The Insiders
-
Jan
24
Issue of the Day: Governance
Posted by: Neal Yonson | January 24, 2007 | 22 Comments
Who governs UBC? Right now it’s a complicated balance between the University’s BoG, and the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD). In short, UBC’s BoG has the final say on development on campus, provided it conforms with various strategic plans (OCP, etc) that are the purview of the GVRD.
However, what happens when there’s a conflict? What happens when UBC thinks development conforms, while the GVRD doesn’t? (See the Marine Drive Residences, for an example.) In these situations, the governance conundrum is apparent. Who ought to have the final say in how UBC’s property is developed? UBC? GVRD? Students? Vancouver? Right now, nobody really knows.
There are four generally considered options:
- Status quo. UBC autonomy, with some GVRD oversight, to ensure compliance.
- UBC joins the GVRD, and all development must be approved directly by the GVRD permit board, like any other development.
- UBC forms its own municipality, with a municipal governance structure all its own and separate from GVRD/Vancouver
- No municipal gov’t controls on UBC whatsoever
In addition, there is a movement to amend the BoG composition. Some argue there should be more student seats, though, that might not be the most sturdy basket in which to store all your eggs. And while BoG reform is important, the Governance Review is already happening, so where the candidates stand is important.
There are some very important questions inherent in the options.
- Who votes? Residents, students, resident students?
- How to reconcile the vastly different interests of students/non-students?
- Who provides municipal services?
- Which should be more powerful? An elected council, or BoG?
- Should institutional (classrooms, student-only residences) and non-institutional development (condos) be treated differently?
So, once again, back to you. The AMS instigated a governance review, at the GVRD level, to consider this very question. So we leave it to you: which option is preferable? What should the AMS’ role be? Should there be a municipal government at UBC?
Where the candidates stand:
Darren Peets: A municipal government regime at UBC is a good idea.
Jeff Friedrich: Any governance regime must include students.
Brendon Goodmurphy: Hasn’t made up his mind, but is leaning towards a municipal structure at UBC.
Bruce Krayenhoff: Continue my predecessor’s work with the GVRD towards giving students a real say in development decisions.
Joel Koczwarski: The Provincial seats on the BOG should be chosen through an electoral process. The more democracy in the BOG the better. And proportional rep for students.
Tom Masterson: Equal rep in proportion to the amount to which we fund the University.
Matthew Naylor: Lobby to ensure that the appointed BoG reps have student interests in mind.
Comments
22 Comments so far
One other area of governance that is also incredibly important is academic governance. Is the way the university is currently governed positive? It’s basically the same Senate and BoG governing an institution of 43,000 at UBC-V as there was when it was a 1,500 person campus. The ability for students to participate in decision-making is substantially less than what it was 50 years ago. Something like a slow shift to a college system, where student services were offered through a much smaller body, could create a tighter and more meaningful academic/administrative community and limit the feeling that most students have, which is that they’re just a number at UBC.
One other area of governance that is also incredibly important is academic governance. Is the way the university is currently governed positive? It’s basically the same Senate and BoG governing an institution of 43,000 at UBC-V as there was when it was a 1,500 person campus. The ability for students to participate in decision-making is substantially less than what it was 50 years ago. Something like a slow shift to a college system, where student services were offered through a much smaller body, could create a tighter and more meaningful academic/administrative community and limit the feeling that most students have, which is that they’re just a number at UBC.
When it comes to any kind of campus development, the senate has been underutilized in the past.
So it’s mainly been the board.
When it comes to any kind of campus development, the senate has been underutilized in the past.
So it’s mainly been the board.
Gina,
Can you expand on that? As an experienced memeber of the sentate, it would be good to read an example from you.
Gina,
Can you expand on that? As an experienced memeber of the sentate, it would be good to read an example from you.
Ya totally.
I’ll respond to you as soon as I’m done writing this other post for tomorrow.
Ya totally.
I’ll respond to you as soon as I’m done writing this other post for tomorrow.
