Report: February 1, 2006



REPORT OF THE ERINDALE COLLEGE COUNCIL meeting held on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 3:15 p.m., in the Council Chamber, South Building, UTM.

PRESENT: R. Beck (in the Chair), I. Orchard, R. deSouza, C. Jones, R. Reisz, K. Chadder, A. Wensley, J. Seel B. Adedoye, M. Ali, S. Syed, Z. Alvarez, R. Alvarez, S. Munro, S. Enaiem, L. El Gebali, A. Lange, A. Huda, B. Hamud, M. Tombak, U. Krull, R. Carroll, I. Mazic, T. Westwood, B. Khan, S. Khan, N. Khan, S. Abrahim, L. Thomson, R. Arora, S. Lahoti, R. Namazie, K. Lewis, C. Mechedjian, S. Hindawi, C. Bryson, B. Branfireun, D. Kreuger, T. Luke-Gervais, M. Lettieri, I. White, M. A. Mavrinac, F. Ul-Haq, P. Ash, R. deSouza, D. Hill, K. Giuliani, G. Galang, G. Didiano, J. McCurdy-Myers, D. Schulze, A. Nguyen, G. Richter, T. Carlile, A. Iwaniw, L. Wilson-Pauwels, P. Goldsmith, L. Paris, K. Duncliffe, B. Louie, A. Bellerby, G. Anderson, S. Board, L. Bailey, L. Kaplan, J. Delves, M. Overton, S. Wahid, J. Tran, A. Vyas, S. Harb, K. Kebir, A. Al-Nabhan, J. Lim, J. Sills, J. Paluzzi, M. Longmore, L. Noble, K. Asiwaju, K. Murty, J. Stirling, D. Crocker, H. Aboghodieh, M. Rennie, A. Nayar, B. Kolarinwa, S. Laughton, Z. Baig, W. Khogali, A. Farah, B. Gupta, V. Glebov, N. Khan
REGRETS: C. Boyd, I. Still

The Chair announced that stemming from the January by-elections of ECC, Sonal Lahoti, and Andrew Nguyen were acclaimed to serve in the full-time student constituency and that Neena Kanda, was appointed by the UTM Alumni Association for the one vacant position in the alumni constituency of Council. He welcomed them to the work of Council. He noted that there were three nominations for the one vacant administrative staff position on council and therefore a mail out election to all UTM administrative staff will follow on February 6, 2006 with a return ballot deadline of February 17, 2006. Results would be announced at the next Council meeting.

  1. Adoption of Agenda

The Chair referred members to the very full agenda, containing some important, time sensitive matters to UTM. He stated that he was aware of the considerable interest in talking about a province-wide tuition fee freeze at the current meeting and added that there was also a need to discuss the motion associated with this issue that was ruled out of order by the Executive Committee. He noted that the ruling may be challenged, but asked members to postpone that discussion until “other business.” At that point in the order of business, the Chair would give an account of what transpired at the Executive Committee meeting and the reasons for the ruling on the tuition motion, without which a discussion on tuition would be premature. He assured members that there would be ample opportunity to raise this issue under “other business.”

The Chair called for a motion to adopt the agenda. On a point of order, a member stated that he submitted a motion at the last meeting of ECC that was not placed on the current agenda. The Chair explained again that it was ruled out of order by the Executive Committee and noted again that a further explanation of this ruling would be made under “other business.” The member stated according his interpretation of the by-laws, the motion should appear on the agenda. The Chair replied that he had made a ruling on the matter and called the member to order for continuous interruptions. The member repeated his query about the reasons for the motion being out of order. The Chair reminded the member that Council should proceed with discussing the adoption of the agenda. The member stated that many Council members attended the meeting solely for the purpose of a discussion on the tuition issue and restated his request for this to occur as early as possible in the agenda. He again asked why the motion was ruled out of order. The Chair noted that if the member had proposed an amendment to the agenda, it would have been accepted. The member moved that the motion that was distributed to the last meeting of Council be placed as the first item on the agenda and proceeded to ask for a seconder directly.

