Trent FOI Compliance Should Be Easy And Cheap: President Says Not
Ontario 
universities are facing general compliance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, potentially by June 2006. The Council of Ontario Universities (COU), the universities' lobby group, has managed continued exclusion from FOI for universities. COU has justified this exemption by purporting universities self-police compliance with the spirit and purpose of the Act. Arthur, Trent's student newspaper, reported Trent president Bonnie Patterson told her board of governors compliance with FOI would impose a considerable burden of work on university administrators and represent "a significant expense item" for the budget. But wait, if the universities have been compliant all these years, as COU claims, the infrastructure and budget to formally support freedom of information legislation should already be in place, thus no new effort or budget required. Whoops, another contradiction revealed?
COU has claimed "universities are already subject to COU guidelines that reflect the general spirit of the Act" [1] and "a number of universities have established institution-specific access and privacy policies based on these Guidelines." [2] COU has published FOI guidelines, most universities have appointed a freedom of information officer, and some universities have established additional FOI policies. All these things require staff and budget - and the public has been repeatedly told these things are in place.
So, are these structures and budgets in place or not? Let's look at the example of Trent University:
Trent's freedom of information policy is entitled Policy on Privacy Protection and Freedom of Information. (Some may find it interesting and telling that protection of privacy precedes freedom of information). This policy calls for the establishment of an employee to fulfill the function of Privacy Protection/Freedom of Information Officer. The Officer assists the university to comply with the policy and makes decisions on requests. This position is currently assigned to Susan Bartsch in the secretariat.
The policy also calls for the board to appoint a Privacy Protection/Freedom of Information Commissioner, preferably from outside the university community, who may review appeals of the decisions of the Officer. The Commissioner "may advise the President to either confirm or reverse the University's decision".
Appeals of the decision of the Officer are to be sent to the Commissioner. However, we cannot find reference on Trent's website to who has been assigned Commissioner or how to contact that individual. We understand, through a third party, that the current Commissioner is Harry R. VanderLugt, a partner in the law firm Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP working in the Toronto office. What a coincidence - the general manager of Gowling's Toronto office is Trent University board member Patricia Southern. That's just too weird, don't you think?
At any rate, the position of Commissioner is merely advisory in nature. Although the Commissioner is an appointee of the board, he has no power. The ultimate authority to for the release of any and all information under this policy, including decisions on appeals, falls to the president, Bonnie Patterson. And get this, should the president not agree with a decision of the board's Commissioner, she can simply ignore the Commissioner, do as she sees fit, with only an obligation to report her decision to the board!
The President is responsible for making a final decision on any matter under appeal. In the event that the President does not accept the recommendation of the Commissioner, this decision and the reasons for it shall be reported to the Board of Governors.
So we can see that the infrastructure for compliance with FOIPPA are already in place at Trent. Notwithstanding that Trent's policies are critically flawed in terms of meeting the spirit of freedom of information legislation, there exits a bureaucratic structure to manage the requirements of the existing policy.
Even though it is clear, and studies show, that the Ontario universities are not compliant with the spirit of FOI legislation, we've been repeatedly told that universities are self-policing their compliance. That requires resources (staff and budget) even if the end result is formidable bureaucratic structure serving as a barrier to transparency and accountability. A reasonable person might ask if university boards and administrators were misleading the public in the past by claiming compliance, or if they are misleading us now by suggesting compliance will impose new work regimes and cost burdens?
In our view universities, and Trent in particular, do not require more staff or budget to comply with freedom of information legislation. Rather, they need only shift the focus of existing bureaucratic structures and budgets and embrace a culture of openness. To do so does not impose additional burdens on administrators nor does it require new funding.
Members of Trent University's board of governors have a fiduciary responsibility to assure representations of need (staff, budget) by administrators are indeed justified.
