COUNCIL ON STUDENT SERVICES
6:10 pm, Monday, 3 March 2008
Room 313 Koffler Student Services Centre
PRESENT: Robert Ramsay (Chair), Meghan Gallant (Secretary), Andréa Armborst, Terry
Buckland, Louise Cowin, John Eliades, Jonathan Freedman, Lucy Fromowitz, Michal Hay,
Ahmad Khan, Walied Khogali, Bruce Kidd, Tom Nowers, Marc Overton, Jeff Peters, Faraz
Siddiqui, Berry Smith, Gina Trubiani, Rob Wulkan
GUESTS: Ken Brocklehurst, Aisling Burke, Rose Da Costa, Jim Delaney, Davis Elisha, Liz
Hoffman, Terry Rubenstein, Mark Stinson
1.
Call to Order
Ramsay called the meeting to order at 6:13 pm.
2.
Agenda
Ramsay said he would explain the process for items five and six when the committee reached
those items.
Motion: Be it resolved that the agenda be approved (Smith/Wulkan)
Carried
3.
Approval of Minutes of the February 4, 2008 Meeting
Ramsay said the minutes had been circulated by email and a copy was provided. He said Cowin
had already provided a series of edits to the minutes.
Fromowitz said in the third paragraph on page 2, the third sentence should read “She said the
services and communications work are not funded by ancillary fees but by operating funds from
the Office of the Vice Provost.” She added the third sentence of the fourth paragraph should read
“She said there was a small decline in some of the occupancy and energy costs, while there was
an increase in the overall costs.”
Wulkan said he should be noted in the attendance list.
Armborst said the spelling of her name should be corrected throughout.
Motion: Be it resolved that the minutes of the February 4, 2008 meeting be accepted as
amended. (Cowin/Khan)
Carried
Ramsay said that there was no business arising from the minutes.
4.
Detailed Presentations
i.
Student Life Services & Program
Fromowitz hadn’t realised she would be giving another presentation but offered to review the
information that had been circulated.
Ramsay said the purpose of this agenda item was to have a more detailed discussion since
committee members had a chance to review the budgets circulated.
Fromowitz responded to the email Trubiani had circulated about whether graduate enrolment
increases had been factored into the budgets and fee increases. She said that the projected
enrolment would translate to an increase of $250 thousand, but costs would increase to roughly
$498 thousand. She said there were increases to human resources costs, including non-salary
expenses, and $31 thousand in increased occupancy fees. She said a 3% increase was requested
for departments other than health services, and a 2% increase requested for health services. She
added the difference in the increase was because the salaries of many doctors and psychiatrists
are covered by OHIP.
Armborst referenced the Student Life Programs line in Schedule 1, which was set at $751
thousand and asked for more details on the programs that were supported through this line, the
participation in these programs, and how priorities were determined in setting the programs.
Fromowitz said costs included $90,000 funding for orientation and leadership development, and
sundry. She said the passport program will be working with Student Life, and teams would be
brought together to discuss graduate programming.
Trubiani asked what infrastructure was needed to ensure the effectiveness of programming and
that programming was meeting students’ needs.
Fromowitz said the issue was not just the type of programs but how participation and success
was measured. She said accurate numbers were available for the number of students accessing
various programs, but there was a need to look at why some students were not accessing
programs.
Khogali asked about the student experience fund, and whether operating funds were to go to
services at the Mississauga and Scarborough campuses. He said a family care centre was to open
at UTM in September and that everyone was working hard to ensure the facility opened on time.
He asked whether, given the Vision 2030 document and projected increases in graduate
enrolment, there would be increased contributions for family care.
Fromowitz said funds for these initiatives were provided through the office of the provost. She
said submissions were made each year, and allocations given out with most notifications having
gone out in September. She said many people had not received notices and money had been set
aside for additional projects to be allocated in the next few weeks.
Freedman said funds were allocated to the principal of each campus, who then recommended
allocations for project at UTM or UTSC.
