Trent University Development Corporation Plan Still Alive
Don't 
be fooled! Trent's plan to create the Trent University Development Corporation to manage its endowment lands is still very much alive. Trent administrators wrote the final report prior to the end of period during which public comments on the draft version were officially being accepted. No public discussion of the draft was permitted. The first three parts of the four part Endowment Lands Master Plan were approved on January 27. But the board was silent on the fourth part, which recommends creating a separate corporation to oversee using lands to generate revenue. The new corporation would circumvent traditional bicameral management of lands and would likely be exempt from Freedom of Information legislation. Trent's president might find herself in a conflict of interest as she would also be the corporation's CEO. Until such time as Trent definitively kills it, the concept of a separate corporation to manage its lands must be considered alive and well and in the hands of the administration.
The process of developing Trent's Endowment Lands Master Plan is illustrative of the lack of transparency and accountability that continues to plague Trent's present administration, and burdens the future of the university. This includes spin-doctoring to try to convince the public that the process was transparent when, demonstrably, it was not.
There must be full disclosure and a REAL process of public consultation before approval is given to implementation strategies to manage Trent's lands.
Two well respected Trent professors authored a letter expressing concern over the absence of consultation. This letter was circulated by email to members of the Trent community. In it they cited a number of concerns and ended with a plea for a meaningful consultative process:
Trent justifiably prides itself on the beauty of its campus and its environmental sensitivity. Yet it is embarking on a program of incremental exploitation of its invaluable land holdings and destruction of its natural environment for short term profit. This is being done quietly and with virtually no consultation with the academic or Peterborough communities. It would be tragic indeed if the lasting legacy of the present administration is the cavalier dissipation of the precious lands around the Symons Campus.
Our plea is that meaningful dialogue take place among the academic community before irreparable damage is done. Concerns of faculty, students, staff and the community must be taken into account before decisions are made, not after. We need to ensure sensitive stewardship of the lands for the future, not their “development” for profit.
The Trent administration, in its wisdom, has completely ignored this plea. Indeed they seem to belittle and demean those raise such concerns.
"No matter how much consultation you do, it never seems to be quite enough," Trent president Bonnie Patterson told the Arthur.
But what if you conduct essentially no consultation whatsoever, only just enough to squeak by and say you did "something", as opposed to absolutely "nothing"? Would that be bordering on deception?
By way of example, Trent's media release on January 27, 2006 said the plan was finalized following "an extensive consultation process." But one is hard pressed to find evidence supporting such a declaration. Indeed the opposite appears to be the case.
An analysis of available evidence demonstrates Trent's use of the phrase "extensive consultation process" is little more than deceptive media manipulation and spin-doctoring. It just ain't true.
Let's examine some demonstrable facts that may be independently verified by other parties (and, as usual, we invite the Trent administration to submit any pertinent, and similarly independently verifiable, facts that may have escaped our notice).
According to Part 1 of the draft plan there were two "open houses" and two meetings with student leaders in advance of producing the 4-part draft plan. The open houses appear to have been sparsely attended.
The first open house was held on June 22, 2005 and the second on October 13, 2005. On the same day as the second open house the Trent Endowment Lands website was updated with an announcement including links to copies of the large display panels in JPEG format. The images are roughly 12x17 inches. These are awkward to read on a computer screen and lose legibility when printed on the typical consumer printer using standard letter paper. Most people don't have printers that can handle 12x17 inch paper. But at least the material was available to those with persistence.
OK. There were indeed some opportunities to view the draft plan before it was committed to paper. But were these opportunities designed to maximize public exposure to the plan and create an informed public? A reasonable person might not think so. Perhaps a more useful and demonstrative effort to inform and include would have been to hold several showings over a number of contiguous days. Over a period of several weeks displays could have been set up in the library and other well used and well travelled, yet secure, public spaces across the main campus. Similar displays could have been set up at City Hall and the public library, and either location could have hosted open houses.
