agenda - brock university - agenda amd...topic: key performance indicators scorecard update dated...

Board of Trustees

Strategic Planning Committee Cycle 1 – Wednesday, September 28, 2016

1:30 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. Cairns 207

Agenda

# Item By Start Time

Length Action

1. Call to Order MA 1:30 1

2. Declaration of Conflict of Interest MA 1:31 1

3. Approval of Agenda (including consent items) MA 1:32 1 Approval

4. Minutes of Previous Meeting – Meeting #4held on June 22, 2016

MA 1:33 1 Approval

5. Business Arising from the Minutes MA 1:34 1

KEY ITEMS

6. 2016-17 Strategic Planning CommitteeResponsibilities

• 2016-17 Strategic Planning Committee WorkPlan - Appendix 1

• 2016-17 Strategic Planning Committee Goals& Objectives - Appendix 2

• 2016-17 Strategic Planning CommitteeCharter (Reference only) - Appendix 3

MA 1:35 10 Decision

7. Enrolment Update & Recruiting Strategy -including Appendix 1, Appendix 2, Appendix 3 & Appendix 4 Presentation

JM 1:45 20 Information

8. SMA Update/Strategic Planning Process-including Appendix 1 & Appendix 2

BH 2:15 30 Information

9. Update on IT Strategic Plan-including Appendix 1 & Appendix 2

DC 2:45 10 Information

10. Employee Engagement Survey Update-including Appendix 1

GA 2:55 10 Information

… COMMITTEE BREAK … 3:05 10 minutes

11. Government Policy Changes MR 3:05 10 Information

12. Board Metrics Update - Including Appendix 1 BB 3:15 5 Information

13. Renaming of Walker Complex to WalkerSports Complex

PS 3:20 5 Decision

of 2

# Item By Start Time

Length Action

POLICIES

14. Donor Relations Naming and Recognition Policy -including Appendix 1 & Appendix 2

PS 3:25 10 Decision

KEY ITEMS (IN CAMERA)

15. Impact of Undergraduate Scholarships,Bursaries and Awards Budget - (IN CAMERA) -including Appendix 1

BB/ JM

3:35 15 Information

CONSENT ITEMS 3:50 5 minutes(if needed)

16. Strategic Planning Committee Goal Progress Scorecard

BH Information

CONSENT ITEMS (IN CAMERA) 3:55 5 minutes(if needed)

17. Record of IN CAMERA session of PreviousMeeting – Meeting #4 held on June 22, 2016 - (IN CAMERA)

MA Approval

18. Other Business MA 4:00 5

19. ADJOURNMENT MA 4:05

DEBRIEFING SESSION:Committee members and guests are invited by theChair to attend debriefing sessions in the meetingroom as follows:

a) Committee members, including thePresident and Vice-Presidents

b) Committee members, including thePresident

c) Committee members, excluding thePresident

Agenda Legend BB - Bryan Boles MA - Mark Arthur BH - Brian Hutchings MR - Meaghan Rusnell GA - Grant Armstrong PS - Pamela Shanks JM - James Mandigo

Brock University Niagara Region 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way St. Catharines, ON L2S 3A1 Canada

(Circulated prior to approval)

MINUTES OF MEETING #4 (2015-16)

STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2016, 1:30 PM

CAIRNS FAMILY HEALTH AND BIOSCIENCE RESEARCH COMPLEX, ROOM 207

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Gary Comerford (Chair), Ms. Michele-Elise Burnett, Mr. Jeffrey Cairns, Chancellor Shirley Cheechoo, Mr. Nick DiPietro, Mr. John Fisher, Mr. Dennis

Hewko, Dr. Jack Lightstone, Dr. Diane Miller, Mr. Phil Nardangeli, Mr. Joe Robertson, Mr. John Suk

ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Wendy Cukier, President and Vice-Chancellor Designate Dr. Scott Henderson, Chair of Senate RESOURCE PERSONNEL: Mr. Brian Hutchings, Dr. Gary Libben, Mr. Gord Hunchak Ms. Chabriol Colebatch, Ms. Margaret Thompson, Ms. Angela Magro By invitation: Ms. Barb Davis, Dean Michael Plyley, Ms. Gloria Gallagher, Ms. Beth Natale and

Mr. Rico Natale (Item 6), Mr. Bryan Boles and Ms. Pam Shanks, Ms. Julianna McCormick (Item 10), Ms. Meaghan Rusnell (Item 12), Mr. Ryan McCarthy and Mr. John Wilson (Item 11)

Deans: Dr. Peter Tiidus, Dr. Barry Wright REGRETS: Dr. Neil McCartney (resource), Ms. Hanan Moussa, Dr. Robin Williams 1. Call to Order

Mr. Comerford welcomed members, guests and staff and called the meeting to order. He was pleased to note that Chancellor Cheechoo and President Designate Cukier were in attendance.

2. Declaration of Conflict of Interest

It was noted during the meeting that Ms. Michele-Elise Burnett will excuse herself from the meeting for Agenda Item 18.

Board of Trustees

Minutes of the Strategic Planning Committee Meeting – June 22, 2016

2.

3. Approval of the Agenda The Chair referred members to the Agenda and confirmed that there were no items to be lifted from the consent agenda. On a motion by Mr. Hewko, seconded by Mr. Cairns and carried, it was RESOLVED that the Agenda, including consent items be approved.

4. Minutes of the Previous Meeting [The Minutes of Meeting #3 (2015-16) of the Strategic Planning Committee held on March 9, 2016 had been posted with the meeting materials.] On a motion by Mr. Hewko, seconded by Dr. Miller and carried, it was RESOLVED that the Minutes of Meeting #3 (2015-16) of the Strategic Planning

Committee held on March 9, 2016 be approved.

5. Business Arising from the Minutes – None 6. Recruitment Cycle Summary [An Information Item TOPIC: Recruitment Cycle Summary dated June 22, 2016 together with

Appendix 1: Touch Point Summary – Applicant Recruitment, Appendix 2: Touch Point Summary – Applicant Conversion, Appendix 3: Touch Point Summary – Applicant Retention, and Appendix 4: Competitor Intelligence and Data Points, had been posted with the meeting materials.]

The Committee reviewed the Report that contained an overview of the domestic undergraduate

recruitment cycle. The Registrar provided an overhead presentation summarizing the recruitment cycle and

addressed all questions during the Committee’s review. Members also provided feedback to the recruitment team with respect to certain internal and external challenges in the recruitment cycle.

The Chair, on behalf of the Committee expressed appreciation to Ms. Davis in recognition of her upcoming retirement from her position of University Registrar, and her long-term service to Brock.

7. Key Performance Indicators Scorecard Update

[An Information Item TOPIC: Key Performance Indicators Scorecard Update dated June 22, 2016 together with Appendix 1: Operation and Academic Dashboard, had been posted with the meeting materials.]

During the Committee’s review of the Report, a discussion ensued regarding certain high-level metrics potentially required by the Committee. Members suggested specific metrics and categories to Management and emphasized the importance of data immediacy and in developing leading indicators.


3.

8. 2016-17 Marketing Update [An Information Item TOPIC: 2016 -17Marketing Update dated June 22, 2016, together with

Appendix 1: Department Overview, Appendix 2: Recruitment Cycle, Appendix 3: Website Transition Phases, and Appendix 4: Targets and Metrics, had been posted with the meeting materials.]

The Executive Director, Marketing and Communications provided a presentation on the Brock

University Marketing and Communications 2016-17 Plan that contained highlights of the past year and outlined potential planning for the upcoming year.

As part of the planning to refresh Brock’s brand, three potential branding concepts were presented by representatives of Pollara Strategic Insights. During review, members provided feedback to the Pollara representatives. Following a broad discussion on various factors informing the marketing strategy, it was emphasized that marketing efforts are to support and follow the overall strategy of the University. Members noted the importance of a coordinated and aligned effort in this undertaking.

9. Major (Satellite) University Campus Expansion

[An Information and Discussion Item TOPIC: Major (Satellite) University Campus Expansion dated June 22, 2016, together with Appendix 1: Major Capacity Expansion Policy Framework, Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, December 2013, had been posted with the meeting materials.] Dr. Lightstone provided a brief overview of the Report, which will be discussed as part of the next Agenda Item.

10. Hamilton Campus Update [An Information Item TOPIC: Hamilton Campus Update dated June 22, 2016, together with Appendix 1: Report to the Capital Infrastructure Committee on Hamilton Campus Update, had been posted with the meeting materials.] The Committee received an update on the Hamilton Campus. A full report on the planned changes will to be provided to the Committee in the fall. During discussion, Management responded to all questions from members.

11. SMA Priority 2: Developing Transdisciplinary Research Hubs [An Information Item TOPIC: Strategic Mandate Agreement (SMA) Priority 2: Developing Transdisciplinary Research Hubs dated June 22, 2016, together with Appendix 1: Report to the Board of Trustees dated October 1, 2015 on Understanding Brock’s Long-range Goals and Objectives, Priorities and Current Overarching Strategies within the Current Environmental Conditions, Appendix 2: Report to the Board of Trustees dated December 3, 2015 on Pillar 1 – Serving the 21st Century Student (continuation document), and Appendix 3: Report to the Board of Trustees dated March 10, 2015 on President’s Report – Pillar 3, had been posted with the meeting materials.] Dr. Lightstone provided an introduction to the Report that contained background on the rationale in arriving at the current Strategic Mandate Agreement (SMA) priorities. The Report


4.

focuses on the priority of developing Transdisciplinary Research Hubs and serves as background in moving forward.

11a) Financial Aspects of Research [An Information Item TOPIC: Financial Aspects of Research dated June 22, 2016, together

with Appendix 1: Maclean’s Ranking of Canadian Comprehensive Universities, Appendix 2: Maclean’s Magazine Ranking Methodology, and Appendix 3: Scival Field Weighted Citation Index Data and Publication Data for Canadian Comprehensive Universities 2013-2015, had been posted with the meeting materials.]

11b) SMA Priority 2: Developing Transdisciplinary Research Hubs [An Information Item TOPIC: Strategic Mandate Agreement (SMA) Priority 2: Developing Transdisciplinary Research Hubs dated June 22, 2016, together with Appendix 1: Article: Interdisciplinary research by the numbers, Appendix 2: Self-Study Advanced Bio-Manufacturing Centre, Appendix 3: Self-Study Brock-Niagara Centre for Health and Well-being, Appendix 4: Self-Study Environmental Sustainability Research Centre, Appendix 5: Self-Study Lifespan Development Research Institute, and Appendix 6: Self Study Social Justice Research Institute, had been posted with the meeting materials.] Items 11a) and b) were considered simultaneously. The Vice-President, Research, Dr. Gary Libben provided a presentation examining financial aspects of research followed by an overview of Transdisciplinarity and the development of the Transdisciplinary Research Hubs at Brock. During discussion, members noted the potential of transdisciplinary factors and community engagement in developing models for education programs and research, specifically around areas of strength and opportunity. One specific area emphasized was indigenous education. Members also noted the importance of finding methods of supporting Transdisciplinarity and developing an appropriate strategy and related metrics.

12. SMA/Strategic Planning Next Steps [An Information Item TOPIC: SMA/Strategic Planning Next Steps dated June 22, 2016 had been posted with the meeting materials.] The Director of Government and Community Relations provided an overview of Report that contained background and related information on the current process in developing the next Strategic Mandate Agreement (SMA). Consent Items The following Items had been received by consent:

13. Strategic Planning Committee Goal Progress Scorecard [An Information Item TOPIC: Strategic Planning Committee Goals and Objectives Progress Scorecard dated June 23, 2016 had been posted with the meeting materials.]


5.

14. Reformatted Strategic Planning Committee Charter [An Information Item TOPIC: Reformatted Strategic Planning Committee Charter dated June 22, 2016, together with Appendix 1: Reformatted Committee Charter and Appendix 2: Annotated Committee Charter, had been posted with the meeting materials.]

15. President’s 2015-16 Goals and Objectives - Update [An Information Item TOPIC: President’s 2015-16 Goals and Objectives - Update dated June 22, 2016, together with Appendix 1: President’s 2015-16 Goals and Objectives, had been posted with the meeting materials]

16. Development Report

[An Information Item TOPIC: Development Report dated June 22, 2016, together with Appendix 1: Fiscal Year Giving Breakdown, Appendix 2: Fiscal Year Giving by Constituent, Appendix 3: Five Year Realized Gifts, Five Year New Pledged and New Gifts, and Number of Donors, Appendix 4: Planned Giving and Appendix 5: Cost Per Dollar Raised Five Year Trend, had been posted with the meeting materials.]

17. FAST Protest and Petition [An Information Item TOPIC: Food Affordability for Students Today (FAST) Protest and Petition dated June 22, 2016, together with Appendix 1: Petition Signature Sample, had been posted with the meeting materials.] The Chair noted that a motion was required to move in camera to consider the following items:

18. Greenhouse Lane Renaming – In camera 19. Record of the In Camera Session of Meeting #3 (2015-16) held on March 9, 2016 – In

camera

On a motion by Mr. DiPietro, seconded by Mr. Cairns and carried, the Committee moved in camera at 4:16 p.m.

******

[During closed session, a confidential motion was passed.] The Committee resumed open session at 4:26 p.m.

20. Other Business – None

21. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:26 p.m.

Board of Trustees

Report to the Strategic Planning Committee

Decision Item

TOPIC: 2016-17 Strategic Planning Committee Responsibilities

September 29, 2016 Mark Arthur, Chair, Strategic Planning Committee

MOTION THAT the Strategic Planning Committee approve the 2016-17 Committee Work Plan attached as Appendix 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Rationale

• The Board Bylaw (section 7.3.3) now requires that each Committee of the Board have an annual work plan which must be reported to the Board at its inaugural meeting each year.

• The attached work plan was developed by the Committee Chair, the Acting President and Vice-Chancellor, Executive Director of Marketing and Communications and the Executive Director of Development and Alumni Relations.

• The work plan reflects the goals identified for the Committee by the Committee Chair (attached as appendix 2), the Committee’s responsibilities in its Charter (attached as appendix 3) and ongoing actions from the previous year.

2. Key background

• The key items on the work plan are: o Fundraising; o Strategic Mandate Agreement; o Enrolment & Recruiting Strategy; and o Strategic Planning Process.

• The Committee Chair has elected to focus on a set of specific, discrete goals so as to enable the committee to dedicate sufficient time to each goal.

• It is anticipated that there may be additional items added to the work plan.

3. Implications • The Committee’s work plan will guide administration in what reports to bring

forward to the Committee and when, but is flexible and amendable. Additional items may be added by the Committee Chair as required.

4. Next steps

• Following approval by the Committee, the Work Plan will be presented to the Board at the September 29, 2016 meeting for its information.