On a point of order, a member noted that Council members should be directing their comments through the Chair and not asking directly for a seconder. The Chair agreed and reminded members of the proper procedure.

On a point of order, another member stated that there was no main motion on the floor to adopt the agenda and therefore no other motion could be made to amend it. It was duly moved and seconded, that the agenda be adopted as presented. (S. Wahid/I. Orchard)

A member stated his disagreement with the above motion. The Chair noted that the agenda could not be amended until its adoption was properly moved and seconded that is why the member’s earlier amendment was ruled out of order. The member proceeded to place a different version of the original tuition freeze motion before the Chair and asked for its immediate acceptance. The Chair called members to order who were disturbing the assembly and reminded them of the proper decorum during debate. After asking if there was any further debate on the acceptance of the agenda, he put the motion to a vote. The motion was carried (60 in favour; 21 opposed.)

2. Minutes of Previous Meeting (December 9, 2005)

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

3. Business Arising from the Minutes

The Chair asked whether anyone had any business to bring forward from the minutes of the last meeting. A member stated that at the last meeting of Council there was a notice of motion and asked why it was not placed on the current meeting’s agenda. He requested an explanation of the ruling earlier than under “other business.” The Chair noted that the rationale of the Executive Committee in ruling the motion out of order is explained fully in the minutes of the previous meeting. The Chair explained that the resolution was requesting Council to pass a resolution on a matter outside of the Council’s authority and was asking the Vice-President and Principal and the Chair to take a course of action that they could not. He reminded the member that a full discussion of this issue would be explored under “other business.” He once again referred the member to the minutes of the previous meeting. The Chair asked for any other speakers under ‘business arising’, while reminding the member that he could speak no more than twice on any substantive matter and asking him to limit his comments to new information. The member stated that he hoped the Chair did not misunderstand the original tuition motion’s intent, further explaining that its intent was not to ask the Vice-President and Principal to act on anything, but to direct Vice-President and Principal and the Council to reflect on the decision that was made by the Council on this specific issue. The Chair repeated that the decision of the Executive Committee on the admissibility of the motion under discussion is fully explained in the minutes of the previous meeting and that there was no misunderstanding of the motion’s intent.

Another member expressed his surprise that the topic of tuition is not a more urgent matter than the other business on the current schedule of the agenda and asked why the original motion, which was served with due notice was not placed on the agenda. The Chair responded that as obligated by the by-laws of Council, it is in the competence of the Executive Committee to decide whether or not a motion is in order and whether it is the proper business of Council.

The member said that he would like to challenge the ruling of the Chair regarding the non-inclusion of the tuition motion on the agenda. The Chair stated that the member was trying to challenge the decision of the Executive Committee which would be reviewed under “other business.” He reminded the member that Council accepted the agenda as presented and that there would be ample opportunity to discuss the issue under “other business”, when the decision of the Executive Committee would be explained and could be challenged.

The Chair reminded a member that he has had numerous opportunities to speak on the matter and called the member to order.

4. Reports of Standing Committees

a) Meeting of the Resource Planning and Priorities Committee: Ancillary budgets for approval – Professor Robert Reisz

The Chair of the Resource Planning and Priorities Committee announced that the ancillary budgets received a thorough discussion and were approved at the Committee’s last meeting. He called on Ms. Capewell, Director of Business Services to give an overview of the budget development and approval process and to proceed with the presentation of the ancillaries.

i) Overview of SARG process – Christine Capewell

Ms. Capewell 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 (10%); and 4) having met all these conditions, the service ancillaries contribute their net revenues to the operating budget. She added that ancillary operations at UTM are viewed as service operations and financial planning is carried out with a view to providing service with reasonable expenses and revenues, and in the event that an ancillary operation realizes a surplus beyond growth requirements, a contribution is made to the operating budget of the Campus. She further noted that in recent years, UTM ancillary operations have not been in the financial position to contribute to the operating budget.