Given the importance of these lands to the Trent community, as well as the historical and vested interest in the well being of these lands to the broader Peterborough community, Trent's efforts to inform the public and gather public feedback were weak and insufficient. We doubt Trent's efforts would pass any reasonable person's test that "an extensive consultation process" took place. Arguably the only thing these marginal efforts accomplished was to allow Trent administrators to lay exaggerated claim to having successfully engaged and informed the public.
The October 13 announcement requested feedback be received by October 26, 2006. It also included this illuminating tidbit:
Following today's Open House, the consultant team will integrate your feedback into the Draft Master Plan. This Draft Master Plan will be formally submitted at the beginning of November and following feedback from the University, the final Master Plan will be submitted in early December.
The pronouncement is rather interesting for two reasons.
The first reason is the short time for feedback to be integrated into the draft report. Feedback was to be received by October 26 and the draft report was to be presented to the board at the beginning of November. So, the "consultative process" allowed 13 days for individuals to prepare and deliver their feedback based upon available material. Following that, the process allowed less than one week for Trent
The second reason this statement is interesting is that no time whatsoever was scheduled for public comment/feedback on the draft report to be considered and publicly discussed. Rather, a mere month after the scheduled release of the draft, the "final Master Plan" would be submitted to the board, a fait accompli, if you will, devoid of any opportunity for any meaningful form of public discussion or input into the final plan. The public was simply not going to have any real opportunity to influence the outcome of this process.
The tight timelines to produce the draft proved difficult for Trent's official "consultant team" to meet. Serendipitously, this provided a bit more time for the public to garnish a little more information.
As we understand it, the draft plan was published on the Trent website on or about December 5 or 6. The 4-part draft plan was presented in four large pdf documents (very slow to download). The cover page of Part 1 indicates it was written November 2005. Perhaps the board did receive its copies sometime in November. But maybe not. The properties of the pdf files themselves indicate some were created on November 26 and some December 6, but all were modified December 6 (summary below).
With the publication of the plan on or about December 5 or 6, the Trent Endowment Lands website announced the new deadline of January 6, 2006 for the public to submit written comment. But many interested parties may well have been precluded from participation for a number reasons that could not have been anything other than glaringly obvious to the Trent administrators overseeing the process.
Classes ended December 9, 2005, the exam period spanned December 10 through December 22, Trent closed down December 24 through January 6, 2006, residences reopened on January 6, 2006 and classes resumed January 9, 2006. Given the end of classes, the exam period, Christmas and New Years and the annual 2-week winter shutdown, the time period Trent administrators allowed for public feedback on the draft plan is just too darned curious to ignore. One might even think the timing was transparent (pun intended).
So, sure, the public had a month to read and respond to the draft report. But it was a month when students, faculty and staff were preoccupied and focused on term papers and exams, not to mention that Trent was shut down for two weeks. On top of that many people within the Trent and broader communities would reasonably be expected to be intensely focused on family, some vacation time, and the festivities of the season.
Trent administrators eventually allowed an extension of the deadline by two weeks to Friday January 20, 2006. It has been reported that this was done in response to complaints and concerns raised by members of the academic community. An Arthur article published after the initial January 6, 2006 deadline, on January 16, 2006, entitled A Piggy Bank for the Raiding? included the following notification;
Trent administration will continue to accept comments from the public until Friday, January 20, 2006.
That article included a detailed letter, very much worth reading, from past Trent board of governors member Derrick McIntosh (see OurTrent article Of Poor Governance, Suburban Isolation And Snake Oil). Mr. McIntosh was able to submit his letter on January 6, from overseas no less.
But hang on just a second. Another curious dynamic was also at play here.
The board of governors was scheduled to discuss the Endowment Lands Master Plan in their meeting of January 27, 2006. That left the administration and consultant team six days to integrate public feedback into the final master plan, print the material and distribute it to board members in various cities.
Oh yes, in order to conscientiously fulfill their responsibilities board members would be expected to read the plan, once they received it, prior to forming an opinion and casting their informed votes. And don't forget that two of those days fell on a weekend.
