Letter in the Peterborough Examiner, 21 January 2000:
Colleges Not the Problem
As head of Peter Robinson College, one of the downtown colleges slated for closure in Trent's SuperBuild application, I would like to state some of my fundamental concerns and respond to some recent letters to the editor from faculty and previous board members.
Once downtown colleges are closed, Trent's downtown presence is gone forever. This will mean a loss of: accessibility for the mature students in the Peterborough community; quality of life in the city; economic benefits for the business community; the special educational value to Trent students of a college located in the community; and the economic benefits of locating the proposed $8 million First Peoples House of Learning and Humanities Centre at Peter Robinson College.
Trent's survival is not at all dependent on closing colleges: the real deficit is no more than half of the publicly-stated $9 million; colleges are self-financing and have not contributed to the deficit; enrolment decline of more than 11% since 1993 (equivalent to over $2 million in lost annual revenue) accounts for at least three-quarters of the deficit and enrolment recovery will eliminate the deficit; and no one has explained how SuperBuild, which does not fund maintenance or operating costs, will reduce the deficit.
The relocation of colleges to the Symons campus is not a responsible use of funds. The transfer could result in a net loss of about $20 million (to be added to the Trent deficit): 1) the net return from the sale of all downtown buildings may be only about $2 million; 2) the cost of replacing downtown academic space will be about $8 million; and 3) the cost of replacing downtown residence space (330 beds, 30% of all residence beds) may be as high as $15 million. Although the capital plan hopes for privately developed residences integrated into colleges (unprecedented in Canada), these 330 beds will likely be lost unless Trent pays for their replacement.
The probable loss of downtown beds is a very serious financial risk. Enrolment recovery and growth will depend critically on the availability of beds; about 85% of first-year students want to be in residence and many will not come without residence. This year, we had a waiting list for residence. To recover our enrolment and to grow further, in response to the double cohort and increased demand, we must add to, not reduce, the number of our beds.
Why close the colleges which have the least costly buildings? In terms of the "per unit" cost of deferred maintenance, the downtown colleges have an overwhelming advantage: on the Symons campus, per bed costs are twice as high ($14,100 against $7,100) and per square foot costs are twice as high for residences ($40 against $20) and substantially higher for all uses ($40 against $28).
In the short time permitted, the proposal to close the downtown colleges was considered and rejected by several university bodies: the senate (Trent's foremost and final authority on academic matters), the site development and space utilization committee, the humanities and social science chairs, and the Trent Central Student Association and elected representatives from each of the five residential colleges. Since then, the committee on colleges has supported the senate resolution and the Canadian Association of University Teachers has condemned the board for ignoring the proper role and authority of senate on this matter.
I believe that it is still possible to develop a sound proposal which respects the senate resolution, meets the needs of the university, is a more responsible use of public funds and builds on the positive benefits of locating colleges in the heart of our community.
George Nader
Peter Robinson College