2.

2

5. Background material Appendix 1 – 2016-17 Strategic Planning Committee Work Plan (1 page) Appendix 2 – 2016-17 Strategic Planning Committee Chair Goals & Objectives (1 page) Appendix 3 – Strategic Planning Committee Charter (3 pages)

STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE2016-17 Working Plan

CYCLE 1 CYCLE 2 CYCLE 3 CYCLE 5September 28, 2016 November 30, 2016 March 8, 2017 June 21, 2017

2016-17 Strategic Planning Committee Responsibilites - 2016-17 Strategic Planning Committee Work Plan - 2016-17 Strategic Planning Committee Goals & Objectives - 2016-17 Strategic Planning+A40 Committee Charter Strategic Planning Committee Goal Progress Scorecard Strategic Planning Committee Goal Progress Scorecard Strategic Planning Committee Goal Progress ScorecardEnrolment Update & Recruiting Strategy Fundraising Priorities Update Strategic Planning Process Strategic Planning ProcessEmployee Engagement Survey Update SMA Discussion GSB/Atrium Fundraising Update Government Relations UpdateSMA Update/Strategic Planning Process Strategic Planning Process Alumni Relations Report Development ReportUpdate on IT Strategic Plan Development Interim Report Funding Formula Marketing UpdateGovernment Policy Changes Committee Metrics Update Enrolment Update * Enrolment Update *Board Metrics Update Enrolment Update * Renaming of Walker Complex to Walker Sports Complex Government Relations UpdatePOLICY - Donor Relations Naming and Recognition Policy Provincial Government Policy ChangesImpact of Undergraduate Scholarships, Bursaries and Awards Budget IN CAMERA Marketing GovernanceStrategic Planning Committee Goal Progress Scorecard Hamilton Campus Update

Employee Engagement Survey Update

TIMELINE TIMELINE TIMELINE TIMELINEDRAFT Agenda sent to Chair Aug. 24, 2016 DRAFT Agenda sent to Chair Oct. 26, 2016 DRAFT Agenda sent to Chair Feb. 1, 2017 DRAFT Agenda sent to Chair May 17, 2017Teleconference with Chair re: DRAFT Agenda Aug. 30, 2016 Teleconference with Chair re: DRAFT Agenda Nov. 1, 2016 Teleconference with Chair re: DRAFT Agenda Feb. 6, 2017 Teleconference with Chair re: DRAFT Agenda May 22, 2017Reports DUE to Brian (cc Romina) Sept. 7, 2016 Reports DUE to Brian (cc Romina) Nov. 9, 2016 Reports DUE to Brian (cc Romina) Feb. 15, 2017 Reports DUE to Brian (cc Romina) May 31, 2017Agenda and Reports sent to Chair Sept. 9, 2016 Agenda and Reports sent to Chair Nov. 11, 2016 Agenda and Reports sent to Chair Feb. 17, 2017 Agenda and Reports sent to Chair June 2, 2017Pre-Meeting with Chair Sept. 12, 2016 Pre-Meeting with Chair Nov. 14, 2016 Pre-Meeting with Chair Feb. 20, 2017 Pre-Meeting with Chair June 5, 2017FINAL Reports sent to Secretariat's Office Sept. 14, 2016 FINAL Reports sent to Secretariat's Office Nov. 16, 2016 FINAL Reports sent to Secretariat's Office Feb. 22, 2017 FINAL Reports sent to Secretariat's Office June 7, 2017Logistics Meeting (BH, RC, CC, MT) Sept. 16, 2016 Logistics Meeting (BH, RC, CC, MT) Nov. 18, 2016 Logistics Meeting (BH, RC, CC, MT) Feb. 24, 2017 Logistics Meeting (BH, RC, CC, MT) June 9, 2017

Strategic Planning CommitteeTOPIC: 2016-17 Strategic Planning

Committee ResponsibilitiesSeptember 28, 2016

Appendix 1

Strategic Planning Committee

TOPIC: 2016-17 Strategic Planning

Committee Responsibilities

September 28, 2016

Appendix 2

2016-17 Strategic Planning Committee

Goals & Objectives

1. Multi year review of our strategic plan in light of changing environment – difficult

given state of flux

2. SMA

- Should fall out of strategy

- Must update SMA with government in 2017

- Who is in charge?

- What is process for buy in

- What are metrics

- What does success look like

3. Enrollment

- Significant issue

- Need analysis

- #1 choices vs peer groups

- difference between admitted vs confirmed – trend – why?

- co-op issue

- resourcing

- Program Review

- Senate

- no product – no business

4. Beach Head Strategy

- Hamilton/Burlington

- Why – How

- cost, impact

5. Employment Culture

- What is it

- Who is in charge

- How do we improve

6. Technology Strategy

- To form future learning

- How use

- Who is lead

- What are implications

- Ask Senate

7. R+D Strategy

- Do we have one

- spend $40 million/year

- Where we have put money in the past what has been the outcome?

- How support Niagara Research

- Define purpose of research at Brock

8. New Innovation Centres

- What is strategy

- how will they position the University

- how positively leverage the University

9. Fund Raising

- What are priorities

- where is leverage

10. Marketing Communications

- What is the approach

- what’s working

- how do we know we are winning

Board Committee Charter

STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE

Approved by the Board of Trustees

October 3, 2013

Amendments approved by the Board of Trustees

February 13, 2014; April 10, 2014; June 23, 2016

1. Mandate

The mandate of the Strategic Planning Committee (“Committee") is to assist the Board in providing oversight of:

a. all matters pertaining to the development, review, analysis, oversight andupdating of the University’s strategic plans;

b. all matters relating to fund raising for any purpose;c. the development and maintenance of sound internal and external

relationships within the University community, with government and with thecommunity at large;

d. matters pertaining to alumni affairs; ande. any other matters referred to it by the Board or the Executive Committee and

the President insofar as they pertain to the responsibilities of the Board.

2. Composition

The Strategic Planning Committee is appointed annually and consists of the following:

a. the Chair of the Board, the Immediate Past Chair, the Vice-Chair/Chair Elect,and the President, ex officio;

b. a minimum of six community Trustees (excluding the Chair of the Board, theImmediate Past Chair, the Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect and the Immediate PastChair) one of whom shall serve as Chair;

c. one faculty Trustee;d. one student Trustee;e. one staff Trustee.

Board of Trustees

Strategic Planning CommitteeTOPIC: 2016-17 Strategic Planning

Committee ResponsibilitiesSeptember 28, 2016

Appendix 3

Strategic Planning Committee Charter – Page 2.

3. Responsibilities

In fulfilling its mandate, the Strategic Planning Committee shall have the following responsibilities:

3.1

Analysis of Strategic Plans Request and oversee the use by management of the most suitable analytic tools and techniques available to systematically analyze the existing, or potential strategic plans of the University as developed by management. Such analysis may include, but is not limited to:

a. Current situational analysis including the University’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats;

b. Past trends; c. Cost/benefit analysis; d. Peer analysis and ranking; e. Global review of appropriate best-practice; f. Opportunities for differentiation; g. The appropriateness of a proposed strategy versus possible alternatives; h. Short/medium/long term goals; and i. Required financial and operational metrics.

3.2 Strategic Allocation of Resources After considering the strategic plans endorsed by the Board, advise the Board of Trustees with respect to the appropriate strategic allocation of resources of the University;

3.3 Key Performance Indicators Ensure that the University has established and is monitoring a set of key performance indicators (KPIs) that pertain to the achievement of its strategic goals. The reporting of such KPIs shall include multi-year past trends and comparative results from peer institutions; and

3.4 Oversight of Strategic Plan Provide oversight of the University’s strategic plans including the review of any situation where KPIs indicate that a strategic goal is not being met or may not be met and the remedial action taking place or being proposed by management to address such situation.

3.5 Fund Raising The Committee shall oversee the University’s fund raising and advancement activities to ensure that the institution optimizes opportunities to fund, through donations and grants, its endowment as well as its operating and capital requirements.

3.6 Internal and External Relationships The Committee shall oversee the University’s communication and engagement with internal and external stakeholders to support its academic and operational objectives and to ensure that its reputation is maintained and enhanced.

3.7 Alumni Affairs

Strategic Planning Committee Charter – Page 3.

The Committee shall oversee the University’s communication and engagement with alumni in order to ensure that alumni feel connected and are encouraged to support the institution’s ongoing academic, operational, financial and reputational objectives.

3.8 Policies The Committee shall: a. Develop and recommend to the Board for approval any new policies as

appropriate pertaining to its purview; b. Review, revise and approve all existing University policies related to its purview;

and c. Review policy violations and recommend to the Board appropriate remedies.

3.9 Performance Indicators and Measurement The Committee shall regularly receive and review those key performance indicators related to Strategic Planning, Fund Raising, Internal and External Communications and Alumni Affairs that are indicators of the successful stewardship of the University’s goals and initiatives in those areas.

3.10 Other Responsibilities The Committee shall: a. Request reports from management on any matters that, in the Committee's

discretion, fall within the Committee's duties; b. Make recommendations to the Board, Executive Committee, President and/or

his/her delegate on any other related matter referred to the Committee; c. in discharging is responsibilities, the Committee may, at the expense of the

University, retain external consulting expertise.

4. Meetings

a. Meetings of the Strategic Planning Committee are open to members of the

public, with the exception of in camera sessions. Admission will be on a first-come, first-admitted basis subject to the limitations of available space. Refer to the Framework for Open Meetings.

b. Regular meetings of the Committee shall be held throughout the year at the call of the Chair and normally before each Board meeting. Additional meetings shall be held at the call of the Chair or upon the request of two members of the Committee. A majority of the members of the Committee shall form a quorum. The Committee may, as required, meet in joint session with one or more of the other Board standing committees.

c. Meetings are held in accordance with the Board and Board Committee Meeting Procedures.

5. Review of Charter

As per Article 6.3.2 of the Board Bylaws, each Committee shall review its Charter at least every two years and any changes to Committee Charters must be considered by the Governance/Nominating Committee and approved by the Board.

https://brocku.ca/webfm_send/31676



1

Board of Trustees

Report to the Strategic Priorities Committee

INFORMATION Item

TOPIC: Enrolment Update & Recruiting Strategy

September 28, 2016 James Mandigo, Vice Provost, Enrolment Management & International

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Purpose of the Report

• To provide a current snapshot of admissions and enrolment for undergraduate and graduate programs

• The 2016/17 academic year admissions are trending down this year in certain areas (i.e., new domestic students directly from high school) while registration into programs at both the graduate and undergraduate levels is ongoing.

• Current Registrations are 56 below November 1 target. Total enrolment is forecasted to be 212 below target by November 1 due to an anticipated 1% attrition rate.

2. Key Background • As of the September 8th, 2016 report from the Ontario University Application Centre

(OUAC) applications to Brock University’s Undergraduate Degree Programs were up 4.3% compared to an increase of 5.5% across the Ontario University system relative to the same time in 2015. Brock maintained its market share of applications across the Ontario system (See Table 1).

• As of the September 8th report from the OUAC, confirmations (i.e., accepted offers of admission) were down 3.9% compared to an increase of 2.6% across the Ontario University system relative to the same time in 2015. Brock’s market share of confirmations decreased by 0.2% across the Ontario system. (see Table 1)

• Decreases can be attributed to a significant decline in confirmations from 101 applicants (i.e., direct from secondary school). There were significant increases in confirmations from 105 applicants (i.e., not direct from secondary school) and VISA (i.e., international) students compared to same time last year.

• A significant amount of activity has occurred throughout the summer months. In 2015, Brock University increased its Undergraduate confirmations throughout the summer months by 1.4%. In 2016, confirmations increased by 4% over that same time period due to a significant campaign to ensure every applicant who was eligible to receive an offer, did receive an offer. In addition, those who received an offer and had not yet confirmed or registered received personal communication (See Figure 2).

• There are approximately 91 undergraduate programs, including co-op, to which students can apply. The majority of these applications (i.e., 50%) are to 12 programs while 75% of applications are to 27 of these programs (See Figure 3).

2

• As of September 16, 2016, there were a total of 16,835 registrations to Undergraduate Degree, Certificate, Non-Degree, and Letter of Permission programs. Total November 1, 2016 forecast is 16,891. Last year’s Undergraduate attrition rate from September to November was 1%. Applying the same attrition rate to this year, projected November 1 forecast for Undergraduate students is 16,679, or 212 below forecast. (See Table 2).

• As of August 29th, 2016, there were 688 new Masters students registered for Spring and Fall entrance (85% of target). Of these students, 248 were registered in International Student Programs (ISP). This represents 109% of the target set for these Master programs.

• As of August 29th, 2016, there were 25 new PhD students registered for Spring and Fall entrance (48% of target).

• At the time of this report (September 16th), it is important to note that Applications, Offers of Admissions, and Registrations are still ongoing.

3. Next Steps

• Final headcount numbers are taken on November 1. At that point, we will have a much better picture of actual registrations compared to forecast.

• Experience. Surgite! Campaign has been rolled out across the University to foster high Undergraduate retention rates and to meet or do better than the projected 1% attrition rate from now until November 1.

• The development of an enrolment planning tool for Deans and Department Chairs/ Directors to help set more refined targets for the next 5 yrs. is currently underway and a beta version will be rolled out this fall to help set short and long term enrolment targets by program.

• With the start of September, our Recruitment teams (both domestic and international) will begin their recruitment of students for the 2017/18 academic year. Key events such as the Ontario University Fair (Sept 22 – 24) and Fall Preview (Nov 6, 2016) as well as international fairs will be the main focus over the up-coming weeks and months.

• Marketing and Communications is launching an aggressive “Experience Brock” campaign aimed to increase first choice applications for 2017/18.

• We recently received the results of a survey conducted by Academica of applicants who chose Brock University. A summary of these results will be presented at the next BoT meetings and also shared with Senate and other key stakeholders across the University.

• We are in the process of finalizing the process to conduct a survey of applicants who did not choose Brock University to better understand the reasons they did not choose Brock. These will be benchmarked against a similar survey last conducted in 2012.

• New data tracking tools available through Power BI (a Microsoft 365 application) to be launched in fall, 2016. This application will be able to provide daily reports with numerous drill down options (e.g., demographics) to key decision makers and manages related to applications, registrations, recruitment, and enrolment. Board of Trustee members also have access to this site.

• Debrief with the Admissions team within the Registrar’s Office to take place in September to discuss key learnings from this year and to examine ways to improve our admissions and enrolment processes for 2017/18.

