c/s7

I ?

I

?

f'i ?

q

C,

/

?

A

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE CONSTITUTION AND?

FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNING BODIES OF THE UNIVERSITY

1.

Report and Recommendations

2.

Report on some related issues'

3.

pro's

and Con's of possible systems

4.

Press release describing Perry Commission

5.

Working papers:

a)

Present system in B.C. (a sketch; it is assumed that

members of Senate know the Universities Act.)

b)

University Government elsewhere in Canada

c)

Grants Commissions

d)

The Regents System in New York State and California

(i.e., an integrated system)

e)

Academic Planning

f)

Budgetary Practice

g)

Summary and Comment on K. Hare, On Universit

y

Freedom

in

the Canadian Context

h)

The problem of Provincial planning in the Universities

i)

Selected bibliography

R. J. BAKER

CHAIRMAN

---

M (/lo

REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

At the time of the Macdonald Re

p

ort, U.B.C. was used

to being the only university in the province, and it was rather

set in its ways. The possibility of doing anything different from

what was done at U.B.C. - and thereby increasing the variety of

higher education in the province - was small. Moreover, Victoria

College was determined to become independent and autonomous.

Consequently the Macdonald Report suggested that the three

institutions of higher education be autonomous. In the interests

of variety and local control and initiative, it also suggested that

the regional and district colleges be autonomous. To provide some

mechanisjms of coordination, however, the Report suggested two

new bodies: The Advisory Board and the Academic Board. These

boards have worked valiantly since their inception, but it is

clear that neither of them can solve current problems.

• ?

The present distribution of funds to the three universities

?

almost guarantees conflict among them--as well as competition and

overlapping of offerings. The Academic Board has not been consulted

on major new offerings at any of the universities. The Advisory

Board meets only to recommend the division of provincial funds.

Whatever happens, the Boards,

p

residents, faculty and students

at the three public universities are almost forced to compete with

one another. Funds depend on enrolments, enrolments depend on the

variety of courses (to some extent), and each president and Board

is tempted to explain the failure to get more funds by blaming the

others.

It is time to rework the overall structure of the government

of B.C. universities. Recognising the impossibility of unlimited

funds, we must devise a system which makes best use of those

available. A tinkering with the present structure--by adding

faculty or students to Boards or by giving more powers to Senates,

for example-- cannot solve the problems. Only three possibilities

exist:

.

?

?

a) The present structure plus a powerful University Grants Commission,

?

b) One governing body, something like the state Board of Regents' system

in California or New York. (The "integrated system" of our recommendation

---

2

3M

D

c)

/1

/i 8

c4' rs

C)

Direct

g

overnment control through a department of university

affairs.

(We have

r

ejected as a P

os

sibility, the present

system

but its advantages and

dis

advantages are set out in

appendex ...)

The last

p

ossibility would certainly be resisted by the

un iversities

?

It can, m

o

reover, be dismissed on the grounds that

it

has not been successful elsewhere.

?

The French system is the infamous

/

in

ex:mple

our society,

of the control

g

overnment

of

un

control

iversities

would

by

lead

a civil

to perpetual

service.

?

criticism

Inevitably

Of the

g

overnment by academics, something that any

government would no

doubt consider P

o

litically undesirable,

while at the same time it would

sities

remove

themselves

the need for

co

ordination and

r e

sp

onsibility from the

univer-

The first two

p

ossibilities are both reasonable.

?

University

Grants

Commissions

are deeply rooted in the

Co

mmonwealth and

some,

devespecially

that in Britain, have earned considerable respect.

?

Recent

elopments in the United Kingdom, however, indicate that the system

is in difficulty.

?

As the costs of higher education rise, the need for

•

line

planning,

of Planning

coo

rdination,

and

d

evelopment

and economical

would be

operation

something

grow.like

?

this:

The probable

department, faculty, Senate, Board, Grants

C

ommission.

?

As

needs and

complexity grow, each level needs a staff,

co nsultation,

and negotiation.

Moreover,

individual

ion and its

each

in

needs.stitutions,

Board

?

If

continues

the

whether

Grants

--

they

rightlyCommission

are

?

facultyincludes

to defend

?

or ?

laymen,

members

its ?

o.in

it

from

is

institut-

the

likely to find that they are tempted to defend their

own institutions.

by

In

sheer

Britain,

numbers.with

?

LL

?

In

in

B.C.

stitutions,

where institutionsindividual

loyalties

are few and

are

loyalties

watered down

strong, we are unlikely to find a Grants Commission

so

composed of

saints that they are never suspect,

p

articularly when they are almost

certain to he criticised by individual Boards and presidents

even when

they are not suspect.

?

Under the present system someone

must bear

responsibility for the failure of a Board to obtain the needed funds.

The Grants Commission, acting as both the advocate for

more money

from the government and the dispenser of the money that is

•

provided,

is almost certain to be the scapegoat.

---

-3-

I.

•

The concept of an integrated financial system for the

its

whole province is attractive.

?

Each institution can maintain

academic uniqueness and autonomy while one body can be responsible

for arguing for and dividing funds.

?

The one-board system has

certain effects \ihich are in line with much current university

thinking:

e) the role of Senates would be greatly increased.

?

Now that

universities contain many experts who are regularly used to

•

advise government and business, the need for a lay Board to

help with financial matters (traditionally thought not to be

understood by faculties) has decreased.

?

Moreover, the present

division of responsibility between Board and Senate is increasingly

difficult to operate. ?

At its beet, it is hard to separate

academic matters from financial ones.

?

At its worst, such a

separation encourages irresponsibility in both Senate and

Board.

?

Senates make demands without facing the genuine choices

involved. ?

Boards make decisions about priorities without

S

having

to live from day to day with theeffeets.

b) the demand for less unnecessary competition and overlapping

among the public institutions could more easily be met if each

Senate and president knew that he had to deal with one board,

responsible for all the institutions.

c) one Board could insist on standard and comparable accounting

procedures in the various institutions and thereby make its

judgments on a more rational basis.

d) if the various universities had to make requests for funds

and expansions to one Board, they would have to improve their

planning techniques.

?

Until recently, planning has been extremely

hehpzard.

WE RECOMMEND, THEREFORE, that the public universities in British

Columbia be governed financially by one body, a British Columbia

Commission on Universities.

?

We emphasize, however, that each

institution is to be given the greatest possible autonomy in

academic affairs and that each institution have its own Senate.

---

, ?

(

The Commission on Higher Education should be responsible for:

a) the

receiving and evaluation of operating and capital estimates

from all public universities.

b) the negotiation of changes in those

estimates

with the individual

universities.

c) the presentation of the complete estimates and the arguments for

tiiem to the appropriate Minister.

d) the allocation of funds to individual institutions once the

total universities budget has been announced.

e) the development of comparable accounting, estimating, and

budgeting procedures in the various universities.

r) the development of long-range planning and coordination among

the universities.

g) advising government on the establishing of additional universities

or four year colleges in the Province.

We would also urge that the Commission work towards a system of

budgeting that involves more than one year.

?

A system under which

universities budgeted for a three or four year period (with the

possibility of annual ad

.

ustments)

.

would allow for more sensible

planning and cut down the amount of time now spent on annual

budgeting.

(See Appendix

?

Working paper on budgeting).

If the concept of one Commission is accepted, its

Composition and that of the Senates becomes crucial.

?

A number

of methods of making up a single Commission have been proposed

or are in use:

?

topular election, election by the Legislative

Assembly, representation from the universities, representation

from various civic groups, appointment by the Lieutenant-Governor

in-Council, election by the Senates, election by the graduates of

the universities.

?

Since we believe that the Board will play an

all-important role in explaining the needs and problems of the

universities and government to one another, we propose a mixture of

government appointees and university members.

?

We would argue for

laymen appointed by government (after inviting universities to

suggest candidacy) on the grounds that a democratically elected

government represents the people of British Columbia and that it

has a right to appoint people whose .ludginent it trusts to represent

---

<444 y

the interests

interests of the community as a whole.

?

We believe that

informed laymen can present the needs and problems of the

university to Government and to the people of the Province.

We would argue for academic members on the grounds that they know

the needs and problems of the universities better than anyone

else and that their presence on the Commission would ensure that

lay members were fully informed of the im

plications

of their

decisions for the universities.

Provided that there are academics on the Commission, we

would urge that Senates be made up only of members of the university

community - faculty, students, graduates, and such other members

of the university as can contribute to the deliberations and

decisions of Senate.

?

If there are academics on the Commission,

the argument that laymen are needed on Senate to provide a

communication link between the Commission and the academic

community disappears.

We do not think that it is profitable at this time to

try to decide on the exact make-up of the Commission.

?

We would

however, that

government make every possible effort to see that

the Commission contain

s r e p re

s ent

ativesofsignificrit sections of

the communit1, e.g. business, industry, labour, the professions,

the rural and the urban areas of the province, and other sectors

of the provincial educational system.

?

The prime concern, however,

should be to obtain people who can work in the best interests of the

universities, deal with each of them fairly, and persuade government-

and the electorate of their needs.

?

Representation from all possible

groups is impossible, but men and women knowledgeable about and

dedicated to higher education will always consider the needs an

desires of all groups.

We believe that the Commission must be kept to a

reasonable size, probably about fifteen, if it is to work, that

it should have its own secretariat, and that the terms of office

should be long enough

?

to enable members to resist immediate

Political pressures but limited so that new ideas can be more

•

easily received. ?

With staggered terms, minima of three years and

maxima of six years appear reasonable.

---

•

We would expect the secretariat of the Commission

to work closely with the universities on planning and coordination,

etc., we do not think that we can specify the mechanisms of such

consultation. Different universities may well use different

techniques of planning themselves.

Since we envisage that our Commission would carry even

greater responsibilities than the present Boards, end since we

would like to enable any qualified member of the community to

serve on it, we recommend that suitable compensation for time off

from work, travel, and accommodation be provided.

B.

J.

Baker

L. Funt

K. Okuda (replacing S. Wasserman

in September)

G. Sperling

S. Wong.

11

---

M I Q

Some additional notes and subjects for discussion

Since our terms of reference implied that we deal only

with university government in the universities set up under the

Universities Act, we did not consider that we should refer to

private universities and other institutions of post-secondary

education. We append, however, some suggestions and comments

on those institutions and their relation to an overall system

of higher education. Items from our own suggestions or others

that arise in Senate could be incorporated in our presentation

to the Perry Commission.

.

.

---

I ?

h3 '

Regional

and District Colleges and Institutes of Techno1og

The committee has confined its attention to the public

universities, but it does think that most of the arguments it

advances for better planning, coordination, budgeting, and the

allocation of funds could equally well be made about the other

institutions of Post-secondary education. As far as we know,

coordination is accidental or non-existent among Vancouver

City College, Capilano College, the B. C. Institute of Technology,

and the proposed Lower Mainland College -- even though they are

all in the same area. With the development of Okanagan College,

New Caledonia College

>

Neriaimo College, and the existing Selkirk

College, in other parts of the province, we cannot believe that

better planning will not be necessary.

The key question as far as the universities are concerned

is whether or not all institutions of post-secondary education

should come under our proposed Commission. Initially we think not.

The Commission will have plenty to do bringing order into the

university system, without facing the problems of colleges of

a kind quite new to British Columbia. We have had no opportunity

to talk as a committee with representatives of the colleges,

and we think that it would be presumptuous for us to make re-

commendations on their future government. We would urge the

Perry Commission, however, to consider tie place of the colleges

in the whole system of planning and coordination. If they do

not come under our proposed Commission, we would urge very

strongly that they be represented on it in some way.

0

---

'M

Private Universities and Regional and District Colleges

The committee did not think that it should study the place

of private universities and colleges-- e.g. Notre Dame University (Nelson)

and Trinity Junior College (Fort Langley)

?

in the public

system

of higher education in the

p

rovince. We recognize, however,

that many systems of higher education do incorporate both public

and private institutions to some extent in the allocation of

public funds. Under the integrated public system we have

proposed, private institutions would be unlikely to want to

give up their own Boards, individual plans, etc.. We see

nothing to prevent our Commission advising government on the

allocation of funds to private institutions, provided that both

government and the individual institutions want to work in that

way.

