board of governors open session minutes of the 331st

BOARD OF GOVERNORS OPEN SESSION

Minutes of the 331st meeting held Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Present: Kevin Golding (Board Chair), Nancy Brown Andison, Graham Badun, Shauneen Bruder (Vice Chair), Adina Bujold, Jennah Carere, Mary Anne Chambers, Earl Ellis, Paul Gallagher, Effie Gatsinos, Paul Gibson, Peter MacGowan, Andrew Marsh, Wendy Millar, David Mirvish (Chancellor), Jonathan Newman, Neil Parkinson, James Rice, Byron Sheldrick, Irene Thompson, Franco Vaccarino (President), Kate Revington (University Secretary-non-voting)

Regrets: Sally Hickson, Mary Deacon, [student visitor Adrian D’Alessandro did not attend]

Administrative Support: Sue Bennett, Karen Bertrand, Malcolm Campbell, Bob Carter, Serge Desmarais, Genevieve Gauthier, Rebecca Graham, Martha Harley, Tracey Jandrisits, Hilary Jarvis, Don O’Leary, Mary Murphy, Sandra Nervo, Monique Poirier (Recording Secretary), Brenda Whiteside, Charlotte Yates

1. Pre-meeting Presentation

Chair of the Board of Governors Mr. Kevin Golding welcomed Governors and guests to the second Board meeting of the 2015-16 session.

Before introducing Provost and Vice President Dr. Charlotte Yates to present, Governors were reminded that the purpose of the regular pre-meeting presentations is intended to keep Governors informed and updated on particular items of strategic importance to the University and the post-secondary education sector.

He then invited Dr. Yates to present on the Province’s recent completion of the provincial funding formula review.

a) Provincial Funding Formula Review: Update (Charlotte Yates, Provost & VPAcademic)

The Provincial Funding Formula Review document, issued by the Government of Ontario, had been provided to Governors in the on-line Supplementary Materials folder, and was distributed in hard copy at the meeting; a summary sheet from the report was distributed at the meeting (enclosed).]

Referring to the slides presented (enclosed), Dr. Yates outlined the key considerations used in the review of the funding formula, which is used to determine the share of the

Board of Governors Open Minutes of January 27, 2016

provincial operating grant allotted annually to each Ontario University. The framework for the funding formula is based on enrollment growth, and keyed to information required from each University, as part of its approved Multi-year Accountability Agreement (MYA). It was noted that tuition rates are regulated separately.

The purpose of the funding review was to update the context of the formula to address factors such as shifting demographics affecting student recruitment and applications, the issue of declining enrolments at some universities outside of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), and elements such as assessment of educational quality, increasing emphasis on the student experience including the establishment and completion of learning outcomes, and other factors related to the financial sustainability of post-secondary education system.

Following the presentation, discussion ensued about the risks related to funding based on enrollments, and the Ministry’s continued emphasis on differentiation through the Multi-year Agreements (MYAs).

Thanks and appreciation was expressed to Dr. Yates for the presentation, and it was noted that this remains an important issue going forward, along with the renewal of the MYA and changes to the tuition framework, anticipated to occur in 2017.

2. Welcome and Approval of Agenda

a) Welcome and Introductory Remarks from Chair

Mr. Golding then called the regular meeting to order.

Regrets on behalf of Governors Mary Deacon and Sally Hickson were noted.

On behalf of the Board, Mr. Golding offered congratulations to Governor Mary Anne Chambers, newly appointed as an Officer of Ontario. Members responded with a round of applause.

Noting the Board’s Conflict of Interest Policy, Mr. Golding invited any declarations of potential conflict with items on the agenda. There were none.

b) Approval of the Open Session Agenda for January 27, 2016

On motion duly moved and seconded, it was RESOLVED, that the agenda for the January 27, 2016 meeting be approved as presented.


3. Approval of Minutes

a) Approval of the Open Session Minutes for October 16, 2015

The minutes of the meeting of October 16, 2015 had been circulated with the meeting materials, including the slides for the presentations at the last meeting on the strategic renewal process, and the overview of the Strategic Mandate Agreement. As well, the Faculty Appointments Report (September 2014 – May 2015) which had been distributed at the meeting, is enclosed with the minutes.

On motion duly moved and seconded, it was RESOLVED, that the Open Session minutes of the October 16, 2015 meeting be approved as presented.

b) Business Arising

The Chair briefly reviewed the items of business arising relating to the completed and final audited and signed financial statements for the University, and the sign-back motion for Board representation on the Strategic Renewal Advisory Committee. President Vaccarino expressed thanks and appreciation to Governors Nancy Brown-Andison and Earl Ellis for agreeing to serve on the Committee.

4. President's Report

a) Status Report on University Activities

President Vaccarino began his report by observing with sadness the recent and tragic death of recent graduate Ms. Grace Glofcheskie who died after being struck by an out of control vehicle fleeing police. A member of the Gryphons Varsity Golf Team while a student at the University, she had returned in the fall to be an assistant coach for the team. The University is providing support for the family and friends, and the President will be speaking at the memorial service to be held the Summerlee Complex Atrium on January 31, 2016.

The President also observed that Governor Mary Deacon was not able to attend today’s meeting due to a conflict with Bell #Let’s Talk Day (Ms. Deacon is the chair of this mental health initiative, which is the largest-ever corporate initiative of its kind in Canada). He encouraged everyone to participate in the Day by text messaging or tweeting using the Bell Let’s Talk hashtag.

The President then commenced with his report on various university activities and events, including recent government relations and advocacy activities (summary report attached).


b) Update on Strategic Renewal

President Vaccarino offered introductory remarks on the importance and timeliness of the strategic renewal process, and the work undertaken to engage all members of the community in contributing thoughts and opinions. He invited AVP Academic, and member of the Strategic Renewal Management Team Dr. Serge Desmarais to provide an update on the status of the Strategic Plan renewal process, commencing with an overview of the phased timelines for the project (attached).