APPENDICES Appendix 1 – Table 1: Ontario University Application Centre September 8 Report (1 page) Appendix 2 – Figure 1: Summary of OUAC Confirmation Reports from May 12 – September 8 (1 page) Appendix 3 – Figure 2: % of Applications by Program (1 page) Appendix 4 – Table 2: Undergraduate Registrations to Date vs. Forecast (1 page)

1

Strategic Planning Committee TOPIC: Enrolment Update & Recruiting Strategy

September 28, 2016 Appendix 1

Table 1. Ontario University Application Centre Data (Sept 8th)

Applications (Changes from 2015) 101 105 (first yr)

105 (upper yr)

101 VISA

105 VISA (first yr)

105 VISA (upper yr)

Totals

Brock 1.3% 3.9% 0.6% 31.0% 25.2% -4.3% 4.3%

System 1.9% 8.6% -3.8% 16.8% 20.3% 10.7% 5.5%

Brock's Market Share 0.0% -0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% -0.3% 0.0%

Confirmations (Changes from 2015) 101 105 (first yr)

105 (upper yr)

101 VISA

105 VISA (first yr)

105 VISA (upper yr)

Totals

Brock -8.2% 12.6% -12.6% 5.7% 53.7% 42.9% -3.9%

System 0.3% 4.2% -4.1% 18.9% 18.0% -1.6% 2.6%

Brock's Market Share -0.4% 0.2% -0.3% -0.1% 0.2% 0.6% -0.2%

1

1.4% increase from June 1

4.0 % increase from June 1

Strategic Planning CommitteeTOPIC: Enrolment Update and Recruiting Strategy

September 28, 2016Appendix 2

1



1

Table 2: Current Undergraduate Registrations vs Forecast

Headcount

Forecast

Registrations

As of Sept 15 Enrolment

Projected Enrolment Difference

(Projected – Forecast) for Nov. 1 for Nov. 1 Based on

current Registrations

Current Attrition

New 4,353 4165 1% 4123 -230

Education

1,366 1317 0% 1317 -49 (new & returning)

Returning Students 11,172 11353 1% 11,239 67

Total 16,891 16835 1% 16,679 -212

Notes: 1. Full time and Part time, All entry points (targeted, untargeted, non degree, other)

2. Attrition based on 2015 attrition rate September to Nov. 1 Registered

3. Exclude Exchange student

Sources: brocku.ca/finance/faculty-and-staff/budgeting, University Undergraduate Enrolment forecast model, Ministry Enrolment

Reporting and Admissions Data sets.



Enrolment UpdatePresentation to SPC Committee of the Board of Directors

Wednesday, September 28th, 2016

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

Busin

ess A

dmn

Co-o

pSp

ort M

anag

emen

tAc

coun

ting

Co-o

pBu

sines

s Adm

inN

ursin

gM

edic

al S

cien

ces

Kine

siolo

gy, B

Kin

Acco

untin

gPs

ycho

logy

Co-

opBu

sines

s Com

mSo

ciol

ogy

Psyc

holo

gyCh

ild &

You

thCo

ncur

P/J

,Chi

ld S

tBi

omed

ical

Sci

ence

sKi

nesio

logy

,BSc

Com

pute

r Sci

Co-

opFa

culty

- Hum

aniti

esM

edia

& C

omm

Stu

dies

Soci

al S

cien

ces

BBA-

Dual

Deg

ree

Coop

Rec

& L

eisu

re S

tCo

ncur

Jr/I

nt, B

ABu

sines

s Eco

nom

ics

Conc

ur In

t/Sr

, BA

Bus E

cono

mic

s Co-

opBi

olog

ical

Sci

ence

sGa

me

Desig

nPo

litic

al S

c Co

-op

Child

Hea

lthPo

litic

al S

cien

ceEc

onom

ics

Com

pute

r Sci

ence

Film

Stu

dies

Phys

ical

Edu

catio

nBa

chel

or o

f Sci

ence

Bioc

hem

istry

Co-

opGa

me

Prog

ram

min

gCo

ncur

Int/

Sr, B

ScAp

plie

d Li

ngui

stic

sPu

blic

Hea

lth C

o-op

Neu

rosc

ienc

e Co

-op

Conc

ur In

t/Sr

, BPh

edTo

urism

& E

nv C

o-op

Hist

ory

Com

mun

ity H

ealth

Visu

al A

rts -

Stu

dio

Econ

omic

s Co-

opM

athe

mat

ics C

o-op

Hist

ory

Co-o

pTo

urism

& E

nvir

Com

p&N

etw

ork

Co-o

pIn

ter A

rts &

Sci

ence

Com

p&Bu

sines

s Co-

opM

athe

mat

ics &

Sta

tsBi

otec

hnol

ogy

Co-o

pDr

amat

ic A

rts C

o-op

Publ

ic H

ealth

Bioc

hem

istry

Wom

en's

& G

ende

r St

Dram

atic

Art

sCo

ncur

Jr/I

nt, B

Phed

Com

put/

Mat

h Co

-op

Chem

istry

Co-

opGe

ogra

phy

Co-o

pO

enol

& V

it Co

-op

Int P

olit

Econ

omy

Mus

ic, B

MU

SCo

mp

& B

usin

ess

Neu

rosc

ienc

ePo

pula

r Cul

ture

Conc

ur Jr

/Int

, BSc

Envi

r Geo

sc C

o-op

BA G

eogr

aphy

Phys

ics C

o-op

Labo

ur S

tudi

es C

o-op

Appl

ied

Econ

omic

sCh

emist

ryEa

rth

Sci C

o-op

Biot

echn

olog

yAp

plie

d Ec

on C

o-op

Eart

h Sc

ienc

esEn

vir G

eosc

ienc

esPh

ysic

sCo

mp&

Solid

St C

o-op

Com

p &

Sol

id S

tate

Gene

ral H

uman

ities

Biop

hysic

sAc

cele

rate

d M

ath

Labo

ur S

tudi

esPh

ys G

eog

Co-o

p

% of Applications by Program in 2016

50% of Applicationsn = 12 programs



Admissions

8-Sep-16

Applications (Changes from 2015) 101 105 (first yr) 105 (upper yr) 101 VISA105 VISA (first yr)

105 VISA (upper yr) Totals

Brock 1.3% 3.9% 0.6% 31.0% 25.2% -4.3% 4.3%

System 1.9% 8.6% -3.8% 16.8% 20.3% 10.7% 5.5%

Brock's Market Share 0.0% -0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% -0.3% 0.0%

8-Sep-16

Confirmations (Changes from 2015) 101 105 (first yr) 105 (upper yr) 101 VISA105 VISA (first yr)

105 VISA (upper yr) Totals

Brock -8.2% 12.6% -12.6% 5.7% 53.7% 42.9% -3.9%

System 0.3% 4.2% -4.1% 18.9% 18.0% -1.6% 2.6%

Brock's Market Share -0.4% 0.2% -0.3% -0.1% 0.2% 0.6% -0.2%

12-May 03-Jun 07-Jun 23-Jun 07-Jul 04-Aug 18-Aug 25-Aug 08-Sep2015 2155 3937 3852 3937 3978 3984 3976 3990 39932016 2044 3689 3715 3783 3815 3837 3852 3852 3836

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Total Entry Confirmations(OUAC Reports)

2015 2016

1.4% increase from June 1

4.0 % increase from June 1

Registrations as of Sept 16th, 2016 vs Nov 1 Forecast(Undergraduate)

Registrations by Faculty

Current Registrations (Sept 16) Previously Forecasted for November 1, 2016 Current Difference

Domestic International Total Domestic International Total

AHSC 3440 66 3506 3412 46 3458 48

GSB 2366 506 2872 2401 516 2917 -45

EDUC 1280 37 1317 1346 20 1366 -49

HUMA 1665 23 1688 1667 18 1685 3

MASC 1785 136 1921 1718 118 1836 85

SOSC 4208 307 4515 4220 339 4559 -44

No Faculty 896 120 1016 1070 -54

Grand Total 15640 1195 16835 14764 1057 16891 -56

November 1st Undergrad Headcount Scenario

No Attrition 1% Attrition 2% Attrition 3% Attrition

Registrations Total 16,835 16,679 16,530 16,383

Difference to Forecast (16,891) -56 -212 -361 -508

2015

Hist

oric

al

2016

Tar

get

Total Registrations vs Forecast (Undergraduate Headcount)

Headcount

ForecastRegistrations

As of Sept 15 Enrolment

Projected Enrolment Difference(Projected –

Forecast)for Nov. 1 for Nov. 1 Based on

current Registrations

Current AttritionNew 4,353 4165 1% 4123 -230Education

1,366 1317 0% 1317 -49(new & returning)

Returning Students 11,172 11353 1% 11,239 67

Total 16,891 16835 1% 16,679 -212Notes: 1. Full time and Part time, All entry points (targeted, untargeted, non degree, other)

2. Attrition based on 2015 attrition rate September to Nov. 1 Registered

3. Exclude Exchange student

Sources: brocku.ca/finance/faculty-and-staff/budgeting, University Undergraduate Enrolment forecast model, Ministry Enrolment Reporting and Admissions Data sets.

Total New Registrations vs Forecast (Masters FTEs)

Sept 19, 2016

**Targets are based on a full year cycled with entry points at Spring, Fall and Winter. Includes intake into the New Programs approved and any modifications to targets after forecast was set in March.**Data sourced from Graduate Admissions system. Current Status may be slightly lower than Government Enrolment reporting status.

Total New Registrations vs Forecast (PhD FTEs)

Sept 19, 2016

**Targets are based on a full year cycled with entry points at Spring, Fall and Winter. Includes intake into the New Programs approved and any modifications to targets after forecast was set in March.**Data sourced from Graduate Admissions system. Current Status may be slightly lower than Government Enrolment reporting status.

Incoming International Student Pathways (ISP) Graduate StudentsProgram Forecast Headcount DifferenceAccounting 60 51 -9MBA 120 162 42MEd ISP 30 34 4Material Physics 10 2 -8MA Applied Linguistics 6 2 -4

Total 226 251 25

Total FTEs vs Forecast (Total Graduate)Current FTE (As taken at Sept 15, 2016)

FTEs Forecast** Funded Space

Allocation

Coop Full Time Add Ins(MED summer, MACC

winter, PhD International)

Part Time Grand Total % funded Spaces

Current-forecast

MTCU EligibleMasters 759.10 673.40 608.00 81.50 93.30 782.80 116% 23.70PhD 96.70 111.26 88.00 2.00 4.80 94.80 85% -1.90

Total 855.80 784.66 696.00 83.50 98.10 877.60 112% 21.80

Domestic IneligibleMasters 85.30 N/A 14.00 8.00 N/A 2.70 24.70 N/A -60.60PhD 14.60 N/A 16.00 N/A 0.90 16.90 N/A 2.30

Total 99.90 N/A 14.00 24.00 N/A 3.60 41.60 N/A -58.30

Intl IneligibleMasters 597.00 N/A 35.00 522.00 23.00 0.90 580.90 N/A -16.10PhD 33.00 N/A 27.00 N/A 27.00 N/A -6.00

Total 630.00 N/A 35.00 549.00 N/A 0.90 584.90 N/A -45.10Grand Total 1585.70 784.66 49.00 1269.00 83.50 102.60 1504.10 112% -81.60

** Forecast does not include the Two new Masters in Applied Health Sciences. However, FTEs for these programs are included in the current Fall stats.

** Forecast is eligible only MED summer + All Fall + MACC winter

Enrolment Planning Management Tool• Historical Program Scorecards• Intake 1st Yr

• Past 5 Yrs• Targets for 2017 – 2021

• Sept 20• Nov 1

• Resources Needed • Intake Upper Yrs

• Past 5 yrs• Targets for 2017 – 2021

• Sept 20• Nov 1

• Resources Needed• Flow through

• Past 5 Yrs• 2017 – 2021

• Summary• 5 Yr Targets• Summary of Resources

https://epmtest.brocku.ca/

1

Board of Trustees


Information Item

TOPIC: SMA Update/Strategic Planning Process

September 28, 2016

Brian Hutchings, Acting President and Vice-Chancellor/Vice-President Administration

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Over the next year, Brock will embark on two separate but compatible strategic planning processes, the development and signing of its second Strategic Mandate Agreement (SMA) with the Ontario government and the development of its strategic plan. While both documents will influence strategic decisions at the University, they are two distinct plans. The SMA is a mandatory agreement with the Ontario government through which Brock commits to certain outcomes that fit with the government’s objectives and shift towards differentiation. While Brock is an active participant in the negotiations, the government leads the process. Conversely, Brock’s strategic plan articulates the University’s strategy to meet specific goals identified by the University that advance its mission. Unlike the SMA, the strategic plan is university led and guided by the University’s mission, vision and values. When the strategic plan is finalized it will not only articulate the University’s priorities but will also provide a guide for SMA negotiations after 2020. To ensure the development of Brock’s SMA submission and the University’s strategic plan involve members of the University community, a two-phase process is being proposed. With the next SMA negotiations is expected to be completed by April 2017, the first phase of strategic planning will focus on renewing and updating our current SMA submission. It will include the establishment of a working group, made up of a cross section of the university community, which will draft the SMA submission. It will also include outreach activities that provide faculty, staff and students with the opportunity to provide their own input on Brock’s SMA priorities. The second phase will focus on drafting Brock strategic plan as well as implementation plans for the SMA and strategic plan. Again, a working group will be established to ensure the Senate, Board, Senior Administrative Council (SAC) and students are part of the planning process. The working group will develop the consultation process and identify what should be included in each plan. During both phases, the working groups will have ongoing communication with Senate, the Board of Trustees and SAC.

2

Difference between SMA and Strategic Plan The following highlights how Brock sees the SMA and its Strategic Plan and how the two documents are different but compatible parts of its strategic planning process.

SMA Strategic Plan Timeframe: up to 3 years Timeframe: 3 or more External agreement Internal community plan Mandatory Optional Accountable to government Accountable to the Brock Community Led/crafted by government Led/crafted by university Framed by government priorities Framed by university mission Current strengths in areas that differentiate the university and are agreed upon by the university and government

Current and emerging areas of strength are identified by the university

Integrates current university strengths/directions (or the university’s current strategic plan)

Identifies high level university strengths/directions /goals

Does not include an implementation plan May integrate specific action items (implementation plan) that may or may not be public

Responds to government identified challenges/opportunities

Responds to university identified challenges/opportunities

Impacts government funding decisions (e.g. graduate numbers, funding envelops etc.)