Exceedingly tight timelines indeed. Perhaps even impossible timelines.
The board did meet on January 27, 2006 and, according to Trent's media release of the same day, approved the first three parts of the plan, now referred to as the final Endowment Lands Master Plan. The board did not kill Part 4 of the plan, nor did it kill the concept of creating the Trent University Development Corporation. Rather, Part 4 appears alive and well and in the hands of the administration. It seems only to have been removed from public view. A not uncommon tactic.
It is patently clear that the board had little time, if any, to read the final version of the plan.
The process instituted by the administration was designed to assure a single outcome - board approval of a plan as designed by the administration. The process demonstrated absolutely no intent to subject the draft plan to public discussion in any meaningful fashion. Certainly the timelines precluded incorporating feedback from the public.
The properties of the pdf documents of the approved Plan (Parts 1-3) as made available on the Trent website the same day as the board meeting confirm these suspicions. The documents were created on January 17, 2006 and modified the next day. In either case this is BEFORE the deadline for public feedback!
The Trent webpage listed these documents broken down into several smaller files. Those files were all created and modified on January 24, 2006 save for one which was created on January 17, 2006. The files themselves were posted to Trent's Endowment Lands website on the morning of January 26, 2005 (see also the directory listing from the Trent server). That's a full day before the board was to "discuss" the plan.
The evidence completely contradicts, and renders unsupportable, Trent's assertion that the "finalization of the Endowment Lands Master Plan report followed an extensive consultation process". There were no opportunities for an extensive consultation process, let alone meaningful discussion of the draft plan, before it was "finalized".
The final report was written before the conclusion of the time period during which comments would be accepted, indicating no intention whatsoever to consider integrating those comments into the report. The timelines were so tight that it is doubtful that board members had an opportunity to read the final plan prior to the board meeting, if indeed they had the report in hand before the meeting. Trent had the material ready on the web one day before the board was to vote on the matter.
And finally, using Adobe Acrobat's "compare documents" feature one can conduct a cursory analysis of the differences between the draft and final versions of Parts 1, 2, and 3 of the plan. This comparison reveals little difference between the two. The final version differs from the draft in that references to Part 4 of the plan have been stripped out, some images appear enhanced and slightly altered, the date on the cover has been changed to January 2006 and the word "draft" has been removed. Check it out yourself. (An exhaustive analysis of the differences between the draft plan and the final plan is needed. OurTrent would welcome your submission.)
When considering the board's responsibility for oversight in light of what the Trent administration appears to be doing quietly, and with virtually no consultation with the academic or Peterborough communities, might not a reasonable person be forgiven if the phrase "rubber stamp" springs to mind?
Would a reasonable person not question whether or not Trent's board is truly a governance board or one that suffers from the problems identified in Lionel Lewis' When Power Corrupts: Academic Governing Boards In the Shadow of the Adelphi Case? A review of Lewis' book reveals disturbing parallels with current day Trent:
Lewis makes it clear that unbiased, relevant information is essential if a board wishes to properly discharge its core function of monitoring the administration. But, like other boards, the Adelphi trustees received nearly all information from or through the administrators they had hired. In that setting (and, perhaps, inevitably), information going to the board was limited, filtered, and possibly self-serving. As the relationship between the faculty and the administration deteriorated, the board narrowed its information sources so that, in time, all direct contact between faculty and board ceased; eventually, all communiqués from faculty to the board had to go through the administration. One would expect that an administration under stress and bent on preserving its own power would naturally try to limit the information that reaches its board. Lewis's account confirms the hypothesis.
Lewis tells us that the Adelphi board "failed because of the institution of lay governing boards," and there are points where he seems to call for a different-but unspecified-institutional alternative both to shared governance and to university governing boards. The real value in his account, however, is in its detailed anatomy of failed institutional leadership.
Trent needs to become open, transparent and accountable. It is not any of those things now. Pontifications by administrators that Trent is open and transparent does not make it so.