Dr. Desmarais explained that the first phase, completed at the end of December 2015, included extensive communications and consultations with internal and external stakeholders to collect ideas, suggestions, and reflections about the University, its identity, and its future directions. With the establishment of the Strategic Renewal Advisory Committee, the second phase has commenced. The Committee is reviewing the input received to identify a set of broad and overarching themes, which will be presented to the community for feedback. Based on these themes, a renewed strategic plan will be drafted for presentation to Senate for approval at its meeting on May 30, 2016, and to the Board of Governors for approval at its meeting on June 3, 2016.

Governors offered congratulations to the Strategic Renewal Management Team, and observed that the process has been inclusive and transparent. In particular it was noted that the process has engendered trust and engagement in the internal community, as evidenced by the participation of Senate in the facilitated conversations and deliberative discussions.

President Vaccarino expressed his thanks and appreciation to Dr. Desmarais and Ms. Hodgkinson for their excellent management of the project.

5. Physical Resources & Property Committee Report

a) Report from Committee Chair

Referring to the information included in the meeting materials, Committee Chair Graham Badun outlined the recent activities of the Physical Resources and Property Committee. In particular, he highlighted the Committee’s recent tour of the renovations underway to the W.F. Mitchell Athletics Centre and the John T. Powell Building. All Governors are invited to join these tours, and urged to participate when possible.

It was suggested that the Turfgrass Institute re-location site, and the completed MacDonald Hall renovations would be informative tours to undertake for a future time.

Mr. Badun also reported that just prior to the Board meeting, the PRPC and the Finance Committee had met in a joint session to consider additional motions regarding capital planning activity for 2016-17. These motions will be presented under the Finance Committee report.


b) Status Report on Major Capital Projects (above $2M)

An updated status report was distributed at the meeting; specifically in regard to the MacDonald Hall project, the figures in column A1, page 54 were corrected. The version is now corrected in the on-line meeting materials.

The status report on major capital projects above $2 million was presented for information. The report has also been shared with the Finance Committee. No concerns were expressed by either Committee.

c) Update on Relocation of Turfgrass Institute

Members were reminded that on June 4, 2015, the Board of Governors approved a motion for the re-location of the Turfgrass Institution to a site on Arboretum lands.

Referencing the Update Report included in the meeting materials on pages 67 to 78, Mr. O’Leary provided an update on the plans underway for the re-location. Governors were advised that an environmental assessment of the new site has been completed, with conditional approval pending address of a few small issues. The site plan has been finalized, however the building design is not yet complete and there are a number of operational issues still in discussion, but overall progress is proceeding well.

Members reviewed and discussed the requirements for the re-location, including the lot size, the province’s involvement in the re-location decision, and the communications plan, all of which had been addressed as part of the original approval decision.

6. Finance Committee Report


Ms. Bruder provided an overview of the recent activities of the Finance Committee. She invited Mr. O’Leary to update the Board on the status of the implementation of the recommendations from the report of the Working Group on Responsible Investing (WGRI).

Mr. O’Leary advised Governors that Administration is working on an action plan for the implementation of the recommendations, which will be presented to the Investment Subcommittee for feedback, and subsequently to the Finance Committee and the Board for consideration and approval at a future meeting.


b) Key Performance Indicators for the University of Guelph

Ms. Bruder noted that the Finance Committee was pleased to receive a presentation from Provost and Vice President Academic Charlotte Yates on key performance indicators for the University; Dr. Yates has been invited to share this presentation with the Board.

Referring to the presentation slides (enclosed), Dr. Yates elaborated on the University’s performance relative to indicators such as undergraduate enrolment trends (including applications, admission offers, and retention and graduation rates), student/faculty ratios, graduate students as a portion of total full-time student enrolment, research dollars per faculty and faculty research intensity, student satisfaction and employment rates post-graduation, and Ontario Student Loan default rates.

By way of additional detail, Dr. Yates noted the large number of Ontario applicants to Guelph, with a growing number from the greater Toronto area (GTA), and relatively smaller number from the Wellington County area. The following elements were highlighted:

• Year 1 and 2 retention rates were very strong and only exceeded by McGill,Western and Queens;

• The student to faculty index base had shown that faculty numbers havedecreased slightly, but undergraduate course enrolments and graduate FTE’shave increased. Nevertheless, ratios are at the same level as the rest onOntario;

• Full Time Master and Doctoral enrollments are lower, therefore efforts areunderway to invest significantly in graduate scholarships;

• Based on total research including the OMAFRA contract, Guelph performsextremely well;

• Student satisfaction is significantly better across the province on a numberindicators; the Guelph student experience is ranked high;

• Graduate student satisfaction is very strong, based on the results of theCanadian Graduate and Professional Student Survey; and

• Guelph performs significantly better than its comparatives based onUndergraduate Employment Rates (used by the Province).

Discussion ensued, and Dr. Yates provided elaboration on various issues.

Board members expressed satisfaction with the report, and offered congratulations on this evidence of Guelph’s strong position in the sector.


c) Proposed Disbursement from Heritage Trust

Ms. Bruder provided a brief introduction to the proposal for the use of this year’s disbursement from the Heritage Trust endowment, consistent with the application of the Trust’s disbursement formula and based on the 2014-15 audited statements for the Heritage endowment approved by the Board of Governors on October 16, 2015. She noted that the Board of Trustees had approved the disbursement at its meeting on October 1, 2015.

Mr. O’Leary elaborated on the proposed use of the disbursement for a number of high priority strategic investments such as renewal of core campus information technology systems and infrastructure, and projects relating to investments in graduate education, currently a major University priority.

On motion duly moved and seconded, it was RESOLVED, that the Board of Governors accepted and approved disbursements from the Heritage Trust totalling $7.43 million; composed of $0.88 million from the Keefer Fund portion of the Heritage endowment and $6.55 million from the Heritage Fund portion of the endowment, and to be utilized for the purposes presented.

d) Proposed 2016-17 Capital Plan

Regarding the detailed material provided in the meeting package concerning the proposed 2016-17 Capital Plan, it was noted that both the Finance Committee and the Physical Resources and Property Committee have indicated their support for the following motions which authorize the University Administration to proceed with capital renewal activities for 2016-17.

Mr. O’Leary was invited to provide an overview of the University’s evolving approach to capital planning. He noted the updated capital plan as presented is provided in a new format from previous years, and follows on the conclusion of the most recent five-year capital project financing plan which ended as of 2015-16. Mr. O’Leary observed that 5-year planning on the go-forward remains embedded within the updated capital plan, however, the document presented represents a departure from past practice with a view to a more disciplined approach to capital planning.

