The 2020 Committee to Review the UTM and UTSC Campus Councils (hereinafter “the CRCC (2020)”) is a committee established by the Governing Council to conduct a review of elements of the tri-campus governance model formed in June 2012.
The CRCC (2020) is charged with reviewing particular elements of the tri-campus governance model which experience has shown may require some refinement.
The CRCC (2020) is to report its findings and include any recommendations for further refinements which would enhance the ability of the Campus Councils and their Committees to execute their respective mandates, and recommend revisions to the Terms of Reference of the Academic Affairs Committees (AACs) and the Campus Affairs Committees (CACs) to align with current practices as appropriate.
C. Areas for Consideration
The Committee is to consider the following issues, and use these areas to define the parameters of its work.
- Budget – The Terms of Reference of the Campus Affairs Committees (CACs) and the Campus Councils provide for a role for these bodies in considering the campuses’ operating budgets (as part of the University’s annual operating budget). From the outset, the Terms of Reference were not intended to assign approval responsibility of the budget to those bodies. In 2014 the Governing Council received a document entitled ‘Consideration of Budget Matters by UTM and UTSC Campus Councils and Campus Affairs Committees’1 that was a step toward clarifying the most apt role for the bodies in the annual budgeting process and the manner in which the provision might be fulfilled. It included a process map which has shaped the way in which budget matters have been considered by the UTM and UTSC Campus Councils and Campus Affairs Committees in the intervening years. At this juncture, there is a shared sense among the institutional and campus Assessors who are responsible for these matters that further refinement and clarification are necessary. The CRCC (2020) is to consider potential revisions to the current approach. In part its work shall be informed by the recently completed Tri-Campus Review, and particularly the work of the Administrative Structure and Budget pillars of that Review.
- Leadership – The Chair and Vice Chair of the Campus Councils are elected by the members of the Governing Council on the respective Campus Councils. Practically speaking this means that a group of three people elect the Chair. In contrast the Chairs of the Boards (Academic Board, Business Board, University Affairs Board) are appointed by the Governing Council, on the recommendation of the Chair. The CRCC (2020) is to consider whether aligning the selection practices of the Chairs of the Campus Councils with those of the Boards would be appropriate.
- Membership – Historically, graduate and part-time undergraduate seats on the Campus Councils and their Standing Committees have generally been challenging to fill, while participation is strong among full-time undergraduate students. The CRCC (2020) is to consider whether a change in the current distribution of student seats on the UTM and UTSC governance bodies across the full-time undergraduate, part-time undergraduate, and graduate student constituencies to better reflect the student population of those campuses would be appropriate.
- Additional Refinements – In part based on information received through its consultations, the CRCC (2020) is asked to comment on any further refinements, which at the discretion of the Chair are consistent with the mandate of the Committee and scope of the review, which might enhance the ability of the Campus Councils and their Committees to execute their respective mandates and better align, if necessary, the Terms of Reference of the Academic Affairs Committees (AACs) and the Campus Affairs Committees (CACs) with current practices.
 Item 3 – Governing Council, September 11, 2014
C. Membership and Structure
The CRCC (2020) will comprise nine (9) members drawn from the Governing Council and from the UTM and UTSC Campus Councils. The proposed membership attempts to balance among the estates2.
The membership is as follows:
- Ms Jane Pepino (LGIC Governor, Vice-Chair of the Governing Council) – Chair
- Professor Wisdom Tettey (Vice-President and Principal, UTSC; Presidential Appointee Governor; Voting Assessor, UTSC Campus Council)
- Mr. Preet Banerjee (LGIC Governor; Chair of the UTSC Campus Council)
- Professor Mohan Matthen (Teaching Staff Governor; Chair of the UTM Campus Council)
- Dr. Tayyab Rashid (Administrative Staff Member, UTSC Campus Council; Chair, UTSC Campus Affairs Committee)
- Professor Joseph Leydon, (Teaching Staff Member, UTM Campus Council; Chair of the UTM Campus Affairs Committee)
- Ms Sue Graham-Nutter (Co-opted Lay Member, Business Board and Audit Committee3)
- Ms Xing Wei (Full-Time Undergraduate Student Member, UTM Campus Council)
- Ms Annie Sahagian (Full-Time Undergraduate Student Member, UTSC Campus Council)
The Secretary of the Governing Council, Ms Sheree Drummond, will serve as Secretary of the Committee, supported by Assistant Secretary, Ms Tracey Gameiro. Ms Cindy Ferencz-Hammond, Assistant Secretary, UTM and Ms Emma Thacker, Assistant Secretary, UTSC, will also provide support.