Creating the Trent University Development Corporation to govern and manage the endowment lands is a means to perpetuate opacity and avoid accountability. The idea to create that corporation was included in Part 4 of the draft plan. That part has not been rejected by the board, nor did the board reject the concept. Rather, that part of the plan has simply vanished from public view and site, presumably, with the administration.
In the absence of specifically killing Part 4 and the recommendation to create the Trent University Development Corporation, the public must not be lulled into complacency or into thinking the matter has died on the table.
OurTrent supports full disclosure and meaningful and substantive public and community input into the ongoing management of Trent's lands.
References:
- Trent has endowment land plan
Peterborough Examiner - January 28, 2006
- Endowment Lands Master Plan Approved by Board
Trent News Release - January 27, 2006 - Endowment Lands Master Plan Approved
Arthur - January 30, 2006 - Open Letter on the “Endowment Lands Master Plan” and its implementation
Widely circulated within the Trent community by email in November 2005 - Display Panels From October 13, 2005 Open House for Trent University Endowment Lands Master Plan
Trent Endowment Lands Website - October 13, 2005 - Endowment Lands Master Plan - Document Properties
- Comparison of Draft and Final version of the Endowment Lands Master Plan
- When Power Corrupts: Is Trent another Adelphi in the making?
| Trent has endowment land plan Peterborough Examiner - January 28, 2006 page B3 By Katie Rook- Examiner Staff Writer Trent The plan outlines guiding principles for future development of areas surrounding the campus on all sides, which until now have not been used. The approval comes more than one year after the board began working on a plan defining nature lands, green corridors, buffers and the core campus. Trent president Bonnie Patterson said the plan is a positive step forward for both the university and the community providing a framework for the board to consider future development proposals. But, she said, this does not necessarily mean development projects would begin in the immediate future. "We do need guidelines to respond to the external community," Patterson said. She said she was pleased that during the consultation process the ecological relationship between different parts of campus had been outlined. Trent has increased its overall green space holding, she said. The development of Trent's water rights at locks 22 and 23 and the creation of a city-run sports fields on the south side of Pioneer Road were previously established, but were discussed at yesterday's meeting because they occur on the endowment lands, said Don O'Leary, administration vice-president. Two student representatives on the board voted against the plan Representative Tyler Roach, who studies politics, said he thought it was OK the plan had been passed. Though Roach, 23, said he would have preferred there be more opportunities for students to consider the plan, he was encouraged by the meeting. Nothing is rock solid and there has been an informal commitment for better communication, he said. "There is a bit of apathy, we tried to get students to come out,” Roach said. A Friday morning meeting, however, is a challenge for some, he added. A version of the plan, similar to that accepted yesterday, has been available online since June, O'Leary said. The plan is a guiding document, he said. Responding to suggestions made that the board was interested in developing the endowment lands for profit, O'Leary said this was not the case. "We're not a development company," he said. As development proposals come forward, students, faculty and the community will have opportunity to contribute and give feedback, he said. After a presentation to the board in which he opposed the use of university land for profit, professor emeritus Don Mackay said he was encouraged the board was interested in opening the lines of communication. "There is a desperate need for communication," he said. Students need to he moe informed about the development of a beautiful campus full of nature walks and a fertile research environment, he said. Professors Roger Jones and John Wadland also presented to the board. Jones suggested the relocation of both a hydro project and the sports field. As a wetland, the area may attract high mosquito populations, he said. Wadland called for an open house and improved communication between the board, staff, faculty and students. "Conversations are great things ecause they mean you have to listen as well as talk. But, there has to be a spirit of respect," Wadland said. Pictured above: Professor Roger Jones makes a presentation to the Trent University board of governors as they discuss, a master plan for their 1,460 acres of endowment lands yesterday in the A.J.M. Smith Room in the lower level of the Bata Library. |