Mr. O’Leary provided a detailed overview of the capital projects proposed, including those related to capital renewal as well as new major building projects and renovations, including the OVC Advanced Surgery project, the Turfgrass Institute re-location, and the Powell Building renovations. The need to increase student space in both the Library and the University Centre was also emphasized. With respect to the major buildings and renovations listed in the plan, Mr. O’Leary emphasized that no external debt would be required and noted this to be a key message in the proposed plan.


In response to a question, Mr. O’Leary observed that all universities are struggling with deferred maintenance issues, and that the University shifts its deferred maintenance priorities according to the urgency of the need.

i) Approval of the Projects Proposed in the 2016-17 Capital Plan for CapitalRenewal Spending

Members were invited to ask questions or comment on the plans for capital renewal (i.e. deferred maintenance). A brief discussion ensued regarding the substantial investments made to date on deferred maintenance projects.

On motion duly moved and seconded, it was RESOLVED, that the Board of Governors accepted and approved that the University Administration be authorized to proceed with the 2016-17 capital renewal projects included in the 2016-17 Capital Plan, at a cost not to exceed $24.9 million.

ii) Approval of the OVC Phase 1 – Advanced Surgery Project

Members were reminded that this project is included in the OVC Master Plan.

On motion duly moved and seconded, it was RESOLVED, that the Board of Governors accepted and approved that the University Administration be authorized to proceed with the OVC Phase 1 – Advanced Surgery Project, provided that:

a) The total project cost not exceed $10.0 million; and,b) The Administration present a schematic design and detailed design

drawings for the project consistent with the OVC Master Plan presented tothe Physical Resources and Property Committee; and,

c) The University Administration be authorized to determine on behalf of theBoard of Governors decisions concerning appointment of architects andconsultants in a manner consistent with relevant University purchasingand tendering policies; and,

d) The University Administration be authorized and directed to do all acts andthings as may be necessary and desirable to complete the transactioncontemplated herein, and that any two Officers of the University are herebyauthorized to execute and deliver any and all documents, which in theiropinion, are necessary or desirable to give effect to the foregoing; and,

e) That the Physical Resources and Property Committee and FinanceCommittee receive regular updates regarding the budget, design andmaterials, and completion schedule; and,

f) Requests for adjustments to the project will follow the normal capitalproject review and approval processes of the Board of Governors.


iii) Approval of the Turfgrass Institute Major Building and Renovation Project

Members were reminded that on June 4, 2015, the Board of Governors approved the re-location of the Turfgrass Institute. The proposal is in regard to construction required for the re-located site and building; the Province has agreed to provide $15 million to relocate the facilities onto University owned land. It was acknowledged that the costs presented in the proposal are estimates, and that prior to the construction of the projects, the final design will return to the Board via the PRPC and Finance Committee for final approval.

In response to a suggestion, the motion was amended:

On amended motion duly moved and seconded, it was RESOLVED, that pursuant to the plan approved by the Board of Governors on June 4, 2015, the Board of Governors accept and approve that the University Administration be authorized to proceed with the relocation of the Guelph Turfgrass Institute to the University of Guelph Arboretum, at a cost not to exceed $15.0 million.

e) Update on Capital Activities

Following on the information provided by Mr. Badun as part of the PRPC Report, Ms. Bruder reported that the PRPC and Finance Committees had met in a joint session just prior to the Board meeting in order to review additional proposals for this year’s Capital Plan: specifically, a new entrance for the Mitchell Athletics Centre, and an update to the Alumni Stadium Pavilion project. Background information on these items was included starting on page 111 of the meeting materials.

Following a review of the plans and proposals presented, the Committees now recommend to the Board of Governors that the following motions to the Board of Governors be approved. (Note: The cover memo for item 6.e., including the motions presented, was distributed at the meeting (enclosed); the updated table circulated at the meeting (also enclosed) – which includes the Mitchell Entrance under item B.6. - captures all capital-related requests for approval for 2016-17 and does not impact the motions approved under item 6.d.)

i) New Entrance to Mitchell Athletics Centre

Mr. O’Leary gave a brief overview of the proposal, noting that the new entrance to the Mitchell Athletics Centre would be the main public entry from Reynolds Walk. The new entrance would bring patrons to a new access control desk, located centrally to both the old and new Mitchell buildings. The design of the new entrance, directly adjacent to the Powell Building, would also take into consideration the approved renovations to the Powell building to create the Student Wellness Centre.


On motion duly moved and seconded, it was RESOLVED, that the Board of Governors accepted and approved that the University Administration be authorized to proceed with the construction of a new entrance to the Mitchell Athletics Centre, including that:

(a) The total project cost is not to exceed $2,500,000; and, (b) The schematic design and design drawing be approved as presented to the

Physical Resources and Property Committee; and (c) The University Administration be authorized to determine on behalf of the

Board of Governors decisions concerning appointment of architects and consultants in a manner consistent with relevant University purchasing and tendering policies; and,

(d) The University Administration be authorized and directed to do all acts and things as may be necessary and desirable to complete the transaction contemplated herein, and that any two Officers of the University are hereby authorized to execute and deliver any and all documents which, in their opinion, are necessary or desirable to give effect to the foregoing; and,

(e) The Physical Resources and Property Committee and Finance Committee receive regular updates regarding the project budget, design and materials, and completion schedule; and,

(f) Requests for adjustments to the project will follow the normal capital project review and approval processes of the Board of Governors.

ii) Update to Alumni Stadium Pavilion Project

Mr. O’Leary advised members that following the Board’s approval of the original project at its meeting on October 16, 2015, the donor is now prepared to fund a number of quality improvements to the facility. Referring to the information included in his memo dated January 14, 2016, he noted that the effect of the additional requirements, scope changes, and market realities results in an increase in cost of $1.85 million with the new total project cost now at $8.2 million. The donor has agreed to pay the full project cost conditional on the University’s agreement to some specific conditions regarding the building operation and that the project be completed in 2016.