Does not impact government funding decisions but responds to and anticipate future funding

Assessment based on specific measurable outcomes

Assessment based on the achievement of goals (qualitative and quantitative)

Government directed system wide metrics University directed institutional metrics Phase One: Development of Brock’s SMA submission SMA scope A Strategic Mandate Agreement (SMA) is an agreement between a post-secondary institution and the Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development (MAESD). It integrates an institution’s strategic directions as well as its current areas of strength into a framework guided by MAESD’s priorities. It encourages differentiation between postsecondary institutions by requiring each post-secondary institution to focus on their established unique strengths in academic and non-academic areas while avoiding or limiting the expansion of academic programs that already exist in the province. Background information Brock University’s current SMA was signed in 2014 and expires in 2017. Prior to signing, the government requested an SMA submission that highlighted Brock’s three strategic priorities or short-term directions. The government also provided the University with the opportunity to revise or update its SMA submission, in advance of formal negotiations and the signing of the SMA.

3

As MAESD reviews and plans for the second round of SMA negotiations, Brock has taken steps to provide the university community with the opportunity to participate in the next round of internal SMA discussions. Brock recognizes that with the ongoing review of the University Funding Model, which is expected to be tied to Brock’s next SMA, the upcoming round of SMA negotiations could significantly impact the University. Brock launched an online consultation process to ensure faculty, staff and students had the opportunity to participate in the review of Brock’s current SMA and to offer suggestions on how it could be strengthened. The website can be found at: https://brocku.ca/sma-feedback The University also held discussions about each of the three SMA priorities at meetings of the Board of Trustees, the Board of Trustee’s Strategic Planning Committee (SPC), Senior Administration Council (SAC) and the Senate Planning, Priorities, and Budget Advisory Committee (PPBAC). A special meeting of Senate on the SMA, to which members of the Board of Trustees were invited, was also held. Each meeting provided an update on the three priorities and offered participants the opportunity to provide feedback on Brock’s current SMA priorities and suggestions on how the University’s next SMA could be enhanced. As a result of the University’s proactive approach, the university community has already had the opportunity to review, consider and provide feedback on the current SMA. This feedback has provided invaluable insights that will help to guide the University’s next SMA negotiations and has helped to avoid concerns about the process during last round of negotiations. It is unclear what timeline the government expects to use for the review and negotiation of each institutions’ SMA; however, updates will be provided to the university community as they become available and consultations will be ongoing. Consultation plan moving forward While MAESD has not released the process for the next round of negotiations, a tentative consultation plan leading up to the signing of the University’s next SMA in 2017 has been developed. This plan assumes the University’s next SMA will be finalized by January 15, 2017 (a self-given deadline in order to be prepared for the governments quick turnaround). It should be noted that if significant procedural changes occur in the next round of SMA negotiations, this consultation plan is subject to change. The plan aims to maximize consultation prior to the commencement of the SMA process to ensure the Senate, Board of Trustees and SMA Working Group have time to consult with all relevant stakeholders and to develop a coherent, Brock specific SMA submission. Ongoing consultation through meetings, town halls, and electronic updates will also be used to keep the Brock University community informed about the process while also providing opportunities for indirect impact on Brock’s next SMA submission.

https://brocku.ca/sma-feedback

4

An internal SMA Working Group, which will draft the new SMA submission, will be established and consist of the following individuals:

• The four individuals that the Provost has asked to help write the SMA and Senate has approved - Scott Henderson, Cristina Santos, Tanya Martini, and Carol Merriam

• 2 Board Members • President and Vice-presidents • Priority leads

The Vice-provost and Associate Vice-president, Academic will lend expertise to the SMA Working Group as requested.

SMA

Senate

Board of Trustees

SMA Working Group

Internal consultation

External consultation

Government of Ontario

5

The following table is a proposed timetable of events from September 28, 2016 to January 11, 2017 to ensure completion of Brock’s SMA submission by January 15, 2017.

Meeting Date Presentation topic Board of Trustees September 28, 2016 Update on SMA

Senate October 5, 2016 Update on SMA

Working Group Beginning of October Review of current SMA

SAC October 3, 2016 Update on SMA

Working Group October and November 2016 University wide call for suggestions

Working Group November 2016 Discuss changes

Senate-PPBAC November 10, 2016 Review of current SMA submission and suggested changes

Working Group November 2016 Discuss and agree to changes to SMA submission

Board - SPC November 30, 2016 Review changes

Senate-PPBAC December 8, 2016 Review changes

Working Group December 2016 Town Halls on changes to SMA (including a Town Hall specifically for students)

Working Group December 2016 Public community consultations on changes to SMA

Working Group December 2016 Finalized changes to be sent to SAC/Board/Senate

SAC January 9, 2017 Present final SMA submission

Board of Trustees January 5, 2017* Present final SMA submission

Senate January 11, 2017 Present final SMA submission *The Board of Trustees may consider using the January 5, 2017 Strategic Issues session to finalize the SMA with a joint senate/board meeting. Strategic Planning Phase Two: January 15, 2017 to September 30, 2017 The second phase of Brock’s strategic planning process will begin after the University’s second SMA submission is drafted. The second phase will result in the finalization of three separate but compatible documents:

1. Brock’s Strategic Plan 2. Brock’s SMA implementation plan 3. Brock’s Strategic Plan Tactical plan (including metrics)

1. Strategic Plan Completion of the SMA will establish a foundation for the University to turn its attention to the development of a strategic plan. As indicated in the chart above, while Brock’s SMA and strategic plan can be complementary, and should not conflict, the strategic plan will be led by the University and will be guided by its mission. As a first step Senate, SAC and the Board of Trustees will set up a working group to develop a process to draft and finalize the University’s strategic plan. This plan will

6

articulate the University’s mission, vision and strategic directions and metrics among other strategic priorities determined by the working group. The suggested make-up of the working group includes:

• Administrative representation: President and/or Vice-presidents • Board of Trustee representation: 2 members of the Brock Board of Trustees • Senate representation: Senate appointed individuals including:

o Researcher o Senate representative o Faculty representative

• Student representation: 2 student member of Senate The working group will report back to Senate and the Board through their committee representatives on an ongoing basis and will provide quarterly updates to both groups. The following figure illustrates the integration and alignment of University wide plans into our strategic planning process. This wheel was adopted from SFU’s Integrated Planning Framework.

7

Broad strategies will be developed from Academic and administrative units. Mission, Vision, Vales, Programs and resources will be reviewed keeping in mind government direction, community need, operations, budgets and facility limitations. Unit strategic plans and objectives will be used as the bases for these broad strategies. SMA Implementation Plan An implementation plan will be drafted and finalized for Brock’s SMA. It will outline activities to meet the outcome(s) identified in the agreement; activities to gather information for Brock’s SMA metrics; and resources needed to complete the activities.

The government already requires reporting back through the SMA Metrics report, which replaced the Multi-Year Accountability Agreement (MYAA). The report-back was adjusted to serve as the interim reporting mechanism for the SMA. The ministry is currently reviewing elements in the report-back metrics template to reduce duplication and reporting burden and make this report more institutionally relevant.

The implementation plans will be brought back to the Board of Trustees, Senate and SAC as appropriate in order for these groups to review, advise and provide thought leadership for key initiatives. Strategic Plan Tactical Plan

An implementation plan will be drafted and finalized for Brock’s strategic plan. It will outline activities to meet the outcome(s) identified in the agreement; activities to gather and measure success or address SMA metrics and strategic plan success and metrics; and resources needed to complete the activities. These plans will be brought back to the Board of Trustees, Senate and SAC as appropriate in order for these groups to review, advise and provide thought leadership for key initiatives. APPENDIX Appendix 1 - Questions (1 page) Appendix 2 - Background on the SMA Process (2 pages)

1

Strategic Planning Committee TOPIC: SMA Update/Strategic Planning Process

September 28, 2016

Appendix 1

Questions: Brock’s Current SMA Submission

1. Do Brock’s current SMA submission priorities allow the University to prosper in the current environment?

2. How can Brock’s current SMA submission priorities be enhanced?

Proposed Consultation Plan

3. Is the proposed SMA consultation plan extensive enough?

4. Should Brock hire an external consultant to facilitate consultations?

5. Does the consultation plan meet with the approval of the Board?

1

Strategic Planning Committee TOPIC: SMA Update/Strategic Planning Process

September 28, 2016

Appendix 2 Appendix 2 Background on the SMA Process: In 2012, the Ministry of Training, Colleges and University (MTCU) initiated a policy shift towards differentiation, which required each post-secondary institution to develop a Strategic Mandate Agreement (SMA) with the province. By August 2012 MTCU had asked colleges and universities across Ontario to submit their SMA by October 1, 2012, identifying their institutional direction with a focus on differentiation. It required the articulation of Brock’s three strategic priorities; future enrolment projections; and areas of strength and growth, which would guide future space allocations and program approvals. Given the short turnaround time, Brock based its SMA submission on the University’s existing strategic plan, which had been approved by Senate and the Board of Trustees: Brock University Integrated Strategic Plan - Priorities to Action (http://www.brocku.ca/webfm_send/18647). Although the final SMA was sent to the Senate and Board of Trustees for approval, they were not involved in the creation of document. A year later, in November 2013, the Ministry released Ontario’s Differentiation Policy Framework for Postsecondary Institutions and postsecondary institutions were given the opportunity to submit a revised SMA and supporting documentation explaining how their SMA related to the government’s six (6) components of differentiation. Postsecondary institutions were also asked to update their future enrolment projections and to identify their areas of strength and growth. The revised SMA and required supporting documents were submitted on December 20, 2013. The SMA agreements were finalized and signed by March 31, 2014 and can be found here: http://www.tcu.gov.on.ca/pepg/publications/vision/BrockAgreement.pdf Current information from MTCU: As MTCU reviews and plans for the next round of SMAs the government is also looking at ways to reform the university and college funding models. It is expected that the two policies will be linked by the government’s shift towards differentiation. The SMA will continue to articulate each institution’s differentiated place in the sector and the funding formula will shift from a focus on enrolment to include greater reliance on differentiated outcomes. A recent letter from Sheldon Levy, Deputy Minister of Training Colleges and Universities, highlighted this funding formula shift: “the ministry will be developing design options that can address the need for funding stability, as well as an outcomes-based differentiation envelope that can support improvements to students quality/experience and promote differentiation.” The ministry believes that despite delays in both the funding formula and SMA reviews, it is still on track to have the next version of the SMA signed before March 31, 2017. A draft policy on the funding formula is expected in the fall of 2016 as reviews of institutions’ current SMAs get underway.

http://www.brocku.ca/webfm_send/18647

http://www.tcu.gov.on.ca/pepg/publications/vision/BrockAgreement.pdf

2

Given the short turn-around time that occurred during the first round of SMA negotiations, Brock has worked to ensure adequate consultation occurs leading up to the development of its second SMA. Delays at the Ministry A number of changes have also occurred in government. These changes pushed our estimated timeline for the SMA review and re-negotiation forward significantly. They include:

In December 2015 the former president of Ryerson University, Sheldon Levy, became the ministry’s new Deputy Minister. A new Deputy Minister, with first hand experience as the head of an Ontario university, brought fresh ideas about the purpose of the SMA.

In May 2016 a letter from the Deputy Minister indicated the university and college funding formula reviews were a priority. A university working group was set up through the Council of Ontario Universities (COU), which is expected to provide recommendations to the government on the design of a new funding formula in the fall of 2016.

In June 2016 Premier Kathleen Wynne shuffled her cabinet and the Honourable Deb Matthews became the Minister for the newly renamed Ministry of Advanced Education and Skill Development (formerly the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities). The renaming of the Ministry indicated a shift in the government’s focus that could change the government’s expectations during the next round of SMA negotiations.

Board of Trustees


Information Item

TOPIC: Update on IT Strategic Plan

September 28, 2016 David Cullum, Associate Vice-President, Information Technology Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Information Technology Services (“ITS”) senior management team continues to update the IT strategic plan. In addition to a vision statement, mission and related principles (see Appendix A), the team has developed key objectives, goals and initiatives for teaching and learning, Research, student experience, information systems, community engagement, enterprise technology platforms, cybersecurity and IT service excellence (see Appendix B). The team continues to develop action items and related metrics for each key initiative, including high level timelines over a five-year time horizon. This will allow us to ensure alignment between the IT strategic plan and the capital budget plan. In addition, a SWOT (Strengths / Weaknesses / Opportunities / Threats) analysis of the ITS Infrastructure Services group is currently underway. Results of the analysis will be incorporated into the IT Strategic Plan which will be finalized and reviewed semi-annually. APPENDICES Appendix 1 – ITS Vision, Mission and related Principles (1 page) Appendix 2 – ITS Strategic Plan (Key objectives, goals and initiatives) (16 pages)

Strategic Planning Committee TOPIC: Update on IT Strategic Plan


Appendix 1: IT Strategic Plan - Vision, Mission and related Principles

Vision:

ITS is a trusted partner in the University’s teaching, learning, research and administrative initiatives and in the broader Niagara community

Mission and related Principles:

1. Foster collaboration and trust 1.1. Establish an IT governance model

1.2. Continually improve stakeholder and partner relationships through open and transparent dialogue

2. Create and maintain a reliable technology-rich environment 2.1. Pursue a “cloud first” strategy

2.2. Seek agility; choose solutions that can be readily implemented, are scalable and fully integrated

2.3. Reflect good stewardship over technology resource investments: buy / partner instead of build

3. Provide secure and accessible systems 3.1. Implement and maintain technology systems that reduce barriers while safeguarding

the University’s data

3.2. Cultivate a security aware organization

3.3. Provide universal access that accommodates all compliance and policy requirements

4. Create a service-oriented culture within ITS to support the Brock community 4.1. Provide value-added services that are user-centric

1

Strategic Planning Committee TOPIC: Update on IT Strategic Plan


1. Teaching and learning

Objective Goal Action Item

1.1. To facilitate the exploration, development and adoption of new teaching tools and technologies that enhance the University’s pedagogy, in partnership with CPI.

1.1.A. Provide IT solutions designed to optimize teaching and learning, where possible creating measurable benefit to faculty and students.

1.1.A.1. Engage faculty and students to solicit input about future teaching and learning technologies and provide relevant IT services.

Responsible Number Measurement FY16/17 FY17/18 FY18/19 FY19/20 FY20/21

Wishlist Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

DC 1.1.A.1-1 Plan a schedule of engagements with focused topics for faculty, students, CPI and ITS to collaborate and identify new opportunities

x x x x x

AF 1.1.A.1-2 Office 365 tools provided to students, complimenting tools

available to faculty and staff

x x x

AF 1.1.A.1-3 Cross functional working group formed to direct future

releases of Office 365 tools

x x

AM 1.1.A.1-4 Skype for Business support in classroom (best practice guide, cameras, laptops)

x

AM AP 1.1.A.1-5 Standardized setup of computers in all instructional spaces

across the University

x

AM 1.1.A.1-6 Information campaign to promote awareness of the tools

available in Office 365

x x x x

AM 1.1.A.1-7 Evaluate and if feasible, discontinue use of "Elluminate",

replace with Skype for Business

x

AP 1.1.A.1-8 Develop Proof of Concept for clientless remote

connectivity/ application delivery

x x x

AP 1.1.A.1-9 Develop standardized Linux Server and Desktop support

model and environment

x x x

2

2. Research


2.1. To enhance IT services to support research. 2.1.A. Create opportunities between researchers and IT to offer technology services to aid their research.