Spencer,
The composition of both BoG and Senate have changed greatly since UBC was established. 50 years ago, there weren’t student reps on either, nor were there any student reps on faculties: all three were part of reforms in the early 70s. Students have much more influence today then they did 50 years ago, when the BoG was mostly civil servants, and the Senate was 40% alumni reps/40% faculty/admin, and 20% others.
Spencer,
The composition of both BoG and Senate have changed greatly since UBC was established. 50 years ago, there weren’t student reps on either, nor were there any student reps on faculties: all three were part of reforms in the early 70s. Students have much more influence today then they did 50 years ago, when the BoG was mostly civil servants, and the Senate was 40% alumni reps/40% faculty/admin, and 20% others.
Hi Vincente (aka anon 1:34)
Hi Vincente (aka anon 1:34)
Mayaan,
I hesitate to answer for Gina, but we have a lot to get through tonight so I’ll take a crack at it.
Before the University does any academic building (for classrooms/offices, etc.) they’re supposed to go through the Academic Building Needs committee of the Senate. That’s where the Senate evaluates the Academic needs of the University, and of development, and recommends accordingly.
However, the BoG has ultimate authority on these things. So the Senate input has been pretty much nil.
The Senate is trying to change that, to assert more of a voice in things.
Mayaan,
I hesitate to answer for Gina, but we have a lot to get through tonight so I’ll take a crack at it.
Before the University does any academic building (for classrooms/offices, etc.) they’re supposed to go through the Academic Building Needs committee of the Senate. That’s where the Senate evaluates the Academic needs of the University, and of development, and recommends accordingly.
However, the BoG has ultimate authority on these things. So the Senate input has been pretty much nil.
The Senate is trying to change that, to assert more of a voice in things.
Hey maayan, sorry for the late reply – I just got home!
The University Act of British Columbia for UBC reads as follows:
27 Powers of Board
(d) in consultation with the senate, to maintain and keep in proper
order and condition the real property of the university, to erect and
maintain the buildings and structures on it that in the opinion of the
board are necessary and advisable, and to make rules respecting the
management, government and control of the real property, buildings and
structures; (emphasis added)
The appropriate committee under senate which looks at campus development is the Academic Building Needs Committee. This committee has representations from the adminsitration, faculty and students. This committee, up until this schoolyear, has met very sparsely and was never thoroughly “consulted”. Now the definition of consultation in the University Act is not rigid – so it’s not technically a breach of the rules to simply present the final plan to the senate committee and have it approve the plan as a formality. But the spirit of the act is different, and the Senate feels that any academic buildings/institutional development should be presented to the senate meetings by the chair of the Academic Building Needs committee early on in the consultation process.
This hasn’t happened in years. Marhta Piper (former President) has stubbornly maintained that campus development rests in the hand of the Board. We disagree and have been fighting this for a while, along with the Faculty.
We’re currently in the works of turing the tide so to speak, and there have been some developments in giving the Senate more say.
Hey maayan, sorry for the late reply – I just got home!
The University Act of British Columbia for UBC reads as follows:
27 Powers of Board
(d) in consultation with the senate, to maintain and keep in proper
order and condition the real property of the university, to erect and
maintain the buildings and structures on it that in the opinion of the
board are necessary and advisable, and to make rules respecting the
management, government and control of the real property, buildings and
structures; (emphasis added)
The appropriate committee under senate which looks at campus development is the Academic Building Needs Committee. This committee has representations from the adminsitration, faculty and students. This committee, up until this schoolyear, has met very sparsely and was never thoroughly “consulted”. Now the definition of consultation in the University Act is not rigid – so it’s not technically a breach of the rules to simply present the final plan to the senate committee and have it approve the plan as a formality. But the spirit of the act is different, and the Senate feels that any academic buildings/institutional development should be presented to the senate meetings by the chair of the Academic Building Needs committee early on in the consultation process.
This hasn’t happened in years. Marhta Piper (former President) has stubbornly maintained that campus development rests in the hand of the Board. We disagree and have been fighting this for a while, along with the Faculty.
We’re currently in the works of turing the tide so to speak, and there have been some developments in giving the Senate more say.