On motion duly moved and seconded, it was RESOLVED, that the Board of Governors accepted and approved that the University Administration be authorized to proceed with the addition of a Football Pavilion to Alumni Stadium at an amended total project cost not to exceed $8,200,000; and

FURTHER RESOLVE, that authorization for this project is contingent on finalization of the donor gift agreement such that the project continues to be fully funded; and


FURTHER RESOLVE, that authorization for this project include provisions (c) through (f) as outlined in the Board resolution of October 16, 2015, specifically:

(c) That with the amendments to the project cost, University Administration be authorized to determine on behalf of the Board of Governors decisions concerning appointment of architects and consultants in a manner consistent with relevant University purchasing and tendering policies; and

(d) The University Administration be authorized and directed to do all acts and things as may be necessary and desirable to complete the transaction contemplated herein, and that any two Officers of the University are hereby authorized to execute and deliver any and all documents which, in their opinion, are necessary or desirable to give effect to the foregoing; and

(e) The Physical Resources and Property Committee and Finance Committee receive regular updates regarding the amended project budget, design and materials, and completion schedule; and

(f) Requests for further adjustments to the project will follow the normal capital project review and approval processes of the Board of Governors

f) Semester Report and Budget Up-date - University of Guelph andUniversity of Guelph-Humber

The semester reports and budget up-dates for the University of Guelph and University of Guelph-Humber were presented for information. Ms. Bruder noted that the reports had been reviewed by the Finance Committee at its meeting on November 26, 2015, with no concerns noted.

In response to a question regarding enrollment targets outlined in the budget assumptions for Fall 2016 as referenced on page 123, Administration confirmed that it is confident that trends will hold in regard to the targets proposed.

g) Proposed Policy on "Carry Forwards"

Referring to the policy included on pages 143 to 146 of the meeting package, Ms. Bruder observed that budget “carry-forwards” have been an issue of concern for the Finance Committee for some time. In consequence, University Administration had been asked to develop a more robust internal policy on the management and on-going reporting of carry-forward amounts within units. At its meeting on November 26, 2015, the Finance Committee reviewed the draft policy to this effect, and now recommends it to the Board for approval. She invited Dr. Yates to present an overview of the policy.

Dr. Yates reviewed the major elements of the policy, noting that its purpose is to establish a framework under which annual operating unit deficits or surpluses would be


managed at fiscal year-end. The policy sets out definitions for those funds that fall under the policy, and establishes limits for the maximum level of funding that may be carried forward from one year to the next.

Questions of clarification were asked and answered regarding the “carry forward” limit cap of 10% and the process for any exceptions, the planning required by units to eliminate any deficits, and the transfer of funds in excess of the limit to central reserves.

On motion duly moved and seconded, it was RESOLVED, that the Board of Governors accepted and approved the proposed Carry Forward Policy, as presented.

h) Budget Communications

Ms. Bruder reminded members that the Board had requested regular updates on plans for budget-related communications and outreach in the lead up to the presentation of this year’s budget plan. At its meeting in November, the Committee was advised that a series of budget consultations is underway with various groups on campus, including a community Town Hall which will be held in March. A website linked to the University’s home page provides information and updates readily accessible to the community. The establishment of the Student Budget Advisory Committee, comprised of student leaders from across campus, was lauded as a positive development in the outreach, communications, and budget education planning.

The student members of the Board observed that in their opinion, the budget context has been explained clearly, and that the presentations to the Student Budget Advisory Committee have been helpful.

Ms. Bruder advised the Board that the Finance Committee is inviting presentations from interested stakeholder groups for its February meeting which will be focused on the budget planning and preparation.

7. Audit & Risk Committee Report


Referring to the information included on page 149 of the meeting materials, Chair of the Committee Mr. Neil Parkinson provided a brief overview of the recent activities of the Committee. In particular, he highlighted the receipt of the Audit Services self-assessment report, and the work continuing on Enterprise Risk Management activities. He further noted that the Committee is satisfied with services of the External Auditor.


8. Pensions Committee Report


Chair of the Committee, Mr. Paul Gallagher reviewed the recent activities of the Pensions Committee, in particular highlighting the regular updates received by the Committee on the progress of the regular five year review of the pension asset and liability strategy.

b) Proposed Text Amendments to Pension Plan Arising from RecentlyRatified Collective Agreements

Mr. O’Leary briefed Governors on the proposed text amendments to the Pension Plan arising from ratified Collective Agreements. He noted that specifically the Pensions Committee has received and considered an amendment to the Professional Pension Plan text arising from the changes to the collective agreement between the University and the Ontario Nurses Associate Local 15 (ONA) which was ratified by both the ONA and the Board of Governors in September 2015.

As well, Mr. O’Leary provided a brief overview of a sector initiative to establish a Jointly Sponsored Pension Plan (JSPP), intended to establish a jointly-sponsored governance model to support security and stability into the university pensions sector. Mr. O’Leary observed that participating in a well-governed, well-managed JSPP would allow, on a cost-effective basis, universities to exit the business of running a single employer pension plan, and provide support for responding to pension liability issues in the context of volatile solvency valuations.

In response to a question, Mr. O’Leary reported that Guelph, Toronto, Queen’s, Laurier and Trent universities have signaled an interest in participating in the JSPP. Mr. O’Leary also reported that pending the successful establishment of a JSPP, the University continues to set aside funds to address pension liability issues.

On motion duly moved and seconded, it was RESOLVED, that the Board of Governors accepted and approved the proposed resolution concerning amendments to the text of the Professional Pension Plan, as presented.

9. Governance & Human Resources Committee Report


Committee Chair Ms. Wendy Millar briefly elaborated on the recent activities of the Governance & Human Resources Committee. Governors were reminded that very shortly they will be contacted to participate in this year’s one-on-one governor


interviews. She encouraged governors to provide frank feedback to assist in planning for next year.

b) Proposed Amendment to Board Bylaw No.1

Referring to the information included in the meeting materials, University Secretary Ms. Kate Revington reviewed the rationale for the proposed amendments and the related changes required to the University’s Signing Policy. She reported that these editorial changes are required for immediate implementation of the Signing Policy and the business of the University, but that the Committee agreed that a general review of the bylaw in regard to Signing Officers would be undertaken over the next session.