2.1.A.1. Engage with Researchers to understand technology needs and provide relevant IT services.



DC AM 2.1.A.1-1 Workshops and Research Day to engage researchers and promote IT services

x x

AF 2.1.A.1-2 Develop electronic forms and workflow for research ethics including:

Animal

Biohazard

Human

x x

AM AF AP 2.1.A.1-3 Develop support model and management for external users

x

3

3. Student experience


3.1. To ensure student experience is enhanced by the IT services provided.

3.1.A. Manage a catalogue of IT services that are relevant, flexible, secure and reliable.

3.1.A.1. Engage with students to discover students’ needs and preferences.



AM 3.1.A.1-1 Facilitate a Student IT Advisory Committee to discuss on an ongoing basis the needs of students

x x x x x

EB 3.1.A.1-2 In partnership with the Department of Residences, issue a yearly Residence Technology Survey in order to develop a technology roadmap for residences

x x x x x

3. Student experience


3.1. To ensure student experience is enhanced by the IT services provided.

3.1.A. Manage a catalogue of IT services that are relevant, flexible, secure and reliable.

3.1.A.2. Provide value-added services for prospective and current students, in partnership with University student service providers.



EB 3.1.A.2-1 Install wireless access in all residences to optimize the current technologies utilized by students

x

RC 3.1.A.2-2 Replace end-of-life network hardware in all residences that have not yet been upgraded

x

EB 3.1.A.2-3 Initiate deployment of wireless network services to outdoor areas to facilitate connectivity, learning and collaboration in those spaces

x x x x x

EB 3.1.A.2-4 Conduct a gap analysis of wireless access in locations around the university campuses and address gaps

x x x x x

AM 3.1.A.2-5 Reconfigure and redesign Computer Commons to include flexible collaborative spaces

x

4



DC ED 3.1.A.2-6 Implement “One Stop” queuing solution for the Registrar’s Office, Records, Financial Aid, and Student Accounts. This will amalgamate these services into a single location in order to streamline and enhance the student experience, and will improve overall service efficiency

x x

5

4. Information systems


4.1. To provide secure, accessible and reliable information systems. 4.1.A. Ensure that IT systems are designed to optimize operational efficiencies.

4.1.A.1. Engage with users of administrative systems to understand technology needs and provide relevant IT services.



DC 4.1.A.1-1 Reporting / communication for annual strategic plan with faculty, staff to discuss plans and accomplishments

x x x x x x x x x x

RC 4.1.A.1-2 Upgrade University internet connection to support cloud first strategy

x x

EB 4.1.A.1-3 Develop and maintain long term plan for the improvement of the data centre

x x x

AP 4.1.A.1-4 Procure additional storage and scale out SCOM ACS logging for user access reporting

x

AP 4.1.A.1-5 Architect, procure and deploy centralized logging and reporting system for Infrastructure Services

x x x x

AP 4.1.A.1-6 Architect, procure and deploy Microsoft Advanced Threat Analytics

x x

AP 4.1.A.1-7 Deploy centralized remote access / VPN services that securely extend Brock’s network to remote devices

x x x

EB LD 4.1.A.1-8 Develop a unified communications strategy for the University

x x x x

AM 4.1.A.1-9 Develop and deploy an IT vendor relationship management framework

x x x x

AP 4.1.A.1-10 Build a cloud framework

x x

AP 4.1.A.1-11 Provision self-service tenant work space in the Brock

private cloud

x x

6



AP 4.1.A.1-12 Migrate, align and optimise GSB data centre to ITS x x x




4.1.A.2. Maintain an applications roadmap to support replacement and enhancement decisions.



AF 4.1.A.2-1 Planning and implementation of approved systems.

AF 4.1.A.2-1.1 Admissions Dashboard x x

AF 4.1.A.2-1.2 Undergraduate Program x x

AF 4.1.A.2-1.3 SharePoint – employee collaboration x x

AF 4.1.A.2-1.4 SharePoint Board portal x

EB 4.1.A.2-1.5 Campus Recreation x x x

AF 4.1.A.2-1.6 Conference Registration x x

AF 4.1.A.2-1.7 Learning Management System x x x x x x

AF 4.1.A.2-1.8 SharePoint – Office 365 POC x

AF 4.1.A.2-1.9 Finance System x x

AF 4.1.A.2-1.10 Finance Budget x x x

AF 4.1.A.2-1.11 HRIS x x x x x x x x x x

AF 4.1.A.2-1.12 Identity Management (IDM) x x x

AF 4.1.A.2-1.13 Building Operations x x x x x

AF 4.1.A.2-1.14 Student Information System x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

AF 4.1.A.2-1.15 SIS Phase 1 – Recruitment CRM and Admission x x x x

AF 4.1.A.2-1.16 Research x x x x

AF AP 4.1.A.2-1.17 Integration Platform x x x

7




4.1.A.3. Create a technology roadmap to support replacement and enhancement decisions.



DC AP RC 4.1.A.3-1 Build and maintain an IT infrastructure roadmap that keeps infrastructure current, maintained and aligned to University requirements and direction

x

DC AM AP 4.1.A.3-2 Develop integrated end user computing / BYOD strategy

x x

AP 4.1.A.3-3 Plan and implement a network access control (NAC) system that facilitates LAN and wireless network access as well as guest onboarding

x x x x x

AP 4.1.A.3-4 Replace / retire EOL Windows 2003 servers and the applications hosted on them

x x x

DC AP RC 4.1.A.3-5 Eliminate or reduce duplication of services between federated IT units and ITS

x x x x x

8



4.2. To support informed decision-making for the University.

4.2.A. Provide robust data and analytic tools in support of strategic goals

4.2.A.2. Offer value related analytics, metrics and real-time performance indicators for decision support.



AF AP 4.2.A.2-1 Develop new BI dashboards / scorecards / action items / reports

x x

AF 4.2.A.2-2 Plan and implement framework for Power BI cloud services

x x x

AF 4.2.A.2-3 Retirement of Cognos

x

AF 4.2.A.2-4 Retirement of on premise BI Centre

x

9

5. Community engagement


5.1. Support community engagement with the University through community Action Items.

5.1.A. Take a lead in key community Action Items. 5.1.A.1. Assume an active role at CUCCIO.



DC 5.1.A.1-1 Continue active participation in CUCCIO, with a particular interest in the Shared Security Services Group, for agile information sharing on threats with advice aimed at mitigation and reducing impacts.

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

DC 5.1.A.1-2 Shared CISO role

x

DC 5.1.A.1-3 Participation in SIGs, CUCCIO conferences


5. Community engagement


5.1. Support community engagement with the University through community Action Items.

5.1.A. Take a lead in key community Action Items. 5.1.A.2. Explore potential synergies and opportunities with the Committee of CIOs and other impacted players in the Niagara community on key community Action Items.



DC 5.1.A.2-1 Continue active participation in the Niagara CIO Consortium, particularly discussions on shared services including security, for agile information sharing on threats with mitigating advice aimed at reducing impacts


DC 5.1.A.2-2 Hardware disbursement for charitable purposes

x x x x x

AP 5.1.A.2-3 Develop private cloud (Niagara regional cloud initiative) as a proof of concept

x x x

DC 5.1.A.2-4 Resource sharing


10

6. Cybersecurity


6.1. Increase the University community’s awareness of cyber and security risks.

6.1.A Investigate, remediate and communicate preventative measures

6.1.A.1. Develop a University-wide comprehensive user awareness program of the threats and actions users can take to protect themselves.

Responsible Number Measurement FY16/17 FY17/18 FY18/19 FY19/20 FY20/21 Wishlist

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

DC, AM 6.1.A.1-1 Investigate and consider partnering with websites such as GetSafeOnline.org that increase user awareness and provide advice on responding to cyber threats and publicise this accordingly to the University community

x

AM 6.1.A.1-2 Maintain a Security Awareness Program in partnership with key stakeholders across the University

x x x x x

6. Cybersecurity


6.1. Increase the University community’s awareness of cyber and security risks.

6.1.A Investigate, remediate and communicate preventative measures

6.1.A.2. Develop and manage a cyber reporting system for the University.



AM 6.1.A.2-1 Build a reporting system for the University community to report infected websites, phishing attempts, etc.

x

AM 6.1.A.2-2 Develop an analysis and quick response capability in order to notify the University community promptly of IT cyber and security issues

x

11

6. Cybersecurity


6.2. Be more resilient to cyber attacks and better able to protect our interests.

6.2.A. Manage the technology required to protect critical digital assets for the University.

6.2.A.1. Evolve security controls to address cyber threats.



AM AF AP 6.2.A.1-1 Continue enhancing layered security


AP 6.2.A.1-2 Improve detective controls including logging, alerts, monitoring, intrusion prevention / detection, etc.

x x x

AP 6.2.A.1-3 Enable and extend system and security monitoring to cloud solutions

x x x

AP 6.2.A.1-4 Core security, identity management and monitoring systems are cloud enabled

x x x

DC AP 6.2.A.1-5 Conduct a 3rd party review of the data and network architectures to ensure that they not only meet the University’s requirements but also address security requirements

x

AF EB AM 6.2.A.1-6 Mature IT governance through development, implementation and monitoring of policies, standards, guidelines and procedures, including cyber incident handling procedures

x x x x

AM 6.2.A.1-7 Enhance security of mobile computing devices via development and implementation of a mobile device security awareness campaign

x x x x x

DC 6.2.A.1-8 Conduct periodic PCI vulnerability scans and implement recommendations (see 7.1.A.3-7)

AM 6.2.A.1-9 Consult with researchers to understand their current data practices and requirements, and offer secure alternatives (see 2.1.A.1)

12



AF EB AM 6.2.A.1-10 Perform a gap assessment of existing IT standards against best practices and address any gaps

x x x x x

DC 6.2.A.1-11 Develop an IT risk management framework aligned with the enterprise risk management framework

x x

6. Cybersecurity


6.2. Be more resilient to cyber attacks and better able to protect our interests.

6.2.A. Manage the technology required to protect critical digital assets for the University.

6.2.A.2. Implement recommendations from the User Access Management internal audit in order to improve access controls.



AF AM 6.2.A.2-1 User access management processes and form with workflow

x

AM 6.2.A.2-2 Annual user access reviews

x x x x x

AF AM 6.2.A.2-3 Annual review and signoff of groups and roles

x x x x x

13

6. Cybersecurity


6.3. Have the knowledge, skills, capability and capacity needed to underpin our cyber security objectives.

6.3.A. Manage the organizational requirements to protect critical digital assets for the University.

6.3.A.1. Provide the skilled staff required to address cyber security.



DC AP 6.3.A.1-1 Hire a qualified, experienced IT security professional to fill the IT security role

x x

DC AF EB AM 6.3.A.1-2 Continue IT staff training and educational activities


DC 6.3.A.1-3 Ensure adequate skilled staffing for a sustained security and controls effort (see 6.3.A.1-1 and 6.3.A.1-2)

6. Cybersecurity




6.3.A.2. Take a lead in key community Action Items.



DC 6.3.A.2-1 Continue active participation in CUCCIO, with a particular interest in the Shared Security Services Group, for agile information sharing on threats with mitigating advice aimed at reducing impacts (see 5.1.A.1)

DC 6.3.A.2-2 Continue active participation in the Niagara CIO Consortium, particularly discussions on shared services, including security, for agile information sharing on threats with mitigating advice aimed at reducing impacts (see 5.1.A.2)

14

6. Cybersecurity




6.3.A.3. Develop and test a cyber response plan, including steps for mitigation and lessons learned.



DC 6.3.A.3-1 Assign University cyber leadership and associated responsibilities to the business continuity team

x

DC 6.3.A.3-2 Ensure cross-functional representation on the business continuity team for cyber responsibilities

x

15

7. IT Service Excellence


7.1. To be responsive to University requirements through increased quality, agility and innovation.

7.1.A. Ensure effective alignment of University-wide IT resources. 7.1.A.1. Build a skilled ITS team to deliver successful, innovative solutions and services.



DC AF EB AM 7.1.A.1-1 Skills discovery of IT resources, issues and needs

x x x

DC AF EB AM 7.1.A.1-2 Roll-up of staff and budgets

x x x

DC AF EB AM 7.1.A.1-3 Assessment and inventory of services and infrastructure

x x x

DC AF EB AM 7.1.A.1-4 Organizational structure review and realignment

x x x




7.1.A. Ensure effective alignment of University-wide IT resources. 7.1.A.2. Develop a plan for the resilience, business continuity and disaster recovery of core services.



DC AF EB AM AP RC LD

7.1.A.2-1 Conduct architecture review

x x x x x x x

AF EB AM AP RC LD

7.1.A.2-2 Identify and address critical single points of failure

x x x x x x x

DC AF EB AM AP RC LD

7.1.A.2-3 Develop a comprehensive IT business continuity plan

x x x x

16




7.1.A. Ensure effective alignment of University-wide IT resources. 7.1.A.3 Define and implement quality management practices and tools to support IT services.