We would urge, however, that future private institutions

be required to submit their plans to the Commission and that the

government serio.isly consider the advice of the Commission before

issuing any more charters to grant degrees, etc.. We do not

?

-'

think that the population or resources

of

British Columbia permit

totally unplanned development of private institutions of higher

education any more than they do of public institutions. If

public funds are to be used in any way for private institutions,

the public has a right to some say in the location, plans, and

probable quality of education in those institutions. If no

public funds are to be used -- operating, capital, scholarship,

loan, bursary, etc. -- some system of academic accrediting may

be necessary, but public financial control is obviously un.lustified.

0..

---

'J

_

ACT?

?

q

If our pro

p

osals were edopted, in full a new Universities

Act would be necessary. Many of our suggestions, however, could

be implemented within the present Act. The Minister of Education

could expand the present Advisory Board and give it many of the

responsibilities we propose for the Commission. Present Boards

of Governors could -- as in practice some now do -- turn over

some responsibilities to Senates or to joint Senate-Board

committees. Longer term budgeting can Le instituted by the

government at any time -- as it has indeed already done with

capital funding.

0

---

PRO'S AND CON'S

VA

f

Opt

In this section we set out the main advntges and

.

?

disadvantages of the systems we see as possibilities. Needless

to say, the committee does not

make

all of its suggestions with

equal seriousness. Some items nppear simultaneously as advantages

and disadvantages (e.g. formula financing) because the committee

recognized that their virtue is debatable.

0

0

---

ThE IME GRA TED SYSTEM,

M

pep

/DOM

?

TLWL

By integrated system, we mean somethir like the Board of Regents

system. We envisage one provincial Board for all the public universities, the

. ?

disappearance of individual Boards of Governors, and the re-allocation of some

of the responsibilities of individual Boards to Senates. We suggest as titles:

University Advisory Board, B.C. Commission on Universities, B.C. Commission

on Higher Education, (The make-up and responsibilities of this Board are

set out on pages L,

5,

and

6

of the Report and Recommendations.)

Advantages

?

Disadvantages

a)

Simplicity of structure, especially a) The system could become monolithic and

for long-range planning and

?

work against variety and experiment.

coordination.

b)

Ends the present division of

?

b) Some loss of autonomy.

responsibilities among Board and Senate.

c)

Leads to com

p

arable accounting,

?

c) Loss of layman with strong loyalties

estimating and budgeting procedures

?

to individual institutions.

in different institutions.

d)

Probably leads to greater ease of

?

d) The system may not fit traditional

transfer for both students and faculty. Canadian systems of government. In the

e)

Probably greater uniformity on policies. United States, the pattern of public

involving expenditure, e.g. "fringe

?

budget hearings give individual

benefits". ?

institutions an opportunity to generate

f)

One body is responsible for studying

?

public pressures before budget

and presenting the estimates - and

?

allocations are made. The Canadian

then for allocating the available

?

pattern of pre-budget confidentiality

funds. might be difficult to maintain if large

Senates took over some responsibilities

for preparing estimates.

T

---

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT

i oIs

ib /

4ni4

6k

4Z

.,oe —

4,-^

0 ?

Advantages

?

Disadvantages

a)

A powerful minister may be able to

obtain more support for universities

than ind.perxcient Boards can.

b)

The Government is representative of

the whole community and can b- best

decide on community needs in

universities.

C)

University Senates and presidents

could deal directly with government

instead of working through Boards of

Governors and the Advisory Board.

.

a) Experience of government control else-

where is that the system tends to

become beaurocratic and hide-bound.

b) Academic Freedom has frequently been

curtailed by government control.

.c) Governient is less likely to understand

the needs of individual universities

than their own governing bodies.

I

---

GRANTS COMMISSIONS

5A

?

/!(/?,

P

Advantas

?

Disadvantages

a)

Maximum workable independence for

individual Institutions.

b)

Leads to formula 'financing.

c)

Obviates detailed external control

of university budgets.

d)

Retains present Board and Senate

structures.

e)

Private donors can direct gifts to

Individual institutions and not have

these considered a substitute for

adequate public support.

.

a)

Difficult to coordinate inter-university

programs.

b)

Leads to formula financing.

C)

No easy formula for "emergent" capital

costs.

d)

Retains present Board and Senate

structures.

e)

Individual universities may have no

direct representation on commission.

0

---

THE PRESENT SM

#)L1

(i

9.

z

M

'o o

Advantages

Disadvantages

V.)

Maximum autonomy for individual

a)

Such autonomy appears to preclude

institutions,

overall planning and the avoidance

of unnecessary overlap and duplication.

b) Four and perhaps five different groupsb)

The multiplicity of appeals dilutes

can appeal to the government; i.e.

their effect and can lead to conflict-

the three Boards of Governors, the

ing advice.

Advisory Board, the Academic Board.

c) Individual Board members can identify

c)

Such identification is bound to lead

with their institutions and work

to undesirable conflict and competition.

hard for both finance and the under-

Once the Advisory Board has allocated

standing of university needs and

funds, the Boards, including presidents

problems.

can be tempted to explain their own

allocations by sniping at the other

institutions. ?

Post-budget depression

in one institution can affect conifideric

•

in the whole system of university

government.

d) Final allocation of funds within the

d)

The fact that the Perry Commission has

institutions rests with their own

been set up indicates that the Advisory

Boards and Senates.

Board has found the system difficult

to operate.

e)

The Advisory Board is responsible for

allocating funds, but it has had no

opportunity to study estimates Well

in advance and no opportunity to

consider long-range plans.

?

It cannot

advise government before funds are

allocated.

f)

As far as the universities are conlcerne(

the Academic Board has had very little

opportunity "to advise on the orderly

development of higher education" in

the province.

---

39-W,

?

^10

THE

PRESENT SYS

TEM

(cont.)

Disadvantages

The Advisory Board has had no

influence on the allocation of

capital funds.

The traditional distinction between

the powers and responsibilities of

Senate and those of the Board is

increasingly difficult to justify

or maintain. Academic and financial

decisions cannot be separated easily.

To place further Boards - Advisory

and Academic - on top of the present

structures adds compilcations and

delays.

The Advisory Board is too small to

represent the academic and wider

Community.

The Advisory Board is not mandatory.

(This could be considered an advantage

by maintaining that the present Act

is flexible enough for the Minister

to change the present make-up of the

Advisory Board

and

the functions of

both the Advisory

and the Academic

Boards without new legislation.)

.

?

Advantages

g)

h)

1)

.

j)

0

---

The oryinai press

rclease

r

rom the gove

r

nmcjt jr, ttacheci

.

:or

. n f o r rn a 4

[la on.

.

.

---

• I

-

\\ ?

41t4

h9

ed

OFFCE OF THE

ViCTORIA. B.C.

?

SUBJECT

University grants and

the

appoinbiient ?

FOR

RELEASE

?

*

Advisory Committee on Inte Universty ?

IMDIAiE::.

Relations

May 23, 1968.

The Honourable L. R. Peterson, Minister of Education,

announced today that the Provincial Government had accepted the

recommendations of the Advisory Board for the allocation of the

$53 million opel•atirig grants to the three public universities.

For the current fiscal year 1063/69

3

, the Provincial

grants for operating purposes will be:

University

ofBritish Columbia

?

$3111863-572

fl

?

Simon Fraser

University

?

13,555, 2'4.1

University of Victoria

?

3,258,187

Commenting on

the recommendations of the Advisory

Board, the Minister said that the operating grants provided by the

Provincial Government this year would represent an increase of

18.02 percent for the University of British Columbia, 16.36 percent

for Si-non Fraser University, and 19.21 percent for the University of

Victoria. This is in

addition

to the capital grants (announced

earlier) which have been raised by 50 percent -- from $8 million in

1967/63 to $12 million this year.

?

S

---

Prj

o

tLu

z1'-

co

w

V

r

C)

-

t'J

U'

.

U,

.)

C/)

0

CD

10

(/)r

V V

V

V

CD

U) t'.i

U ?

1.))

co

r-

CQ

.p-.4

.J.

.

4

U,

U ,

LU

V

0

C)

0

0

0 0

V

?

V

CD CD

00

CD

0

.

üA

ftv/

h

..I4

iu

-

-2-

cr

0

-J.

C)

CD

C)

rr

cDcr

C)

P. 0

Q3P

r

t:J

cfJ

I-,.

r

IJ.

-I

1.0

1.0

LO 1.0

1.0 1.0

1.0 11)

-J

C

0 1 1 cl

4 C

C) C)

-Z

C

C)

•-J C)

•0

N cl -

Co

1.0

CO

LO

CO '.0

CO '.1)

0

<C>

?

<C>

?

1i

h-.

I-,

C)

()

LuLfi

.U1

0

V

V

- V

V

?

I.

V

jP

C)

C)

co

C) C)

00

C

C)

C)

C)

r C)

O

CD

00

00

.4

00

.4

C)

CD

.4

C) CD

.4 ?

.4

C) CD

C) 0

(1)

?

P.

CD

C)

(DC)

00

C) C)

CD ft

o o

Qo

0 CD

C.e3

?

)

<C>

-Cl>

U'

0-1

LU

U,

-40

. ?

CD

C) G

V

.4

.4 V

V ?

.4

V V

C)

C)

'0 N

C) U'

-

?

-'

0

C)

C)

Pi U'

J,=

U'

t\) CO

)

ft

CD

0

C) co

1.0

U,

.

C)

V

.4

'4 ?

'4

'4 .4

WV

C)

0

U)

iv

VT U'

0

0

-P co

0

CD

LU

C ?

k-'

i-A P

---

-3-

S

As foreshadowed in his address during the

Budget

Debate in the Legislative Assembly earlier this year, Mr. Peterson

also announced the formation of the Advisory Committee on Inter-

University Relations. The members of this Committee are:

Mr. Richard M. Bibbs, Dean S.N.F. Chant, Mr. Alan M. Eyre,

Mr. W. C. Nearns, and Dr. C. Neil Perry, who will he the chairman.

Each of the public Universities were invited-to

nominate a member of .the Committee. Mr.

Bibbs was

appointed by the

University of British Columbia, Mr. Eyre by Simon Fraser University,

and Mr. Mearns by the University of Victoria. In addition

5

?

Dean Chant was invited to serve on the Committee because of his

experience as Chairman of the Academic and Advisory Boards.

Explaining

the background for the appointment of

the Advisory Committee, the Minister stated:

"In recent years, many governments in the Western

World have been finding it necessary to review those sections of their

educational policy which relate to institutions of higher learning.

A larger public appetite for higher educational

services, together

with

a relative shortage of personnel and ejuipment,

have combined with expansive forces

within

the institutions themselves

•

to

produce university budgets and requests for financial assistance of

---

9A

MOe

II/

?

it'i,

S

a magnitude that is severely testing the ability of governments to

supply the funds. In reaction, governments have sought to find ways

of extending increased financial assistance but, at the same time, of

demanding prudent management by the beneficiaries -- often by a more

efficient use of plant and personnel and a more careful scrutiny of

development expenditures. Confronted by other demands from faculty

and students, university administrators have, not surprisingly, found

these governmental prescriptions difficult to follow.. It is against

this general background that the Advisory Committee has been asked

to look at the present state of inter-university and university-

government relations in this Province.

.

In Dritish Columbia,

higher

education has been moving

away from a simple arrangement involving only one publicly-supported,

Provincial university towards a more complex, multi-university system.

With the emergence of regional and district colleges, technological

institutes, and other post-secondary institutions -- as well as private

institutions of higher learning -- a new layer of educational services

has been interposed between the secondary schools and the universities.

The articulation of this network of publicly-supported

institutions

has been left largely to the voluntary efforts of the organizations

themselves, aided by the technical assistance and advice of the

Academic and Advisory Boards. As the aggregate demand for financial

0 ?

support has gone up an important problem has arisen: shall this loose

---

Jth

.

?

4j,

S

.