On motion duly moved and seconded, it was RESOLVED, that the proposed amendments to Board Bylaw No. 1, Section 2.1 and 7.2 be approved.

c) 2016-17 Board of Governors Meeting Dates

The 2016-17 meeting dates for the Board of Governors were presented. Ms. Millar observed that the date for the January 2017 meeting is still under discussion and members will be canvassed regarding the date, which will be confirmed as soon as possible.

10. Other Business

a) Other Business

No items of Other Business were presented.

11. Move to Closed Session

a) Move to Closed Session

On motion duly moved and seconded, it was RESOLVED, that the Board of Governors move into Closed Session and that Karen Bertrand, Malcolm Campbell, Genevieve Gauthier, Martha Harley, Tracey Jandrisits, Hilary Jarvis, Don O’Leary, Monique Poirier, and Charlotte Yates be invited to remain for the Closed Session of the meeting.

_________________________Kevin Golding, ChairBoard of Directors

_________________________Kate RevingtonUniversity Secretary

THE FUTURE OF ONTARIO’S UNIVERSITY FUNDING MODELPresentation by Charlotte Yates,Provost and VP Academic January 27, 2016

Current Funding Model

Grants, $173.1

Tuition and Fees, $186.0

Research Support, $29.2

Guelph Humber, $17.5

Other Revenues, $54.3

REVENUES + RECOVERIES

$460.1 M

Grants: 38% Funding received from MTCU for operating purposes. $11.9M program restricted, $161.2M University-level revenue.

Tuition and Fees 40% Revenues from students for degree credit $165.3M and non-credit tuition $10.0Mplus compulsory fees $10.7M .

Other Revenues 12% Fundingreceived by and credited to departmental programs. e.g., OVC, $12.9M, student services $9.9M plus cost recoveries from Ancillary units and OMAFRA $5.1M.

Research Support 6%: Funding transferred from research grants and contracts for supporting activities -$20.3 M plus 8.9M from OMAFRA for faculty positions.

Guelph-Humber 4% Funding transferred Guelph-Humber for revenue and cost sharing.

What is driving MTCU’s quest for change in funding formula?• Shifting Demographics and Declining enrolment –

• GTA vs other regions of province• Current model based on continuous growth is not sustainable

• Pressure for improved educational quality and student experience and outcomes

• Transparency, accountability, alignment with gov’t policy• Including goal of differentiation and reduced duplication• Measures of teaching and learning outcomes

• Financial sustainability – of PSE system and gov’t expenditures (no new money)

How will MTCU drive change?• Funding formula change - grants and tuition

• outcome based –funding based on performance indicators• Accountability vs autonomy• Student centred – improve quality, expand EE, learning outcomesEarly indications of interest in corridor funding

• SMA • continue emphasis on differentiation• KPI’s

• Improved Data –• publicly accessible, transparent, consistent

Report to the Board of Governors President Franco Vaccarino January 27, 2016 For more information and up-to-date news, Governors are directed to the bi-weekly email bulletin “Newslinks”, and the University of Guelph web page. RESEARCH NEWS

• Governors were advised that on January 14, 2016, Canadian Minister of Health Jane Philpott visited the campus to announce new federal investment in genomics research that will improve plant protection and food safety regulation. The funding will support the University’s Biodiversity Institute of Ontario and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to create genomics and DNA barcoding tools to improve species identification for early detection of plant pests and mislabeled seafood. Congratulations are extended to Vice President Research Malcolm Campbell, his team, and faculty and staff at the Biodiversity Institute for their roles in this achievement.

• The University of Guelph is one of several universities in the Southern Ontario Water Consortium that will benefit from up to $12 million in new funding that was announced on January 14, 2016 by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The funding will come from the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (FedDev Ontario).

• Preliminary discussions are underway regarding proposed construction of a Sustainable Crop Research and Innovation Centre on the Ridgetown campus. If plans for the proposed centre proceed, the facility would include scientific labs, seed preparation areas, and cold storage, as well as greenhouse growth chambers. Support is being sought from the municipality of Chatham-Kent for the project. The Board will receive updates should plans proceed further.

SPECIAL EVENTS AND ACTIVITIES

• This year’s annual Truscott Lecture was held on January 26, 2016, and featured University of Toronto professor Anthony Doob who spoke on Canada’s criminal justice policy during the Conservative years and how it might change under the new Liberal government.

• Winter Convocation will be held at War Memorial Hall on February 17 and 18, 2016.

Honorary degrees recipients will be Ms. Suzi Beber (an OVC volunteer extraordinaire), Mr. Michael McCain (CEO of Maple Leaf Foods, a leader in the field of food production and a generous philanthropist), and Mr. Simon Whitfield (world class triathlon athlete, and former Olympian).

• The annual Hopper Lecture will be held in Rozanski Hall on February 23, 2016. Speaker

will be Dr. Simon Maxwell, Senior Research Associate of the Overseas Development Institute UK on "Finding a place of one’s own: development agency choices in a new landscape."

• The annual College Royal Open House will be held March 19 and 20, 2016. the event is

a 100% student-run and organized event, and has been a tradition since 1925.

• The Dasha Shenkman Lecture in Contemporary Art will be held at War Memorial Hall on March 23, 2016 and feature a talk by artist Fred Wilson.

• The University has been ramping up efforts to support Syrian refugees coming to Guelph which may potentially include using extra townhouse residence space as short term housing, connections to university students and volunteers, and scholarships.

• The University continues to work with Guelph Police Services and the City of Guelph on the Special Olympics as a key partner in this initiative and the principal site for events and accommodations.

SENATE UPDATE

• The University Senate has met twice since the Board’s last meeting in October. The President expressed his appreciation to Paul Gibson and Nancy Brown-Andison for serving as the Board representatives to Senate this year. Senators have been engaged in the Strategic Renewal process including facilitating informal conversations with a variety of stakeholders, faculty, staff, students and the external community and have reported their feedback to Senate and the Strategic Renewal Team.

ENROLLMENT UPDATE

• Through information provided by Provost and Vice President Academic Dr. Charlotte Yates, it was reported that applications to Ontario universities from high school students have declined by 0.1 percent over last year’s levels. Secondary school, first-time, full-time applications to the University of Guelph are down very slightly, while applications to Guelph-Humber are up 2.6 percent. These are early days in the application process, and the first reports are considered preliminary, because applications are still being received and processed.