Ms. Capewell also explained that when an ancillary is planning a major expansion, the operation must meet two financial requirements: the 5 and 8 year rules. This means that after the 5th year, operating results before commitments have to be in the positive and that by the 8th year after opening a new operation, a positive fund balance has to be achieved.

She explained that Business Services develops the service ancillaries’ annual budgets and long-range plans in coordination with the ancillaries and several sub-committees. Following a review by the Resource Planning and Priorities Committee and Erindale College Council, the budgets go to the Financial Services Department, the Service Ancillary Review Group in early February (SARG), followed by the University Affairs Board and Business Board.

ii) Parking Services – Christine Capewell
Budget Management Report

The Parking Services Ancillary in its entirety is attached hereto as Appendix A.

Ms. Capewell referred members to Schedule 7 of the parking ancillary, which detailed demand and supply figures. She pointed out that the current parking to people ratio is 25.8% and that this figure is inclusive of all of the lot changes made during the year, including the addition of 84 spots in Lot #9. She noted that this ratio is projected to decrease over the next several years, as a result of the loss of approximately 276 spots in Lot#4 associated with the necessity of building a pond. In the past, UTM governance had reaffirmed the position that the supply of parking spaces should not significantly vary from about 30-spots-per-100 of campus population. Recent experience shows that with efforts to schedule classes more evenly throughout the day and week, and other factors, including the increased price of gas and the lower average age of the student population, a ratio of 25% appears to be acceptable. Ms. Capewell remarked that it is not known how low this ratio can go, before causing demand problems. She explained that overall, too much capacity is being experienced in residence, accessible and carpool spots.

Ms. Capewell continued her presentation by discussing variances. She explained that higher than budgeted costs were incurred as a result of the expansion of Lot#9, which yielded 84 additional spaces. With respect to salaries, wages and benefits, UTM acquired the services of the Manager of Parking Services from the St. George campus on a part-time basis. She introduced Mr. Alex McIsaac to Council. In addition, parking services now reports to Business Services and no longer to Facilities. These changes have not resulted in large financial changes. She further reported that maintenance costs were higher because of the condition of the lots and the increased need for repairs. The operating result after commitments is a loss of $480,000 mainly associated with the Lot #9 expansion.

Ms. Capewell continued with a discussion of the 2006/07 budget. During that year, the ancillary is projecting a loss of approximately $352,000 due to major paving that UTM must undertake related to lots 1, 7 and 4. These costs would be incurred during the same time that the pond is being installed. Following the 2006/07 year, costs are expected to decrease and there is a projected positive operating result after commitments in 2008/09.

The budget for 2006/07 reflects rate increases of 5% for outdoor reserved and unreserved permits. There is no price increase in for the CCIT underground garage permits since this is the one area where demand is still slightly less than supply. These same rate increases are planned for the next several years. Ms. Capewell noted that previously this figure was predicted to be at 25% and 30%, but was lowered because the parking structure was abandoned. It was duly moved and seconded,

It was duly moved and seconded,
THAT the Parking Ancillary budget for the 2006-07 year be approved. (C. Capewell/R. Reisz)

The Chair opened the floor to discussion.

A member thanked Ms. Capewell for explaining university policies related to the requirements of the Service Ancillary Review Group. Another member asked why parking lot 9 was expanded in light of the low demand for the CCIT parking garage. Ms. Capewell referred to schedule 7 of the ancillary, which showed that an expansion of the supply was needed and was identified in the consultant’s report. In addition, she acknowledged that there was a high number of vacant spots in the CCIT garage during the first year of its operation. However, she noted that this was no longer the case, with 300 out of a total 389 available spots being sold. The CCIT garage is also offering pay and display spots in the lower two levels.