?

network relationship

be

continued or should a more formal system of

relationships

be

created? Solutions adopted elsewhere on this

Continent have attempted to

preserve the independence of the component

institutions while, concurrently, establishing ground

rules

for the

system as a whole.

The task assigned to the Advisory Committee is to

consider this relationship issue at the

university level.

It is

recognized that some of the suggestions considered by

the Advisory

Committee could have implications for the other post-secondary

institutions but, at this stage

)

the focus of the Committee's

attention

is expected to be on the universities.

?

In the process of its work

.

?

the Committee will he expected to review the adecjuacy of the

arrangements esablished five years ago under the Universities Act-

of 1963 -- particularly the role of the Academia and Advisory Boards

--

in

the light of the experience thus

far."

hi1e hopeful that the Advisory Committee will be

able to draw his attention to potentially-constructive changes, the

Minister stated that he thought the task assigned to the Committee

was a difficult one s

He intended to facilitate their efforts

by

leaving the members free to ascertain the views of interested persons

and groups in the Province, and to adopt such procedures as the

Committee judged necessary. He also indicated that he would ask the

---

.

?

-6-

'1v ?

!e8

?

A *7ioo

41

Division of University and College Affairs of the

Department of

EducatioritO

provide services for the Committee.

Mr. Peterson stated he is hopeful that a final report

from the Committee would be received before the next session of the

Legislature.

-

30 '

.

rj

---

.

.

0

---

M

The present situation in B.C. is that the University of B.C., the

University of Victor±x and Simon Fraser University are governed by the same

act and have essentially the same structure. Minor differences in the

membership of the first convocations for Simon Fraser and Victoria will gradually

disappear. Notre Dame University is governed by a separate act.

The BCIT is basically a provincial institution. It has a number of

advisory committees for different technologies. Vancouver City College comes

under the Vancouver Board of School Trustees and ultimately under the Public

Schools Act. Selkirk College, Okanagan College, and Capilano College are

governed by Councils set up under the Public Schools Act.

Three "overseeing bodies" - with rather ill-defined responsibilities

derive their existence from the Universities Act: The Academic Board,

The Advisory Board, and The Joint Board of Teacher Educatidn. The Academic

Board is mandatory and is to"advise the appropriate authorities on orderly

academic development of Universities established under this Act and of

colleges established under the Public Schools Act ....." I am a member of the

Board and I think that it must be said that it has not the powers to make

it effective as a coordinating body.

•

?

?

The Advisory Board is not mandatory, but it has in fact been operating

for the last three years. The government tells the Advisory Board how much

money it has allowed for the three public universities. The Board advises

the Minister of Education on the division. To date, the advice has been

accepted. The difficulty, however, is that the Board has no prior knowledge

of plans, no standardised methods of comparing the three budgets, and no time.

The Joint Board of Teacher Education has the power to advise the

Minister of Education and the Universities on curricula, staffing, and

facilities in the various Faculties of Education. I have been a member of

this Board in the past, and although I have doubts about its effectiveness,

I have no reason to believe that it is a hindrance.

A new development is that the Minister of Education has set up a

committee to advise on the coordination of institutions of higher education.

Its terms of reference have not been defined. It is composed of one member

nominated by each of the three Boards of Governors, - Mr. Biggs (U.B.C.),

Mr. Eyre (S.F.U.), Mr. Mearns (Victoria), the Chairman of the Academic

Board (Dr. S.N.F. Chant, former Dean of Arts and Science at U.B.C.

?

He

was elected by the Academic Board as chairman; he was appointed by the

government chairman of the Advisory Board) and the deputy minister of

Education, Dr. N. Perry.

R.J. Baker

---

J.XW -

02^4 -

&

tfr' (Af.

Elcheojn_Cara

.

?

ccopt where modifications have been introduced by the sottirg

up of univ

er

sity

grants

coiissiens (Ontsrio,

M

anitoba) and to sc

extent in askatchewan, where one Board serves the two carnpuses.. Saa

sd

Aegina7

the methods of governing universities are

suhstantia1y

the same

as those sot out in the present B.C. Uni

ve

rsities Act. Izy

Boards of G

overnors ?

cc are responsible for financ lal matters

and Senates (usually both lay and academic with academic majorities)

are responsible fcr academic matters. Recently a numb

e

r of

u-ni vc

have added students to their Senates and academics tothofr Boards, but.

the essential structures are like those in the B.0 . unjvrsjtjes.

G. Sperlirg

r

.

I')

---

J4L4L

i(i

GRANTS

COMMISSIONS

Canadian universities are now in a position whore their

major source of revenue stems from the provincial government.

Student fees

,

, which once covered the major part of the costs of.

the private, institutions, are no longer adequate to cover the

costs of even the most modest academic program. Private endowments,

which were the mainstay of the universities of the past, are

inadequate for even the most highly endowed institutions and

sources of new funds are almost nonexistent. Direct Federal

grants to universities have disappeared. Until 1965, they

provided.an

independent guaranteed source of income to the

.

?

universities as they were based on a formula tied to provincial

population and university enrollment. The Canadian university,

therefore, finds that its dominant source of revenue is the

provincial government. The government, in turn, finds itself

in the dilemma of retaining the responsibility for publicly

accounting for the expenditure of its funds, and yet in appearance

and practice, divorcing itself from the control of the expenditure

of these funds within 'the university community. The problem is

compounded by the necessity of subdividing educational grants

amongst various universities in the province. This 'subdivision

cannot be made on any simple grounds.: The age of the institution,

the complexity of its program, the distribution and size of

student enrollment, all affect the costing of various programs

which can be developed.

.

?

.'

? .

7/

---

• ?

;.:

?

5fr ") 1oc

!2J

,4tfl'

4

(aLq

- ?

I

•

?

.

?

2.

In order to exert some measure of responsible control

over the distribution of funds, and yet not interfere with the

internal operations of the universities, governments have appointed

Grants Commissions.. Their emergence has marked the development

of educational finance in Canada during the lastfive years.

The first Grants Commission was established in .• -

Ontario, and it set itself the goal of devising some objective

formula as the basis of allocating operating grants to the

various provincially assisted universities within the Province

of Ontario.

The

purpose of providing a

'

formula is to make available

an objective mechanism for determining the share of the total

•

?

?

provincial operating grant to be allocated to each university.?

Any private sources of endowment are not included in the formula.

The use of the formula enables

.

each institution to place its own

priorities on its academic objectives, and to seek varous methods

of achieving excellence and to develop ingenious

methods

for

inducing economy. •

The establishment of a formula is in no way incompatible

with the complete autonomy of the institution to operate.and

disburse the monies made available to it.

The existence of a formula provides a much more .certain

basis for university planning. The universities can make

reasonable projections of enrollment for many years in advance

and thus be assured of a minimum income and guaranteed floor for

the budget.

---

AA

)

I

. ?

.. ?

3.

The operation of a Grants Commission formula,obviates

much of the necessity for detailed scrutiny of university

operating expenses. The Grants Commission can in turn devote its

attention to long range planning, to the interrelationships of

various institutions, and the way in which these interrelationships

can be developed to best serve the needs of the province.

Finally, the employment of an operating formula gives

assurance to private donors or to others that their gifts to the

university for operating purposes will not merely prove to be

a substitute for public support.

The initial Ontario formula did not make any provision

for emergent costs of new institutions. These were based on

an ad hoc approach but with the firm understanding that emergent

costs were, by their-very definition, temporary in nature..

In the period subsequent to the development of the

first Ontario formula, attempts have been made to place emergent

costs on a formula basis as well.

Similarly, capital costs were viewed on a comparable

basis for all the institutions in the province. The adoption of

a particular academic program-en tailed a commitment for the

corresponding capital costs. . Capital cost projections were made

on a five-year on-going basis, and universities were informed in

advance of their share of the capital costs.

Again, in the past year, there have been constructive

attempts made to place capital costs on a similar formula basis.

.. .4

---

0", ew

j1;

M

DilI

4.

The operating grant formula is based on the concept of

basic income units. The number of basic income units for a

particular university is determined by the student distribution

in various programs in the university. Relative weights are

assigned to each category of student, and .these weights are

assumed to be in reasonable correlation with the actual costs

associated with the particular

.

program.

From a tally of the total number of basic income units,

each university can determine its proportion of the total

provincial grant.

Once the provincial grant is known for the current

budget year, the value of the basic income units for that year

is stated and the university's budget is

known

accordingly.

There is no compulsion to distribute the monies amongst,

the various programs in direct proportion the basic income unit

allocation. Once the university has obtained its budget, it is

free to allocate it within its programs as it sees fit.

Provision has been made for the reassessment of the basic

weight factors for each type of program, and these kdll be refined,

as studies now in progress by the Association of Universities and

Colleges of Canada and the

Canadian

Association of University

Business Officers reach fruition.

The table of categories for determining basic income

units in Ontario, is as follows:

. . . S

.

.

'V

---

Pot ?

3

.

?

S. ?

-

Table of Categories for Determining Basic Income Units

UNDERGRADUATE AND FIRST DEGREE

Weight 1

Category 1

All General Arts

All General Science

All Pre-Medicine

All Journalism

All Secretarial Science

All Social Work

First-Year Honors Arts

and

Science

Category 2

?

Weight 1.5

C

Upper Years Honors Arts (including

"mak

e

-up" year)

All Commerce

All Physical Education

All Law

All Library Science

All

Fine

and Applied Arts

All Physical and Occupational Therapy

Category 3

Upper Years Honors Science (including:

"make-up" year)

All Nursing

All Engineering.

All Food and Household Sciences

All Pharmacy

All Architecture

All Forestry

All Agriculture

All Hygiene and. Public Health

All Music

Category 4

All Medicine

All Dentistry

All Veterinary Medicine

Weight 2

Weight

3

. . .

6

I*

---

M.

6. ?

-/

..

GRADUATE

Category S. ?

Weight 2

Masters' Level (and First-Year Ph.D.

direct from Baccalaureate)

- Commerce and Business Administration

- Social Work

Catego ry

_ 6

?

Weight 3

Masters'-Level (and 1irst-Year Ph.D.

direct from Baccalaureate)

- Humanities

- Social Sciences

- Mathematics

- Law.

M.Phil.

Other Graduates.

Category 7

?

Weight 4:

.

?

Masters' Level (and First-Year Ph.D.

direct from Baccalaureate)

- Psychology

- Geography

- Engineering

?

-

- Science-;

- Medicine

-

• or8

?

Weight 6

Al]. Ph.D. (except First-Year Ph.D.

direct from Baccalaureate)

?

-

Notes on the Table of Categories.-

In determining full-time equivalent enrollment, 'the.

following definitions should be used:

?

-

i. Pull-time equivalent enrollment of students on -"Co-operative"

and "Trimester" programs shall be one-half the sum of the-

semester registrations.

.

16

---

k g

.7..

ii. Full-time equivalent enrollment of Federated and..

Affiliated Colleges shall be that share of total

enrollment as reflected by that portion of the teaching.

•

service performed by the university.

2.

Students in the upper years of Honors undergraduate work in

Psychology, Geography

and

Mathematics shall be included in

Category 3. Costs of undergraduate Honors work in these

subjects appear to be on the average similar to costs in

Honors Science. At the Masters' level, however, Mathematics

would seem to be

.

more appropriately grouped with the

humanities and social sciences,. while Psychology and

Geography, because of laboratory and field work requirements,

. ?

remain with science and engineering.

3.

"Other Graduates" as shown in Category 6 includes all graduate

degree and diploma programs not specifically covered in the

descriptions of other categories.

4.

Part-time enrollment has not been included in the Table for

the reason that it was not previously

taken

into consideration

by the Government in calculating the operating grants to

universities. The Committee feels strongly that such enrolment

is deserving of support and should be taken into consideration

in any formula designed to distribute money equitably. The

following conclusions regarding categories and weights for

part-time students were reached: .

• ?

• 8.

---

•

?

? ?

A

•

?

S

?

8.

i.

Part-time underaduate students (including extramural

students) working towards a Baccalaureate degree, -

be taken on a full-course registration basis divided

by six and the full-time equivalent counted in the

appropriate undergraduate category.

ii.