Khogali asked if the provost made the final decision, or if a block of funding was provided to
each campus.
Freedman said a block allocation was provided to UTM and to UTSC, and the decision as to
which projects were funded were made on those campuses, provided the projects met the
established criteria.
Fromowitz said she did not have a lot of information on child care as this service was transferred
to human resources. She said funding was allocated to offset the cost of childcare, and decisions
would need to be made about whether more funding was needed.
Freedman said the childcare at UTM and UTSC were funded from the block allocations for those
campuses, and were not connected to the St. George funding.
Khogali said he was learning about the new budget framework. He said his biggest question and
concern was the need to invest in these campuses, and asked if there was a willingness to invest
operating funds into these projects.
Freedman said as a former principal of UTSC, he thought this system was better as it allowed
UTM and UTSC to keep the money that was allocated to them and did not require that they pay
for services that were note provided on these campuses. He said there was not much money
disposable through the central budget as most of it went to divisions that earned it by enrolling
students, and the money there was used to run central services. He said UTM and UTSC will be
better off under the new model, which would allow more transparency.
Armborst wanted to follow up on the $90,000 budgeted for orientation. She said the UTSU
collected $1 per student for orientation, and ran a non-corporate orientation they were very proud
of. She asked if there was an assessment of orientation programming, and asked about a reward
program for departments.
Fromowitz said she did not know about this reward program but noted that orientation was not
just the day of programming but included training for residence dons, and for leadership
developments.
Delaney said there was an incentive program for orientation committees in individual divisions
that included university prioritied in orientation programming.
Fromowitz said she would look into the program.
Armborst asked about the status of the Intuit handbook.
Fromowitz said her department was rethinking communications and that while there was a role
for a document like the handbook, this was not necessarily the best way of providing the
information. She said there was an interest in reviewing the way information was provided to
students with a view to ensuring that the right information was provided in the right stage of an
academic program. She said for this year the goal was to get all the information out to students.
Armborst asked if the Intuit handbook was the successor of Getting There.
Delaney said it was.
Khogali said it was difficult to justify the increases to students and asked if the salary increases
that were above CPI were due to collective agreements.
Fromowitz said collective agreements play a significant role in setting salary levels and benefits.
She said management below a certain level receive the same increases as unionised staff, while
the senior management salaries are performance-based. She said the overall increases were 4.1%
although individual salary increases could be higher or lower.
Rubenstein said that seniority was sometimes added to inflationary increases. He noted members
of the Steelworkers received 2% each year for seniority. He said in some cases increases for
bargaining units were closer to 5%, while others were closer to 3%.
Peters asked why the University was not seeking this money from the government.
Fromowitz said they solicited funding from the government all the time; Ontario has the lowest
level of funding of any province. She said that University representatives were lobbying for
appropriate funding, but that the gap between what was received and what is needed continues to
grow.
Peters said the government should be paying for these services and for other post-secondary
education costs. He said post-secondary education is becoming less accessible.
Fromowitz said she agreed that government should be paying but that this would mean tution
would no to other costs, rather than providing relief.
Peters said he came back to school at 27 through the transitional year program. He said a lot of
people who should be in post-secondary education do not apply because it is too expensive, these
fees would make education less accessible by increasing the sticker shock, regardless of what the
fees will be used for. He said COSS could argue the difference between ancillary fees and tuition
fees, but to the average person they are the same. He asked how making post-secondary
education less accessible to people who are already marginalised could be justified.
Ramsay said this was a point of discussion that should be addressed later, rather than to a
specific presentation. He said agenda item 6 was intended to address questions like this and to
have a broader discussion.
Fromowitz offered to speak to scholarships and funding available for individuals.
Peters said that people will only apply for admission if they can get past the sticker price of postsecondary education.
Ramsay said this point should be left to agenda point 6.
Hay asked how the non-student use costs were calculated. She said the process for some services
was outlined in the protocol, but not all services were covered.
Fromiwitz said a bill for these services was provided by the University, based on a footprint
calculation.