A member spoke against the motion and the increases in rates it represented given the high increases in rates experienced during previous years. He further stated that the 5% increase in rates for the surface lots predicted in the long-range plan would in time equal the rates of the CCIT parking garage. He commented that there should be a much larger differentiation in the rate between the CCIT underground garage, which is associated with much higher capital costs, and the surface lots, which are associated with much lower capital costs.

The Vice-President and Principal thanked the Council secretariat for hosting an Information Session on the ancillary budgets, which took place in November and gave members an opportunity to ask questions and provide their feedback. He also thanked Ms. Capewell and her team for assembling the ancillary documents. He reminded members that three years ago, Council unanimously voted to preserve the green space of the campus and elected to pay increased parking rates to accomplish that. He pointed out that the parking rate increased were limited to between 0 and 5% compared with last year’s anticipated increase of 30%. He also commended the parking office in working to add to the supply of parking spaces, while at the same time working with the UTM community to try and decrease the demand for those spaces.

In reply to a member’s question, Ms. Capewell stated that there would be no reimbursement of costs related to the loss of the 276 parking spots due to the creation of a pond. She added that parking spaces in general are a large contributor to the current storm water management problem.

A member stated, because of the lower, ‘early bird’ permit cost which was promoted for the CCIT parking garage, all of the parking rates should be examined and lowered across the board. Ms. Capewell explained that the parking rates are set in order to maximize revenue in order to cover costs. She further noted the parking office is constantly monitoring the mix of reserved and unreserved parking spots, their usage and the associated costs in light of the changing nature of the traffic patters on campus. She stated that more convenient parking spots are charged a higher rate than those that are further from academic buildings. The goal of the parking office was to charge the appropriate rate, which will accomplish the sale of all of the available spots, while at the same time not exacerbating the limited supply problem by creating increased demand.

A member asked whether there was a long-range plan in place that would preclude charging increased rates each year. Ms Capewell replied that the long-range plan was based on trying to keep prices as low as possible while covering the related costs of employee salaries, paving, snow plowing, and extremely high utility prices.

In response to a member’s question about why a pond was needed, the Chief Administrative Officer explained that the Credit Valley Conservation Authority has laid out stringent regulations with respect to the treatment of storm water run-off. A pond is the least costly way to deal with this problem.

A member commented that it was his understanding that the 30% increase in parking rates passed during the previous year was related to the construction of the parking garage and asked why the current rates were not lowered or the related mortgage payment delayed in light of the fact that the parking garage project had to be abandoned. Ms. Capewell stated increases are required to cover costs. With respect to delaying mortgage payment on the CCIT garage, she noted that the mortgage was the best arrangement that the university was able to negotiate and the university could not delay payment. She further explained that the UTM parking operation need to show a financially viable operation. As such, revenues need to be at a level that allows the operation to come out of its annual deficit. She clarified that the 5% increases in parking rates do not cover current costs.

A member commented that the pay and display machines represented a significant cost at $5 per hour and suggested that lowering this rate would increase demand for parking in the CCIT garage, which in his opinion was close to empty. In addition he commented that there were too many handicapped designated parking spots that were continually empty. Ms. Capewell noted that the consultants’ report showed that both the carpool and handicapped spaces were underutilized compared to unreserved parking, however she pointed out that the number of handicapped parking spots are set out in City of Mississauga by-laws. She further noted that the utilization of the CCIT underground parking garage has been improved, but acknowledged for the need to increase related marketing efforts.

A member spoke in support of the increases in parking rates, which would allow the university to pay down its debt and urged Muslim members of Council to support the motion.

Another member noted the importance of working to decrease the demand for parking through ridesharing, carpooling and increased public transportation options. In response to the member’s question on better utilization of the current lots, Ms. Capewell stated that Lot 4 has already been re-striped to yield an additional 44 spaces. With respect to the member’s comment on improved signage related to available transportation options and programs, she stated that the parking office was currently working in improving such signage.