Part-time graduate students (doing course work)

4

to be

• taken on a full-course registration basis divided by

- ?

five and the full-time equivalent counted in the

appropriate graduate category.

iii.

Part-time graduate students (actively doing dissertation

under continuing supervision) - to be assigned a Weight

of One.

In-the.evcnt that the Government decides that the present

policy regarding support for part-time courses be continued,.

the formula will not be rendered ineffective by their exclusion.

S.

?

Preliminary Year students also have been excluded from the

Table. This is a special type course which does not fit in

with the general pattern of categoriesand weights established.

However, for purposes of calculation,it is felt that a

provisional weight of .7 (seven-tenths) should be assigned

to this group.

Example of Operation: If university x estimates atotai student

enrollment of 3500, which translated (by using the scale of weights

for the various categories) into .7,000 basic income units, and

the assigned income per.-unit is $1200, thenthe estimatedbasic

a

---

sm t 'a

tot,

•

9..

.

operating income for university x would be 7,000 x 1200 or

8.4 million dollars.

The Grants Commission formula, on a similar basis,

has been adopted in the Province of Alberta, and in the Province

of Manitoba. ?

.

At the present time, Saskatchewan has adopted an

essentially integrated university system, and a grants formula

would not be applicable.

There are indications that a grants commission system

will be adopted in the Atlantic Provinces,

B. L. Funt

is

?

June 17, 1968.

16

---

SIMON

F1ASER

UNIVERSITY

_41XLU ((1-k

9.

PROF. R.J. BAKER

.

EFRS. OF.. THE ... SENATE ... CO\?1ITrEE ... TO.STTJDh,

ThE CONST]1UFION AND

FUNCTION OF ThE

......

C[NING ... BODIES ... OF...ThE.UNIVELSIT1ES ?

.

Subject

New York and California

frorn.SClma.

Wassermann

.

.......

Professional ...

Foundations

July... 3,..,196.8..........................................................................

The following report is a summary of some points of difference

and similarity between the the "University Regents" system of New York

and California.

Additional information may be obtained from the various journals,

articles and other sources of reference kindly sent me by the Departr.ents

of Education of New York and California.

SU&RY OF SOME POINTS OF

DIFFERENCE AND SIMILARITY

BETh'EEN

THE "UNIVERSITY REGENTS" SYSTEM OF

?

NEW YORK AND CALIFORNIA

is

Under discussion are the Regents of the University of the State

of New York and the Regents of the University of California. They wil

l

be

referred to as the "N.Y. Regents" and the "California Regents" for short.

It should be noted inmediately that the range of jurisdiction of

the two bodies differs greatly. The N.Y. Regents are charged with th

supervision of every aspect of education in the state, public and private,

from kindergarten operation to the doctoral level. A major additional

responsibility involves the setting of standards and licensing of practi-

tioners in all the professions except

that of law. The California Regcnts,

on the other hand, have jurisdiction over the University of California only.

That institution, however, with a full-time enrollment of more than 50,000

spread over 7 major campuses, is one of the world's'iargest and most

diversified

Each of the two bodies is designated by its respective state con

-

stitution as a corporate entity responsible, either exclusively or

other duties, for the overall planning for and operation of the state-supported

institutions of higher education in itsjurisdiction. Each

body is givon full

power within these jurisdictions, subject only to the usual provisions with

respect to the terms of special endowments, financial security, and to such

constitutional admonishments as "shall be independent of all political and

sectarian influence" and "no person shall be debarred admission (to the

. university) on account of sex." Thus, in respect to powers and responsib-

lities, the two bodies are roughly-analogous

• to the Board of Govcr-ors of

Simon Fraser University, though with the important distinction that certain

---

aspects of administrative and academic structure and function in British

Columbia universities are set out in the Universities Act, thus in effect

placing certain statutory limits on the functions and powers of the

Governors.

Although both the N.Y. and California Regents were set up with

the avowed intention that they be unresponsive to partisan politics,

inevitably the composition, methods of selection, and terms-of-office of

members of the bodies will bear some relation to the degree of their

political independence. The N.Y. Regents number 15, including one from

each of the state's 11 judicial districts and 4 chosen at large; none

serve ex officio. They are elected by both houses of the bicameral

legislature to 15-year terms , the terms so staggered that one expires

• each year. The California Regents number 24.

?

Of these, 8 serve ex

officio: the governor of the state, the lieutenant governor, spear

of the assembly, superintendent of public instruction, president of

the state board of agriculture, president of the Mechanics Institute of

San Francisco, president of the alumni association of the university,

and acting president of the university. The other 16 members are appointed

by the governor of the state for 16-year terms, sta

g gered to provide for

two expirations in each even-numbered calendar year. It should be mentioned

that, in terms of publicity received during the past decade and more, the

California Regents have on several occasions been under fire for alleged

•

politically inspired "interference" in the affairs of their university,

whereas the N.Y. Regents seem by and large to have escaped such accusations.

Whether the charges in California are justified, and whether the difference

in this respect between the two states arises from the structural difference

between the two bodies, or from a difference in the temper of the political

constituency, or from some other cause, cannot be determined here.

Each of the two bodies elects its own officers. The N.Y. Regents,

in addition, appoint from outside their ranks a Coissioner of Education to

head at their pleasure, the State Department of Education. While the Regents,

like their California counterparts, are traditionally lay persons (though

ex-

teachers have served on occasion), the connissioner, who acts as the chief

executive officer of the state's education system, is traditionally a pro-

fessional educator. His California counterpart, the State Superintendent

of Public Instruction, is elected to office by the state's electorate at large.

The lines of authority and channels of communication that connect

the California Regents with their university are direct; there is no inter-

mediate governing body. However, the Regents, through their Standing Orders, have

Set up the Academic Senate with a membership of all Professors of whatever

rank

,

and Instructors at the university (though instructors of less than

2-years' standing may not vote), and delegated to it broad powers with respect

to the authorization and supervision-of curriculum and similar broad powers,

though subject to Regents approval, in connection with admissions and

degree standards.

16

---

G'

J*1

a

.

In New York, where the Regents preside over a vast educational

empire that includes more than 4½ million students, a variety of inter-

mediate governing bodies have been set up. Private universities, of

course, have their own boards. Public-supported (and to some extent

public-aided) institutions of higher learning in the state are governed,

subject to the final legal control. and responsibility of the Regents,

by two govepüng bodies. A Board of Trustees, appointed by the governor

of the state, runs the State University of New York. Created in 1948

and including all state-supported institutions of higher education this

fast-growing system included at last count 68 colleges and university

centers (with 12 granting doctorates), with a projected full-time

enrollment by 1975 of 290,000 students. A Board of Higher Education

runs the four city colleges of the City University of New York (these

institutions grant ddgrees through the doctorate and should not be con-

fused with 2-year or purely undergraduate schools) with a present full-

time enrollment of approximately 80,000 students.

State law charges the N.Y. Regents with the formulation and

maintenance, through quadrennial revision, of a master plan for higher

education in the state, made up through the coordination of master plans

formulated by the various components of the system. California has in

recent years been analysing the structure and studying alternative plans

for the future development of its universities and colleges through the

agency of its statutory California Coordinating Council for Higher

Education.

NOTE:

Attention is directed to two Regents-type bodies that have

recently begun to function in the US. These are Illinois'

Board of Higher Education and the Ohio Board of Regents. Of

major significance, to the purposes of the present committee,

is the powers that both of these bodies have in connection

with future development,

including

the pC:er to approve all

new educational programs, such as the establishment of any

new department, division, or even an entire university.

---

I

To: Irof the Scnte Cc:..:t on the

?

tuticn nd

?

rdtions of

Governing

Bod.

-c-5

of

the

University

'ro: SL:n

The

?

of this report ic to

C,

tune

?

of the pr1; in -;thic

Ia.ic bo:h within the

I

I I I ?

tu:ion a-

?

in :eleticn

w! 'Cl-, ote: irtiic,.

of higher lerning in the Province.

All

ns tutionc appear to wor .

z on t'o

c:dinel

principle; in Acdcrc

1? 1.:

?

1,-,. ?

First, there

cxi;ts

an i ei.blc dcnd for fincial :eoraec

Second there exists a conspicuous li:it to the availability of fincii

rosource.

Intr 1 :\C.('.lC P1

ITh) fl!

The

?

odz ijioyed at Sen i:ae: for the icLo: Of

ncs p-ens both instructonai and re:eh leave very nuch :o 1e

Parz. of this ad hocery' c-

a

n

no douh b at icutcci to the reiciv: -ne

o

f

" ti-.e istitutioc.

?

however, the laci of fr

?

h in zcc.c 7i;n

.

c;n

t tote

Ll

bC

cxcu&cci. .:Le:ly,

k

w ii oz ?

.ne ttC

?

oc.ure u;e ?

n

a new progra ?

A departrent c.:.n

?

nt . propose? for cne.:

throuch

the various faculty coittces o Leete an the

?

for ?

v1.

Alternately, a departncnt can present a ?ro;Ocai

?

ct.y to

i;:(f. ?

both instantccs, the cnee nc:ely acts es a bbe:

Cc.u:o:rly, the Senate spends ralativeiy

littlo ti.:o discu jey e:.d

?

b:tr,g

the various in1I cat ions of a new pro,ra::2. This

?

:ncnent ohva.J

ca:t not and

must

not prevail if the Unve:cy oasire; to dcvaiai

orderly fcahon.

Tho University needs a Long Range Accdc.ic Plannir.g Cc::ait:ce

responsible to Senate) to co-ordinate all cc; pror ,;iees and to e::ee

fo university-wide i;pllcations. The Cc:. itaco cuid be cc:epoc.c. of

f:on Senate

)

zudcnts and Faculty. It wouid/

?

cnsLble to cxc.; ne

oosal as soon as discussion has acn I tiatcd within the

depzrt.aet ceecurned.

:.e3ul1y, the result Would be that Senate will becncged in nore ieesnir-ful

liberatcnc and arrive at o:e inforned deasions.

C'ir

PUnnIcc

W ?

There epea ?

to be a 1ac of instirional co-opc:etlon

?

the

three public u vrsitIes, Notro Dame University, BCIT,

and the various

::unity

COl1COC.

---

in, 5 G

o

:.:in

40

-icy ;u ?

CC .

,:^n

1 Of

?

i

ri1

::C.00

'fhc

?

D.it

oz co-O. .. ?

Ccc;.;jc ?

i ?

I

i:.i;c to

?

n.

o

f

?

ie:s ro.;c::.ic 3rci

?

o

?

i:

?

o co-op

?

io ?

c

'htC

l

.-,.:rs

o

be ccc.cc is c ?

rvci

-:ce .\cdc:uc

?

c

wch .Ii i

?

u:io ?

re ?

scted. ?

.-'.iIc

?

c 3o.rd

?

b3 cc:c

witb c

?

iinc ?

Of hrr

h;:pr te cetivity

t.e ?

.s

t0

crc'ce

t ?

:e zUow

cic1 reoucc.s itj

?

rOri;,:,:; ?

wiC

?

.re

?

k:

i

?

:.04

?

b

SO

r'd ac.i I

(Cc')ri7,i'

?

O

rd

?

ci'/ui ?

t ?

cch iiuin.

?

cor

boiy ?

tics ?

:II ?

.L.. ?

:i-Y ?

:•:.cd

CC ?

1d1VjC.U111

?

z I

Lu ?

-on

,

tC,

w!c'.

s

?

c: _ste

with Itc

T-e

?

rce of .n Accic ?i.i-.

?

ccd

?

• ? t:

xcce

wcii-urctio:rg

Of

&ce:;ic pici:.:

bzzs

?

th

?

I:t:.;•.1

cr two

?

cot pper ps ?

o ?

o Ac:ic

1.

?

th

o

T.-:

?

c

?

cc:cc

ci•

;-: ?

I.

?

L')¼ ?

•.:..i.. ?

C...

2 ?

Joi:: S

?

r.

tc-Erd

?

I,

?

1O3

?

cflt

Iion

cn S.:..te)

C::.:i:te ?

ort---st

I2 I3

4

z

---

;t;tL '

t ((1)

M I

1i

Budgeting

I. Present Budgetary Practice

1.

