McCurdy-Myers; J. Lim; P. Handley; P. Goldsmith; J. Stirling; A. Burnett; U. Krull; A. Lange; S. Munro; L. Bailey; L. Wilson-Pauwels; C. Boyd; R. Reisz; I. Whyte; S. Senese; M. Meth; W. Malik; M. Josifovska; T. Ahmed; A. Madhavji; J. Butt; G. Yuen; D. Dunlop; S. Speller; H. Hines; J. Gillies; A. Birkenbergs; L. Gaspini; L. Oliver; K. Horvath;

Regrets: G. Richter; I. Still; L. Collins; A. Iwaniw; R. Beck; M. Overton; L. MacDowell; J. Delves;

Guests: N. Ishu; C. Bryson; M. Vincent; T. Braukmann; R. Da Silva;

1. Minutes of the Previous Meeting (January 29,2009)
The minutes of the previous meeting were approved. (I. Orchard, U. Krull)

2. Reports of Standing Committees

a) Academic Affairs Committee

Professor Lange reported on three items of business from the meeting of February 24, 2009. The Committee had received an update from Ms Diane Crocker, Registrar and Director of Enrolment Management, on deferred exams and on grading policies for the Concurrent Teacher Education Program. Under new business, the Committee heard from Mr. Devin Kreuger, Acting Director, Governance, who had explained the proposed By-law revisions that would clarify the mandate and the delegation of authority to the Committee. Professor Lange reported that the Committee had approved the proposed revisions. Also under new business, Ms Mary Ann Mavrinac, Chief Librarian, had presented highlights from the 2007-08 Hazel McCallion Academic Learning Centre Annual Review. Included were the various accomplishments of the Library staff, the vision of the Library, and Library usage data. The report had been posted to the Library’s website and Professor Lange encouraged members to read the report.

There were no questions.

3. Vice-President and Principal’s Report

Professor Orchard welcomed Mr. Paul Donoghue, the newly-appointed Chief Administrative Officer. Mr. Donoghue had held the position five years ago, when he had left to build a new campus for the American University in Cairo. He had been a member of the project committees for the Communication Culture and Information Technology building and the Hazel McCallion Academic Learning Centre. He was pleased that Mr. Donoghue had returned to UTM.

Professor Orchard briefed the Council on capital projects. The Health Science Complex is a collaborative project with the Faculty of Medicine, the Trillium Health Centre and the Credit Valley Hospital. The Medical Academy would initially enrol 26 students, for which capital and operating funding had been promised. A further expected increase of 28 students was planned for a total enrolment in the Academy of 54 per year. The project groundbreaking was to have been held in December, but the project was currently on hold. In the absence of government confirmation of the anticipated further expansion of the undergraduate medical education enrolment, the University had decided to delay the building. He hoped that there would be a firm commitment from the government in the March budget to support the 28 medical student places with full capital and operating funding. He noted that one third of the building would be used by science faculty and graduate students.

Professor Orchard recalled that over the summer, 2008, the provincial government had asked for capital project submissions, and UTM had submitted two – the instructional facility and the science complex. The University had decided to proceed with project committees, in the absence of funding, in order to kick-start the process. The formation of the two UTM project committees had been approved by the Planning and Budget Committee of the Governing Council. These committees, composed of faculty, staff and students plus expertise from the University’s Planning Office, had been meeting weekly for the past four or five weeks. The space plans and the costs had to be ready for the April 24 meeting of the Planning and Budget Committee for Governing Council approval by May.

For the instructional facility, the committee had been reviewing the current shortage of classroom space and discussing future needs in order to obtain an accurate assessment of the space requirements. A site had been chosen and the space plan had been completed. The committee was close to finalizing its report. The facility was expected to cost about $70 million.

The second project committee was for the science complex which would provide facilities for research for both faculty and graduate students. UTM had experienced problems hiring additional faculty because of the lack of research facilities. The new building would solve that problem and help to meet UTM’s ambitions for 2030. A secondary effect would be improvement in the undergraduate teaching laboratories. Another part of this project concerned the vivarium which housed animals for undergraduate and faculty research. The forty-year old vivarium needed to be expanded and brought up to current standards. It was also noted that there would be problems associated with moving the facility while renovations were underway. Ultimately it had been decided to build a new vivarium. Another aspect of the project concerned the number and types of labs to be built. They should be able to facilitate all types of research, such as cluster, integrative and interdisciplinary research. The facility was expected to cost ~$170M.

Professor Orchard reiterated the need for project reports by the April 24 meeting of the Planning and Budget Committee to be considered by the Governing Council in May. The University wanted to be able to respond quickly when the government requested projects that were ready to proceed. The proposed opening date for the science complex was 2013 with the instructional facility being ready sooner.