University's board of governors approved a master plan yesterday for its 1,460-acre endowment lands.| Endowment Lands Master Plan Approved Arthur - January 30, 2006 By Sara Swerdlyk & Julia Caron At their open session meeting on Friday, Trent University’s Board of Governors (BoG) approved the Endowment Lands Master Plan, with all Governors in favour, except for two abstentions and the two Student Governors, Tyler Roach and Catherine Louise Dickenson. The Plan was created to “guide the future development of Trent’s Endowment Lands,” according to its website. VP-Administration, Don O’Leary, explained that the Plan will act as a guidepost for the Board and Administration in identifying the best opportunities to develop the Endowment lands. “ The Plan is a culmination of a lot of time, consideration and extensive consultation with the Trent community,” O’Leary stated at the meeting. “We think it’s a very fair and reasonable plan” One Board member, as a former Chair of the Nature Areas Committee, said he was quite pleased with the Plan; “now we have a document here which lays out what the Nature Areas are, what their relationship is with the Endowment Lands and university land.” Prior to the vote, Professors Roger Jones, John Wadland, and Donald Mackay gave presentations cautioning the Board against such swift approval. Giving a detailed presentation complete with maps and posters, Professor Jones, who has been at Trent since 1967, stated the consultation period with the community had been very short, taking place during exam time and Christmas. Professor Donald Mackay shared his displeasure with the BoG’s intent to use Trent land for profit-making; “Exploiting the lands for income generation was not the intent of the founders of Trent and it is only with a fairly recent change in Board policy that this mentality has been adopted,” he said. “This radical policy change is one that I find regrettable and it has been made by the present Board with essentially no input from students, faculty, staff or alumni.” Mackay further argued that not enough communication took place with the Trent community. “Not to be Spyro Agnew, dropping bombs of negativity, but really this discussion should have occurred in a spirit of conversation and respect,” he told the Board. The BoG’s lack of transparency, he said, has caused “students and staff down at Traill [to be] paranoid about the College being sold off quietly without their consultation. The Board is too secretive and exclusive about their decision-making.” Supporting Jones’ and Mackay’s points, Professor John Wadland further shared his reservations with the creation of a “Trent University Development Corporation,” a controversial element of the draft Plan that could have stifled dissent regarding future plans for the lands - and is now no longer part of the approved Plan. He also urged the Board to hold an open and public meeting to assess the final document before approval, saying there was “all kinds of hope in us talking more together.” Board members replied they were puzzled by the Professors’ fear over the commercialization of the lands, stating if one wants to be able to provide for the university community, a certain level of commercialization is needed. O’Leary insisted that adequate and “extensive consultation” had been occurring with those who would be directly affected by the decision made by the Board in regards to the Endowment Lands. The finalization of the Plan followed a consultation process, including meetings with students, stakeholder interviews and open houses. Additionally, the Draft Report was available for viewing and giving feedback on the Internet. “In April of last year we tried to give folks a chance to give their input, but we were disappointed by the lack of participation,” he responded. However, one meeting did yield about 40-50 students who expressed interest in learning about what development of the Endowment Lands could mean for them. “The intent was always to be as open as we could be,” he said Student Governor, Tyler Roach, explained he voted down the plan because he did not like that Trent community members felt excluded from the process. “If we want to have a cohesive university, we cannot go ahead with plans that leave so many feeling alienated.” Enrolment Highest Ever as Searches Begin for New Dean, College Heads and Librarian Also discussed at Friday’s Board meeting was the current state of Trent’s student enrolment. In the Registrar’s report, it was shared that Trent currently has 7942 students, which is the highest level Trent has ever had. This number comprises 80% of full-time students. Graduate student enrolment was stated to be sitting at 254, with the plan to double this by 2010 emphasized. In her President’s report, Bonnie Patterson stated the committee to advise on a possible split between the Dean of Arts and Science has decided to keep the Dean position as a single role, and that the Faculty of Arts and Science should remain as one. In light of this decision, the workload of the Dean will be lightened prior to the search for a new Dean, by redefining the responsibilities of the Associate Deans and the VP-Academic. Bonnie shared the University is searching for three new College Heads, for Otonabee College, Gzowski College and Lady Eaton College, as well as a new Head Librarian. One Board member questioned the anachronistic title of “Head Librarian,” explaining how many universities now use the term “Chief Information Officer.” Bonnie responded by stating that this is a Trent tradition she doesn’t see a need to change. |
