Surprise! Trent University's DNA cluster building is $1.6 million over budget. Actually, nobody's surprised at all. Poor planning seems endemic to the current administration, particularly its building projects. The DNA cluster building is no exception. Plagued from the onset by a veil of secrecy and dubious pronouncements the cluster will bring innovation, prosperity and thousands of jobs, administrators have consistently been unable, or unwilling, to provide information to allow independent verification of those claims and have admitted the project was lacking a business plan. Taxpayers have forked over in excess of $10.7 million for the DNA building and now the project is in the hole an additional $1.6 million. Will administrative heads roll for that?

So, it's over budget. The deed is done. But is seems to matter little because administrators can always return to the public trough without fear of retribution for cost overruns and deficient planning. Taxpayers will simply have to foot the increased bill - again.

Let's not forget where that money comes from. The project is funded primarily by the taxpayer. From various media releases and articles we gather at least $10.7 million came from the public purse: $2 million from the City of Peterborough, $3.7 million each from the federal and provincial innovation funds and $1.3 million from the Ontario Small Town and Rural Development initiative.

In addition to that $10.7 million, other public funds have gone towards the project including $18,500 from the Investment Partnerships Branch of International Trade Canada's Community Investment Support Program (CISP), $15,000 from the Peterborough Community Futures Development Corporation (CFDC) and funds from the City of Peterborough on top of its $2 million contribution including bridge financing, waiving the requirement for any payment in cash in lieu of parkland associated with the project, and other development fee considerations.

If success is measured by the effect of glossy promotional material extolling indemonstrable benefits to generate in excess of $10.7 million from public coffers, then DNA Cluster President Denis Ferkany, together fellow DNA Cluster board member (and Trent President) Bonnie Patterson certainly have much to boast of. But promises of prosperity and sleek media campaigns do not a success make.

It is alarmingly consistent that Trent's Board of Governors knew the project was experiencing a $1 million overrun back in March 2006. It looks like the board agreed to cover the $1 million shortfall in, or just prior to, their April board meeting. The board has withheld this information from the public for some seven months. Even today there is no mention of acknowledging or approving a cost overrun in the published minutes of the April 28, 2006 board meeting. Since then the project's cost overruns went up (again) and in their October 13 meeting the board is reported to have approved yet another increase, this time $335,677.

In spite of what appears to be purposeful silence on the part of Trent's board and the administrators it supervises, details about governance and financial management of the university eventually trickle out.

And where has DNA Cluster President Denis Ferkany been while these cost overruns have been percolating? Perhaps relaxing on the shores of Little Bald Lake at his Oak Shores Marina?

So, instead of $15 million the building is costing $16.6 million.

Trent is a publicly funded university so the taxpayer is on the hook for the bulk of the remaining $5.9 million not covered by $10.7 million in grants. Of that, $1.6 million (27%) was not planned.

In an era of the corporatization of the university it seems odd indeed that university administrators are left to their own devices without apparent governance oversight. Rather than being held accountable for actions that would, in the corporate world, provide justification for dismissal, university administrators enjoy the protection of the board deflecting responsibility elsewhere and who acquiesce to requests for retroactive approvals.

The Ministry of Natural Resources, who rent space in the new building, has long been flaunted as a "partner" in the cluster. It seems unreasonable, therefore, to suggest MNR's requirements were unexpected and bear responsibility for driving cost increases. Nor the monorail for transporting animal carcasses - something one might find in any modern abattoir. Neither does it seem creditable to suggest government granting agencies structure their funding requirements in a manner that forces recipients to complete building projects in "record time". The level-3 biocontainment facilities were specified in the CFI grant proposal.

Oh - you didn't know the DNA Cluster was to house a level-3 biocontainment facility? And what is that anyway?

Strict standards for biocontainment facilities are set out by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). There are 4 levels of biocontainment facilities with level-4 being the highest and capable of handling the most contagious and dangerous pathogens. Apparently there are only two level-4 laboratories in Canada.

All level-3 biocontainment facilities must meet the same basic standards set out by CFIA in the CFIA publication Containment Standards for Veterinary Facilities:

This document outlines the minimum design, physical and operational requirements for Canadian laboratories and animal facilities that import and work with animal or zoonotic pathogens (including most pathogens of foodborne diseases). Laboratories who apply to import animal or zoonotic pathogens must demonstrate that they meet these requirements before the BCS Unit can issue an import permit.

If dealing with zoonotic pathogens (ones that can move from animals to humans) or human pathogens level-3 certified facilities must also meet Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) standards as set out in the PHAC Office of Laboratory Security publication Laboratory Biosafety Guidelines 3rd Edition - 2004.

Examples of zoonotic pathogens include Avian Influenza, West Nile Virus and Rabies. Some pathogens require laboratories adhere to additional requirements.

Trent finance and property committee chairman Fred Sherratt recently told the Examiner the lab in the DNA building is equipped to handle both West Nile Virus and Rabies, among other pathogens.

CFIA will not release any information about the number and location of level-3 laboratories in Canada other than to say there are 41 level-3 laboratories in the CFIA database that are currently certified to import strict animal and/or zoonotic pathogens.

One of the reasons CFIA gave for not divulging the location of level-3 laboratories was the risk of the facilities becoming targets of terrorist attack. Well, it sure ain't no secret that a level-3 laboratory is located at Trent University!

Trent's level-3 biocontainment facility is located adjacent to student residences, classrooms, and other areas where hundreds of people congregate daily. The facility is located beside the Otonabee River and is up stream from the source of Peterborough's drinking water. The Otonabee eventually flows into Lake Ontario.

If these types of facilities represent potential targets for terrorists, are their inherent dangers magnified when considering a location such as Trent's?

There appears to have been no public consultation with regard to locating a level-3 biocontainment facility in such a sensitive location.

So, the next time Trent increases tuition, or the next time Ontario universities cry poor and ask the government to hurl more money their way, or the next time you are asked to donate, there may be cause to reflect and first demand better governance and accountability be demonstrated.

References:

• Cost overruns at DNA cluster
  Peterborough Examiner - October 14, 2006, page B1
• Biocontainment Laboratory Regulations - Government Documents
• Trent provides a couple of DNA Cluster documents
  OurTrent article - December 3, 2004