In response to a formal request for specific and detailed documentation on the DNA Cluster project (submitted October 19, 2004) Trent university has released some documents. What we see so far does not fill us with confidence and raises a number of extremely alarming questions, particularly regarding the role of the board of governors to oversee the management of Trent University and the use/misuse of public funds.

And the emerging picture is not pretty...

"President Patterson was conscious that the administration of this project had not followed the usual University process for tendering and for seeking Board approval of architect selection, preliminary design, etc."

But not to worry,

"She [President Patterson] suggested the possibility of seeking retroactive endorsement of both the design team and the preliminary design following receipt of Ostar funding."

Source: Finance and Property Committee Report - September 10, 2004

The documents have yet to be sifted through and analyzed (i.e. in order to determine their relevance, develop a chronology, frame a a request for clarification, missing details and other documents).

As they are made available the documents will be posted here at OurTrent. Readers are encouraged to review the documents and form their own opinions. The Finance and Property Committee Meeting Reports are heavily redacted.

Several things are immediately clear even on an initial read;

1. As late as October 22, 2004 the project had no formal business plan.
   [Source: Trent's "Privacy protection/freedom of information officer" (Susan L. Bartsch) cover letter in response to the request for specific and detailed information. (November 19, 2004)]
2. As early as June 11, 2004 the Finance and Property Committee of the Trent Board is made aware that, apparently without the approval of the Board, the President has engaged architects (they are 6 weeks behind in their work)and that no government funding has been approved.
   [Source: Finance and Property Committee Meeting Report. (June 11, 2004)]
3. By September 10, 2004 even though the Board had not approved the DNA Cluster project President admitted to being "conscious" that her administration had not followed usual University processes for tendering and seeking Board approval.
   [Source: Finance and Property Committee Meeting Report. (September 10, 2004)]
4. It appears that the Board has no interest fulfilling its responsibilities to oversee the financial management of the University and is content to unfetter the administration with such annoying details as policy and procedure and Board approval.
   

   In spite of more than $200K having been committed to the unapproved DNA Cluster project, the Board raised absolutely no objection to President Patterson's recommendation to seek its "retroactive endorsement" on the design and design team "after" receipt of government funding. Apparently this approach was approved as was the notion that "Approval of other major items would be sought later at the appropriate times.", presumably in the same manner.
   [Source: Finance and Property Committee Meeting Report. (September 10, 2004)].

5. Apparently the City of Peterborough has been presented with a set of documents in support of Trent's request for municipal funding and these documents have not been released to the public.
   [Source: Patterson and Ferkany letter to Peterborough Mayor. (September 9, 2004)]