Description

Under present practice, the Provincial Government incorporates

a lump sum operating grant to the three provincial universities in

its annual budget estimate. Additionally, capital grants are given

to each of the universities.

Budget estimates are prepared by the several academic departments

by the end of the summer semester, incorporated after careful review

into the university estimate, and submitted to the Provincial Govern-

ment by November. The actual allocation of operating grants, even

if these were made shortly after the Provincial budget has been

•

?

approved, would be no earlier than April, the beginning of the fiscal

year for which the funds are appropriated.

Capital allocations have been made both on the basis of both

• ?

multi-year commitment and annual decisions. In

196

1

,

the Provincial

Government agreed to give a fixed sum allocation for each of five

years. In

1968-69,

the government added to the amount previously

committed and has recently authorized Simon Fraser University to

•

?

borrow funds to expand

,

its physical plant. This in effect commits

government t'o further grants to repay the amount borrowed.

2.

Critique

The present practise of

annual

operating grants of necessity dictates

continuous budget activity. As soon as grants are allocated to the

university and by the university to the various operating units,

work ?

must begin for the succeeding budget estimate. There is

no real opportunity for departmental chairmen/heads and other academic

---

M

DO

?

-

-2-

officers concerned with budgets to take advantage of the research

semesters.

If, as appears desirable, the body responsible for the allocation of

the operating funds to the three universities is also empowered to review

estimates before submission to the provincial government, the submission

from the University would undoubtedly be pushed ahead generating even

more time pressures within the University.

The implementation of new programs and the hiring of

.

new staff and

faculty is made a very uncertain matter. Estimates to finance these

requirements would be submitted in the latter part of the year, but the

final allocations are not known until the late spring. Hiring of faculty

normally occurs during the winter for the following academic year -- at

which time budget grants are still unknown. Getting the funds or the

assurance of such funds in April is much too late for effective programming

for the academic year which follows.

?

Capital grants are made on both a multi-rear commitment and an annual

?

0

"ad hoc" basis. This generates a great deal of uncertainty as exemplified

this year. If enrollment projections upon which the multi-year grants

are originally based prove incorrect, new multi-year commitments based

upon revised projections would undoubtedly help reduce uncertainty and

improve, university physical planning.

II. Multi-year Budgeting

S

i. Description

0

One method of reducing the time pressures and the uncertainties

generated by annual operating grants is to put provincial grants on

a multi-year basis. A minimal step is to move to two or three year

---

6.

4..iti ?

Af.)

t ?

(44)I.(4!

f

Utz

rather than annual budgets. The Provincial Government would get

requests for and commit itself to a university operating budget for

more than one year at a time.

2. Critique

A multi-year budget will enable university departments to plan and

implement its activities more effectively than does an annual budget.

To take one example:

A budget incorporating new programs and/or major expansion of staff

would be submitted as at present. If approved for the second year

of the two year budget, recruitment would take place over a longer

period including the normal hiring season.

The future costs of present and new programs can be more clearly

seen by both the university and the Provincial Government. The govern-

ment could request three to five year plans and budget estimates and act

upon the requests. Once a multi-year budget is instituted, governmental

actions would affect only the grants for the second or third year in

the future.

Universities will be forced to order their own priorities more

efficiently. Knowing the operating grant available for one or two years

ahead, the academic planning bodies will not be able to approve freely

all programs which are presented for action. They will be forced to

recognize the scarcity of resources and decide which of the programs

will, in fact, be implemented given budget ceilings.

For a multi-year budget program to operate efficiently, government

would have to prepare enrollment forecasts for higher education in the

Province and for each of the three universities to be used as one input

into the budget preparation process. If enrollments depart from fore-

casts, some revision of the multi-year budgets accepted by the government

should still be possible.

---

i44144'CLh

Ivt t

@

?

M,.i4

?

'. 1,

0

It is

is even more important that capital grants be put on a

multi-year basis. This will enable the necessary pre-construction

work to be ordered and proceed with a particular date set for the

start of

construction.

Lead times for major construction projects

easily extend over a year or two. The work itself usually extends

over a period of time.

Multi-year Budgeting

.

Pros

1.

More effective faculty recruitment.

?

1.

2.

University can order priorities ?

2.

within known limit.

2.

?

Construction programs scheduled ?

3.

more efficiently.

Cons

Government has less financial

control.

Unforeseen continZencies can

create difficulties.

Proposed expenditures, if known

in advance, can inhibit develop-

ment of new programs and projects.

K. OKUDA

---

I'

kU

UNIVERSITIES AND GOVERNMENT

/ & .

-t4C

i•.

ü

SUNDAY 10:15 TALK - SUNDAY, 31st March, 1968.

?

Professor R. Baker

SUfARY of K. HARE - "ON UNIVERSITY FREEDOM IN THE CANADIAN CONTEXT".

In

1966

the Minister for Univcr3ity 1

1

.ffair5 in Ontario, the

Honorable William Davis, Fave the Cerstoin Lecture in York University,

Toronto, He asked a number of quoftions about university affairs,

about the relationship of one urdversit.

,

7 to another, ana about the

relationship of universites to soc.cty ana the government.

University people tend to shudder at the very existence of

someone called a Minister for University Affairs, and they shudder

indeed when he turns up on campus and asks the kindof question put

by

Minister

Davis. According to a new book by Dr. Kenneth Hare, the

incoming

president of the University of Bri

t

ish Columbia, the fifths

president of U.B.C.

)

Davis asked whether the universities had really

xeconized the need for economy. It had been suggested to him that

they hadn

t

t. Ominous words, especially if you are a member of an

Ontario university and know that the speaker is the man who will decide

your

next

budget. Among other things, he cited the staf'-student ratio

in Ontario, l:l., and asked why California and Michigan could cope with

ratios like

1:16 and 1:17 without apparent loss of standards.

He questioned the way in which new programs and prc1ccts were

launched. Boards of Governors, he asserted, were apt to announce new

medical centres, new faculties, and new deoartments without nrior dis-

cussion with government to see whether fnnds miht be available. He

wondered in this context whether universities could curtail what he

called the "non-constructive aspects of competitiveness that could

prevail among them. Competition was excellent, he contended, if

it

took the form of bold and really new ventures, of exciting new approaches

---

-

2- ?

I ?

! ?

--

?

-'

to higher education. It was undesirable if it led wasteful duplication

of expensive faculties, or to com

p

etition between universities for

publicly supported student-STY.

He

went

on to quctior whether universities, with their traditions

of autonomy could "subordinate their individual ibit1o& if society

as a whole would be better served by

such action. He was sure, for

example, that the .so1utio must lie in "co-operation and coordination:

a willingness on the part of one university to share its facilities

(libraries included) and its staff with students of another".

Finally he asked whether universities, supposin that they did

learn to cooperate with one another, could learn to cooperate with

non-university institutions like technical and teachers

?

colleges.

Well, those are oointcd questions, frightening, perhaps, to

some people in universities; long overdue, probably, to a politician -

or a tacayer - outside. Highereducation demands more and more money.

As Dr. Hare notes, the budget of the University of California is larger

than the total provincial budget of Saskatchewan, even though that

province spends nearly ten percent of its total revenue on higher education.

Minister Davis had noted that the total public contribution to the four-

teen 'Ontario universities in 1966-67 was $121 million. No more than

Harvard's annual budget, adds Dr. Hare.

With such questions put in public, Canadian universities obviously

needed someone to su-gcst possible answers. In three lectures at Carleton

University, Dr. Hare, gave his analysis of the problem and his suggested

answers. He has now publ1hed the lectures in hook form. t that time,

before he had decided to return to Canada as president of U.T3.C. Dr. Flare

was probably the ideal choice to speak sensibly for the academic conurity.

33

---

0

.

A distinguished scientist

1

an cxpericnccd university

administrator, a

man versed in the two cultures of Canada (he took one of his degrees

at the University of

%

Iontrcal, a man learned in Canadian, British, and

American university affairs, he had at that moment the advantage of

lookingfrorn

outside, "through comparative spectacles" as he puts it.

As the head of a college in Britain, he spoke, moreover, from a country

where a much respected system of relationships - the University Grants

Commission - was undergoing criticism

and

change.

The cause of the questions and the reason why they must be taken

seriously is fundamentally the ever—increasjg cost of higher

education.

The Bladen Report on university financing in Canada predicted that the

universities of Canada would cost nearly two billion dollars a year

in

1975 ... and

Bladen was talking about

l95

dollars and almost certainly

underestimating. He was also omitting the costs àf two year colleges,

technological institutes, schools of art and so on. Like Dr. Hare,

I cannot believe that politicians any•:here will face expenditure on

that scale without claiming detailed control over its use. And I am

not using politician as a dir

t

y word but as a word for a man who speaks

for

and is

responsible to the electorate, the public. -

The main purpose of Hare

T

s book, therefore, is to consider the

various ways in which universities and government can livetogether

,

when government provides most of the money for the universities. He

Ul

begins by making a simple division of methods. On the one hand there

is highly

centralized government control, at its worst in totalitarian

countries, at its least undesirable, perha

p

s,. in Germany and France.

On the

other hand, there is what he calls the buffer committee. The

buffer committee is a respected body of intermediaries between the universities

3

/

---

LZLA. a

u

—

4

.

-

job

(h!)4

/(ft

and

government, trurtcd (in principle) by both academics and politicians.

The British, he points out,have favoured a corittee mainly of academics,

working b

y

convention.and I

would add working from homo

r

'eneous back-

grounds from a relatively homogeneous society. The Americans have

tended to favour a Board of Regents, made u

'

r, of distinguished citizens,

carrying great public or

estige,and supported by legislation.

Some Canadian academics will be sur

p

rised to see the system

they have advocated - an academic committee - grouped with the system

they have attacked - that of a lay board. Hare can see the essential

sir.larity, partly because he has looked further afield, but partly

because he extrapolates from the relationships between academics and

ay boards within modern universities.

He

believes that enlightened

boards have realized that the most successful universities are those

in which academic policy flows up from the faculty to the board and

not

downwards from the boardroom. He knows, he says, t

h

at there are

Some Canadian Universities (he is too tactful to name y) that will

have to be dragged,kjcicjng and.scrcaming, into Confederations second

century, but he does think that the battle for academic control of the

internal

affairs of the university is nearly won. As he says, the

dinosaurs will soon be seeking their last bed of pitch.

Hare chooses the buffee committee system without reservation

and spends his second lecture considering the details of the particular

buffer committee he thinks would work in Canada. He accepts that a

working buffer committee implies that public universities will depend

prirrily on the state for funds, that the public universities in any

one

jurisdiction, in any one province essentially, have to be treated

73.;

---

-5—

?

4fr%c/Ir3hJ

22

f2--

as a system, and that the buffer comTitee rather than the state should

run the system.

The particular buffer comit.tce he advocates would be made up

of a combination

of'

three elements: prominent lay members, with sympathy

-for university objectives; heads of universities (he thinks presidents

make more trouble off than on such comT.ittees;) and senior profesora.

Among the laymen he thinks that there should be representatives of the

• ?

school system, including at least one high school principal or senior

teacher.

He thinks that the committee should have well-articulated terms

of reference built into legislation, and he thinks that these should

include the exclusive right to present requests for annual operating

grants for the system to the government and the exclusive right to

•

?

?

co-ordinate plans for new developments (

i

ncluding new professional

schools,) the right todistribute monies to the universities as they

think just and to arrange suitable systems of audit.

To judge the application of these

recommendations

in British

Columbia, we must examine the present system. Under the Universities

Act, there are two boards. One, called at the discretion of the

Ninister

of Education, so far has been made up of one representative from each

of the Boards of Governors (laymen by definition) three members appointed

by the government, and a chairman appointed by the government. To the

credit of the government the chairman to date has been Dr. S.N.F. Chant,

the former Dean of Arts and Science U.B.C. Apart from Chant, no-one

on the board is academic. There is no assurance that there will always

.

be

an academic on

the Board.

?

