Trent’s Financial Situation And the Proposal to Close the downtown Colleges
1. The Trent administration has tried to suggest that the closure of the downtown colleges will enable the University to solve its financial problems. In fact, Trent's deficit has very little to do with the costs of the colleges; it is caused by three main contributing factors:
a. systemic government underfunding, and the failure of the administration to get a change in Trent’s enrolment corridor so that the University might receive full funding for all of the students who are enrolled;
b. declining enrolment, resulting primarily from increasing tuition fees;
c. uncontrolled growth in administrative costs.
Still, Trent’s revenue in the current year is higher than it has ever been before.
2. The Trent administration and some members of the Board of Governors like to pretend that the deficit is also linked to excessive faculty salaries and academic costs. This is not the case. The percentage of the budget allocated to full-time faculty salaries has declined over the past few years; so has the part-time faculty line in the budget. At the same time, administrative mistakes and overspending have had a damaging effect on the University’s financial situation. These include: an extremely costly voluntary early-retirement scheme for non-academic support staff; heavy legal costs in a losing court battle to try to gain control of a surplus in the pension plan; and the recent shift to a pattern of policy-making by expensive external consultants.
3. The Trent administration argues that the deficit has reached crisis proportions and holds up the spectre of the university being closed down. Certainly, nobody would dispute the need to bring the deficit under control, and this can be done through enrolment growth and cuts in administrative overspending. But even now, Trent only has to borrow money for part of the academic year. Compare this situation to that of most large corporations or almost all family budgets! In addition, the university is not able to use its investment in property to offset its operating deficit in the way in which business corporations or individuals are able to. Overall, Trent is not in the midst of some catastrophic financial mess, and fears about the university’s future are being spread so as to justify the administration’s centralist agenda.
4. The Trent administration has tried to lead the public to believe that the downtown colleges with their older buildings are a serious drain on the budget. In fact, over the years the downtown colleges have been much less costly than the newest college on the suburban campus, Otonabee College. Millions of dollars have been poured into it, and consultants now advise that the best thing to do with the residence wing is to demolish it. The new suburban construction that the administration now proposes is likely to entail more of the same pattern of expense. Meanwhile, most of the buildings in the downtown colleges are in better shape than twenty years ago. Deferred maintenance estimates for them in the Superbuild proposal were inflated with frivolous items unrelated to their ongoing function or structural integrity.
5. The Trent administration has suggested that new buildings on the suburban campus are the only way to accommodate a huge growth in student numbers expected over the next decade. In fact, Trent’s present enrolment is 15% down from its previous high in 1993-1994 (a large factor in the present deficit, as stated above). The administration’s own target figure for 2010-2011 is only 8% above the ‘93-94 level, and much of this is envisaged in the Oshawa area. If the real growth is only less than 5%, none of the massive disruption that the administration proposes is necessary at all, but in the process, much of the deficit will be eliminated. Of course, new academic facilities are required, for both the Humanities and the Sciences, but these can be developed within a much more balanced and diversified plan. As far as the Humanities are concerned, there has always been widespread agreement that these hew facilities would be better situated in downtown Peterborough, where they would be open to the community as a whole.
6. What the Trent administration has failed to factor into its proposals is the destructive impact they will have, not only culturally but economically. Trent’s enrolment is dependent on the retention of upper-year students and many of them are drawn to the complex communities that exist around the downtown colleges; they do not want to be marooned in the suburbs and many of them will not stay at Trent if the downtown option does not exist. This could do more to precipitate a financial crisis in the university than any of the factors listed in 1. Above. It is the administration’s own proposals that constitute the greatest threat to Trent’s future.
For further information please contact: Ian McLachlan, 705/748-1794,or George Nader, 705/748-1744.