References:
- COU Freedom of Information Guidelines 1994
- COU Briefing Notes, 2002
- COU Submission on the Proposed Privacy of Personal Information Act, 2002
- Board of Governors Talk Trent
Arthur - December 5, 2005
| Board of Governors Talk Trent Arthur - December 5, 2005 Last Friday, Trent University’s Board of Governors held its second open session meeting of the academic year to discuss building communication with the university community, expanding its graduate studies, the Macleans rankings, Freedom of Information and Trent’s branding efforts. Board to Build Transparency through the “intranet” At Friday’s meeting, Board members made a commitment to build communication with the university community through the use of the “intranet.” Intranet service, a private network using internet protocols that allows for quick sharing of information within the university, is currently available for faculty and staff and will soon be available for students. “Each year feedback from the Board Effectiveness Survey suggests that the Board does not communicate with the University community as well as you would like,” states the Board’s briefing note on the new initiative. The Board has been criticized heavily in recent years for its lack of transparent decision-making processes, particularly surrounding the controversial DNA Cluster Project, which gained Board approval last year in a session closed to public observation. Following the Board of Governor’s meeting in January, the Secretariat will use the intranet service to send out “in a timely way” a summary of decisions made by the Board to the university community. “This is a very positive thing,” stated Reid Morden, the Chair of the Board of Governors. “It increases transparency.” If Senate is agreeable, Senate decisions too will be posted via the intranet beginning in February. From 240 to 700 by 2010 Also discussed at Friday’s Board meeting was the university’s goal to increase the amount of graduate students at Trent from 242 (in 2004) to 600-700 by 2010. VP-Academic Susan Apostle Clark explained that due to the double cohort, the amount of graduate students has dropped from 5% to 2.5% of Trent’s total student population. The increase in graduate students will occur through expanding current Masters programs, such as Canadian Studies, Archeology and Watershed Development; implementing in 2007 Masters programs currently “under active development,” such as Health Studies, Material Sciences and a course-based History program; and bringing in new Masters programs in Education and Forensic Science in 2009. It is a “fairly aggressive” plan, stated Morden. President Patterson emphasized there are pools of money available in the province for buildings and resources that involve graduate study expansion. President “Not Particularly Comfortable” with Number 8 In her President’s Report, Bonnie Patterson discussed the Maclean’s university rankings, stating, “we are not particularly comfortable that we’ve slipped to number 8.” Bonnie explained that this slippage was likely due to the double cohort’s strain on Trent’s resources and that she was confident that Trent will “regain its position as we move forward in the coming years.” Trent was number 2 in 1995, number 3 in 2001 and number 6 last year. Bonnie also reminded those at the meeting that universities will be subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act within six months time. She stated it will cause “a considerable amount of work” for the university administration, and be “a significant expense item” for the budget. “On the other hand, it is law, and so we will accommodate it,” she concluded. At Friday’s meeting, the Board also made amendments to the Presidential Search Policy, increasing the number of board members on the search committee and giving the board the authority to make a decision in the event that the committee cannot. However, this was not to suggest that the search for a different President was on; everything is “sunny and fair right now,” as one Board member put it. Trent on the Subway, Radio, Internet The Board then received a presentation from Trent Communications on their recent branding efforts for Trent U, which has received “great responses” from the university community, according to Don Cumming, Senior Director of Public Relations. Cumming explained that billboard advertisements for Trent are popping up in Peterborough, Lindsay, Whitby and Oshawa; advertisements will soon be appearing on urban transit, including the North-South subway line in Toronto; promotional banners will be placed on www.studentawards.com and radio blurbs will be heard in Durham and Peterborough. Responding to a governor’s query about the cost, Cumming stated that he was “reluctant to answer that question too publicly” in order to “stay competitive” with other universities, but he indulged enough to state that Communications had received a great investment this year and he hopes for further reconsideration for more investment in future years. Students Tell Board: Concerned about Space and Traill Board of Governors’ members met earlier that Friday with members of the college cabinets, TCSA, TISA and the Graduate Student Association to discuss new and reoccurring issues of concern to students. International students highlighted the drop in university rankings to be of particular concern to them. College cabinets emphasized the lack of student space on campus, particularly at Gzowski College, where plans to create a common room have yet to materialize. Students also questioned the fate of Traill College, concerned that the Board will choose to quietly sell it off next year. In response, Morden stated that “a major preoccupation of the Board in the coming months will be what to do with Traill in the context of the Capital Plan.” The next Board of Governors open session meeting will take place January 27. Sara Swerdlyk |