A member spoke against the increase in parking rates in light of the fact that supply of spots is decreasing while rates are increasing. He further stated that access to parking should not be a barrier to a university education and strongly urged a re-calculation of the costs related to parking. He referred once again to last year’s 30% increase in parking rates related to the above ground parking garage which was then scrapped.

A member questioned the necessity of the proposed 5% increase in parking rates in light of last year’s 30% increase in rates.

The Chair urged members who have not twice already to limit their comments and questions to new information.

In response to a member’s question regarding the CCIT ‘pay and display’ rates, Ms. Capewell replied that they were set at $5 per hour and $13 per day.

The Chair noted that there were no new speakers to the motion, and proceeded to the vote on the motion.

The motion was carried. (41 in favour; 34 against)

On a point of order a member stated that there were speakers that still wanted to be heard and there should have been a call for the question motion before taking a vote on the motion. The Chair stated that interested speakers had an opportunity to speak to the motion at least twice as laid out in the by-laws and that a formal call for the question on the motion was not required, as the motion was previously duly moved and seconded.

iii) Conference Services – Christine Capewell
Budget Management Report

The Conference Services Ancillary in its entirety is attached hereto as Appendix B.

Ms. Capewell reported that revenues for 2005/06 were higher than budgeted by $26,260 due to higher food service and facilities and space rental income. As a result of how these items are reported, if there is an increase in food business, it is not reflected in Conference services. She noted that a review of Conference services showed that much of the existing work and time of staff was spent on internal university services, for which the ancillary received no revenue. As a result, salaries and benefits associated with this work were removed from the budget, which now reflected conference external business only.

Ms. Capewell explained that similar to the Residence ancillary, utilities expenses, especially hydro, were extremely high. The operating result after commitments is expected to increase from $28,322 in 2007-08 to $59,325 in 2010-11. Regarding long-range plans, this ancillary is not expecting significant changes from previous years, but the addition of Phase 8 may provide the ancillary with much needed facilities to service client needs.

It was duly moved and seconded,
THAT the Conference Ancillary budget for the 2006-07 year be approved. (C. Capewell/R. Reisz)

The Chair opened the floor to discussion.

In response to a member’s comment on the unrealistically high budgeting for revenue, Ms. Capewell explained that this was done to set a mandate for the ancillary and added that it was an aggressive plan, which if not accomplished, would signal a need for changes in the way that the ancillary operates.

In response to a member’s query regarding costs expressed on schedule one were projected to be 62% less than what was budgeted, Ms. Capewell explained that the budget was somewhat unrealistic on this item, as the previous year’s budget on small equipment costs was $2000. She added that because it is a small operation, there may be costs associated with a one-time-only purchase that do not reoccur or the operation may experience an unexpected change of service.

A member complimented the Conference operation for the high level of service experienced by the Office of Advancement.

A member asked if there would be a decrease in fees, if in the long-term the conference operation produced a profit. Ms. Capewell explained that it is the goal of the ancillary to produce profit, which in the past has been contributed to the academic budget. However, she noted that in the short-term, conference services was not expected to produce a large profit.

The motion was carried.

iv) Food Services – Christine Capewell
Budget Management Report

The Food Services Ancillary in its entirety is attached hereto as Appendix C.

Ms. Capewell reported that the ancillary was in the midst of a transformation. The ancillary has made some investments in its outlets and is making preparations for the residence meal plan. She noted that as a result, the ancillary is incurring costs that will not produce revenue until a full state of growth is achieved.

Ms. Capewell explained that total cafeteria sales have increased 18% over 2004-05 actual sales, but several outlets are not selling the volume that was originally forecasted. Lower than planned sales exist in PizzaPizza, Pita Pit, Spigel, Spice and the Circuit Break. Sales in the Faculty Club were extremely low. Positive results have been experienced by Mr. Sub and Tim Horton’s. She noted that the sales as shown in the ancillary report represent the sales of the food outlets, which means that UTM’s income is actually shown as a negative expense. The ancillary will incur increased expenses next year, which are associated with the meal plan. Revenues are projected for 2008.