The GVRD is already our municipality. The problem is that the GVRD Directors already deal with enough petty bylaw wrangling in their own municipalities and don’t want to have to deal with ours. So, many of the responsibilities are farmed out to UBC (e.g. building inspections, development permits, building permits,…). The GVRD still has certain controls on us through our Official Community Plan and assorted neighbourhood plans, which also do some zoning-level bylaw-ish stuff (e.g. density). These are GVRD bylaws.
The GVRD politicians change over once per year, and disputes go to a Joint Committee of the GVRD and UBC, where the GVRD members are poorly versed on the issues, the UBC reps are well-versed if not outright scripted, and the committee works by consensus. A little fibbing from Properties and some inaccurate bluster from the appropriate UBC VP, and UBC gets what it wants.
At present, if someone at Totem wanted dogs banned from the grass, they would ask the appropriate GVRD committee, which would send it to the GVRD, which would probably send it back or to the Joint Committee to establish what the UNA (non-UBC residents) and UBC admin thought, and after a few loops, four readings at (monthly) GVRD board meetings, and a public hearing at which GVRD directors from all over the region would be expected to show up, it might become a GVRD bylaw. The same process would apply for any bylaw, including speed limits, stop signs, road designations, noise, nuisance, or amendments to Plans.
UBC would prefer anything to pass through Board first, which is not strictly necessary but would likely make things faster in the end.
So, at present, UBC has a bare minimum regulatory regime, designed for expedience and maximum profit. An architect friend of mine, who shall remain nameless, refers to UBC as “cowboy country” for its lawless reputation. We follow the BC Building Code, which is substantially more lax than the Vancouver version. Consultation on individual buildings is done as a courtesy, frequently after the building’s completely designed and offices assigned, is poorly advertised, often predates the sign announcing the development, and comes with free food. We also have an urban design panel, which likes brick, has zero power, and meets in secret. Note that there’s also no such thing as business licensing here, unless waving money at Properties is considered a business licensing process.
I’d favour a model where there’s a separate municipality with control over UBC, but with minimal zoning over the academic core — so long as a project is legitimately academic and fits within a few basic guidelines (e.g. 53 metres or shorter), approval should be basically automatic. This is how most Canadian universities are treated by the municipalities they’re in.
It’s worth noting a particular advantage to becoming a municipality: taxes. At present, on-campus UNA residents pay the same property tax rates as in Vancouver. About half of this is a “rural tax” paid to the province, which applies anywhere there isn’t a municipality. UBC tops them up to the Vancouver rate, and that half of the money is mostly handed to the UNA to run services, maintain parks, hire staff, etc. The instant we become a municipality, the rural tax stops happening, and twice the revenue is available if the taxes stay put. Whether that money lands with the mUBCnicipality or UBC, it’s money that’s not floating around now.
In such a municipality, all residents (including students) can vote so long as they’re 18+, have been in BC 6 months, on campus 3 months in the year before the election, and are Canadian or permanent residents.
The current lack of oversight is not reasonable, the GVRD doesn’t want anything to do with our petty bickering, Board just isn’t suitable for a municipal Council, neither the UNA nor UBC can get bylaw power without a special provincial law (the UNA’s also unsuitable in its current form, as it excludes the academic core and all students living there), and amalgamation with Vancouver is a complete non-starter. A municipal model, in my opinion, is the only tenable alternative. It has to be done carefully to avoid needlessly subjecting academic buildings to whims or excessive delay, but it should be done.
Properties Trust, of course, would have absolutely no interest in this scenario, as the current near-anarchy is already far too restrictive for their liking.
On Senate’s power: If I recall correctly, other things that are supposed to be done “in consultation with the Senate” appear at Board as “consent” items, meaning Board is expected to vote “yes”, and doing otherwise would be viewed as almost a constitutional crisis.