There is

nothing in fact to ensure that

the

Minister need

actually call on the

committee for advice.

---

—6-

?

2

•

?

The second advisory conmi.ttoe in British Columbia is called

the Academe Board. it

is

a statutory board and casts whether or

not the Minister calls on it. It is made up of two xnembers from each

of the senates of U.B.C. Victoria,

and

Simon Fraser, and three members

appointed by the government. It elects its own

chairman,

and it

elected Dr. Chant in the hope that the two Boards would therefore be

linked.

Consjderjn

r

that until 1964 in B.C. there was no buffer mach-

anism between higher education and government, and considering

that the

change from one university to three public universities

plus

some two

year colleges and an institute of technology and one

private university

involves painful rethinking -- and unpleasant suspicion - for many

people, the two Boards - financial and academic - have served us

well. But their structure is based on the old division of powers

.

-

financial

to the board of lay governors and acadamic to a mainly

academic Senato;a

division

of power that the universities are just

abandoning - in fact if not in law.

The Advisory Board on Finance has worked well in that its

recommendations have been accepted by the government, and

I

an assured

by people I trust that there has been no interference by the government

in arriving at those recommendations.

The Academic Board has been I think more than helpful to the

existing regional colleges and in their reLtionships with the universities.

It has either fostered

or

blessed cooperation among the universities -

especially U.B.C. and Simon Fraser because of their proximity - on such

things as graduate studios and libraries - cooperation of the

kind

that

Minister Davis in Ontario was threatening to enforce.

3?

---

u

/Dlid

4

-7-

2

But, persona'.ly, and I have been a reber of the Acadcic

Board since it began and

workc<I

under thc remJ.ts of the itdvisor:,r

Board on Finance, I a' quite convinced that the present system will

not coitinue to work.

I hope that when Dr. Hare arrives as President Hare of U.B.C..

he will he able to get the other presircnts, the Boardof Governor',

the Senates, and the government to. agree on a new system. President

'Kacdonald's lasting achievement was to introduce variety into higher

education in B.C. Perhaps President Haro

2

s will be to introduce some

order into that variety.

4

?

T"\

0

0

---

>

?

April 14, 1968

THE PROBLEMS OF PROVINCIAL PLANNING IN THE UNIVERSITIES

COUNTERPOINT

?

DA

Text of C.B.C. Talk

?

(44L'

t'/

Individual universities may be the last stronghold in our kind of

society of baronial techniques of development. And I don't mean that any par-

ticular chancellor, president, dean, or head of department acts like a medieval

baron. I mean that the development of programs, departments, faculties, even

new universities and colleges themselves, tends to come from the initiative of

individuals or groups of individuals.

When there's

:

only one university in the province, as there was in B.C.

until recently, one can hope that all decisions about new programs are taken with

all the relevant information under consideration. Someone had to decide that

British Columbia needed to train its own lawyers for many years before it trained

any of its doctors.

4

Someone had to decide that it was important that professional

social workers needed five years of university training and that professional

elementary teachers could start with only one or two. Those decisions were made

in large part by the Senate and the Board of Governors of UBC, and I'm sure that

-they were made carefully.

In the future, however, the situation is going to be quite different..

We have three universities - public and one private. We have two-year colleges,

an institute of technology, and vocational schools. It is time I think to con-

sider how we co-ordinate our development in the future. Let me confine myself

to the.universities for now. At present, any group, department head, jean,

president, faculty, Senate or Board of Governors can start thinking about some

new program. At my own university, Simon Fraser, for example, I know that some

faculty have had requests from people in the community for a Department ot

Clinical Psychology. Before Simon Fraser opened we had a request for some par-

ticular department or faculty just about once a week. What happens at present

when someone gets an idea about a new program? Well he studies programs elsewhere

---

SPA loje.

-

2 -

?

4itv

_-n

no surveys with more or less efficiency the needs in the province, and he

draws up a proposal. The appropriate department discusses the proposal an

perhaps miifies it. It's discussed in Vacuity and then in the Senate of the

University. By the time it gets to the Senate, you can be fairly sure that

tue proposal is academically sound .

It

i Ll be a recpe:rah Le pr ram trat.

any wdvers Lty could

p

DL

our

in Coal

i':t

i;

?

Tho apimovad propooul

prop ?

t.nun gocU

LY

Inn

133U1'i

of

(kV:I'i :,,s

of the univo

ralry

. The board d '': ides

wn q

thcr or

rrz)1:

estimates

f

o

r

it should be included in tr:e annual rques t for I'unds

to

the

i..r.cvinc La! Government. Finally the total university request g

oes 10

rwrrd

After the government has announced its bwl,et for all universities,

Provincial Advisory Board studies the budgets of the universities and advises

he Minister of Education how to a! Loeate the

funds.

So far the Mini st'r has

acc'ented the advice of his hoard. At no point however, has it been neec

f

o

r any committee or board-university os public--to

studj

toe pi'Opo;.o.: ?

rit.

its 'ieveLopment,

or

to see whether or not one

of

the ot.h.-r ur:ivers.

olanri ng a similar development . Moreover. the Board of (;siern irz K a

tc

i'

finds it difficult to turn down a request or its own Se

" ata, und 1'r:sure

any Cc'vernmerlt finds it dif!'Ieult to ougCoso that any w iversi t.y iJ

'

ne a par-

ticular program from its plans.

To be specific, who is respinellsio for ueebl

Ov

whether :r

WJL

Fraser should train Clinical Psychologists; Victoria - ;eal w.rer.:: W3C -

dentists and Notre Dame - medicaL records - Librarians. Who is to

one

planning is co-ordinated in

the future, us the demands ror h:i it€:r-e

aol the money it needs go up?

There are a number of possibilities. The

now

president s

y

550

na.

suggested some in a recent book. The Minister of Eiucatioo has

?

:•unct. ?

:;

he proposes to appoint a small Commission to examine

the

whole qu

. 's

ioi.

A;

Simon Fraser, a

Senate

Committee is at work. i'm sure that. Victoria. No

r rn 5am.;

---

• ?

•.

M

CA

ni thc• two-year colleges will also have suggestions. The present academic

?

visory boards will certainly have

?

The one thin[',I'm qui to crl.;o ili

Of io that someone must cu-orciLnate

!ULL

re larft; , w'i that. rncats internally the

iui ivilual ui1iversites mit develo

p

1ytt'?r paui.i.nr

prX:e(JUre3 then they've

r:ad in

?

a:t

?

And t-hey niut co:L:

L1t

r •re

pltr5 Oi'

it.he r univers it ie ,

anl

O •.

t •, '

other ari

?

of hiher edueit

i.OL .

?

M'.OVu

r ?

a:;] i1 tunixi1

body that is

uj' to co- :rd inat

?

uf

ivers i ty ii cvc, I

?

.en t. arid arrv i.;:

?

the

t

oveirn.. t mui: r.

teeth, and the present acaderiic

i):L.l

aftt

a .

ivi.ory b:ard have very bare

indeed

in

rnatters

of future

ilaxtr. I u.

R. J. Baker,

-- ?

Department. of Ei1ih.

a

---

haw

GOVERNING BODIES IN UNIVERSITIES - A BIBLIOGRA

•

? CANADA

(a) Books, Pamphlets and Government Reports

n.i.l. ? Armstrong, H.S. Academic administration in higher education:

a report on personal policies and procedures current in some

universities and colleges in Canada and the U.S. Ottawa,

Canadian Universities Foundation, 1959. pp.98.

n.i.l. Story, G.M. (Chairman). University government: a report of the

Memorial University of Newfoundland Teachers' Association. St.

John's, Memorial University Press, 1962.

pp.

54.

LA ? University government in Canada. Report of a commission sponsored

415

?

by the Canadian Association of University Teachers and the

U55 ?

Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. J. Duff and

R.O. Berdahl. Toronto, Published for the Associations by the

University of Toronto Press, 1966.

LA ? Whalley, C. A place of liberty; essays on the government of

417 ?

Canadian universities. Toronto, Clark Irwin, 1964. pp.224.

W4S

(b) Periodical articles

..i.1. ? Beauregard, C. L'administration des universites: vers une

ouverture nouvelle? Prospectives 3: 11-12, Feb. 1967.

Bissell, C.T. A proposal for university government at U. of T.

• ?

CAUT/ACPU Bulletin 15: 42-46, Dec. 1966.

Cameron, P. Duff-Berdahl report: will the patient live?

CAUT/ACPU Bulletin 15: 47-52, Dec. 1966.

Canadian Association of University Teachers. The reform of

university government; a statement by the Committee on

University Government presented to the Executive Council of the

Canadian Association of University Teachers. CAUT/ACPU Bulletin

9: 10-35, 1960.

ti.i.1.

?

Flynn, M. A survey of student involvement in the decision-making

process at Canadian universities. Journal of the Canadian Association

of University Student Personnel Services 2: 12-14, Spring 1967.

Freedman, S. University government; an address to the Council of

the CAUT given on Monday, June 15, 1964. CAUT/ACPU Bulletin 13:

14-26, Oct. 1964.

n.i.1.

?

Hugo-Brunt, N. Personal opinion (Administration of universities).

School Administration 2: 50-51, Jan-Feb. 1965.

• ?

• Lower, A.R.M. Administrators and scholars. Queen's Quarterly 71:

• ? 203-213, Summer 1964.

?

•

3,,

---

MI u

h

b ?

S

?

14

4,

MacKenzie, N.A.M. Faculty participation in university government.

CAUT/ACPU Bulletin 9, no.4, 8-14, 1961.

Mayo, H.B. University government--trends and a new model.

CAUT/ACPU Bulletin 13: 10-24, May 1965.

Morton, W.L. The evolution of university government in Canada.

Canadian Forum 43: 243-247, 1962.

Morton, W.L. University government: the alienation of the administration.

CAUT/ACPU Bulletin 9, 5-13, 1961.

Rowat, D.C. Duff-Berdahi report on university government; a summary

and critique of its findings and main recommendations. CAUT/ACPU

Bulletin 14: 23-30

1

April 1966.

Rowat, D.C. Faculty participation in Canadian university government.

American Association of University Prolessors Bulletin 43: 461-476, 1957.

n.i.1. ?

Rowat, D.C. The government of Canadian universities. Culture 17:

268-283, 364-378, 1956.

Rowat, D.C. The uniqueness of the university administration. CAUT/

ACUP Bulletin 9, no.4: 22-27, 1962.

Smith, J.P. University government. CAUT/ACPU Bulletin 8: 4-15, 1960.

Smith, P.J. Duff-Berdahl report on university government. University

Affairs 7: 1-3, April 1966.

n.i.l. ? Stewart, C.H. The government of Canadian universities. CAUT/ACPU

Bulletin 5, no.2: 8-10, 1957.

Thompson, W.P. University government. CAUT/ACPU Bulletin 9, no.2: 4-8,

1960.

n.i.1. ?

University government in Canada as illustrated by the case of United

College, Winnipeg. Universities Review(U.K.) 31: 43-48, 1959.

n.i.l. ? Williams, D.R. It's a good question! Is there

a

place on the academic

senate for graduates? UBC Alumni Chronicle 21: 9, Summer 1967.

UNITED STATES

(a) Books, Pamphlets and Government Reports

n.i.1. Adams, A.S. Relations between governing boards and administrative

officers, in Proceedings of the Association of Governing Boards of

State Universities, 1952. pp.51-57.

•

?

n.i.l.

? Beck, Hubert P. Men who control our universities: the economic and

social composition of governing boards of thirty 1eadin American

universities. New York, King's Crown Press, 1947. 2291)p.

This study is designed (1) to analyze objective evidence about

the economic and social characteristics of members of governing boards

of 30 leading American universities, and (2) to evaluate some of the

implications of these characterists. The author recommended greater

diversity among board members, a wider representation of social groups.

ilo

---

(3)

/8 o

4

LB

Blackwell, Thomas E.

?

College and university administration.

?

New

2341

York, Center for Applied Research in Education, 1966.

?

116pp.

*155

(see Chapter 2, The corporate board and the office of the president,

pp.6-17)

LB

Blackwell, Thomas E.

?