Delaney said for childcare the costs were based on the number of children in the student space.
Hay said this was detailed in the protocol, but asked about the process for other services.
Delaney said there were not many calculations involved.
Elisha said there were no non-student calculations for student services.
Nowers said all space at the UTSC athletics complex was charged for student use, and nonstudent services were counted separately.
ii.
Athletics & Recreation
Kidd said there was not formal presentation from athletics, but he wanted to convey the wealth
of programs offered by showing the 1007-08 Activity Guide for the Faculty of Physical
Education and Health. He said there had been many questions recently, and these had been
summarised in a FAQ handout. He said the table requested at the last meeting showing the
comparison of athletic fees at other campuses was provided on the back page.
Khan asked what the cost per hour was for student clubs to book space.
Hoffman said the cost was reduced by 50% at the athletic centre and the reduction varies by
facility at the Varsity Centre, but was generally 15-50%.
Khan asked if there was any discussion about having free access or open hours for student
booking.
Hoffman said that depending on the model that was implemented, this could be investigated in
the future.
Khogali asked if clubs would be charged for specific use if the budget was approved. He said
there was a push in the most recent election at UTM for hours for free use. He said there was
much discussion about the student experience, and that access to the facility was an important
part of this, especially for residence students. He said there were hours booked off for clubs to
book space but that if the space was on booked, it was available for free for students.
Hoffman said this had been done in early Sepember for orientation, and again in January. She
said students from Mississauga had made good use of the service.
Eliades said the FAQ document said 22% of graduate students visited the centre, and asked how
this number was calculated.
Kidd said this was based on card swipe data.
Eliades asked if this data distinguished between multiple visits, or if some students were counted
more than once.
Rubenstein said this eflected 22% of students. He said it was possible to distinguish part-time
and full-time students, graduate and undergraduate students from each campus.
Eliades asked, for clarification, if he swiped his card twice if he would be counted once or twice.
Rubenstein said that for this calculation, it would be counted once, but that data on frequency of
use was counted as well. He said that the arenas at the back campus did not have a swipe system
and so this use would not be counted.
Elides said numbers were not provided for the percentage of graduate students using the dome,
but there was discussion of intramural teams. He said students would have to register for this and
it should be easy to tell home many graduate students participated in these leagues.
Kidd said there was a plan to install a card swipe system in this building.
Peters said that due to the nature of part-time studies, many viewed these students as tuition
revenue. He said he had received a call from a member of APUS who had not been able to afford
to return to university in January and had gone to get their faculty pass but was not able to get a
pass due to not being a student.
Rubenstein said that this was consistent with university policy. He said that only registered
University of Toronto students who had paid for services through their fees had access to the
facilities at no additional cost. He said that if a student was not registered for a term, they would
not receive access, but could use the discounted rate for recent services.
Peters asked if this would apply to students that dropped out part way through the year.
Rubenstein said that fees are paid by term, and January fees could be reimbursed if a student left
in time. He said if you are not a student, you would not be let in without paying.
Peters said some people couldn’t afford to register.
Rubenstein said students paid $100 in September and $100 in January, so most students pay a
total of $200. He said what was being suggested was that students who paid only $100 receive
the same service.
Peters asked what happened if a student left in February after they had paid.
Rubenstein said this issue had been discussed at the membership committee, and the decision
was that a student needed to be registered. He said that if you stopped attending classes you
stopped receiving the services. He said that the system was associated with Rosi, and that this
determined who had access to services. He suggested that a submission be presented to the
membership committee if there were outstanding concerns.
Khogali said if someone was a student in September and then left after paying ancillary fees, the
individual would still be eligible for services.
Peters said that in this case, the individual had dropped out in February before the drop date for
academic courses.
Khogali said some fees would not be refunded in this case. He said some tuition fees would be
reimbursed, but not all incidental fees would be returned.
Ramsay said this discussion of policy was out of place as the discussion was to be on the budget
presented. He said that focus was needed and there was time for more general discussion later.