RECENT APPOINTMENTS – EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL

• The President reported that was pleased to have met recently with Mr. David Lindsay, newly appointed President and CEO of the Council of Ontario Universities. The meeting provided an opportunity to share ideas and perspectives on the post-secondary sector.

• Following an extensive search, the University of Guelph has named Mr. Scott McRoberts as director of athletics. Mr. McRoberts is currently athletics director at the University of Toronto Scarborough and he will take up his appointment at Guelph on March 14, 2016.

GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, SECTOR NEWS AND EVENTS, AND ADVOCACY ACTIVITIES

• The University co-hosted a panel along with Guelph MP Lloyd Longfield on the issues

facing the agri-food sector. The panel discussion provided an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the deep and unparalleled expertise of the University in this area.

• On January 29, 2016, President Vaccarino will moderate a panel at the Guelph Economic Summit on the theme of infrastructure investment. The federal government appears to be exploring a potential infrastructure stimulus plan similar to the Knowledge Infrastructure Program that occurred in 2008. In order to be proactive and prepared to submit proposal under such a plan, the University is beginning to review its priority projects.

• The President attended a recent Toronto Board of Trade event in support of local

business woman Linda Hazenfratz (CEO of Linamar) who delivered the keynote speech and spoke to the strengths of investing in Guelph.

BLEED

Focus on Outcomes, Centre on Students: Perspectives on Evolving Ontario’s University Funding Model

The Context ♦ $3.5 billion in operating grants to

universities ♦ Enhancing quality and the overall student

experience ♦ Supporting the existing differentiation

process ♦ Increasing transparency and accountability ♦ Addressing financial sustainability

♦ Broad sector engagement with over 25 meetings and 20 written submissions

What We HeardQuality & Student Experience Differentiation Transparency & Accountability Financial Sustainability

• Defining and measuring quality is difficult

• Student success is still the priority

• Focus on undergraduate teaching

• Strong services contribute to student success

• Support faculty renewal• Supporting innovative

programming and quality infrastructure

• Good job conditions contribute to a better student experience

• Preparing students for employment

• Outcomes matter, but opinions vary about how to weigh them

• The many facets of differentiation

• Focusing on university strengths

• Supporting regional diversity• Excellence in research and

graduate education should be supported

• Strategic Mandate Agreements help drive differentiation

• Outcomes-based funding could support differentiation

• Strengthening transparency• What students need to know

about universities – and what decision makers need to know about students

• The funding formula should be clear

• Better data and reporting are needed

• Oversee, don’t overstep• Alignment with government

policies is important

• Ensuring predictability and stability of funding

• Assessing the international opportunity

• Funding formula should recognize universities’ cost realities

• Challenges to sustainability • Respecting autonomy and

encouraging collaboration• Funding should be fair• Current weighting system

needs revision• Funding model changes

must be phased in • Colleges on implementation

What We LearnedQuality & Student Experience Differentiation Transparency & Accountability Financial Sustainability

• Viewing quality in terms of learning outcomes is consistent with a student- centric perspective.

• Effectiveness of linking funds to discrete components of student experience is unclear.

• Universities are seen to value research excellence over teaching excellence.

• Experiential learning and research opportunities enrich the undergraduate student experience.

• Several groups of universities exist with shared interests and needs.

• Sector acknowledges the benefits of moving away from a one-size-fits-all approach to university funding.

• SMAs are widely seen as the Ministry’s best tool to tie funding to differentiation.

• Progress must be made on cleaning up components of the funding model.

• While there is a large volume of data on universities, not all of it is transparent, validated or made relevant to the public.

• The lack of coherent data places limits on funding formula reform and evidence-based policymaking.

• Some issues facing universities are outside the current governance relationship with the ministry.

• Universities are managing operating budgets through enrolment growth, economies of scale and teaching efficiencies.

• The current funding model will contribute to the vulnerability of universities with declining enrolments, but reallocations may not fully address financial challenges.

• A strengthened role for the ministry is needed to ensure universities remain sustainable.

1. The basics ♦ Apply an outcomes lens to all ministry investments, with a focus on undergraduate student success as a starting point ♦ Ensure data is validated, coherent, centralized and easily accessible ♦ Introduce an outcomes-based component of funding that could grow over time ♦ Full implementation should occur over two Strategic Mandate Agreement (SMA) cycles, with the first element put in

place for the 2017 negotiations

Student Success ♦ Employment outcomes ♦ Graduation ♦ Labour market preparedness

♦ Learning outcomes ♦ Participation ♦ Outreach and opportunity

♦ Retention ♦ Student satisfaction ♦ Time-to-completion

2. Champion and implement

the assessment of learning outcomes

3. Fulfil the ministry’s

stewardship role

4. Modernize Ontario’s funding methodology

5. What about research?

•

Current work on learning outcomes should be accelerated.

• In an ideal end-state, measuring and assessing learning outcomes should be a priority for institutions and a condition of funding.

•

Ongoing engagement• Outcomes lens linked to

SMAs with public reporting• Differential treatment of similar

group interests in SMAs• Strengthened ministry

enrolment planning role• Improved financial health

monitoring and cost benchmarking

•

Phase-in of outcomes-based funding component that grows over time

• Model clean-up• Consolidated envelopes

for existing student and institutional grants

• Program cost review• Enrolment-based funding with

transition and conditional protection for declines

•

Increase understanding of indirect and direct costs of sponsored research

• Link graduate activity to research excellence and negotiated strengths through SMAs

• Monitor resources dedicated to teaching and research

• Include research excellence in outcomes lens

Road Map for ChangeCurrent Transition Future

• Limited ability to identify and improve student outcomes and skills

• Fragmented data• “One-size-fits-all” approach with enrolment

growth as main revenue source • Institution-specific, programmatic focus• Funding methodology poorly understood

with unexplainable historical factors

• Student and outcomes lens applied to funding

• Learning outcomes measured and made available

• Validated, standardized and readily accessible data

• Ministry stewardship of funding relationship with universities well-defined

• Progress on sustainability• Rational, defensible and transparent

funding methodology

• Continuous improvement in student learning and system outcomes

• Strengthened funding levers help Strategic Mandate Agreements drive specialization