College law: a guide for administrators.

2523

Washington, D.C., American Council on Education, 1961.

?

347pp.

B4

(see Chapter 2, The college corporation,

?

pp.22-57.)

The author reviews legislative and judicial decisions affecting:

/ ?

(1) state supervision and control of educational corporations,

?

(2)

/ ?

public funds for support of educational institutions,

?

(3) corporate

powers and their exercise,

?

(4) administration of the institutions,

and, ?

(5) duration of corporate life.

LA

Brubacher, John S., and Willis Rudy.

?

Higher education in transition:

226

an American history, 1636-1954.

?

New York, Harper and Row, 1958.

?

494pp.

B75

(see Chapters 2, 17, and 18.)

A history of higher education in the U.S. from 1636-1954, this

volume includes the development of boards of trustees.

?

The corporate

structure of college government is seen by the authors as a

distinguishing feature of U.S. higher education.

n.i.l.

?

Butts, R. Freeman. "Formulation of policy in American colleges and

universities': in the Year Book of Education: 1959, Higher Education,

George F. Bereday and Joseph A. Lauwerys, eds. New York, Harcourt,.

Brace and World, 1959. 520pp.

Traditional predominance of the administration and board in

policy making should be equalized by a larger participation of the

faculty at various levels of institutional government. The board

serves best when its role is confined to consideration of policies

proposed by the president and faculty.

n.i.l. ?

Capen, S.P. The management of universities. Buffalo, N.Y., Foster

and Stewart, 1953.

n.i.l.

?

Carman, Harry J. "Boards of trustees and regents," in Administrators

in higher education: their functions and coordination, Gerald P.

Burns, ed. New York, Harper and Row, 1962. 236pp. (see

pp.

79-98.)

Boards of trustees have (1) increasingly delegated authority to

the president and the faculty and (2) given the faculty autonomous

authority over many educational matters.

LB

?

Corson, John J. Governance of colleges and universities. New York,

2341

?

McGraw-Hill, 1960. 209pp. (see

pp.

49-58 and 126-127.)

C77

?

?

The author suggests the trustees ought to increase their

participation in educational program decision making. Major problems

facing boards: (1) dependancy on others-for the formulation and making of

many decisions for which the board is ultimately responsible; (2)

inability to influence decisions that determine the basic character

of the institutions - a great deal of authority having been delegated

to the faculty; (3) inadequate information.

LB ?

Demerath, N.J. Power, psidents and professors. New York, Basic

• 341

?

Books, 1967. 275pp.

• ?

D4 ?

• ? • ?

.

At /

---

(4) ?

c.a'?

LB ? Dodds, Harold W. The academic president - educator or caretaker?

2341

?

New York, McGraw-Hill, 1962. 294pp. (sec

pp.

211-286.)

The author sees modern academic government as a kind of

bicameral system with an upper house, the trustees, making many

unilateral decisions (primarily in "nonacademic" areas) and approving the

actions (primarily in the "academic" area) of the lower house, the

faculty. Too often these two houses live far apart from each other

except as the president communicates between them.

n.i.1.

?

?

Hanson, Abel A. The trustees and the development program. Outline of

the keynote rei'iarks made before Panel lila, French Lick, Indiana,

July 14, 1959. Mimeographed.

The author (1) sketches some differences between boards of trustees

in public and private institutions, (2) reviews some of the literature

defining trustee roles and functions, and (3) comments on the emerging

role of the trustees in development programs, suggesting more trustee

participation in fund-raising activities and policy making.

n.i.l. Hardie, James C. Trustees - bless them all! Paper presented at a

regional conference by the Council for Financial Aid to Education,

New York, March 22-24, 1960. Mimeographed.

Trustees have two roles: custodians and builders. A top-flight

institution is top flight because of an active board of quality and

"building" trustees. Trustees become valuable to the extent that they

are involved in the policy-making functions (and the development

program) of the institutions.

n.k.

?

?

Hertzel, R. What are the central responsibilities of the trustees which

apply both to publicly and privately supported institutions? in Current

Issues in Higher Education.. Washington, D.C., Association for Higher

Education,. 1960. pp.153-156.

n.i.l. ?

Houle, C.O. The effective board. New York, Association Press, 1960.

n.i.l.

Hughes, Raymond M.

?

A manual for trustees of colleges and universities.

Ames, Iowa, The Iowa State College Press, 1943.

?

166pp.

The purpose of this book is to acquaint trustees with some

policies, practices, and problems of higher education administration.

Areas covered include the relationship of the trustee to the president

and the faculty; specific responsibilities of trustees; responsibilities

of trustees in policy development; duties and services of a trustee.

LB

Hungate, Thad L.

?

Management in higher education. ?

New York, Teachers

2342

College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1964.

?

348pp.

H82

. ?

In this analytical study of management (including trustees,

executives and the faculty) in higher education, the-author draws

these conclusions about boards of trustees:

?

(1) ?

the board should

emphasize participation in policy making at all levels of the organization:

governance by concensus;

?

(2) through the president, the board should

delegate large portions of its authority and responsibility;

?

(3) boards

should be organized with an executive committee, advisory committee on

objectives, plans, and evaluation, education, business and finance,

public relations and fund procurement, ad hoc committees as needed, and a

.

committee with power to act for the board--the committee on investments;

(4) communication among all parties of governance is necessary for

• ?

effecient management; ?

(5) the board's view for the institution must be

long range; ?

(6) each institution should have its own governing board.

4/z

---

LB

?

Internal structure; organization and administration of institutions

341 ?

of higher education. United States. Office of education, Division

of higher education, 1962. 123pp.

LB

Lunsford, T.F.

?

The study of academic administration.

?

Boulder, Cob.,

2331

Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1963.

?

158pp.

156

1963

LB

Maclver, Robert M.

?

Academic freedom in our time.

?

New York, Columbia

2332

University Press, 1955.

?

329pp.

M28

Devoted primarily to the topic of academic freedom, this volume

1967

spends some time on academic government (see especially Part II, pp.

67-110). ?

A major conclusion: Those institutions of highest repute have

boards that fully recognize the right of the faculty in the academic

community. ?

In addition: ?

(1) boards should consult with faculties in

the search for a president;

?

(2) boards should make personnel changes

only after consultation with the faculty;

?

(3) boards should assure

the faculty full authority over the curriculum.

ni.1.

McVey, Frank L. and Raymond M. Hughes.

?

Problems of college and

university administration.

?

Ames, Iowa, The Iowa State College Press,

1952. ?

326pp. ?

(See Chapter 2,"The president and the trustees", pp.47-81).

The authors discuss presidi-board relationships, board size,

and board responsibility for formulation of institution policy.

i.1. ?

Martorana, S.V. College boards cE trustees. Washington, D.C., Center

for Applied Research in Education, 1963.

LB

?

Millett, John D. The academic community: an essay on organization.

2341

?

New York, McGraw-Hill, 1962. 265pp. (sec pp. 182-186).

M46

?

?

The role of the board is generally one of oversight of the

administration of an institution. The board is keeper of the social

conscience, guardian of the public interest in higher education. Boards

•

?

should deal with broad issues, not details.

n.i.l. ?

Rauh, Morton A. College and university trusteeship. Yellow Springs,

Ohio

)

Antioch Press, 1959. 112pp.

A report based on the author's interviews with over 50 crustess

and a review of the literature, this volume sets forth the role of

trustees (especially in private institutions offering the 4-year and

higher degrees)-and some techniques which are helpful in fulfilling this

role. It also (1) describes the major functions. of the board, (2)

identifies some of the common problem areas, (3) provides some examples

against which trustees can compare their own institution, and (4) suggests

means of further study. Appendix includes recommended readings for trustees.

n.i.l. The role of the trustees of Columbia University. The report of the

Special Trustees Committee adopted by the trustees November 4, 1957.

New York, Columbia University in the city of New York, 1957. 50pp.

• ?

This report is a careful analysis of the role of the board of

. •

?

trustees of this type of board. Specific recommendations are made for

improving the work of the board; a brief history of the board and its

functions is presented.

'/3

---

(6) ?

.

n.i.1.

?

Rumi, Beardsley, and Donald H. Morrison. Memo to a college trustee.

New York, McGraw-Hill, 1959. 94pp.

Essentially an assessment of financial and structural problems of

the independent 4-year liberal arts college, this report (1) reviews

• ?

the present method of curriculum building, suggests that the trustees

should take from the faculty as a body the responsibility for curriculum

design and administration; (2) emphasizes that the final responsibility

for the institution and its programs rests with the trustees.

LB ?

Selected issues in college administration. Columbia University, Teachers

2341 ?

College Press, 1967. 83pp. (see chapter 3, Organizing and energizing

S4 ?

the board for effective action.)

n.i.l. ?

Tead, Ordway. Trustees, teachers, students: their role in higher education.

Salt Lake City, Utah, University of Utah Press, 1951. (see pp. 171-180,226).

The author recommends functional representation on boards of control,

predicts greater faculty representation in the future, suggests

limitation on length of service.

n.i.1.

Wicke, Myron F. Handbook for trustees of church related colleges and

universities. Nashville, Tenn., Board of Education of the Methodist

Church, 1957. 57pp.

Topics covered: the trustee system in the United States, areas of

board responsibility, board-president relationships, meetings and reports

of the board, the trustee and the faculty, the trustee and the church.

.i.1.

Woodburne, Lloyd S.

?

Principles of college

and university

administration.

Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1958.

197pp. ?

(see

Chapter 1,

"University organization," pp.1-34.)

LB

Wriston, Henry M.

?

Academic procession: reflections of a

college president.

2331

New York, Columbia University Press, 1959.

222pp. ?

(see

chapter 2, "The

W7

trustees,"

?

pp.44-85.)

Custom as well as charter provisions

often determine

the organization

and work of a board.

?

Time and custom have

shifted much

of the substance

of power from the board to the faculty.

(b) Periodical articles

Axelrod, J New organizational patterns in higher education. Education

Digest 30: 22-25, Jan 1965.

n. j. 1.

?

Ayers, A.R. and J.H. Russel. Organization for administration in higher

education. Higher Education 20: 7-10, April 1964.

n.i.1.

?

Bell, Laird. From the trustees' corner. Association of American

Colleges Bulletin 51-57, 1952.

Black, Max. Academic government. Bulletin of the American Association

of University Professors 42: 613-617, Winter 1956.

The quality of decisions of boards of control is determined largely

by the quality of the counsel they recieve. Communication between

faculty trustees must and can be improved.

Brewster, K., jr. Pressures on university trustees; e)(perts from address

May 1967. School and Society 95: 404 Nov 11, 1967.

---

1 16 1169

SPA

I

Brickman, W.W. Student power and academic anarchy. School and Society

96: 6, Jan 6, 1968.

L.j.1. ?

. ?

Brown, J.D. Mr. Ruml's,memo: a wrong approach to the right problem.

Journal of Higher Education 412-416, Nov 1959.

Brown, R.S., jr. and L. Joughin. Announcement of a program for faculty

responsibility and authority. American Association of University.

Professors Bulletin 53: 400-402, Dec 1967.

/ Bryant, V.S. Role of the regent. American Association of University

Professors Bulletin 50: 317-322, Dec 1964.

California state college trustees approve 1966 statement on government.

American Association of University Professors Bulletin 53: 403-404, Dec 1967.

n.i.l. ?

Chambers, M.M. Who is the university? Journal of Higher Education

30: 320-324, June 1959.

Although a university may be many things, it is, legally, the

board of trustees. Each student, faculty member, and administrator has

made a contract with the board to perform certain services in exchange

for certain payments and services. Powers of the board may be delegated

but they can never be abrogated by those to-whom the power is delegated.

Various forms of student or faculty "self-government" are useful as long

as their legal limitations are recogrized.

Clark, B.R. Faculty authority. American Association of University...::-

Professors Bulletin 47: 293-302, Dec 1961.

n.i.l.

?

Coolidge, Charles A. Training for trustee. Association of American

Colleges Bulletin 42: 510-513, Dec 1956.

