Erindale College Council

Report of the College Affairs Committee meeting held on Monday, February 23, 2004, at 3:10 p.m. in the Ante Chamber, Room 3129, South Building, University of Toronto at Mississauga.

Erindale College Council


PRESENT: J. Linley (in the Chair), R. Beck, W. Ghobriel, A. Lange, K. Kaun, S. McCarthy, K. Chadder, S. Kessler, J. McCurdy-Myers, S. Munro, C. Capewell, N. Collins, M. Shaw, J. Lee, K. Chadder, A. Vyas, G. Richter, D. Crocker, S. Kessler, J. Malcolm, P. Donoghue, S. O’Connell, D. Crocker,
REGRETS: C. Misak, M. Overton, C. Boyd, S. Al-Abdul-Wahid, L. Collins, K. Duncliffe, U. Krull, B. Barton, B. Murck

1. Adoption of the Agenda

The Agenda was approved (G. Richter / J. McCurdy-Myers)

2. Minutes of the Previous Meeting

The minutes of the previous meeting (January 12, 2004) were approved. (P. Donoghue / A. Lange)

3. Business Arising from the Minutes

a) Report of the Working Group on the College Affairs Committee’s terms of reference – J. Linley

On behalf of the Working Group, Mr. Linley gave a report on the group’s findings with respect to the terms of reference of the College Affairs Committee.

He summarized the following recommendations of the group:

1. That the College Affairs Committee be dissolved
2. All issues currently approved by CAC be assigned to other committees as appropriate
3. Form a new committee tentatively called “Quality of Campus Life” to be characterized by:
- a maximum membership of 15 comprised of students, faculty and staff;
- act as a forum for issues of general concern including social events, food and retail services, and transportation issues;
- membership of the committee would be widely publicized, with a unique email so that individuals may contact committee members with issues that would comprise the agenda of the committee
- the committee would consider all issues and reply to each and every request
- as felt appropriate by the committee, issues would be brought forward to the appropriate group, whether they be operational areas or governance groups
- outcomes of issues would be reported to the committee and ultimately to the individual or group that first raised the issue

Mr. Linley also summarized what the working group felt to be the benefits of the above recommendations. The newly formed committee’s smaller membership would mean better overall use of time. Eliminating the duplication of issues that now occurs would also increase efficiency. The committee would also provide a clear communication vehicle for bringing concerns forward and would allow access to appropriate resources.

Mr. Linley noted that with good publicity of this newly formed group, the hope is to have discussion and address concerns at an early stage in the governance process.

The Chair opened the floor to comments and questions from Committee members.

In response to a member’s question, Mr. Linley explained that the newly created committee would be a standing committee of Council and confirmed that the current College Affairs Committee is comprised of approximately 50 members.

A member suggested that if the express purpose of the new committee was to direct community members to appropriate sources of information, it would not be a good use of members’ time. She added that it would be hard to ascertain what exactly the new committee would do and what authority it had and suggested that a group created for the sole purpose of discussion was not needed.

A member of the Working Group, explained that the new committee would be a forum for discussion and would be a level at which ideas could be developed before they are directed to administrative areas. Another member remarked that some members do not know the appropriate ways in which to raise concerns.

A member commented that this new group should not duplicate issues that are already addressed at Quality Service to Students.

A member commented that this group would not have the authority of any of the other Standing Committees of Council and noted that all of the issues currently dealt with at the College Affairs Committee could be shifted to other committees and sub-committees. He suggested that a focused communication strategy be undertaken to educate the UTM community on the governance structure and how best to use it. He noted that creating a smaller version of the same committee, without a well-defined role and authority, would only perpetuate the original problem.

Another member noted that she would be hesitant to create a smaller committee that would only provide a ‘band-aid’ solution to the issue of members not knowing where to direct their concerns. She stressed that proper communication would address this problem in a more efficient way than creating another committee.

Several members stressed that a website or a ‘virtual’ ombudsperson would be a good facilitator for bringing issues forward to the appropriate administrative bodies.

In response to member’s question, the Chief Administrative Officer explained the approval process of ancillary budgets and noted that the College Affairs Committee’s involvement in the process is through a joint meeting with the Resource Planning and Priorities Committee.

The Chair concluded discussion by inviting the Committee to continue to provide input on the matter to working group members. Members consist of: Karla Kaun, Robert Baker, John Malcolm, Barbara Murck, Adil Mirza and Jim Linley.

4. Other Business:

There was no other business.

5. Next Meeting

The next meeting of the College Affairs Committee is scheduled for Monday, March 22, 2004.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. (A. Vyas / S. Kessler)

Secretary of Council __________________ Chair __________________
March 15, 2004