Eliades said he had read through some notes from last year and asked what the initial increase
was that was voted down.
Rubenstien said the original levy suggested was a permanent increase of CPI (2%) and an
additional $10. He said other user fees would have been implemented as well. He said the end
result was a $9 fee without user fees.
Eliades asked how the difference was offset.
Rubenstein that after the fee was rejected, UAB had approved a 2% increase for CPI, a 7.1%
increase for UTI, and additional user fees and rental fees. He said the $9 fee eliminated the rental
fees.
Eliades asked if the funding requested this year was sustainable or if another increase would be
requested next year.
Rubenstein said this was a sustainable increase, and further increases would not be requested
next year. He said the FAQ circulated discussed misconceptions. He said that CPI was the only
fee increase requested, as well as the continuation of the $9 fee.
Kidd said the final result of $9 and no user fees came out of a long but productive board meeting
at the UTSU. He said the new facility had a 15% increase in usage over the old facility and
needed a source of income to operate, and this was the origin for the extra fee. He said once this
fee was in the base budget, inflationary increases would be sufficient to maintain 75% student
use and no user fees.
Hay said this was a lot of changes to what was needed and said she was concerned about the
process, the necessity of the levy, and why these increases were needed.
Kidd said he didn’t trust his memory to the details but the major challenge last year was revenue
for the new facility. He said there had been a very high occupancy cost bill to meet. He said it
was unfortunate that there was not a rolling average for fee purposes, to avoid a 7-8% increase in
one year. He said that the first fallback after the fee was rejected at COSS was to get much of the
funding through the UTI increase at the UAB. He said after this, a proposal for an $8 fee was
proposed to the UTSU, and the response was to go to $9 and no user fees. He said that now the
hope was not to add a new fee, but to make the $9 fee permanent with the intent of not having
user fees.
Hay said the UTI calculation included occupancy costs, and last year’s calculation should have
included occupancy costs, staffing increase and other necessary costs.
Kidd said this year’s UTI calculation included occupancy costs, salary increases and other costs
for running the Varsity Centre. He said last year there was a huge spike in costs that were not
included in the UTI.
Rubenstein said the UTI calculation for occupancy only included the Athletic Centre, not the
Varsity Centre. He said the only calculations for salaries were for approved staff for last year,
new staff were not included.
Peters said that COSS should be clear on the history of the fee. He said in 2002 students had
voted 78% against an athletic fee. He said the University had ignored the will of students and
built the facility anyway and was now asking for the $9 increase to be made permanent for a
centre for high-performance athletics. He said the fee increase was much higher than CIP, and
that to say the Varsity Centre was for students was not true because students had said not to build
it in the first place.
Kidd said the 2002 referendum was about a different proposal with a radically different cost
structure. He said at the time students said the facility was not needed, and the lesson was
heeded. He said the University was raising capital in a difficult environment, and that although
students protested, building the facility was approved at UAB with all the students voting for it.
He said this year’s discussion should be focused on this year’s budget.
Wulkan said last year at COSS there was talk of a memorandum from a committee that had
discussed how capital costs would be taken on by the University. He said that COSS was to take
on a specific amount of the costs.
Kidd said he and Wulkan had gotten into trouble for raising that point. He said there was a
program planning report that was developed by a committee that included representatives of the
UTSU, APUS, and the GSU who contributed to discussion and signed the report which included
an estimated $10 fee per student. He said the report was not sent back to the student unions for
their endorsement, but he had assumed it would be supported. He said when it went through the
committees of the governing council, no student said the signature did not represent the students
union, and he thought there was student support.
Trubiani made it clear that this is a contested issue, and that it merits future discussion.
Wulkan said he thought the fee should be judged on its own merits, and he did not understand
when representatives ceased to be representatives. He thought that when a student was
empowered to be a representative, there was not a need to go back to the union for each decision.
Ramsay said it was difficult to balance the role of being chair and remaining neutral on issues
but he needed to keep the discussion on track. He said COSS needed to focus on the budget and
there was a point on the agenda for discussion about overarching themes. He said if comments
were not on topic they would be declared out of order.