• Broad student success measures offset enrolment-driven allocations

• Student, economic and social development supported in a productive and sustainable manner

Further Observations• Impact on colleges of university funding reform• Faculty renewal, pension reform and inflation• Experiential education and entrepreneurial learning • Employer engagement

• Role of universities in quality assurance • Tuition and the Ontario Student Assistance Program• Operating grant escalator

Strategic Renewal Advisory Committee

Update to the Board of Governors, January 27, 2016

Strategic Renewal Overview

• Timeline for the project

• Phase I: Recap– Methods: inputs, analysis and outcomes

• Phase II: – Discussion of process and the work ahead

Strategic Renewal OverviewTimeline

Phase I Methods (inputs):• 73 group conversations initiated by Senators• 63 conversations led by the PMT• 70 other individual inputs (e.g. via email or face-to-face

conversations)…resulting in inputs from over 1100 participants

Plus:• 2000+ visits SR website• 5900+ Twitter visits• 1000+ YouTube views of strategic renewal• Engaged - Alumni, community members, donors,

retirees, faculty, staff, & students

Presenter

Presentation Notes

ORIGINAL – PRIOR TO Jan 18 2016 73 group conversations initiated by Senators 63 conversations led by the PMT involving 774 participants 58 email submissions 12 + meetings where input was provided (e.g. AA&D) 70 other individual inputs (e.g. via email or face-to-face conversations …resulting in inputs from over 1100 participants Plus: 2000+ visits SR website 5900+ Twitter visits 1000+ YouTube views of strategic renewal Engaged - Alumni, community members, donors, retirees, faculty, staff, & students

Phase I: Methodology• Principles of Ground Theory Methodology (GTM) (Glaser

& Strauss, 1967; Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Charmaz, 2009)

• Inductive approach:– Open-ended, emergent design– Broad non-directive questions– Invite ideas, insights, perspectives

• Open, axial and selective coding – constant comparative analysis

Phase I: Analysis• Panel of 4 reviewers (PMT) examining all inputs

using grounded theory methodology– Independent reading of all inputs– Weekly discussion and organization of ideas– Creation of emerging categories

• Development of an organizational framework for inputs

• Continuing iterative process on trending observations, concerns, ideas, opportunities

Phase I: Methods (outcomes)

Next steps: Creating axial concepts –mind maps, linked categories – to

develop preliminary strategic themes

100+ page open code analysis –categories and sub-categories

“raw data” – posted conversations, public inputs

Phase I: Preliminary analysis…

Analysis: emerging directions (Senate)

Analysis: consideration of false dichotomies

Current analysis: emerging directions

6 sections in summary document:A. Reflections on processB. Institutional identity (vision, mission, values)C. Core mandate – Teaching and researchD. Excellence: themes of excellence; being

comprehensiveE. Organizational issues: culture and structureF. New possibilities – ideas, syntheses

Phase II: Overview

SRAC• January – May• Draft ready for May 30 Senate

Governing• Jan 27 BoG• Feb 8 Senate • April 4 Senate• April 20 BoG

• Approval• May 30 Senate• June 3 BoG

Strategic Renewal Frameworks:Key Components

Effective Renewal: Community feedback; trust in the process

Next steps• Working with Strategic Renewal Advisory Committee to

identify themes

• Development of core strategies to inform future processes

• Keep process transparent; keep open exchanges and feedback from the community

• Delivery of Strategic Plan draft for consideration at Senate and Board of Governors in late May, early June

UNIVERSITY SECRETARIAT To: Members, Board of Governors From: Genevieve Gauthier, Associate University Secretary Subject: 6. Finance Committee Report

Meeting: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 e) Update on Capital Activities [Motions] The Physical Resources and Property Committee, and Finance Committee, are scheduled to meet jointly and in advance of the Board meeting on January 27, 2016, to consider requests related to the capital activities outlined below. The Board of Governors will be apprised of the outcome and related recommendations at its meeting which will immediately follow the joint meeting of these committees. i) New Entrance to Mitchell Athletics Centre

In January 2014 the Board of Governors approved a motion to proceed with the new construction for an expanded Mitchell Athletics Centre Phase 1. (Schematic designs for the expanded Mitchell Athletics Centre Phase 1 can be found in the on-line Supporting Documents folder.) This capital project is a core component of the Athletics & Recreation Master Plan, which was approved by the Board of Governors in 2008 and established a long-range (30 year) building strategy for athletics. A copy of the Athletics & Recreation Master Plan is available online at: http://www.pr.uoguelph.ca/pr/athletics_master_plan_final_april2011.pdf Enclosed is a memorandum and information from Mr. Don O’Leary, Vice-President (Finance, Administration and Risk) concerning a proposal for a new entrance to the Mitchell Athletics Centre. The Board of Governors is asked to, RESOLVE, that the Board of Governors accept and approve that the University Administration be authorized to proceed with the construction of a new entrance to the Mitchell Athletics Centre, including that:

(a) The total project cost is not to exceed $2,500,000; and, (b) The schematic design and design drawing be approved as presented to the

Physical Resources and Property Committee; and (c) The University Administration be authorized to determine on behalf of the

Board of Governors decisions concerning appointment of architects and consultants in a manner consistent with relevant University purchasing and tendering policies; and,

http://www.pr.uoguelph.ca/pr/athletics_master_plan_final_april2011.pdf

(d) The University Administration be authorized and directed to do all acts and

things as may be necessary and desirable to complete the transaction contemplated herein, and that any two Officers of the University are hereby authorized to execute and deliver any and all documents which, in their opinion, are necessary or desirable to give effect to the foregoing; and,

(e) The Physical Resources and Property Committee and Finance Committee receive regular updates regarding the project budget, design and materials, and completion schedule; and,

(f) Requests for adjustments to the project will follow the normal capital project review and approval processes of the Board of Governors.

