23 November 1999

Dianne Cunningham

Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities

900 Bay Street, 9^th Floor, Mowat Block

Toronto, ON M7A 1L2

Dear Minister Cunningham,

Re: Trent University’s SuperBuild Application

On Alternative Dispositions of Trent University’s Flawed SuperBuild Application

We bring to your attention some fundamental legal, procedural and financial concerns with respect to Trent University’s SuperBuild application, which does not have the support of the university’s Senate to use SuperBuild funds to close and relocate the university’s town colleges to the university’s Symons (suburban) campus. We would like to explain what is wrong with the application and why, lacking the support of Senate and opposed from many quarters, it should not be imposed on the university. For clarity, we would like to emphasize that we support, as does Senate, a SuperBuild application from Trent; it is only the contentious issue of forced physical centralization and site consolidation (closure of the town colleges) which accounts for the concerns expressed in this letter.

We request that you consider one of the following actions in reviewing the university’s application:

that the University be asked to re-submit an application which respects Senate’s resolutions;
that, in your approval, you dissociate the funds approved from the plans for physical consolidation on a single site at Trent (which contravenes the Senate’s resolutions); or
that, in your approval, you explicitly require the University to respect the Senate resolutions.

Please note that Trent University’s SuperBuild application, as submitted, is severely, perhaps fatally, flawed by the following (see attachments for documentation):

it does not have the support of Senate and contravenes Senate’s explicit instructions regarding Trent’s SuperBuild application;
it does not have the support of Senate’s Site Development and Space Utilization Committee, whose report was not brought to Senate;
it has the undesirable and unwarranted effect of sweeping aside a decade of academic, site development, and capital planning at Trent University, as approved through due process, up to and including Senate and the Board of Governors;
it is opposed by all the student governance bodies of the university;
it has created sharp divisions among the faculty of the university, and contravenes the unanimous resolution of the chairs of humanities and social science departments at the university (while supported by science department chairs);
it has caused alarm and opposition among the alumni and donors of the university;
it has caused alarm and opposition among the founders of the university;
it has caused alarm and opposition among the merchants of the city of Peterborough.

On the Trent Senate Resolution

On November 9, 1999, after more than 3 hours of debate in which the President participated and voted, Trent’s Senate adopted two resolutions. The President, Bonnie Patterson, in her recommendation to Trent’s Board of Governors three days later, on November 12, 1999, chose to ignore the first of these two resolutions:

1. WHEREAS the college system, including the two downtown colleges, forms an integral part of Trent’s educational policy which falls under the jurisdiction of Senate as defined in the Trent Act;

BE IT RESOLVED that Senate supports an application to the SuperBuild Program, but under no circumstances can such an application be based on either a change of location or a net reduction of facilities at any downtown or Symons Campus college. (Moved by John Milloy, seconded by Kevin Logan.) Approved with 28 in favour, 16 opposed, 1 abstention

2. THAT Senate endorse enrolment growth at Trent University, as outlined in the report of the Task Force on the SuperBuild Growth Fund (25 October 1999) and referenced in the President’s November 9, 1999 presentation to Senate, in order to respond to increased demand for admission resulting from the double cohort and demographic growth in the 18-24 age group. (Moved by Bonnie Patterson, seconded by Paul Healy.) Approved unanimously.

In Resolution #1, Senate has explicitly asserted its jurisdiction over the college system, which has always been a central academic element within the university (see Press Release, 25 January 1964). The Trent University Act expressly describes the shared responsibilities between the Senate and the Board, according to which the Senate determines educational policy and the Board is responsible for finances and facilities. While the exact jurisdictional divisions between the Senate and the Board may now become a matter of legal dispute under the circumstances brought about by the actions of the President and the Board, the turbulence caused by the unresolved conflict is itself damaging to the university and its development prospects.

