Trent President Promotes Persistent Secrecy? Why?
It 
appears that Ontario Universities will leave no stone unturned in their efforts to remain unaccountable to the public. What is it exactly that universities have to hide? Why are they afraid of operating transparently and being subject to public scrutiny? After all, Ontario Universities are funded by the taxpayer and they receive federal taxpayer money as well. According to the Trent student newspaper Arthur, in the September 30, 2005 Trent board meeting Bonnie "Patterson expressed her hopefulness that a private members’ bill currently being discussed in the province would ultimately exempt universities from the FOIPPA." (the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act). Notwithstanding that Ontario universities are in fact exempt from FOIPPA, this report is worthy of further investigation.
On May 11, 2005 the Ontario government introduced long awaited legislation to bring some form of accountability to universities. Amendments to FOIPPA were contained in contained in the budget legislation known as Bill 197, An Act to implement Budget measures. On June 13, 2005 the House agreed various bills and papers would remain on the agenda in the next session, including Bill 197 should the first session of the 38th Parliament be prorogated, which it was. The next session is scheduled to commence October 12, 2005.
It appears strange that Patterson would refer to a private member's bill that would exempt universities from FOIPPA when in fact they are not even subject to the Act. But one wonders if that statement may allude to some strategy the universities have to press the Ontario government to water down even the amendments to FOIPPA as proposed in Bill 197. Are the universities lobbying for continued exemption from FOIPPA and defeat of the FOIPPA amendments in Bill 197? There's nothing new on the Council of Ontario Universities' (COU) website that would make the public any wiser - but that is hardly a surprise.
Perhaps Patterson was referring to a private member's bill we've heard little about but the passing of which would somehow force publicly funded universities in Ontario to operate transparently?
Lo and behold there is! That would be Bill 123 2004, An Act to require that meetings of provincial and municipal boards, commissions and other public bodies be open to the public. This was one of the bills the House agreed would remain on the agenda in the coming session.
Introduced on October 13, 2004 by Sarnia MPP Caroline Di Cocco (Liberal), the short title of Bill 123 is the Transparency in Public Matters Act, 2004 and its purpose is defined as follows:
The purpose of this Act is to ensure that the meetings of designated public bodies at which deliberation or decision-making occurs are open to the public and that the minutes of those meetings are made available to the public.
And notice that Schedule 1, Part II specifies that universities are included in the types of designated public bodies for the purposes of this Act:
The board of directors, governors, trustees or other governing body or authority of a university in Ontario and any affiliated or federated college of a university that receives operating grants from the Government of Ontario.
The basic intent and purpose of the Transparency in Public Matters Act is, in our opinion, warranted and justifiable. It promotes transparency and accountability and subjects the decision making process of bodies receiving taxpayer's money to public scrutiny. The Bill's Explanatory Note provides a susinct summary of what the Bill hopes to accomplish. We can only imagine that Ontario University presidents are shaking in their boots over this.
Well, a quick call to Ms. Di Cocco's constituency office confirms that indeed the Ontario universities have been lobbying the MPP to amend Bill 123 to exclude universities from the proposed Transparency in Public Matters Act!
We're not aware of Bill 123 receiving much press, if any. Even if the Arthur was in error in quoting Patterson, she appears to have inadvertently let the cat out of the bag.
We at OurTrent believe that Bill 123 has extreme merit and that the universities should not be exempt from the Transparency in Public Matters Act. We believe the lobbying efforts of the universities for exemption need to be countered.
We encourage you to notify your MPP and make known your view that universities must not be excluded from Bill 123, 2004.
We also encourage you to contact MPP Caroline Di Cocco directly and offer her your support for Bill 123 to help bolster her resolve in what is likely a concerted campaign by the universities to have her remove them from the force of the proposed Transparency in Public Matters Act.
MPP Caroline Di Cocco
Sarnia--Lambton
Liberal Party of Ontario
Member, Standing Committee on Estimates
Chair, Select Committee on Electoral Reform
Parliamentary Assistant to the Premier
Website: www.carolinedicocco.com
(Check Di Cocco's website for confirmation of contact info)
Queen's Park:
email: cdicocco.mpp@liberal.ola.org
Rm 160, Main Legislative Building
Toronto ON M7A 1A4
Tel : 416.325.2837
Fax : 416.325.3194
Constituency:
email : cdicocco.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
4th Floor - 201 Front St. North
Sarnia ON N7T 7T9
Tel : 519.337.0051
Fax : 519.337.3246
And on a final note with unique relevance to Trent University:
We find it contradictory that Bonnie Patterson would apparently act in contravention to the recommendations of Trent alumnus Don Tapscott and, presumably, his wife and former Trent board member Anna Lopes (Lopes "retired" from the board June 16, 2005). In his book The Naked Corporation, and in his lectures, Tapscott has repeated stated that transparency should be embraced and can no longer be avoided today in what he calls the Age of Transparency. Tapscott has said transparency needs to apply to universities. The Tapscott-Lopes Business and Society Lecture Series, held at Trent in their honour, featured Joel Bakan this year. Bakan is a co-author of The Corporation, The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power.