The author compares directors of business corporations with trustees

of institutions of higher education and concludes that differences between

business and education organizations are significant, that some special

training is desirable for trustees.

n.i.l. ?

Davis, Paul H. More to be desired are they than gold... Association

?

of American Colleges Bulletin 44: 391-398, Oct 1956.

The author's judgement is that excellent institutions of higher

education have three distinguishing features: (1) clearly defined

objectives; (2) missionary zeal; and (3) "exceptional" trustees--

exceptional in their enthusiasm for the institution, their rigorous

code of ethics, their special contributions to the mission of the

organization, their abilities and willingness to work.

n.i.l. ?

Davis, Paul H. An open letter to the chairman of the board of trustees.

Liberal Education 47: 352-359, Oct 1961..

Boards of trustees, with few exceptions, are among the most

serious problems facing colleges and universities to day. Sixteen

recommendations are made by the author.

De Baun, V.C. Faculty as administrative seedbed. Educational Record

43: 158-162, April 1962.

?

. .

n.i.1. ?

Eble, K.E. and A.J. Dibden. Faculty committee: aid or inhibitor in

achieving educational goals? Journal of Higher Education 32: 280-283,

May 1961. ?

.

---

Eells, Walter C.

?

Boards of control of universities and colleges.

Educational Record 42: 336-342, Oct 1961.

An analysis of data in American Universities and Colleges, 1960 ed.

Faculty participation in college and university government.

?

American

Association of University Professors Bulletin 48: 16-18, March 1962.

Faculty participation in college and university government; statement of

principles approved by the council, October 26, 1962.

?

American

Association of Universit)'rofessors Bulletin 48: 321-323, Dec 1962.

Farrnerie, S.A.

?

Characteristics and functions of trustees serving

Pennsylvania liberal arts colleges.

?

Journal of Educational Research

59: 374-376, April 1966.

n.i.1.

Fram, E.H.

?

Faculty ownership of higher education.

?

Junior College

Journal 32: 388-391, March 1962.

n.i.1.

Harrington, F.H.

?

Function of university administration; helping the

university to change the world.

?

Journal of Higher Education 34: 131-136,

March 1963.

n.i.l.

Havighurst, Robert J.

?

The governing of the university.

?

School and

Society 79: 81-86, March 1954.

The author's thesis is that inst

i lt

?

of higher education are

under the control of businessmen through their domination of the boards

of trustees.

?

The author concludes that businessmen can solve the

economic problems of higher education; they may also solve the problems

S

.

of guarding the freedom or reasearch and teaching.

n.i.l.

?

Horn, F.H. Dean and the president. Liberal Education 50: 463-475, Dec 1964

n.

3..

Keenan, B.R.; A Carisson; A.J. Dibden.

?

Are specialized faculty members

competent to help formulate broad educational policies?

?

Journal of

Higher Education 33: 446-451, Nov 1962.

u.i.1.

Keenan, B.R.

?

Need for closer conformity to the business model.

Journal of Higher Education 32: 513-515, Dec 1961.

n.i.1.

Lloyd, Glen A.

?

A trustee looks at his job.

?

Liberal Education 45:

459-500, Dec 1959.

?

-

The author suggests that trustees can be strong allies of the

faculty, that trustees cannot perform their total responsibilities

without concern for the educational program of the institution, that

a prime requisite for board membership is interest, that boards should

meet often and work through a few standing committees supplemented,

as needed, by ad hoc committees.

n.i.1.

McBride, K.

?

The role of trustees.

?

Journal of Higher Education

432-434, Nov 1959.

McNeil, G.H. Facultyparticipation in college and university government:

a utilitarian approach.

?

American Association of University Professors

Bulletin 48: 364-367, Dec 1962.

n.i.1. ?

Marcham, F.G. Faculty representation on the board of trustees.

American Association of University Professors Bulletin

42: 617-621, Winter 1956.

?

.

The author recommends a long-range planning committee consisting of

trustees, administrators )

and faculty members to meet regularly and plan

---

(9)

n.i.1. ?

Merry, Robert W.. How to orient and train trustees. Liberal Education

45: 373-381, Oct 1959.

S

The author discusses four purposes fOr the orientation and training

of trustees: (1) to develop knowledge and understanding of the trustees'

role; (2) to develop knowledge and understanding of the institution;

(3) to enable trustees to participate more effectively earlier; (4) to

make this public service fun from the start.

Mooney, R.L. Problem of leadership in the university. Harvard

Educational Review 33: 42-57, Winter 1963.

n.i.l. ?

Morris, C.

Senate and the university; increasing control of policy.

Times Educational Supplement 2460: 54, July 13, 1962.

Newburn, H.K. Faculty and administration in the governance of the

university. Educational Record 45: 255-264, Summer 1964.

Ohies, J.F. BerkeleyLris; a second look. School and Society 94: 66,

Feb 5, 1966.

n.i.l. ?

Patton, R.D. Can we save democracy in higher educational administration?

Journal of Higher Education 35: 217-219, April 1964.

Reply. Lorish, R.E. 35: 342, June 1964.

n.i.l. ?

Patton, R.D. Changing scene in higher education: administration.?

Journal of Higher Education 34: 97-99, Feb 1963.

.

?

Pray, F.C. Report card for college trustees. Educational Record 45:

251-254, Summer 1964.

n.i.1. ?

Presthus, R. University bosses. New Republic 152: 20-24, Feb 20, 1965.

Discussion 152: 28-29, March 13, 1965.

Rainey, Homer P. How shaliwe control our universities. Journal of

Higher Education 31: 376-383, Oct 1960.

Subtitled "Why College Presidents leave their jobs," this article

explains that the authority of the board of trustees places the president

in an unfavorable position: He is an employee of the board holding his

position at the pleasure of the board. Despite attempts to develop

mutual trust, boards hamper the creative effort of presidents.

Reavis, C.A. Ten positive commandments for trustees. Liberal Education

53: 223-228, May 1967.

The Rumi-Morrison proposals for the liberal college: a symposium.

Journal of Higher Education 30: 411-452, November 1959.

This series of 8 articles reviews, often critically, the Ruml-

Morrison analyses and recommendations. See especially "The function

of the president as interpreted in the memo" by B.C. Keeney for a

discussion related to boards of trustees.

Steinzor, B. and A.J. Dibden. Professor as trustee. Journal of Higher

Education 34: 345-348, June 1965.

---

;'.

(10)

/10

Aq

Taylor,

G.E. ?

Leadership of the universities. ?

Annals of the American

Academy

of Political and Social Science 356: 1-11, Nov 1964.

.

Tead, 0.

Role of the college trustee today.

?

Educational Record 44:

258-265,

July 1963.

Ten Hoo, N. Academic authority: the 'power and the glory. Educational

Record 45: 265-271, Summer 1964.

Walker, E.A. President and his board. Educational Record 45: 246-250,

Summer 1964.

Winters, George. Faculty-trustee communications. American Association

of University Professors Bulletin 42: 621-628, Winter 1965.

Faculty and boards of control consist largely of reasonable,

rational men of good will. Communication between these two groups

is broken because of varying viewpoints--the faculty is concerned with

teaching and research, the trustees with finances. Communication cannot

be restored by the president alone or a few faculty representatives

on the board; it can be partially restored by (1) joint trustee-faculty

conference committees and (2) using the academic dean as an academic

consultant to the board of trustees.

GREAT BRITAIN

(a) Books, Pamphlets and Government Reports

•

n.j. 1.

n.i.1.

n. 1. 1.

Palmer, W.B. University government and organization. British Universities

Annual, 1966. pp.128-142.

"The place of the layman in university government'.' Proceedings of the

Association of the Universities of the British Commonwealth. London, 1963.

"Who should determine university policy?" Proceedings of the Association

of the Universities of the British Commonwealth. London, 1958.

(b) Periodical articles

n.j. 1.

n.i.l.

Aylmer, G.E. University government--but by shom? Universities Quarterly

13: 45-54, 1958.'

Duncan-Jones, A. Thoughts on the government of modern universities.

Universities Quarterly 9: 245-253, May 1955.

Lloyd, N.F. Domestic administration in the universities. University

Review 28: 23-24, Feb 1956.

Mackintosh, John P. Who should control the universities? Times

Educational Supplement 2683: 923, Oct 21, 1966.

University administration; a symposium. Universities Quarterly 3: 796-813,

1949.

L

---

•

?

A2.4

_-4

W^_•

.

?

PRELIMIi'IARY BRIEF ON UNIVERSITY STRUCTURES UNDER A PROPOSED NEW ACT

This brief will contain primarily recommendations. Supporting

arguments can be discussed at our meeting and attached later.

I. ?

Commission

Oil

Higher Education

Each institution of higher learning in the province will be

given

the 1

greatest possible autonomy in developing its academic programs.

a)

/

?

Functions:

1.

Broadly to receive aLd evaluate budgets (henceforth to be

openly arrived at) of all institutions of higher learning in

the province.

2.

To negotiate changes

in

proposed

proposed Uiiversity budgets with

the institutions concerned.

3. To argue the final budget document before the appropriate

government office, be it C.biuet Minister or whatever.

4.

To determine the final allocation of funds once the budget

has become law.

b)

?

Composition: It is clear from past experience that two basic

elements should be represented on the commission.

1.

The Community

2.

Academic

For sake of argument, I suggest that we start with a figure of

fifteen, eight of these to be academics and seven to be represent-

atives of the community at large.

Representatives from the Community: Three Trade Unionists (two from the

B.C. Federation of Labour, one representing unions not in the B.C.

Federation of Labour), one

representative

from the B.C. Teacher's Federation,

one representative from

the B.C. business community, one representative of

the rural community in B.C., one representative of the Bar.

Methods of Selection: These representatives from the community are to

be chosen from a list of ominees

presented by the several academic

constituencies by the eight academic members of the commission.

Academic Members of the Commission: These should be chosen in such a

manner as

to ensure that each institution has at least one representative

on the commission and that the remainder of membership be chosen in

such a manner as to take into account

the size of enrollment of students

and

the number of faculty

in

each

institution. (Clearly,

depeudin upon

the number of institutions we

consider within

the parview of the act, it

may be necesary to expand the number of academics on

the commission).

Although I believe that such institution should choose the way which it

wants to select its members of the commission, would prefer to see a

system of direct election by faculties.

?

-

---

tL4j1i

a ?

j

M ,.c

flo I

8

?

"'A

le

-2-

Remuneration: I would expect that this conimissioji would be in permanent

session for at least six months of every year and that, consequently, the

academic members of the commission would have to be seconded to the

Commission with full pay and that the lay members of the commission would

have to be remunerated in a manner befitting the kind of work that they

are doing for the commission.

Secretariat: The Commission should have a small, permanent, highly-

skilled secretariat. In addition to this secretariat, and in order to

ensure that the secretariat does not acquire the real power of the comm-

ission by virtue of its (the secretariat's) being permanent, and to

ensure the maximum of communjcatiok between the commission and the

ILLStj tUt j

OnS

of higher learning involved, I suggest that there be a

Rotating Committee attached to the commissio1, Composed of faculty

members who are sitting on the Long-range Planning Committees of the

several Universities. These faculty members would thus have access

to relevant material and would also be able, in other deliberations on

the University Long-range Planning Committees, to present a clearer

picture of the province-wide situation.

II. ?

Senate

a)

Functions: The Senate shall be the highest academic body of

each institution of higher learning. In addition to the duties

•

?

that it has under the present act, Section 54, it shall take

over certain other functions now held by the present Board of

Governors.

b)

Composition: Senate should be a body of thirty members, fifteen

faculty and fifteen students. In each case, there should be a

minimal guarantee that each faculty is represented; however,

the majority of the membership should be drawn from the University

at large, both students and faculty. For example, assuming that

the three Deans would sit on the Senate exofficio, I believe that

it would only be necessary to guarantee that each faculty has,

in addition, one faculty representative from each faculty and

one student representative from each faculty.

III. ?

President and Academic Vice-President:

The President and Academic Vice-President should hold office for

three years with the possibility of no more than one re-election.

He should be chosen by a method of direct election, to be

determined by joint faculty and the Student's Societies of each

University.

C. Sperling