It was duly moved and seconded,
THAT the Food Ancillary budget for the 2006-07 year be approved. (C. Capewell/R. Reisz)

The Chair opened the floor to discussion.

In response to a member’s question, Ms. Capewell noted that the meal plan would be implemented in September of 2007, and added that the technical system was already operational in limited aspects. The member noted that he appreciated the work of the Food Committee on extending the hours of food service outlets and noted that there was a significant interest from students to extend the service of Mr. Sub and Tim Horton’s by at least one hour. Ms. Capewell replied that she was aware of this concern and was pursuing discussions with Chartwells on this subject.

In response to a member’s question, Ms. Capewell explained that the schedule of capital expenditures does not relate to investments in new food outlets in the near future. She added that most of UTM’s food outlets are associated with Chartwells and that there is a non-specific plan in place for additional investments in food outlets.

In response to a question about whether the planned residence dining hall would be large enough to accommodate all users, she explained that the hall was being built to handle staggered use and noted that the hall would have 280 spaces.

The motion was carried.

v) Residences – Chris McGrath
Budget Management Report

The Residence Services Ancillary in its entirety is attached hereto as Appendix D.

Mr. McGrath reported that the development of the Residence ancillary financial plans is achieved in coordination with the Residence Finance Committee, which meets several times to offer its feedback. He noted that the ancillary had a successful year, maintaining an occupancy rate near 100% and continuing to manage the capital renewal of the residences.

On the programmatic side, Mr. McGrath described several projects which continued to thrive. As part of the Living Learning Communities initiative, 20 students and 5 staff traveled to Guatemala to work with schoolchildren on literacy projects, and youth living with HIV/AIDS. There was also a successful launch of the rezONE program, which matches first year students in cohorts with outstanding upper year residence students in their academic discipline, who then complete a six-week series of core academic skill development seminars. This program is a partnership between Residence, the Academic Skills Centre, Student Affairs and the UTM Library and boasts very high participation, with 200 first-year students.

Mr. McGrath reported that during the summer, residences undertook a significant amount of capital renewal necessary as a result of the age of the existing townhouse complexes, which are between 25 - 30 years old. Upgrades to paint, flooring, lighting, fixtures, and window coverings were made to McLuhan Court residence. These renovations would continue for the next 3 years.

Mr. McGrath noted that there were several projects that incurred large costs. There was a significant upgrade of all exterior lighting in the residential phases to increase safety and security. It was also necessary to repave the Erindale Hall colonnade from slate to concrete, as the installed slate surface was subject to significant ice accumulation during the winter months. In addition, there was a successful remediation of moisture accumulation problems in MaGrath Valley residence, which included extensive cleaning, upgrading the ventilation systems, and starting installation of new windows.

He reported that utility expenses were considerably higher than budget as a result of the direct impact of hydro and gas rates across the province, which has resulted in an expense differential of $430,000. There is also an increase in operating expenses as a result of the significant upgrade to the residence’s Information Management System (RMS) and the installation of security cameras in the common areas of residence buildings to enhance safety and security.

Mr. McGrath discussed the 2006/07 budget and future challenges and opportunities. The budget for 2006-07 reflects residence rate increases of 3.5%. He stressed that the proposed rates are competitive within the University of Toronto (lowest) as well as other peer institutions (below the median.) He noted that family and graduate housing residence rates were on average 19% lower than market value. He referred to scheduled 6 in the ancillary for details on the proposed rate changes. He explained that generally expenses increase by 2% or 3% annually, while salaries and benefits increase by 5% to reflect 3% increases across the board plus step and merit increases. Capital renewal expenses increase by 3-5% based on past experience, and are influenced by specific projects that will be completed over the next five years. Utilities expenses are budgeted at 5% over the 2005-06 actuals, and will continue to be closely monitored.