Should the Board of Governors accept the recommendation above, this project will be incorporated as an addendum to the 2016-17 Capital Plan and an updated version will be provided to both PRPC and Finance Committees, at their next regular meeting. ii) Update to Alumni Stadium Pavilion Project In June 2015 the Board of Governors approved a motion to proceed with the addition of a Football Pavilion to Alumni Stadium, based on recommendations from the Physical Resources and Property Committee (PRPC), and the Finance Committee. The project is entirely funded through a donation (excluding new equipment associated with ancillary services such as laundry or therapy rooms). At its meeting October 16, 2015, the Board approved a motion to adjust the scope and total cost of the project, as follows: RESOLVED, That the Board of Governors accept and approve an amendment to the total project cost for the addition of a Football Pavilion to Alumni Stadium, including that the University Administration be authorized to proceed, and including:

(a) That the revised total project cost is not to exceed $6,350,000; and (b) That the Administration present amended design drawings for the project consistent with the overall

changes to the schematic design presented to the PRPC; and (c) That with the amendments to the project cost, University Administration be authorized to determine on

behalf of the Board of Governors decisions concerning appointment of architects and consultants in a manner consistent with relevant University purchasing and tendering policies; and



(f) Requests for further adjustments to the project will follow the normal capital project review and approval processes of the Board of Governors.

Enclosed is a memorandum from Mr. Don O’Leary, Vice-President (Finance, Administration and Risk), regarding a further amendment to the total project cost for this project, including the background and rationale for change.

The Board of Governors is asked to, RESOLVE, that the Board of Governors accept and approve that the University Administration be authorized to proceed with the addition of a Football Pavilion to Alumni Stadium at an amended total project cost not to exceed $8,200,000; and FURTHER RESOLVE, that authorization for this project is contingent on finalization of the donor gift agreement such that the project continues to be fully funded; and FURTHER RESOLVE, that authorization for this project include provisions (c) through (f) as outlined in the Board resolution of October 16, 2015, specifically:

(c) That with the amendments to the project cost, University Administration be authorized to determine on behalf of the Board of Governors decisions concerning appointment of architects and consultants in a manner consistent with relevant University purchasing and tendering policies; and



(f) Requests for further adjustments to the project will follow the normal capital project review and approval processes of the Board of Governors

N:\BOG\BOG Meetings\2015-2016 Meetings\Meeting Packages\January 27 2016\Open Session\Cover Memos\item 6e_Finance_Update on Capital Activities [Motion].docx

Source: Ontario Universities’ Application Centre, RPA

1

UoG Key Performance Indicators | Dr. Charlotte Yates (Provost) | Board of Governors Presenation - January 27, 2016

Toronto Ryerson York Guelph Western Waterloo McMaster Ottawa2014 10319 6272 6170 5392 5284 5233 5044 45312005 8961 3587 6502 3393 4770 4024 4330 4032% Change 15% 75% -5% 59% 11% 30% 16% 12%

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Conf

irmat

ions

Ontario Comparator Changes in 101 Confirmations 2005 to 2014

Source: Ontario Universities’ Application Centre3

Population Projections by Ontario RegionIndexed (2010 = 100)

Data Source: Ontario Ministry of Finance

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

110.0

120.0

130.0

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036

Toronto GTA (Excl. TO) Southwest Central East North Ontario

5

Satisfaction with U of GuelphStudents rated their overall experience at the institution, and

whether or not they would choose it again.

First-year

Senior

Percentage Rating Their Overall Experience as "Excellent" or "Good"

78%

92%

78%

89%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Ontario

U of Guelph

Ontario

U of GuelphFirst-year

Senior

Percentage Who Would "Definitely" or "Probably" Attend This Institution Again

76%

91%

83%

89%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Ontario

U of Guelph

Ontario

U of Guelph

Source: 2014 NSSE

13

4.04 3.96 3.874.06

3.82 3.84

3.61

3.96

3.66 3.70

3.40

3.82

3.59 3.66

3.28

3.80

Quality of Overall Experience Quality of Program Quality of Student Life Experience Quality of Academic Experience

2012-13 Canadian Graduate and Professional Student SurveyUofG: MA Thesis UofG: PhD Ontario: MA Thesis Ontario: PhD

3.21

3.17

3.15

3.14

3.06

3.08

3.10

3.07

3.02

2.98

0 1 2 3 4

Overall Satisfaction All Aspects of Experience

Overall Satisfaction Arrival Experience

Overall Satisfication Learning Experience

Overall Satisfaction Living Experience

Overall Satisfaction Support Services

Mea

n2014 International Student Barometer: All International Respondents (regardless of degree level)

Canada Guelph

Source: 2014 International Student Barometer Survey15

2016/2017 CAPITAL PLAN - Revised

Funding During ConstructionTotal Cost

Revised Jan 27/ 2016 - B.6 Added

2016/2017 CAPITAL PLANNING

($ millions) All In Cost (estimated) Re

ques

t for

App

rova

l

Fund

Rai

sing

Gra

nts

Fees

Cent

ral R

eser

ves

Uni

t Res

erve

s

Herit

age

Tota

l Fun

ding

Fina

ncin

g

Current Projects (Proposed for 2016/17)A. Capital Renewal (DM) A.1 Main Campus Infrastructure 10.00 1.55 0.05 1.60 8.40 A.2 Athletics 1.70 1.70 1.70 - A.3 Ancillary - Housing 6.70 6.70 6.70 - A.4 Ancillary- Parking 6.50 1.00 1.00 5.50 SUB TOTAL - Capital Renewal 24.90 Yes - 1.55 0.05 - 9.40 - 11.00 13.90 B. Major Buildings/Renovations - - B.1 OVC Phase 1 - Advanced Surgery 10.00 Yes 8.00 - 2.00 10.00 - B.2 Turf Grass Institute 15.00 Yes 15.00 15.00 - B.3 Powell Building Renovations 10.00 TBD 10.00 10.00 - B.4 Library (storage and space) 5.00 TBD - - 5.00 5.00 - B.5 University Centre 3.00 TBD - 3.00 3.00 - B.6 Mitchell Building "Link" 2.50 Yes 1.00 1.50 2.50 SUB TOTAL - Major Buildings/Renovations 45.50 8.00 15.00 - 11.50 - 10.00 43.00 -

Total 1 (Current Projects ALL) 70.40 8.00 16.55 0.05 11.50 9.40 10.00 54.00 13.90