DC 7.1.A.3-1 Develop, publish and implement PCI-related governance documents

x x x

EB 7.1.A.3-2 Mature project management processes, including standardizing ITS project documentation, implementing Microsoft Project Server, integrating with SharePoint and communicating with requestors

x x x x

AF AM 7.1.A.3-3 Align SharePoint and Office 365 governance structures and processes

x

AM 7.1.A.3-4 Enable client self service within the ticketing system

x x x x

DC AP RC 7.1.A.3-5 Develop and implement a PCI infrastructure roadmap: identify and implement network segmentation and supporting processes, considering resource requirements and related costs

x x x

DC 7.1.A.3-6 Develop process for new requests and facilitate redesign of existing business processes for PCI compliance

x x x

DC AP RC 7.1.A.3-7 Pass PCI ASV scanning

x x x x

AP AM 7.1.A.3-8 Develop VDI strategy for students, staff and faculty

x x

AP AM 7.1.A.3-9 Deploy VDI proof of concept for students, staff and faculty

x x

Board of Trustees


Information Item

TOPIC: Employee Engagement Survey Update

September 28, 2016 Grant Armstrong, Associate Vice-President, Human Resources

Neil Culp, Associate Director, Organizational Development & Effectiveness

This topic sheet serves to provide the Strategic Planning Committee with the Employee Engagement Survey Update topic sheet that will be presented to the Human Resources Committee on September 29, 2016. APPENDIX Appendix 1 – Report to the Human Resources Committee on Employee Engagement Survey Update (7 pages)

1

Board of Trustees

Report to the Human Resources Committee

Information Item

TOPIC: Employee Engagement Survey Update

September 29, 2016 Grant Armstrong, Associate Vice-President, Human Resources

Neil Culp, Associate Director, Organizational Development & Effectiveness EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During the March 10, 2016 Human Resources Committee meeting, a report was presented outlining a new general strategy for implementing Employee Engagement surveys at Brock University. Specifically, the report recommended a pulse survey approach conducted regularly rather than the traditional full, and in depth, engagement survey conducted once every few years. Measuring employee engagement regularly creates more opportunities to understand employee perceptions and to intentionally build a strong and positive “Employment Culture”. The current report provides an update on the development of that approach and outlines the survey methodology, timing and report utilization for the Committee’s review and comment. As well, the current report contains the draft engagement pulse survey for review and comment. REPORT Employee Engagement scores are a key people metric, but for that data to be truly useful, it must be collected regularly in a valid way. Employee engagement surveys are conducted for the purpose of understanding the current organizational culture and taking action when necessary to improve upon it. The current proposed Employee Engagement survey method is designed to provide the best tool possible in that regard. The project is in support of Brock’s strategic goal of becoming a “Preferred Place to Work and Study” and should provide insights and opportunities to build a strong and healthy “Employment Culture” where staff are rewarded fairly, have opportunities to grow and develop their careers, have positive work relationships with their manager and co-workers, are able to be successful, and where staff feel that their contributions support the mission and goals of Brock University. As outlined in the report to the Human Resources Committee on March 10, 2016, staff recommended a pulse survey used regularly instead of the traditional large survey every few years. Given the approval from the Board of Trustees for the pulse survey method, staff have worked to develop the pulse survey and method for implementing the survey. Survey & Follow-up Methodology The pulse survey methodology can be compared to an annual physical, in so far as it provides a regular high level assessment, creating a benchmark for comparison of future assessments. The goal of the pulse survey method is to gauge general levels of engagement quickly and cost effectively, and to use that data to understand where further follow-up (either searching for best practices or corrective interventions).

Strategic Planning Committee TOPIC: Employee Engagement Survey Update


2

The plan is to send out the survey twice per year, with data collection occurring in May and October. While the survey will be distributed twice per year, individual employees will only be asked to complete the survey once per year. The staff in each reportable division/faculty (as defined by the questions within the demographics section) will be randomly split into two groups of equal size, with the first groups being surveyed in May and the second groups being surveyed in October. The random splitting of each division/faculty, and the timing of the data collection periods has the following implications:

• Each employee will be asked to fill out the survey only once per year, reducing survey fatigue and improving participation levels,

• The random splitting of staff within each division/faculty will reduce any sampling bias compared to other selection methods,

• Each reportable division/faculty identified are sufficiently large in terms of staff compliment to ensure confidentiality in responses (no grouping will be reported on with fewer than seven responses),

• Each reportable division/faculty identified are sufficiently large in terms of staff compliment to at least have annual reporting even at relatively low participation levels (e.g. 40% of staff, given the seven responses reporting criteria).

It should be noted that in the first several times the survey is run, participation will be limited to on-going staff, and those on contract with a contract length of a year or more. Temporary contracts and student contracts shorter than one year will be excluded at the beginning due to their transitory nature of their employment. Many short-term contract employees here during the survey period may not be employees when the results come out, reducing the validity of the results. After a few survey cycles focusing one on-going and long term contract employees, the decision to include contract employees will be revisited. For each survey period, identified participants will receive an email (or other form of communication for staff without emails) a week before the survey is distributed, explaining the purpose and use of the survey, including a short FAQ section. A week after that explanation email, identified participants will receive and email with a link to the survey. The survey will usually be completed electronically through a secure site that prevents identification of the individual completing the survey. The system will, however track which IP addresses have completed the survey to reduce the likelihood that a single individual could complete multiple surveys. Paper versions of the survey will be made available for staff with limited access to the computers who wish to participate, including a confidential method to submit the surveys. Each week after the initial survey is sent out for a period of two weeks, a reminder email will be sent to all identified participants, reminding them of the survey in case they have yet to fill it out. After the three-week data collection period, the survey will be closed in the system, hard copy surveys submitted will be entered, and the data analysis process will begin. Analysis will look at overall trends and levels for the university and will also examine results using combinations of the demographic questions to understand engagement within specific parts of the Brock employee population. In order to protect confidentiality for those who completed the survey, no data will be reported on any group or sub group which has fewer than seven responses. Division/Faculty leaders would receive a report on the survey for their units within a month of the survey’s close, and a full report will be shared with the Senior Administrative Council. Finally, the results of the engagement survey will be reported to the Human Resources Committee through the HR metrics reports accompanying the HR Scorecard.

3

As part of the analysis, departmental results will be assessed against organizational targets for engagement scores (to be determined as part of the initial survey rollout). Departments with relatively high engagement scores will be engaged to learn about best practices to share across the university. Conversely, units with lower than desired engagement scores will begin a process to better understand the scores, determine where in the Division/Faculty issues actually exist, and to take corrective actions to improve engagement scores. The six-month measurement cycle provides enough time for a lower scoring unit to conduct a deeper analysis and take corrective action, hopefully improving engagement scores the next measurement period. Pulse Survey The actual pulse survey itself will consist of three sections (see Appendix 1). The first section asks a number of demographic questions for employees to complete. The second section of the survey consists of 14 questions designed to measure employee engagement. The final section contains two questions that staff can answer in a free format, making individual comments. The demographics section, which has questions related to the individual’s division/faculty (e.g. Facilities Management), employee group (e.g. BUFA), organizational level (e.g. Individual Contributor), and years of service at Brock, will be used to sort, organize and analyze the data. The demographic questions asked represent the main delineations within Brock’s organizational structure, and will allow for more in depth understanding of the survey’s results. In analyzing the organization, it was determined that reporting on division/faculty (organizational units that reports into the Vice President level or above) was the most appropriate level to report engagement data on since it allows for units sufficiently large enough to report on regularly even at lower participation levels (e.g. 40% of staff) The employee engagement section contains 14 items designed to assess the general engagement of employees. The development of this list of items came from a review of the employee engagement literature, both academic and practitioner. In the literature there are several models of employee engagement, and the review of the literature identified several core concepts/themes that were included in the bulk of the employee engagement, which are outlined below:

• an employee’s relationship with their manager and colleagues; • an employee’s perception of opportunities for rewards and development opportunities; • an employee’s ability to influence organizational decisions that impact them; • an employee’s understanding of how they fit into/support the organization’s goals; • an employee’s perceptions about their role, including whether they find it challenging

and meaningful, and the extent they understand how to succeed in their role. The specific items included in the pulse survey are aligned to those themes, and were taken from validated, free to use and publically available sources. Each item selected has shown reliability in responses, and has consistently demonstrated significant correlations to over engagement scores and related constructs. All items in this section have a four point Likert type scale for responses. An even number was selected so that staff needed to choose between a generally positive or generally negative perspective, without a “safe” neutral choice. The comment section is meant to provide employees a chance to add in additional information they feel is important in relation to their own personal engagement as it exists, and how to

4

improve upon it. These comments often provide for an enhanced understanding of the general data, and offer a way to generate ideas to improve engagement levels. Next Steps Should the current approach be supported by the HRC and the board, there are several next steps that will need to be undertaken before the first engagement survey can be run. The finalized survey questions will need to be translated into the actual survey tool and tested to ensure that the survey operates properly, including protecting the identity of respondents (a key driver of participation rates). Staff will also discuss the completed survey plan with the Research Ethics Committee of the university to assess whether or not the survey requires ethics approval before it can proceed. Other employee surveys (e.g. IT Satisfaction Survey) have not required ethics approval, but those surveys likely do not have the same possibility of impacting employees as this survey does (the follow up piece on poor results). As such, a consultation at least is required, and a full approval may be required. The full methodology needs to be confirmed before an ethics review can be completed, so ethics approval was seen as a step after the HRC and Board had the opportunity to comment on the plan. As well, a communications plan to introduce the survey to the university will need to be developed and rolled out. Such a communications plan will need to answer many questions including the following:

• What is an engagement survey and what is it used for? • Will you be able to know who responded and how they responded? • What will change if I fill out the survey? • How will we find out survey results? • How often will I be asked to participate and what does that entail? • What happens if our area gets poor score?

A communications plan will need to answer many questions from staff, managers and senior leadership in order to manage expectations, build buy-in and demonstrate value in such an exercise. The first data collection point is scheduled for no later than May 2017. Should the survey not require a full ethics review, and only need an administrative review, it is possible that the first data collection could occur in November 2016. While November is outside of the recommended cycle, it is close enough to the October timeframe to not be a significant issue. If the November timeframe is not possible due to a full ethics review, it is recommended that data collection begin in the May 2017 timeframe. It is not advisable, for participation rate reasons, to run a survey in December (academic term end and significant time off for staff) or January (new academic term start), and any timeframe beyond that would put the first and second data collection periods too close together. As outlined above, data analysis will be completed within a month of the close of the data collection period, and the first data will be reported to the HRC during the next board meeting cycle (the March meeting date for a November collection period, or the June meeting date for a May collection period). APPENDIX Appendix 1 – Employee Engagement Pulse Survey (3 pages)

Pulse Survey Questions and Answer Options

Brock University – Employee Engagement Pulse Survey Demographics:

1. What Division/Faculty are you a member of? o Athletics &

Recreation

o Enrollment Management & International

o Faculty of Education

o Faculty of

Mathematics & Sciences

o Campus Security

o Facilities Management

o Faculty of Graduate

Studies

o Faculty of Social Sciences

o Government Relations, Development & Alumni Relations

o Faculty of Applied Health Sciences

o Faculty of

Humanities

o Finance

o Goodman School of Business

o Human Resources o Information Technology Services

o Library

o Marketing & Communications

o Office of Research Services

o Senior Academic Offices

o Teaching, learning & Student Success o University Services

2. What employee group are you a part of?

o Senior Administrative Council &/or Administrative Professional/Exempt Staff

o OSSTF o CUPE 2220, CUPE

4207, Units 2 & 3, IASTE

o CUPE 1295 o CUPE 4207, Unit 1

o Brock University Faculty Association

3. What level is your current role in the university?

o Senior Leadership o Director, Associate Director or Associate Dean

o Manager or Supervisor o Individual Contributor

Human Resources Committee TOPIC: Employee Engagement Survey Update


5

4. How long have you been continually employed at Brock University? o Less than 1 year o Between 1-2 years o Between 2-5 years o Between 5-10 years o Between 10-15 years o Between 15-20 years o Between 20-25 years o 25 years or more

Employee Engagement Questions:

1. My supervisor (the person I report to) cares about me and my success. o Strongly Agree o Somewhat

Agree o Somewhat

Disagree o Strongly

Disagree

2. I generally like and get along with the people I regularly work with. o Strongly Agree o Somewhat

Agree o Somewhat

Disagree o Strongly

Disagree

3. My coworkers and I find it easy to cooperate to get our work done. o Strongly Agree o Somewhat

Agree o Somewhat

Disagree o Strongly

Disagree

4. The team I am a part of is committed to high quality work. o Strongly Agree o Somewhat

Agree o Somewhat

Disagree o Strongly

Disagree

5. I know what is expected of me in my job. o Strongly Agree o Somewhat

Agree o Somewhat

Disagree o Strongly

Disagree

6. I have the resources I need to do my job effectively. o Strongly Agree o Somewhat

Agree o Somewhat

Disagree o Strongly

Disagree

7. Good work is acknowledged and/or recognized by my supervisor (the person I report to).

o Strongly Agree o Somewhat Agree

o Somewhat Disagree

o Strongly Disagree

8. Over the past year, I have had opportunities to learn and grow.


o Somewhat Disagree

o Strongly Disagree

9. My supervisor (the person I report to) provides me with ongoing feedback to

help me improve my performance. o Strongly Agree o Somewhat

Agree o Somewhat

Disagree o Strongly

Disagree

6

10. I understand how my work supports the overall success of Brock University. o Strongly Agree o Somewhat

Agree o Somewhat

Disagree o Strongly

Disagree

11. I regularly apply a variety of skills and knowledge in order to complete my

work. o Strongly Agree o Somewhat

Agree o Somewhat

Disagree o Strongly

Disagree

12. In the team I am a part of, we are encouraged to share ideas and participate in decision making that will affect our work.


o Somewhat Disagree

o Strongly Disagree

13. I am proud to tell people I work at Brock University.


o Somewhat Disagree

o Strongly Disagree

14. I would recommend Brock University to my friends and family.


o Somewhat Disagree

o Strongly Disagree

Comments:

1. Please share any comments you feel are relevant to help understand your current level of engagement at work.

2. What suggestions do you have to improve engagement levels in your work team?

7

1

Board of Trustees


Information Item

TOPIC: Government Policy Changes

September 28, 2016

Meaghan Rusnell, Director, Government and Community Relations

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The government update is intended to provide an overview of some of the key activities happening within the federal and provincial governments that are relevant to Brock University’s strategic priorities and directions. Of particular interest, this update highlights ongoing consultations federally on innovation and science. It also provides updates on changes to provincial lobbying rules and the funding formula review as well as upcoming changes to the Ontario student financial assistance program and tuition policies. GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO Significant changes continue to occur within the provincial government that are impacting the university.

Funding Formula Review

The province is continuing to undertake reforms of funding for universities and colleges. The goal of this process is to modernize the approach by which government funding is allocated to colleges and universities. This reform can provide an opportunity to improve student experience and outcomes, support differentiation, and ensure that postsecondary institutions are financially sustainable. However, projections indicate that enrolment growth will decline in the medium-term due to demographic factors, particularly in certain regions in the province.

To date, the government has consistently stated that it will not increase the sector’s total operating grant of $3.5 billion. However, when the new funding model is in place changes are expected to phased-in starting immediately. The relationship between the funding formula and the SMA and, in turn, how the ministry will decide what outcome based funding to include in the funding formula remains unclear.

2

Next SMA Brock University’s current SMA was signed in 2014 and expires in 2017. This was the first time any university had be part of the SMA process. With little advanced notice of how the process would unfold, institutions were often left with little time to consult internally or externally. In response, as MAESD reviews and plans for the second round of SMA negotiations, Brock has taken steps to provide the university community with the opportunity to participate in the next round of internal SMA discussions. Brock recognizes that with the ongoing review of the University Funding Model, which is expected to be tied to Brock’s next SMA, the upcoming round of SMA negotiations could significantly impact the University. For more information on the SMA process, please see report SMA Update/Strategic Planning Process.