The fact is that it is unprecedented in Trent’s 35-year history for a president to recommend to the Board a proposal which does not respect the educational policy of Senate and for the Board to adopt a policy which it knew to be in conflict with Senate’s educational policy. The explicit failure of the president and the Board to respect Senate’s resolution or to find some viable resolution of a difference of views between Senate and the Board has caused alarming legal and political divisions within the community, which may put at considerable risk the university’s ability to implement the current SuperBuild application, if approved.

On the History of Trent’s Planning for Academic and Site Development

We would like to describe briefly the historical and political context of the current application. The downtown colleges were always intended to be a permanent part of Trent (see Press Release, 25 January 1964) and the construction of a downtown building (now the First Peoples House of Learning and Humanities Centre) has become the University’s highest priority over the current decade.

In 1987, after extensive discussion and consultation with the university community, the Senate and the Board adopted a "Plan for the Future: A Building Plan for Trent University". The Plan sought to achieve a rebalancing of teaching/academic facilities between the Symons and downtown campuses by constructing a major building at one of the downtown colleges; in priority terms, this building was second only to the now-built Environmental Sciences Building (see attached excerpt).

In 1993 and 1994, in its submissions to the Ministry of Education and Training, the University identified the downtown colleges as the top priority in terms of major capital requests. In 1994, the following was stated on behalf of the university by its Director of Physical Resources:

We are pleased to submit an update of our Major Capital requests for your consideration. As you are aware, Trent University established a capital plan for space utilization in the mid 1980's, intended to serve the university into the next millennium. We have successfully completed the Symons Campus (formerly Nassau Campus) portion of the plan, which involved major new construction and significant relocation of academic and administrative departments throughout the university. We now look forward to addressing the remaining elements of the plan, which will involve the construction of new teaching and academic support space at our downtown colleges, as well as addressing the significant deferred maintenance liability that has accrued to date in our physical plant.

In 1998, at the end of several years of discussion regarding the current fundraising campaign, Beyond Our Walls, the plan for a downtown building was once again endorsed by all the official governance bodies: the University’s Campaign Planning Priorities Committee, Senate, and the Board of Governors each approved the proposed First Peoples House of Learning and Humanities Centre, downtown at Peter Robinson College, as the only new building proposal.

All of this planning was set aside in late summer 1999 with the establishment by the president of a task force, composed of 8 administrators, 1 faculty member and 2 students, with a very narrow mandate. The Task Force did not report until 25 October during the university’s reading break. The report was then reviewed by Senate’s Site Development and Space Utilization Committee (SDSUC) whose voting members unanimously rejected both the process and the substantive recommendation to close the town colleges. The SDSUC report was unanimously endorsed by the chairs (caucus) of the Humanities and Social Sciences.

On Trent’s SuperBuild "Business Case"

Trent’s SuperBuild proposal is built around an unwarranted and abrupt reversal of both the founding concept of the university (as an enterprise gifted with a unique physical configuration including both an urban presence and a suburban site) and also the recently planned and approved renewal of Trent’s downtown site through new construction. Such a sudden reversal, in its impact on the credibility and legitimacy of the entire process of planning and development, stands out as the height of administrative inefficiency. With specific reference to the unexpected proposal to close the downtown colleges and to transfer the "deleted" academic space to the suburban Symons campus, in addition to the concerns outlined above, we also have serious concerns specifically about the university’s "business case for funding".

Firstly, we have received no response with respect to our expressed concerns about the substantial net cost of transferring downtown academic space to the Symons campus. The bulk of the "deleted" space in the Criterion 1 table of the university’s application is downtown academic space. Based on the data in the Task Force report to the president, dated 25 October 1999, the cost of replacing downtown academic space will be about $8 million. After discharging related mortgages, the sale of all downtown buildings (including the buildings which house about 330 residence beds) may yield between $2 million and $3 million (based on the Report’s market value estimates), leaving the university with a substantial net liability (loss) of between $5 million and $6 million for replacement space on the Symons campus.