Peters asked if the Varsity Centre had childcare and a community kitchen.
Kidd said it had neither.
Peters said the agreement that was signed had included a community kitchen and childcare and
the agreement was broken.
Trubiani said she would leave some of her comments to the discussion. She said the GSU put
emphasis on reducing costs and increasing community involvement, and asked what measures
were being taken to reduce community costs.
Rubenstein said the community rates used to be increased at the same rate as student rates until it
was realised that the facilities were being priced out of the market. He said in the last couple
years, the changing membership system was bringing in more members. He said the discount
provided to first-year alumni was now extended to two years and shorter-term membership was
allowed. He said staff and faculty rates have continued to increase as per negotiations with
Faculty, Hart House, and the University.
Trubiani said the GSU valued efforts to increase community membership and to decrease the
burden on students.
Hay said the protocol discussed non-student membership, not traffic. She said the community
membership rate had not changed since 2003 while the student fees had increased by more than
40% in the same time. She said as a share of the total, the non-student contribution had decreased
and students were paying for increased community traffic.
Rubenstein said a formula was used to determine operating budget support. He said the formula
was dated and in need of review.
Kidd said this issue had been raised with the Provost, and that it would be considered but not for
this year’s budget. He said with enrolment expansion, there would be enough space and
consideration should be given to the use of space, and how much community access should be
limited in favour of student use.
Hay said she did not think students should pay occupancy cost increases that should come from
membership fees. She said that based on the protocol, the increases in the last two years were for
things that are not student use.
Freedman asked if Hay was referring to $1.62 or $9. He said this year the fee requested was less
than 2%, not including the $9.
Hay said she was clear of whether CPI, UTI, or $9 was being asked. She said there was a
$50,000 difference between the university contribution and faculty contribution this year and
last. She said she disagreed with the calculation.
Freedman said it was time the complicated formula was revisited, especially as community usage
had changed relative to student usage.
iii.
Hart House
Ramsay said the Hart House budget was provided in advance and there was time for questions.
Hay said she was concerned with the money put aside for renovations to the art gallery. She said
many students did not know there was an art gallery and questioned whether $250,000 is an
appropriately prioritised use of funds. She also asked about the warden’s apartment as she heard
the art curator was staying in it.
Cowin said Hart House had hosted an artist in residence for two nights. She said use of the
apartment in Hart House that was normally reserved for the warden was being reconsidered. She
said there were also guest rooms, but after changes to fire regulations, people cannot sleep in
these rooms. She said there were discussions with CIUT about using the warden’s apartment,
which would fit with aspirations of making the Hart House a centre for contemporary culture and
recreation. She said there were many advantages to having CIUT broadcast from Hart House,
including the option to broadcast student concerts.
Cowin said the art gallery was immediately underneath the gym, and the curator was interested
in contemporary art with much new media. She said there was a problem with vibrations through
the ceiling from the gym and the renovations are to retrofit the space. She said the $250,000 for
renovations were donated and did not come from student fees, and that grants were being sought
for additional work as it was not expected that this money would come from students. She noted
that half of the Hart House budget came from student fees, while the other half came from
athletic fees, room bookings and so on.
Armborst thanked Cowin for an earlier, productive meeting. She said she had been on the Hart
House budget committee for four years, and there had been a continuous request for increased
funding for clubs and committees and was please to see that these changes had just happened.
Cowin said this was one part of a full governance review. She said there was interest in bringing
in campus clubs to create a cluster, and the recommendations of the 2007 Hart House review
were being taken seriously.
Armborst asked about the $151,000 allocated to programming that decreased to $60,000.
Brocklehurst said this reflected expenditures from a grant for the art project.
Armborst asked if this had to do with the Good Ideas fund.
Cowin said there was planning to change the programming structure and the reduction of
$100,000 was reallocated to whole-house programming for all students.