We encourage Patterson and board to embrace Tapscott's transparency recommendations. If they believe they have arguments for continued exemption from transparency, accountability and public scrutiny, OurTrent would welcome an official position statement.
| City sports field to be built on university property Board of Governors meets to discuss Trent’s present and future Arthur - October 3, 2005 Trent University’s Board of Governors agreed last Friday to negotiate a land lease with the City of Peterborough to create a sports field on university property. This lease is in exchange for the city’s $2 million contribution the DNA Cluster project. The sports field will be located at the intersection of Pioneer Road and 9th Line of Douro, in a part of Trent’s Nature Areas that is considered “non-confirming,” or having no ecological significance. The land is currently being used as farm land for a soy bean farmer, and will be leased to the City for a period of no more than 30 years. The City is anxious to begin construction, as there is tremendous user demand in Peterborough for sports fields. The project will require 21 acres of university property and will cost the City approximately $2.8 million. The university will not be financially involved with the project. Responding to queries by members on the field’s merit, President Bonnie Patterson reiterated that the city sports field will help generate traffic towards the university, and will allow the university to host events such as the World Lacrosse Championship. On being asked whether the construction of the sports field would limit lease of Trent’s new artificial athletics field, the President stated that this was unlikely. Further topics discussed at the Board of Governors meeting last Friday included the International Conference on Anti-Virals, the Peterborough Transit Strike, the University’s financial standing and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA), at which time Patterson expressed her hopefulness that a private members’ bill currently being discussed in the province would ultimately exempt universities from the FOIPPA. Briefing the board about the new Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, Chris Bentley, who took office in the summer, the President informed the board of possible new rulings concerning tuition fees in January. Elaborating on the change in the debate from a focus on access to a focus on quality, the President expressed hopes for a feasible solution. The President also informed the Board about the national trend towards four-year degrees and states that this was a change that the University would be considering in the near future. Discussing further changes, Bonnie talked of plans to expand Trent’s graduate programs to meet the provincial goal of 65% by 2010-11. Trent University’s student enrollment has increased this year 3% for full-time students and 10% for part-time students. Other members of the Board briefed the Governors about the university’s financial standing, stating that the deficit is currently down to $9.9 million. The construction of the DNA Research facility is on schedule for May 2006. The Board of Governors open session ended with a luncheon, in which the student press was kindly asked to join. The next board meeting will take place on December 2, 2005. S.K. Hussan |
An Act to require that meetings of provincial and municipal boards, commissions and other public bodies be open to the public Short Title: Transparency in Public Matters Act, 2004 EXPLANATORY NOTE The Bill designates certain public bodies and types of public bodies and requires those designated public bodies to give reasonable notice of their meetings to the public and ensure that themeetings are open to the public. A designated public body may exclude the public from a meeting if matters specified in the Bill are going to be discussed at the meeting. A designated public body is required to keep minutes of its meetings and to publish them. The Bill requires a designated public body to make rules respecting how it will give notice of its meetings and how minutes will be made available to the public. The Bill establishes a procedure by which a person who believes a designated public body has contravened or is about to contravene the Bill may make a complaint to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The Commissioner is empowered to review the complaint and to undertake a review on his or her own initiative. The Bill sets out the powers the Commissioner may exercise when reviewing a suspected contravention, including the power to enter and inspect premises, to demand production of things relevant to the review and to require any person to appear before the Commissioner to give evidence. The Bill authorizes the Commissioner to make certain orders after a review, including an order that voids a decision made by a designated public body at a meeting that did not conform to the requirements of the Bill. It is an offence to wilfully fail to comply with an order of the Commissioner. The Bill sets out certain other powers of the Commissioner, including the power to delegate his or her powers, and makes it an offence to wilfully obstruct or attempt to mislead the Commissioner when heor she is performing functions authorized under the Bill. Other provisions of the Bill are a conflict provision in the event of a conflict with another Act or regulation and a provision authorizing the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make specified regulations. |