Secondly, based on the data in the Task Force Report and in the 1999-2000 budget, deferred maintenance costs of the downtown colleges are, in business terms, moderate. As illustrated in the attached Table 1, the total per-square-foot cost of deferred maintenance is substantially less for the downtown colleges ($28) than for the suburban Symons colleges ($40). For the operating budget, the per-square-foot cost of deferred maintenance is less at the downtown colleges, with the notable exception of the suburban Otonabee College where $4.6 million have been spent on renovations in the last three years. For the ancillary (residence) budget, the deferred maintenance problem of the downtown colleges is significantly smaller than that of the Symons colleges: in per-square-foot terms (Table 1) the deferred maintenance cost at the downtown colleges is $20 compared to $40 at the Symons colleges; and in per-bed terms (Table 2) the deferred maintenance cost is $7,119 for the downtown colleges compared to $14,086 for the Symons colleges. Moreover, considering both the double cohort and the university’s commitment to long-term growth (and, indeed, our very ability to achieve the Ministry’s goals), it appears fiscally short-sighted and administratively inefficient for the university to dispose of 330 existing beds (which are fully occupied in 1999-2000) at the downtown colleges in exchange for nothing more than a hope that privately-built residences in a new college at the Symons campus will be both available and affordable.

In Conclusion

It is our conviction that the application’s proposal to close the downtown colleges has not been presented convincingly to the university community and has not been supported by the Senate, the Humanities and Social Science chairs, the Senate Site Development and Space Utilization Committee, the Trent Central Student Association, the student cabinets of the six colleges, the four founding leaders of the university, and hundreds of students and alumni who have spoken and pleaded with the president (in the mere three weeks available between proposal and Board decision) to re-consider the closure of the downtown colleges because of the unique educational value of a downtown campus to their academic growth and development. The impact of the closure has also been of concern to the community (see attached petition of downtown merchants).

We believe that it is possible to develop a fiscally-responsible SuperBuild proposal which respects the Senate resolution and which will meet the space needs identified in the University’s current application. The downtown campuses have proven to be of exceptional educational value to the students and faculty based at these colleges and, we believe, they will prove to be even more valuable in the future as the university’s involvement with local and regional communities continues to grow in importance. Trent’s community impact is a function not only of size but also of location: it is, for example, precisely for reasons of increased community accessibility that the Department of Native Studies wishes to transfer from the Symons campus to the downtown Peter Robinson College.

We reiterate our request out of a genuine commitment to Trent and its future. We recognize the significant and major opportunity provided by the SuperBuild Growth Fund to address pressing and longstanding facilities needs while also helping to meet anticipated growth in demand for university places. However, we think it is also important to proceed with due attention to the university’s processes and procedures, to the university’s established mission, and to the educational and institutional costs of trying to impose a not-well-thought-out plan.

We would be happy to provide you with further information on the concerns we have raised and would welcome a meeting with you to discuss the issues.

For further information please contact Professor George Nader, Master, Peter Robinson College, 751 George Street North, Peterborough, Ontario K9J 7B8 (Telephone: 705-748-1743; Fax : 705-748-1795; or E-mail: gnader@trentu.ca).

Yours sincerely,

John Milloy Kevin Logan

Professor of History and Native Studies Student, Otonabee College

Mover of Senate motion Seconder of Senate motion

George Nader

Professor of Geography

Master, Peter Robinson College

Attachments:

Tables 1 and 2.

Resolution of the Humanities and Social Science caucus (chairs).

News Release, Trent Central Student Association, 11 November 1999.

Press Release, Trent University, 1964.

A Plan for the Future, 1987 (excerpt).

Letter from Director, Physical Resources, 1993.

Letter from Director, Physical Resources, 1994.

Beyond Our Walls: Case for Support, September 1999 (p. 14).

Site Development and Space Utilization Committee Report, 4 November 1999.

Letter to the Board from Richard Sadleir, Marion Fry, Denis Smith and Thomas Symons.

Letter from James Orbinski, President of Medecins sans Frontieres, 1999 Nobel Peace Prize.

Petition from Peterborough’s downtown merchants.

An Act to Incorporate Trent University, 1962-63.