Hay asked for clarification about the fee being requested.
Cowin said it was 2% over the current fee.
Brocklehurst said a temporary fee increase from years ago was dropping off and this would bring
the fee back up to 2%
Hay asked how this worked.
Cowin said it was a percentage increase to the base fee.
Eliades said that three years ago 1.5% increase for 3 years was implemented, and this year the
1.5% fee was to be terminated, so the 2% increase would continue this.
Kidd said that no collective bargaining unit would agree to a rollback, and similarly the services
could not see a rollback.
Hay asked what the motion for the next meeting would read.
Cowin said she understood the request would be 2% over last year’s fee.
Brocklehurst said the 2% was based on CPI and would not go through UTI.
Delaney said the motion to UAB would be worded as a year over year increase. If part of the fee
was to be temporary and part permanent, it would be written that way.
Peters noted that COSS does not give temporary increases.
Delaney said that what would be presented to UAB would depend on the need for a year after
year record. He said that for COSS this wouldn’t matter since they would be permanent
recommendations.
Hay said the UTSU would be hosing a townhall on fees next week and asked if wording could be
provided before then.
Rubenstein said that part of the problem last year was that there were too many motions and
these were confusing.
5.
Discussion-Framing Exercise
Ramsay said there was not much time but proposed that instead of dealing with agenda point 5,
that the group skip to point 6. He said the intent was to bring forward the priorites that everyone
as student, administration brought to the table. He said all members of the committee were
University representatives, and once the issues and concerns were raised there would be a
general discussion with no chair or no speakers list with the intent of seeing the perspectives that
everyone brought to the table.
Freedman asked if there was a reason why the group couldn’t meet for after these meetings for
this discussion.
Ramsay said the meeting in two weeks would be short and could end quickly, and suggested a
more formal dinner could be held for a follow-up discussion. He said that for today, the issues
could be raised and preliminary thought given to how to formulate the discussion.
Kidd said he welcomed this type of discussion but that any decisions would have to go to the
Hart House Board of Stewards, Faculty of Physical Education, and the appropriate governance
structures. He said the best place for these discussion was at those committees.
Ramsay said he was referring to more general issues that have come up in the past and this
evening. He said he hoped to end the COSS cycle on a positive note so that next year’s group
would be more cognisant of the broader issues.
Peters said the meeting had been underway for two hours and he needed to leave.
Ramsay said many issues had been raised and minuted, and notice of events would be circulated
so discussion could continue.
Hay said she would have appreciated this type of discussion since it would inform the vote. She
said the meeting on the 17th would not work for the UTSU representatives since they would need
to wait for the notice time for appeals to the plebiscite on the athletic fees. She hoped the
reserved date of March 24 could be used for the vote, and the March 17 meeting could be used
for discussion.
Delaney said this would be too late for the UAB cycle, and the budgets presented would be
dependent on fees being assessed for the summer.
Hay said they were holding a Board meeting on the 24th and this would be the end of the appeals
process. She said she would not have a mandate to vote on the plebiscite until then.
Wulkan asked if unofficial results would be available.
Hay said they would.
Wulkan asked if the UTSU representatives could vote according to the unofficial results.
Hay said they would have to wait for appeals.
Eliades said he did not think it was the job of COSS to tell other boards how to make decisions.
Freedman said that this would make all the budgets out of date. He said this would result in a
huge change to the budgets and asked if the UTSU representatives could vote without a
plebiscite.
Hay has a plebiscite was underway on the issue and that the representative would have to wait
for the results and for the townhall meeting.
Delaney said that last year there was a special meeting of the UAB in April.
Ramsay said he would discuss this with Delaney and would find a solution. He said the next
meeting was still scheduled for March 17th at 6:30 pm, and he would inform the members of
COSS of any special meetings.
Freedman asked if it was possible to have a legitimate vote without the UTSU representatives.
Ramsay said it was not possible and he would try to work something out.
Motion: Be it resolved that the meeting be adjourned (Cowin/Kidd)
Carried