He read a letter from the Residence Finance Committee, which while supportive of the current increases in residence rates, asked the university to explore creative ways to enhance student funding without taxing the bottom line of ancillary services such as residences.

It was duly moved and seconded,
THAT the Residence Ancillary budget for the 2006-07 year be approved. (C. McGrath/R. deSouza)

The Chair noted that the two-hour limit for the length of a meeting had been reached and asked if anyone wished to propose a motion to extend the meeting. On motion duly moved and seconded, the meeting was extended by twenty minutes. (I. Orchard/R. deSouza)

The Chair opened the floor to discussion.

In response to a member’s question regarding the structure of the Residence Finance Committee, Mr. McGrath noted that the Committee had representation from each phase of residence, from Residence Council and in cases where phases had both undergraduate and graduate students, one student from each constituency participated. He explained that during the summer, the residences were transferred to conference services, while Roy Ivor Hall was retained for summer residence.

The Vice-President and Principal complimented Mr. McGrath and his team for the quality of the residences and the services that contributed to improving the student experience.

In response to a member’s question, Mr. McGrath explained that each Living Learning Community was allocated $1000 for the purpose of enhancing focused programming within themed community.

A member remarked that last year’s budget had a rate increase of 6%, most of which was directed towards freeing the residences of the mould problem and asked why that increase was not sufficient to solve the problem. Mr. McGrath stated that clearing the mould problem is a project that needs to be managed over several years and that last year’s work took care of the immediate problems. He added that in order to solve the mould issue in one year, a 14.5% increase would have been needed.

In response to a member’s comment, Mr. McGrath confirmed that residences had been retrofitted with energy efficient lighting, but noted that the cost of installing outdoor sensor lighting was too prohibitive. He added that the residence life team was working on promoting more efficient energy use.

In response to a member’s comment about problems associated with RezNet, Mr. McGrath observed that there had been a minimal amount of crashes during the current year, because of improvements introduced by Computing Services. He also noted that beginning next year, all residence students will have live internet in their rooms.

In response to a member’s question, Mr. McGrath noted that Phase 8 was on schedule to be completed in April of 2007. Also in reply to a member’s query, he commented that the residence office was working to ameliorate the costs associated with those students staying in residence over the Christmas holidays, but added that there were additional risk management costs involved with this issue.

With respect to programming, a member commented that there seemed to be a lack of contact between residence students and the UTM community and asked what kind of support can be provided to facilitate this. Mr. McGrath stated that the impetus was on student leaders, both in and out of residence to collaborate on programs to try and bridge this gap. He noted that the residence operation has worked to make advertising events as easy as possible and has given access to email lists.

A member commended Ms. Emma Beamson on the development of the residence advertising policy.

Seeing no further new speakers to the motion, the Chair called a vote on the motion. The motion was carried.

On motion duly moved and seconded, the meeting was extended by fifteen minutes. (W. Khogali/I. Orchard)

b) Academic Affairs Committee – Professor Anthony Wensley

Professor Wensley reported that at its January 17, 2006 meeting members received two reports, one for approval. The Chief Librarian presented the UTM Library’s annual review, entitled, “Making Connections.” He encouraged members to access this report, available on the UTM Library’s Web site.

Members then received the proposal to establish a concurrent teacher education program (CTEP) at UTM. Both the program and the resulting calendar changes that were outlined and posted on the Council Web site were approved by members. He called on Ms. Snowden to describe the program.

i) CTEP (Concurrent Teacher Education Program) - Lynn Snowden, Assistant Dean

Ms. Snowden referred members to the documentation on this program distributed with the notice of the meeting and attached hereto as Appendix E. She introduced guests from OISE/UT who were invited to speak to the merits of the proposed program: Antoinette Gagne, Professor, OISE/UT and Director, Concurrent Teacher Education Program and Mira Gambhir, Associate Director, Concurrent Teacher Education Program. She noted that John Percy from the Department of Chemical and Physical Sciences and Charles Elkabas from the Department French German and Italian also played a large part in developing the program.

