The following letter was sent to Shell Harvey, Assistant Deputy Minister of the Post-Secondary Education Division, on February 15, 1996. It follows up a meeting between Harvey and CUFA/BC representatives held on January 26, 1996.
February 15, 1996
Shell Harvey
Assistant Deputy Minister
Post-Secondary Education Division
Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour
818 Broughton Street
Victoria, B.C.
V8V 1X4
Via Facsimile Transmission - 3 Pages - (604) 356-8322
Dear Shell,
I am writing to follow-up our meeting of January 26, 1996 with respect to the proposed legislation for the technical university. Before discussing the substantive issues, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft legislation. As you know, we were not pleased to find out about the Royal Roads University legislation by accident last June. I trust this consultation will be one of many as we all work together towards meaningful reform of the post-secondary education and training system.
As you anticipated in the meeting, our major concern is the lack of senate or equivalent body in the governance structure of the institution. We understand there will be an academic body of some sort, but our concern is the new institution will not be a university as the concept is commonly understood. This is not to say there cannot be different types of universities. Indeed, I think it is generally recognised in the current climate that the post-secondary system, universities included, will have to become more differentiated over time. In this sense, there is no denying the mission of the technical university.
Rather, what defines a university are those structures which provide the institution with autonomy and self-governance, within an appropriate accountability framework. There is a common misperception that such structures are inflexible and unresponsive to the changing needs of the economy and society. There is no doubt senates often move at a slow pace, but this is a function of the mandate of the institution -- to "provide instructions in all branches of knowledge," and to "establish facilities for the pursuit of original research in all branches of knowledge" (University Act, section 46). Deliberations on academic matters at the traditional universities are literally part of the on-going development of human knowledge and require thoughtful deliberation. This is also part of the accountability framework. Substantial public and private funds are at stake in these deliberations and thus deserve our best efforts to ensure the direction taken is appropriate.
It is important to remember, however, that the operation of the governance structures is dependent on the institutional culture. The technical university is to be a market-oriented institution. I expect it will thus attract faculty, administrators, and staff sensitive to this ethos and as a result the governance structures will reflect market dynamism. I think this is ably illustrated by the University of Waterloo, a institution specialising in leading-edge technology using normal university governance structures to achieve its ends.
The proposal that there be no senate also seems strange in light of the legislation introduced last year creating education councils in the colleges and institutes. I would have thought from looking at that legislation our arguments have been substantially put and understood, yet both the Royal Roads University Act and now this proposed legislation move in an opposite direction. It seems to me there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of teaching and research, and those who recommended the structure might think innovation can be ordered rather than nurtured.
This brings me to a second, related point. It appears from the description given that the proposed legislation will repeat the mistake made in the Royal Roads University Act with respect to the powers of the president. As we indicated last summer, there are potential problems in legislatively assigning broad powers to the president, independent of the board of governors or a senate. It creates the possibility of a crisis where the president is operating within the scope of powers granted in legislation, against the will of the board. The president could claim he/she was operating as an agent of the legislature, and thus outside the jurisdiction of the board. If there is to be no senate, then all substantive power must then be vested in the board of governors. It is they who are ultimately accountable, and I think they should make deliberate decisions to delegate necessary authority. This may be given pro forma to the president, but then there is no ambiguity about who has final authority and responsibility.
With respect to the composition of the board, we are obviously happy to see that faculty, students and staff will have a place at the table, as they do at the other post-secondary institutions in the province. The proposal that the board itself be permitted to make up to four appointments on its own authority is somewhat troubling. It again comes down to a question of who is responsible. Currently, the minister has the authority to remove appointed members of the university board of governors. The legislation proposes, instead, to utilise the mechanism found in Bill 22 to remove the board in its entirety should the minister deem it necessary. This is a check on the authority of the board to appoint some of its own members.
The goal of the proposal appears to be to allow the board some flexibility in appointing governors with specific skills and/or backgrounds to fill in gaps in the board. The same goal could be met by the minister holding back some appointments and inviting the board to recommend specific individuals for appointment. The goal is thus met, and the minister retains the traditional authority to remove one or all of the governors as necessary.
Finally, on the question of legislated performance indicators, I cannot help but think this is not a good thing. It seems to me that as a dynamic, market-oriented institution that measures of performance and accountability are bound to change over time. Enshrining a set of such indicators in legislation appears to be locking the institution into a certain mode of performance which may become either stifling or meaningless in future. The minister has the power under the University Act to request reports and other information, and I think this is the appropriate means by which to ensure accountability, in addition to public and institutional accountability inherent in boards of governors and senates.
Overall, I have the sense from the proposed legislation that the Interim Planning Council reacted to misperceptions and current fads rather than giving a deep consideration to the issue at hand. The proposed legislation appears to reflect a fundamental mistrust of all who will come after - none will understand the vision of the current IPC and thus they feel they must find a means to force that vision through legislation. This surely is the ultimate irony as we are trying to create an institution which will be adaptable and flexible.
It seems to me there is room at the IPC table for a voice from the traditional universities, and thus I request, even at this late stage, that CUFA/BC be permitted to name or nominate a university faculty member to the committee. I think there is still much that could be contributed by such a voice to the success of the institution.
In conclusion, I hope government will see fit to incorporate some of our recommendations into the proposed legislation before presenting it to the Legislature. I would certainly be happy to answer any questions, or expand on any of these points if they are unclear. Once again, I thank you for the opportunity to comment and look forward to seeing the revised draft of the legislation.
Sincerely,
Bruce E. More
President
c: Garry Wouters, Deputy Minister, Skills & Training