| Open Letter on the “Endowment Lands Master Plan” and its implementation Widely circulated within the Trent community by email in November 2005 Authored by two Trent Professors Dear Colleagues, We are writing this open letter to express views on the “Endowment Lands Master Plan” and its implementation. My aim is to provoke more discussion of this and related issues. To this end the letter is directed to the administration and to selected colleagues on the faculty. Background Plans for Development We are disturbed by the above statement because first, it is not true, and second it suggests that the consultants have been directed to design their Master Plan primarily to provide revenues. A small group of enthusiasts developed the Nature Areas Stewardship Plan and have sought repeatedly to have it approved by the Board of Governors. This has been consistently resisted by the administration because, as detailed later, approval of the Stewardship Plan would constrain actions to exploit Trent’s lands as a source of revenue.. This focus on using the lands outside the core campus (however designated) for revenue generation as distinct from the original intent is characteristic of a change in policy as expressed in recent pronouncements and actions. For example, the Chair of the Board of Governors Reid Morden is quoted in the Peterborough Examiner of June 17, 2005 as stating “We’re land rich and cash poor. People gave us these endowment lands so they would help the university. Now we’re starting to see what we can do”. In reality the lands were not given: they were purchased or expropriated with great difficulty and foresight by the founders, notably Tom Symons. Hydro-electric development Low income housing on Water Street Playing Fields on Pioneer Road Total Loss Farm Nature Area Traill College Student services “A village... will be planned and stocked to serve the needs of staff and students primarily. It should contain such things as banks, clothing shops. book stores, restaurants, cleaners, barbers photographic suppliers, etc as well as a theatre, museum and gallery. It should provide a natural attraction for the City of Peterborough as well and in the process become a meeting place of town and gown." Regrettably, the Plan makes only a passing reference on page 8b to such facilities and to this far-sighted vision of Trent’s future.. University Funding A final personal perspective Our plea is that meaningful dialogue take place among the academic community before irreparable damage is done. Concerns of faculty, students, staff and the community must be taken into account before decisions are made, not after. We need to ensure sensitive stewardship of the lands for the future, not their “development” for profit. Don Mackay Editor's note: We have linked the text to the relevant documents referred to in the letter (mostly panels from the October 13, 2006 open house). Any erros in transcribing or formatting the letter are ours. |
| Display Panels From
October 13, 2005 Open House for Trent University Endowment Lands Master Plan Trent Endowment Lands Website - October 13, 2005 These are the panels referenced on Trent's Endowment Lands webstie on October 13, 2005. The panels were presented at the open house of the same date. We have preserved copies here as they are not currently linked in any document on Trent's site.
|
| Endowment Lands Master Plan - Document Properties All four parts of the original version of the draft Endowment Lands Master Plan and all three parts of the final version of the plan are available here at OurTrent (as published on Trent's Endowment Lands website December 5, 2005 and January 26, 2006 respectively).
[1] Size rounded to nearest MB. |
| Comparison of Draft and Final version of the Endowment Lands Master Plan Adobe Acrobat's "compare documents" feature can be used to conduct a cursory analysis of the differences between the draft and final versions of Parts 1, 2, and 3 of the plan. In so doing the result is a pdf document showing each page of the draft and final version side-by-side. Differences are highlighted (but this also appears to catch minor differences like a slight shift in position of the same text or image). However, by scanning each comparison document one can get a reasonably accurate idea of the changes. As indicated above, the final version differs from the draft in that it is absent references to Part 4 of the plan, some images appear enhanced and slightly altered, the date on the cover has been changed to January 2006 and the word "draft" has been removed. Check out for yourself the differences between the draft and final version of; |