Professor Orchard expressed his appreciation to the 20-member committees for their hard work and willingness to give their time to these important projects.

There were no questions.

4. New Business

Professor Wensley vacated the Chair in order to present the next two items to Council. The Vice-Chair assumed the Chair.

The Vice-Chair noted that the changes to the Constitution and the By-laws had been approved by the Executive Committee.
He invited Professor Wensley to present his report.

a) Changes to the Erindale College Council Constitution – Notice of Motion

Professor Wensley said that the Constitution required that any revisions to the Constitution be circulated to members at least 14 days in advance of the meeting at which they were to be considered. Since members had not been given the required notice, the changes would be considered at the April 14 meeting of Council.

He noted that most of the changes to the Constitution were being made to clarify definitions and intentions, and to bring the constituency membership up to date. The Constitution continued to use the name “University of Toronto at Mississauga,” which was consistent with Governing Council approval. Erindale Part-time Undergraduate Students (EPUS) continued to be used in the membership of Council, as EPUS was still legally a representative body at UTM.

One significant change to the Constitution was to remove the requirement that Council meet three times per term. There had been times when there had been insufficient business to warrant a Council meeting, but a meeting had been held as required by the Constitution. The proposed change would empower the Secretary and Executive Committee to cancel up to one Council meeting per term.

b) Changes to the Erindale College Council By-Laws

Professor Wensley reported that a number of changes to the By-laws were being proposed to clarify definitions and to document actual practices. A number of changes were quite substantive and these would be the focus of his comments.

The most notable change was the elimination of the Computing Committee as a Standing Committee of Council. The Committee was originally intended to make policy recommendations on computing and information technology. However, this Committee had mostly been used to receive administrative reports and to discuss impending changes. Only once in the last five years had a policy recommendation come to Council from the Computing Committee. In order to ensure that computing and information technology issues had a place in the governance structure, it was proposed that the Computing Committee become a subcommittee of the Resource Planning and Priorities Committee (RPPC) and that the Chief Information Officer become a permanent member of RPPC. Both the Computing Committee and RPPC had voted in favour of this change.

Professor Wensley noted that the terms of reference of the Executive Committee had been expanded for clarity. In addition, its membership had increased to include representation from the graduate student and the alumni/associate constituencies on Council, making the Executive Committee a more accurate reflection of the membership of Council. He said that the Executive Committee had voted in favour of this change.

The Academic Affairs Committee (AAC) section in the By-laws had been expanded to designate clearly the Committee’s scope and to define and clarify its degree of delegated authority. The current terms of reference were sketched broadly, and offered the AAC no clear delegated authority. The proposed changes were explicit as to what the Committee might approve on its own, what needed Executive Committee and/or Council approval, and what should continue through to the Governing Council and its committees. The Academic Affairs Committee had voted to approve the proposed changes.

Professor Wensley moved, seconded by Dean Averill, that the By-laws of Erindale College Council be approved as amended.

A member noted that there was no provision for a staff member on the Executive Committee and there should be. Mr. Kreuger responded that the Chief Administrative Officer, a staff member, was on the Committee, and it was possible that the Chairs of Council and of the Resource Planning & Priorities Committee could be also be staff, and those Chairs are automatic members of the Executive Committee.

The vote was taken on the motion and the motion carried.

c) Update on Microsoft Exchange Migration

Mr. Lim reported that over the previous week-end, UTM had migrated from Oracle calendar to Microsoft Exchange. The migration, which was considered to be Phase I, had proceeded very well with a few small problems. A number of information technology groups from the Registrar’s Office, the Library and Microelectronics had assisted in the process. Phase II would entail migrating most email users from UTORmail to Exchange. This phase was voluntary, but there were inherent advantages such as a larger inbox quota and better synchronization with mobile devices. With respect to the calendar change, only data in the calendars from January 1, 2007 onward had been migrated. He was collecting a list of those who wanted the rest of their old calendar entries moved.

Mr. Lim said that there were some problems in the calendar migration. Some permissions on selected resources had not worked. For example, some resources on Oracle migrated with the person who created them, rather than staying with the department for which they were created. Macintosh users of Entourage were not able to see one another’s calendars. He noted that plans were to migrate blackberry users to Microsoft Exchange over the next few weeks. This would be a slow and delicate process because of the risk that data could be lost.

Finally, he noted that training sessions were being held and he invited those interested to sign-up on the staff development web site. He also invited those with problems to contact him.

A member thanked Mr. Lim for organizing training sessions on campus for easy access. Professor Orchard thanked Mr. Lim and his team for their hard work and dedication. They had visited the different offices and departments to smooth the transition. His efforts were much appreciated.

5. Next Meeting – Tuesday, April 14, 2009

6. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m.