— Darren Peets
The GVRD is already our municipality. The problem is that the GVRD Directors already deal with enough petty bylaw wrangling in their own municipalities and don’t want to have to deal with ours. So, many of the responsibilities are farmed out to UBC (e.g. building inspections, development permits, building permits,…). The GVRD still has certain controls on us through our Official Community Plan and assorted neighbourhood plans, which also do some zoning-level bylaw-ish stuff (e.g. density). These are GVRD bylaws.
The GVRD politicians change over once per year, and disputes go to a Joint Committee of the GVRD and UBC, where the GVRD members are poorly versed on the issues, the UBC reps are well-versed if not outright scripted, and the committee works by consensus. A little fibbing from Properties and some inaccurate bluster from the appropriate UBC VP, and UBC gets what it wants.
At present, if someone at Totem wanted dogs banned from the grass, they would ask the appropriate GVRD committee, which would send it to the GVRD, which would probably send it back or to the Joint Committee to establish what the UNA (non-UBC residents) and UBC admin thought, and after a few loops, four readings at (monthly) GVRD board meetings, and a public hearing at which GVRD directors from all over the region would be expected to show up, it might become a GVRD bylaw. The same process would apply for any bylaw, including speed limits, stop signs, road designations, noise, nuisance, or amendments to Plans.
UBC would prefer anything to pass through Board first, which is not strictly necessary but would likely make things faster in the end.
So, at present, UBC has a bare minimum regulatory regime, designed for expedience and maximum profit. An architect friend of mine, who shall remain nameless, refers to UBC as “cowboy country” for its lawless reputation. We follow the BC Building Code, which is substantially more lax than the Vancouver version. Consultation on individual buildings is done as a courtesy, frequently after the building’s completely designed and offices assigned, is poorly advertised, often predates the sign announcing the development, and comes with free food. We also have an urban design panel, which likes brick, has zero power, and meets in secret. Note that there’s also no such thing as business licensing here, unless waving money at Properties is considered a business licensing process.
I’d favour a model where there’s a separate municipality with control over UBC, but with minimal zoning over the academic core — so long as a project is legitimately academic and fits within a few basic guidelines (e.g. 53 metres or shorter), approval should be basically automatic. This is how most Canadian universities are treated by the municipalities they’re in.
It’s worth noting a particular advantage to becoming a municipality: taxes. At present, on-campus UNA residents pay the same property tax rates as in Vancouver. About half of this is a “rural tax” paid to the province, which applies anywhere there isn’t a municipality. UBC tops them up to the Vancouver rate, and that half of the money is mostly handed to the UNA to run services, maintain parks, hire staff, etc. The instant we become a municipality, the rural tax stops happening, and twice the revenue is available if the taxes stay put. Whether that money lands with the mUBCnicipality or UBC, it’s money that’s not floating around now.
In such a municipality, all residents (including students) can vote so long as they’re 18+, have been in BC 6 months, on campus 3 months in the year before the election, and are Canadian or permanent residents.
The current lack of oversight is not reasonable, the GVRD doesn’t want anything to do with our petty bickering, Board just isn’t suitable for a municipal Council, neither the UNA nor UBC can get bylaw power without a special provincial law (the UNA’s also unsuitable in its current form, as it excludes the academic core and all students living there), and amalgamation with Vancouver is a complete non-starter. A municipal model, in my opinion, is the only tenable alternative. It has to be done carefully to avoid needlessly subjecting academic buildings to whims or excessive delay, but it should be done.
Properties Trust, of course, would have absolutely no interest in this scenario, as the current near-anarchy is already far too restrictive for their liking.
On Senate’s power: If I recall correctly, other things that are supposed to be done “in consultation with the Senate” appear at Board as “consent” items, meaning Board is expected to vote “yes”, and doing otherwise would be viewed as almost a constitutional crisis.
— Darren Peets
On closer examination, the Property part of the University Act, 27(2)(d), may be worded a little more tightly than its friends. But there’s definitely a duty to consult.
On closer examination, the Property part of the University Act, 27(2)(d), may be worded a little more tightly than its friends. But there’s definitely a duty to consult.
Thanks to Tim ,Gina, and Darren. that was helpful.
Thanks to Tim ,Gina, and Darren. that was helpful.