Student Financial Assistance

Upcoming policy changes will impact Ontario’s student financial assistance program, although little new has been announced since the 2016 Ontario budget. Starting in 2017-18, the province will implement a major restructuring of student financial assistance. The 30% Off Ontario Tuition grant, Ontario Student Opportunity Grant, Ontario Access Grants and other grants offered by OSAP will be discontinued and the resources that support them folded into a new single upfront grant – the Ontario Student Grant (OSG). It appears the OSG amount will be calculated based on educational expenses estimated when a student applies for OSAP, which will provide a student with a “net tuition” bill that lists all the grant money he/she is eligible for, how much base tuition he/she has to pay and what his/her ancillary fees are. To receive the grant, family income must be below $160,000 (or more for larger families). The grant will be available to undergraduate, graduate and professional students and can only be received for up to 8 terms of study for full-time students or 12 terms of study for full-time students with disabilities. Students will be expected to contribute $3,000 per school year to their education costs (based on OSAP calculation of expenses), unless they receive a contribution waiver. Parental contributions used in the calculation of eligibility for the new OSG and loans under OSAP are expected to change. In the current system, Ontario expects parental contributions to begin when annual family income is at $70,000, and grow to a contribution of over $10,000 when annual family income is at $110,000 or more. In the new system, Ontario will expect parental contributions to begin at (or near) an annual income of $90,000, and at an annual income of $110,000 the expected contribution would be less than $4,000.

According to the government, the changes will make average university tuition “free” for the majority of eligible students whose parents make a combined household income of less than $50,000 per year. Seventy (70) per cent of these students will receive grants greater than their “average cost of tuition”. The changes also apply to middle-to-upper income families and include:

• Providing grants to most students whose parents make a combined household income of $83,000 per year or less to cover their tuition

3

• Giving students from middle- and upper-income families (making $83,000 to $130,000 per year) more access to interest-free and low cost loans through OSAP by reducing parental contributions in 2018-191

• Providing additional financial support to full-time mature and married students • Changing eligibility so that grant approval is not tied to how long a student has been

out of high school • Capping the maximum OSAP debt level at $10,000 for an academic year

In a National Post interview with a senior policy official at the ministry in Feb. 2016, the official stated that tuition costs that are above the average will be covered by the Student Access Guarantee. In the 2016 Ontario Budget ‘average’ Arts and Science tuition is assumed to be $6,160.2 The grant will adjust for inflation and increases to tuition.

In response to these changes, starting in September 2017, the province will cease provincial education tax credits – both the current education and textbook and the tuition tax credits. The additional revenue from eliminating these tax credits will be reinvested to support the new OSG or other postsecondary, education, training and youth jobs programs.

Tuition Along with implementation of the OSG, the government will implement net tuition billing by 2018–19. This change will require restructuring of the administration of OSAP and tuition, by both the MAESD and postsecondary institutions and many policy decisions affecting the tuition framework, the Student Access Guarantee program and the Tuition Set-Aside requirements. As changes to Ontario’s student financial assistance program are implemented, the current tuition framework, announced in 2013, will expire in 2017. The framework capped yearly increases for undergraduate tuition at 3 per cent (down from 5 per cent under the previous framework), while graduate and professional fees were allowed to increase by 5 per cent (down from 8 per cent). Total institutional increases were also capped at 3 per cent. It is expected that the new tuition framework will be tied to province’s new tuition polies as well as the new funding formula. Little information on the content of a new framework is currently available but it is likely to reflect the government’s focus on students and accessibility. ORPP/CPP Finally, as a result of a meeting between provincial finance minister’s the Liberal’s plan to implement the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan (ORPP) was cancelled. At the meeting the provincial ministers agreed in principle to work on a CPP enhancement starting January 1, 2019. Cabinet Shuffle On June 13, 2016 Premier Kathleen Wynne announced a significant cabinet shuffle. Among other things the name of the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities changed to the

1 Note that, unlike students who receive grants, which are non-repayable, these students are eligible for repayable loans. 2 http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/is-tuition-really-going-to-be-free-for-some-ontario-students-despite-the-skepticism-heres-how-itll-work

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/is-tuition-really-going-to-be-free-for-some-ontario-students-despite-the-skepticism-heres-how-itll-work

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/is-tuition-really-going-to-be-free-for-some-ontario-students-despite-the-skepticism-heres-how-itll-work

4

Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development (MAESD). The Ministry’s new Minister is Hon. Deb Matthews who also holds the roles of Deputy Premier, Chair of Cabinet and Minister Responsible for Digital Government. Hon. Reza Moridi remains Minister for Research, Innovation and Science. Provincial Lobbying Provincial lobby rules also cam into effect on July 1, 2016. As a result, Brock must register with Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner if and when employees, either individually or collectively, spend at least 50 hours in a calendar year lobbying on behalf of the university. Only registered employees will be able to lobby the provincial government. GOVERNMENT OF CANADA The current liberal government has been in place for close to year now. While policy changes impacting the sector have been limited, consultations on the government’s proposed innovation agenda as well as their review on science could have significant future impacts on government funding to the university. Innovation Agenda Consultations on the government’s proposed innovation agenda focus on six action areas: promoting an entrepreneurial and creative society, supporting global science excellence, building world-leading clusters and partnerships, growing companies and accelerating clean growth, competing in a digital world and improving ease of doing business. Future funding opportunities are expected to flow through the government’s Innovation Agenda once it has been finalized and announced. Science Review The independent review of federal funding for fundamental science is looking at the program machinery that is currently in place to support science and scientists in Canada. The scope of the review includes the three granting councils along with certain federally funded organizations such as the Canada Foundation for Innovation. Canada Student Grant Finally, the government announced increases to the Canada Student Grant, which compliments the Ontario government’s changes to the provincial financial assistance program. These changes followed the 2016 federal Budget commitment to end the federal Education and Textbook tax credits, as of January 1, 2017. The Tuition Tax Credit will continue.

Board of Trustees


Information Item

TOPIC: Board Metrics Update

September 28, 2016 Bryan Boles, Associate Vice-President, Financial Services

Rationale This report is intended to provide an update to the Board Metric process.

Key Background

Financial Services has been supporting the Governance/Nomination Committee (the “GNC”) and the Senior Administrative Council in developing a simplified Key Performance Indicators (KPI) scorecard (Appendix #1). In June committees reviewed the scorecard which at that time consisted of both an operation dashboard and an academic dashboard (including placeholders for targets and their timings). The goal of the scorecard is to provide a one-stop, quick guide to the Board of Trustees to see how the University is doing and support the Board of Trustee members in fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities. Implications Since that time feedback from the committees has been received and incorporated. Users of these reports will note that student dashboard, which included enrolment and related information has been removed. This student reporting shifted to James Mandigo, Vice-Provost, Enrolment Management and International. This scorecard is expected to continue to evolve over time, feedback is encouraged. Next Steps At the present time budget has been used as a proxy as the forecast for a number of metrics. When the T1 (trimester 1) reporting is completed mid-October, the scorecard will be updated for the next Board cycle in December. APPENDIX Appendix 1 – Operation Dashboard (1 page)

Operation dashboard

Finance Capital/Investment Human Resources

Net debt per student

Target Timing

$6,023 30-April-21

Per student FFTE basis.

2016-17 Budget

2015-16 Actual

2014-15 Actual

2013-14 Actual

2.2 x 1

$7,000 $6,843

$7,092

$6,673

Capital funding

Target Timing

$17,900 30-April-21

$11,264

Operating plus FRP funding (does not include reserve transfers) ($000s).

2016-17 Budget2015-16 Actual2014-15 Actual

2.2 x 1

$12,296$9,034

Student to faculty & librarians

Target Timing

31:1 30-April-17

31 31

Headcount figures.

2015-162014-152013-142012-13

2.2 x 1

3030

Staff to faculty & librarians

Target Timing

1.5:1 30-April-17

1.5 1.5

Headcount figures.

2015-162014-152013-142012-13

2.2 x 1

1.61.6

Employee turnover

Target Timing

4.8% 30-April-17

Figures represent total resignations and retirements divided by average ongoing staff and Faculty headcount.

2015-162014-152013-142012-13

2.2 x 1

4.2%6.0%

4.1%3.5%

Personnel costs per student

Target Timing

$10,845 30-April-17

Per student headcount basis.

2016-17 Budget

2015-16 Actual

2014-15 Actual

2013-14 Actual

2.2 x 1

$10,330 $10,255 $10,589

$11,059

Facilities condition index

Target Timing

0.10 30-April-37

Info obtained from the condition assessment performed by VFA Inc. in May 2013 and October 2015.

2016-17 Budget2015-16 2014-15

2.2 x 1

0.17 0.18 0.18

Space cost per NASM

Target Timing

TBA TBA

Represents space costs (Facilities Management, Campus Security, Hybrid space, utilities, taxes and insurance and financing costs) per total net assignable square meters.

2016-17 Budget2015-16 Actual2014-15 Actual

2.2 x 1

$184

$209$195

Funding surplus/(deficit)

Target Timing

zero 30-April-17

Figures represent funding actuals/budget ($000s).

2016-17 Budget

2015-16 Actual

2014-15 Actual

2013-14 Actual

2.2 x 1

$(765)

11109876543210-1-2

$4,510

$(3,920)

$7,514

Global tuition revenue

Target Timing

$135,035 30-April-17

$13,044

$109,551

$14,593

$113,358

$16,212

2016-17 Actual2015-16 Actual2014-15 Actual

2.2 x 1

NA

($000s) Spring/Summer Fall/Winter

Successes/attention required

Cash donations

Target Timing

$5,500 2016-17

Pension (liability) surplus

Target Timing

> zero 30-April-17

Figures include both non pledge donations and pledge payments ($000s).

2015-162014-152013-142012-13

2.2 x 1

$1,967

11109876543210-1-2

$7,301

$4,407

$6,878

Employee future benefits obligation per audited financial statements ($000s).

April-16April-15April-14April-13

2.2 x 1

($26,448) ($23,837)

($1,749) $8,131

Strategic prioritiesEnsure Brock is a preferred place to work and study.

Support Brock’s undergraduate student-centred focus while maintaining excellence in graduate education.

Foster excellence in research, scholarship and creativity. Serve the social, cultural and economic well-being of the University, as well as the local,

national and global communities.Encourage transdisciplinary initiatives.Promote internationalization.Practise accountability, fiscal responsibility and stewardship.

Pillars/priorities Serving the 21st Century Learner – Putting students first. This pillar includes but is not limited

to the move to online offerings, enhanced Spring/Summer offerings and expansion of service learning opportunities.

Establishing Trans-disciplinary Research Hubs and Developing New Graduate and Undergraduate Programs. The five TD hubs created are: Brock-Niagara Centre for Health and Well Being; Institute for Advanced Bio-manufacturing; Lifespan Development Research Institute; Social Justice Research Institute; Sustainability: A Trans-disciplinary space for Transformative Change.

Building a Network of Partnerships that Promote Prosperity through Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Creativity. This pillar includes but is not limited to the Niagara Observatory; the BioLinc; Centre for Healthy Development; and the Centre for Lifespan Development Research.

Strategic Planning Committee TOPIC: Board Metrics Update


Board of Trustees


Decision Item

TOPIC: Renaming Walker Complex to Walker Sports Complex

September 28, 2016 Pamela Shanks, Executive Director, Development and Alumni Relations

Neil Lumsden, Director, Brock Sports MOTION THAT the Strategic Planning Committee approve the renaming of the Walker Complex to become the Walker Sports Complex for immediate implementation upon approval by the Committee. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The current name of the Walker Complex does not indicate the purpose of the complex. The addition of the word Sports to the name will clearly articulate what takes place in the complex and make the purpose of the Walker Sports Complex clear to the campus and external community. Signage on the building and references to the Walker Complex will be changed to reflect the new name.

Board of Trustees


Decision Item

TOPIC: Donor Relations Naming and Recognition Policy

September 28, 2016 Pamela Shanks, Executive Director, Development and Alumni Relations

MOTION THAT the Strategic Planning Committee approve the revised Donor Relations Naming and Recognition Policy for immediate implementation upon approval by the Committee. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Donor Relations Naming and Recognition Policy is revised to include criteria and process for honorific naming at the University. Honorific naming will be considered where the outstanding achievements of an individual or organization reflect the vision and mission of the University. This can be demonstrated through learning, discovery and citizenship, through exceptional scholarly distinction, remarkable service or leadership of lasting value to the University community, or highest historical significance to the University.

Recommendations from the community for honorific naming will be coordinated through the Development and Alumni Relations office. Recommendations will be considered by the President of the University and the Strategic Planning Committee, and will be presented for final decision by the Board of Trustees. APPENDICES Appendix 1 – Donor Relations, Naming and Recognition Policy September 2016 (5 pages) Appendix 2 - Donor Relations, Naming and Recognition Policy June 2014 (6 pages)

Strategic Planning Committee

TOPIC: Donor Relations Naming and Recognition Policy September 28, 2016

Appendix 1

DONOR RELATIONS, NAMING AND RECOGNITION POLICY

PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to serve as a set of guiding principles for the Office of Development & Alumni Relations and other departments at Brock University regarding the stewardship of current and future gifts to the University. This policy is intended to ensure donors’ intentions are honoured, gifts are properly acknowledged in a consistent manner and to clarify the process under which University assets are named.

SCOPE This Policy applies to donors and donations to Brock University.

POLICY STATEMENT

The Office of Development & Alumni Relations supports the University’s strategic priorities by building strong affinity through meaningful and consistent interactions with donors and prospective constituencies, providing opportunity for funding partnerships and contributing to the positive growth of the institution’s reputation by fostering enduring relationships that are beneficial to Brock University.

This policy addresses proper gift acknowledgement including Donor Recognition and stewardship activities and events, fund reporting and the naming of University assets.

Honorific naming of tangible or non-tangible assets at Brock University provides the University with the opportunity to recognize individuals or organizations who have made outstanding contributions to the mission of the University or are of special significance to the University. Final authority for honorific naming rests with the Board of Trustees.

Gift Acknowledgement

Donations received by the Office of Development & Alumni Relations will be recorded in the Alumni and Development database. The University is committed to maintaining the confidentiality of donor information as per the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Policy.

Page 1 of 5

Donor Recognition

Brock University wishes to recognize the generosity and commitment of our donors who support the mission of the University with a gift. Recognition is given on the basis of a single payment gift, a contribution pledged over time, or a documented planned gift to the University, including gifts of private benevolence. Donor Recognition is provided at the time a pledge is received.

