The City of Peterborough is touted as a partner in Trent's DNA cluster yet Trent won't show City councilors the business plan, if indeed a plan exists. Not much of a partnership, is it?

Trent is exempt from Ontario's Freedom of Information legislation. The Canadian Foundation for Innovation is exempt from federal Access to Information legislation (the Auditor-general just blasted the feds for this) and they gave Trent $3.6-million for the DNA cluster.

So far $10.7-million of public money given to the DNA cluster is neatly hidden behind a wall of secrecy built upon "accountability exemptions".

Could it be, as the Peterborough Examiner suggests, Trent is afraid that if they release the DNA cluster business plan and other cluster details to the City that the public just might get their hands on it because the City is subject to Freedom of Information legislation?

City taxpayers are investing $2 million; they should get to see the business plan

City taxpayers’ $2-million investment will make them a partner in the DNA cluster project at Trent University.

As a partner, the city stands to collect a share of any revenue from private companies which lease space in the project.

However, that revenue may never materialize. If the private sector doesn’t come on board and the “cluster” grows no bigger than a Trent research lab, city taxpayers will be the losers. Their $2 million will have bought nothing more than water and sewer services for a university building: no return cash flow, no big payoff in future construction projects and property tax revenue, no high-tech job boom to secure the city’s future.

Administrators at Trent are confident the payoff will arrive. They have developed a business plan that supports construction of a $19.5 million research and teaching facility that will be the first phase of the cluster, and presumably identifies how and why it will lead to private sector interest. Taxpayers, or any partner, should be able to see that business plan before they put up their money.

On Monday night, two city councillors made that request. A Trent representative turned them down. The business plan contains confidential financial information and details of negotiations which would harm the project if they were made public, the councillors were told.

Even letting council see the plan in a closed-door session would be a problem, according to the university’s vice-president of administration.

That’s not much of a partnership.

The university is likely balking in part because its board of governors and senior administration tend to be secretive, and in part because the city is subject to freedom of information legislation, while Trent is not. Groups on campus which oppose the cluster but can’t get details may file freedom of information applications with the city if council is brought into the loop.

But that’s no reason for Trent to shut its city partners out; information which really does need to remain private is protected under the legislation and would not be released. If anything, the situation is another argument for extending freedom of information requirements to include universities. Former premier Bob Rae took that position in his recent report on the future of post secondary education in Ontario, joining a host of others who believe universities should be more open and accountable.

Unfortunately, councillors Shirley Eggleton and Len Vass didn’t get much support Monday night when they asked that release of the business plan be included as a condition for the $2 million in funding. Other council members should rethink that position.

What council did focus on was a series of nine staff-recommended concessions the city is looking for in return for the $2 million. Councillors were most interested in one requiring a quick resolution to negotiations between the city’s public utilities arm and Trent for development of hydro-electric generation on the Otonabee River. Since talks have been dragging on for years and the two sides have almost reached a deal, that’s a reasonable demand.

Other items require Trent to give up land for a future ring-road, a new and larger bridge over the river and Rotary Trail extension. All are in the university’s best interest and shouldn’t be an issue.

However, four acres along the Water Street North commercial strip that the city wants as a subsidized housing site are potentially valuable. So are 70 acres the city is interested in further north at Woodland Road and Water Street. Land required to reroute Armour Road has also been a sticking point in the past.

Council should keep in mind that it agreed to the unprecedented $2-million investment because the DNA cluster represents a huge potential benefit for the community. The investment is much more than just a lever to force a series of unrelated concessions from the university. City staff know they won’t get everything; they can give up quite a lot and still be successful.