She explained that the proposal consisted of two parts: one was a UTM specific program summary and the other represented a more detailed description of the program. She listed the partners involved in the program as follows: OISE/UT, UTM, the University of Toronto at Scarborough, the Faculty of Music, the Faculty of Physical Education and Health, Victoria College and St. Michael’s College. For the past 18 months all partners have been working collaboratively to develop a consistent curriculum to include all seven divisions.

She proceeded to highlight some key aspects of the program with respect to UTM. Students who completed the CTEP program would be qualified to teach in both intermediate and high school settings. The overwhelming majority of students would be admitted through their first year and a small number of spaces would be kept aside for students who would enter the program in their second year. The program had six participating disciplines: Mathematics, Chemistry, Biology, English, French and Italian.

Ms. Snowden further explained that students would have to identify two teachable subjects. Ninety students would be enrolled each year, and the program would have 450 students in its steady state.

She asked Ms. Gagne to talk about the program specifics. She observed that feedback from graduates of the one year teacher preparation program had always been that they needed more time to prepare before entering the complex school system. Therefore the possibility of implementing a concurrent model for teacher preparation with other divisions was included in the Stepping Up Plan.

She explained that this model spreads the study of education across five years for those who enter the program directly and four years for those students who enter in year two. Field experiences are also incorporated throughout the program. The model is based on a total of eight education oriented credits among the twenty-five credits that a candidate would complete. UTM students would spend five years completing the requirement of two degrees rather than completing one degree in four years and then studying only education for one year.

It was duly moved and seconded,

THAT the proposal to establish a Concurrent Teacher Education Program at the University of Toronto at Mississauga, and the resulting calendar changes as outlined in the memorandum from the Assistant Dean, dated January 25, 2006, be approved. (L. Snowden/A. Wensley)

The Chair opened the floor to discussion.

A member asked whether the program would be expanded to include the participation of other disciplines in the future. Ms. Snowden explained that this would be possible in the future as the program is periodically reviewed, but noted that a determining factor in the participation of disciplines was whether the subject was teachable in high school.

In response to a member’s question, Ms. Gagne stated that tuition would be set at the rate that applies to the Bachelor of Education program, currently at $4600.

The Vice-President and Principal complimented the team that developed the program and commented on the great partnership between the various divisions.

In response to a member’s question, Ms. Snowden explained that all of the Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science work will be done at UTM and that the majority of the courses in the Bachelor of Education segment would also be completed at UTM.

A member observed that this program would likely be very popular with students and asked whether the program had any implications for existing programs with respect to class sizes. Ms. Snowden noted that the program would draw from the same pool of UTM students as other existing programs.

In response to a member who asked about faculty resources, Ms. Gagne explained that the program would have a CTEP coordinator, who would be the only additional instructional resource needed. In addition, a CTEP virtual community would be set up to facilitate communication between students and faculty and among students at different divisions.

Seeing no further new speakers, the Chair proceed to take the vote on the motion. The motion was carried.

The Chair noted that the second extension of time was nearly at an end and asked whether members wished to adjourn or extend the time of the Council meeting to allow for a continuation of business. On a point of information, the Chair explained that if the meeting adjourned at this point in the proceedings, the next meeting of Council would begin with the next order of business of the current agenda, which is the Vice-President and Principal’s report followed by ‘other business.’ A member requested that Council convene a special meeting to discuss the tuition fee freeze issue if possible. The member also added that the time of Council meetings was not convenient for many student members of Council and asked whether the time of meetings could be changed to accommodate these members. The Chair promised to bring both of these requests to the attention of the Executive Committee.

The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. (R. deSouza/A. Wensley)