Honorific Naming

The actions of an individual or organization who is recognized with an honorific naming will reflect the vision and mission of the University through outstanding achievements in learning, discovery and citizenship, through exceptional scholarly distinction, remarkable service or leadership of lasting value to the University community, or highest historical significance to the University.

Recommendations from the community for honorific naming are coordinated through the Development and Alumni Relations office. Recommendations are considered by the President of the University and the Strategic Planning Committee, and are presented for final decision by the Board of Trustees. Stewardship Activities and Events In addition to gift acknowledgements, the University may recognize donors through a special event or announcement and on-going donor and stewardship opportunities to strengthen the link between the donor and the institution to build trust, credibility and gratitude through acknowledgement, recognition and accountability. Gifts to the University shall be reported in a manner consistent with the standards recommended by Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (CASE). Fund Reporting Brock University will provide donors of endowed funds an annual financial report of their fund. In the case of student awards, information about the award recipient will also be shared.

Donor Relations, Naming and Recognition Policy Page 3 of 5

Naming of Assets The University can name buildings or other assets in recognition of donations. The University can name buildings or others assets for those who have made significant contributions to the life of the University or the local, national or international communities. Namings will be approved by the Board of Trustees. Donor Recognition for planned gifts (insurance, bequests) is based on the present value of the gift received in the future.

Only in exceptional circumstances will Honorific naming be approved for current University faculty or staff, Board of Trustee members, or Senate members.

Unless otherwise negotiated, the duration of the naming will be the useful life of the tangible or non-tangible asset. The party for which the asset has been named will be advised of impending change. Exceptions Naming will not be approved where, in the judgment of the Board of Trustees, identification with the recognized individual or organization would constitute a significant and continuing

challenge to the reputation of the University

De-Naming

An asset will be de-named only by the authority of the Board of Trustees under the following circumstances:

Where events or information available subsequent to the approval of the designation means that identification with the designation constitutes a significant and continuing challenge to the reputation of the University, or;

Where a donor has failed to meet 100% of the pledge commitment over the agreed pledge period and where there is no satisfactory commitment to revised pledge terms. In this case, the donor’s gift will be removed from the University’s public donor list.


DEFINITIONS

COMPLIANCE AND REPORTING

Fund reporting – fiduciary responsibility of the University to report annually on the financial status of endowed funds.

Donor Recognition – action(s) taken by the University to acknowledge the generosity of the donor.

Donation – voluntary transfer of money or property by a donor to the University by way of benefaction where no material benefit is received by the donor from the University in return.

Donor – any person or organization making a donation to the University.

Pledge – a documented commitment to make a donation within a specific period of time.

Tangible assets *– buildings and parts thereof (e.g., lecture or seminar rooms, laboratories, foyers, lounge areas), equipment, open spaces (e.g., roads, gardens, fields) or other natural spaces or physical improvements.

Non-tangible assets *– academic units (e.g., faculties, departments, schools, institutes, programs, centres, libraries), endowed chairs, lectureships / fellowships / professorships / scholarships or bursaries, events both academic (e.g., lectures, conferences, symposiums) or non-academic (e.g., athletic or extra-curricular events), student services or other services.

*These are examples of University assets but do not comprise a comprehensive list.

The interpretation and application of this Policy is the responsibility of Office of Development & Alumni Relations. Final decisions related to this Policy will be made by the Board of Trustees, where required.

Any policy violations should be brought to the attention of the Executive Director, Development & Alumni Relations.


Policy owner: Pamela Shanks Executive Director, Development & Alumni Relations

Authorized by:

Approved by: Board of Trustees, Strategic Planning Committee

Effective date: June, 2014 September 2016

Next review: June, 2017 September 2019

Revision history: Issued - December 1991 Revisions:

September 1993

May 1998 May 2004 June 2005 June 2011 November 2012 June 2014

Related documents: Brock University Accountability to Supporters

Canada Revenue Agency

Brock University Development Policy

Brock University Donation Policy

Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Policy

Confidentiality Acknowledgement

Endowment Fund Investment Policy

Trust and Endowment Management Policy

CASE Reporting Standards & Management Guidelines

DONOR RELATIONS, NAMING AND RECOGNITION POLICY

PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to serve as a set of guiding principles for the Office of Alumni, Development & Donor Relations and other departments at Brock University regarding the stewardship of current and future gifts to the University. This policy is intended to ensure donors’ intentions are honoured, gifts are properly acknowledged in a consistent manner and to clarify the process under which University assets are named.

SCOPE This Policy applies to donors and donations to Brock University.

POLICY STATEMENT

The Office of Alumni, Development & Donor Relations supports the University’s strategic priorities by building strong affinity through meaningful and consistent interactions with donors and prospective constituencies, providing opportunity for funding partnerships and contributing to the positive growth of the institution’s reputation by fostering enduring relationships that are beneficial to Brock University.

This policy addresses proper gift acknowledgement including Donor Recognition and stewardship activities and events, fund reporting and the naming of University assets.

Honorific naming of tangible or non-tangible assets at Brock University provides the University with the opportunity to recognize individuals or organizations who have made outstanding contributions to the mission of the University or are of special significance to the University. Final authority for honorific naming rests with the Board of Trustees.

Page 1 of 5

Formatted: Underline, Font color: Red

Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Bold, Underline, Fontcolor: Red

Strategic Planning CommitteeTOPIC: Donor Relations Naming and Recognition Policy


1


Gift Acknowledgement

Donations received by the Office of Development & Alumni Relations will be recorded in the Alumni and Development database. The University is committed to maintaining the confidentiality of donor information as per the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Policy.

Donor Recognition

Brock University wishes to recognize the generosity and commitment of our donors who support the mission of the University with a gift. Recognition is given on the basis of a single payment gift, a contribution pledged over time, or a documented planned gift to the University, including gifts of private benevolence. Donor Recognition is provided at the time a pledge is received.

Honorific Naming

The actions of an individual or organization who is recognized with an honorific naming will reflect the vision and mission of the University through outstanding achievements in learning, discovery and citizenship, through exceptional scholarly distinction, remarkable service or leadership of lasting value to the University community, or highest historical significance to the University.

Recommendations from the community for honorific naming are coordinated through the Development and Alumni Relations office. Recommendations are considered by the President of the University and the Strategic Planning Committee, and are presented for final decision by the Board of Trustees.

Stewardship Activities and Events In addition to gift acknowledgements, the University may recognize donors through a special event or announcement and on-going donor and stewardship opportunities to strengthen the link between the donor and the institution to build trust, credibility and gratitude through acknowledgement, recognition and accountability.


Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.68 cm



2


Gifts to the University shall be reported in a manner consistent with the standards recommended by Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (CASE). Fund Reporting Brock University will provide donors of endowed funds an annual financial report of their fund. In the case of student awards, information about the award recipient will also be shared. Naming of Assets The University can name buildings or other assets in recognition of donations. The University can name buildings or others assets for those who have made significant contributions to the life of the University or the local, national or international communities. Namings will be approved by the Board of Trustees. Donor Recognition for planned gifts (insurance, bequests) is based on the present value of the gift received in the future.

Only in exceptional circumstances will Honorific naming be approved for current University faculty or staff, Board of Trustee members, or Senate members.

Unless otherwise negotiated, the duration of the naming will be the useful life of the tangible or non-tangible asset. The party for which the asset has been named will be advised of impending change.



3


Exceptions Naming will not be approved where, in the judgment of the Board of Trustees, identification with the recognized individual or organization would constitute a significant and continuing

challenge to the reputation of the University

De-Naming

An asset will be de-named only by the authority of the Board of Trustees under the following circumstances:

Where events or information available subsequent to the approval of the designation means that identification with the designation constitutes a significant and continuing challenge to the reputation of the University, or;

Where a donor has failed to meet 100% of the pledge commitment over the agreed pledge period and where there is no satisfactory commitment to revised pledge terms. In this case, the donor’s gift will be removed from the University’s public donor list.

4


DEFINITIONS Fund reporting – fiduciary responsibility of the University to report annually on the financial status of endowed funds.

Donor Recognition – action(s) taken by the University to acknowledge the generosity of the donor.

Donation – voluntary transfer of money or property by a donor to the University by way of benefaction where no material benefit is received by the donor from the University in return.

Donor – any person or organization making a donation to the University.

Pledge – a documented commitment to make a donation within a specific period of time.

Tangible assets *– buildings and parts thereof (e.g., lecture or seminar rooms, laboratories, foyers, lounge areas), equipment, open spaces (e.g., roads, gardens, fields) or other natural spaces or physical improvements.

Non-tangible assets *– academic units (e.g., faculties, departments, schools, institutes, programs, centres, libraries), endowed chairs, lectureships / fellowships / professorships / scholarships or bursaries, events both academic (e.g., lectures, conferences, symposiums) or non-academic (e.g., athletic or extra-curricular events), student services or other services.

*These are examples of University assets but do not comprise a comprehensive list.

COMPLIANCE AND REPORTING

The interpretation and application of this Policy is the responsibility of Office of Alumni, Development & Donor Relations. Final decisions related to this Policy will be made by the Board of Trustees, where required.

Any policy violations should be brought to the attention of the Executive Director, Development & Alumni Relations.

5


Policy owner: Pamela Shanks Executive Director, Development & Alumni Relations

Authorized by:

Approved by: Board of Trustees, Strategic Planning Committee

Effective date: June, 2014 September 2016

Next review: June, 2017 September 2019

Revision history: Issued - December 1991 Revisions:

September 1993

May 1998 May 2004 June 2005 June 2011 November 2012

June 2014 Related documents: Brock University Accountability to Supporters

Canada Revenue Agency

Brock University Development Policy

Brock University Donation Policy

Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Policy

Confidentiality Acknowledgement

Endowment Fund Investment Policy

Trust and Endowment Management Policy

CASE Reporting Standards & Management Guidelines

Formatted: Font color: Red, Strikethrough

Formatted: Font color: Red

Formatted: Font color: Red, Not Strikethrough

Formatted: Font color: Red, Strikethrough


Formatted: Font color: Red, Not Strikethrough


Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Font color: Red

Formatted: Strikethrough

6

2016 – 17 Strategic Planning Committee Goals and Objectives Progress Scorecard

as at July, 2016

September 22, 2016 Page 1 of 4 16.0 TopicSheet - Progress Scorecard - 2016-17 Cycle1

LEGEND: GREEN = COMMITMENTS COMPLETE YELLOW = COMMITMENTS IN PROGRESS AND ON TRACK RED = COMMITMENTS ARE NOT ON TRACK

Item #

Source Action Goal Measurement Target Date

Progress / Status Comments

SP1 Committee Charter

Policies • Develop and recommend to the Board of

Trustees for approval any new policies as appropriate pertaining to its purview;

• Review, revise and approve all existing University policies related to its purview;

• Review policy violations and recommend to the Board appropriate remedies

Ongoing Cycle 1: A report on Donor Relations Naming and Recognition Policy will be presented to the committee for approval.

SP2 Committee Charter

Oversight of Strategic Plan Provide oversight of a multi-year Strategic Plan in light of environment

• Consultative metrics

• Links with SMA

September 2016

Cycle 1: A report will be provided to the committee for discussion.

December 2016

March 2017

June 2017 SP3 Committee

Charter Fundraising Oversee communication and engagement with internal and external stakeholders to support its academic and operational objectives and to ensure that its reputation is maintained and enhanced.

• Amounts raised • Goodman School

of Business • SIF

September 2016

Cycle 1: $1.2 million committed towards $4 million goal for Goodman project. Proposals for $3.4 million in progress. Jason Sparaga, BBA ’93 is rebuilding the fundraising committee with some new members for immediate activation. Start of construction event on Sept. 16 will enhance fundraising efforts. Prospects being identified for Atrium project including two at the $1 million level.

December 2016

March 2017


Goals Develop Strategic Mandate Agreement • Developed with

strategy March 2017

Cycle 1: Office of VPR has begun to develop research-related performance metrics to support development of SMA.


as at July, 2016



Item #



• Metrics to measure

• Consultative SP5 Committee

Goals Enrolment Needs analysis

admitted vs. confirmed resourcing

September 2016

Cycle 1: Status update provided on admissions activity as of August 31st. While number of applications to UG programs increased by 4.1%, confirmations are down 3.5% compared to the same time in 2015. The decline in confirmations is primarily attributed to a decrease in 101 confirmations (i.e., direct from secondary school). Confirmations from the 105 and VISA pools are up compared to 2015. Current registration of new students into first year is at 89% of target while total UG registrations is sitting at 97% of forecasted target. On the Graduate side, new incoming Masters students is at 85% of target and new PhD students is at 48% of target. As of August 30th, 2016, total Enrolment at Brock University (all inclusive of UG and Grad) was 18,345 (16,481 Domestic, 1864 VISA). Applications, Offers of Admissions, and Registrations are still ongoing and final headcounts are taken on November 1. Results of an Academica Survey of Applicants who accepted offers to Brock will be presented in Cycle 2. Plans are currently in place to conduct a survey of students who did not accept offers from Brock during the fall of 2016.

December 2016

March 2017

June 2017


as at July, 2016



Item #



SP6 Committee Goals

Updates on programs Update on program changes

September 2016

Cycle 1: No progress.

December 2016

March 2017


Goals Satellite Strategy Cost/Benefit

Impact September 2016

Cycle 1: A report will be provided in December.

December 2016

SP8 Committee Goals

Employment Culture Define improvement

December 2016

Cycle 1: A mini report will be provided to the committee.


Goals Technology Strategy Future learning September

2016 Cycle 1: ITS and CPI are teaming together to update the draft IT strategic plan with teaching and learning initiatives for the next 5 years.

December 2016

March 2017


Goals Research and Development Strategy Define

Return Direction

December 2016

Cycle 1: Research Strategy set out in Senate approved Research 2020 document.

June 2017

SP11 Committee Goals

Innovation Centres Strategy March 2017

Cycle 1: Review of TD hubs underway. Completion expected December 2016.


Marketing and Communication Reports on impact Cycle 1: Marketing Strategy for 2017/18 Recruitment cycle launched on Sept 1 with a large media buy in Downtown TO to coincide with the Fan Expo and Ontario University Fair. Multiple campaign flights are planned through to


as at July, 2016



Item #



summer 2018 to support increased undergraduate application volumes. Brand platform to focus on “Experience”.


Develop Board Metrics Report delivered September 2016

Cycle 1: A report will be provided to the committee for discussion.

SP14

Committee Goals

Marketing and Communications Governance Provide recommendations for Marketing and Communications governance at Brock University

December 31, 2016

Cycle 1: Review and recommendations to be developed through Fall 2016.

agenda - brock university - agenda amd...topic: key performance indicators scorecard update dated...

Documents