 For the purposes of this Review Committee, Alumni, Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council (LGIC) appointees to the Governing Council, and individuals from the broader community appointed to the Campus Councils are considered members of the same estate, and four members shall be drawn from this group.
 Sue Graham-Nutter is a past Community Member of the UTSC Campus Council, and served on the 2014 Committee to Review the UTM and UTSC Campus Councils.
In conducting its review, it is expected that the CRCC (2020) will invite advice and feedback from appropriate stakeholders and from members of the University of Toronto community.
The CRCC (2020) will issue a broad call for submissions as well as targeted communications to UTM and UTSC, including to the University of Toronto Mississauga Student’s Union (UTMSU) and the Scarborough Campus Students’ Union (SCSU).
E. Authority and Reporting
The CRCC (2020) is authorized by Governing Council to carry out any activity within its terms of reference.
It is expected that the CRCC (2020)’s recommendations will be considered by the Governing Council at its meeting in June, 2020.
Brief History of the Development of the UTM and UTSC Campus Councils and Their Standing Committees
The design of the UTM and UTSC Campus Councils and their Standing Committees arose from an iterative series of consultative steps.
1. Task Force on Governance, Phase One
As part of the University’s Towards 20304 planning exercise, a Task Force on Governance5 was established in 2007. During the first phase of its work, the Task Force was charged with identification of problems in order to clarify what worked well in governance and what did not. The Task Force concluded that there was no compelling reason to move away from the University’s unicameral system of governance and that representation of the five key estates (administrative staff, alumni, students, teaching staff and Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appointees) should be preserved. A core belief articulated by the Task Force was that the essential role of governance is to provide guidance on the University’s long-term strategic directions and to provide active oversight of the University’s management and that its role is not to duplicate that of the University’s administration. Among many principles of good governance, the University’s model needed to be compatible with the University’s mission and it needed to be multi-dimensional, given the various and complex characteristics of the University. Following from this, a key outcome of the first phase was the conclusion that the University’s governance must address the complexity of decision-making and improve governance oversight of all three campuses.
2. Task Force on Governance, Phase Two
During the second phase, the Task Force focused on determining solutions to concerns identified previously, along with other enhancements to governance. Among the recommendations emerging from phase two of the Task Force on Governance, one spoke explicitly to the creation of governance bodies, as part of the Governing Council structure, related to matters specific to the UTM and UTSC campuses: The Task Force recommended “the establishment of campus affairs committees for each of the three campuses to focus on campus, staff and student life matters specific to those campuses” (Recommendation 20).6
The Task Force completed its Report on June 22, 2010. Following a full discussion, and addresses by representatives of two of the four Representative Student Committees,7 the Report was approved in principle, and an Implementation Committee was established by the Governing Council on October 28, 2010.8 The mandate of the Implementation Committee included oversight and coordination of the implementation of a number of the Task Force’s recommendations, including the recommendation for the establishment of campus affairs committees as outlined above.9
3. Working Group on Tri-Campus Matters
The Implementation Committee formed an ad hoc Working Group on Tri-Campus Matters which was charged with exploring in detail the manner in which Recommendation 2010 could be realized. The Working Group advanced the idea that the structures and processes developed for the UTM and UTSC campuses should be expected to enhance campus-based decision-making and ensure accountability with respect to that responsibility. It also emphasized that, in future, the governance structure should also be responsive or easily adapted to changes to the institution’s administrative organization.
Independently, governance review committees were established at UTM and UTSC, which provided significant and essential input to the Working Group in the formulation of its recommendations.
Ultimately, the proposed structure included a Campus Council and three Standing Committees on each campus: an Academic Affairs Committee; a Campus Affairs Committee; and a formal agenda setting body for each Campus Council (which, with expanded membership, would also serve as a Nominating Committee), the Agenda Committee.
The Working Group consulted widely, and especially within the UTM and UTSC campus communities, with respect to the mandates and design of the governance bodies that would have responsibilities in respect of these two campuses. A summary of the consultation activities and the outcome of these are summarized in the documentation provided to members of the Governing Council on for its meeting held on June 25, 2012.11 This memorandum which also summarized the proposed Terms of Reference of the Campus Councils (revised as a result of the consultation process) included the following:
“As with any change process, implementation will highlight the need to refine and re-calibrate – and sometimes re-think – particular elements of a new model or process. Given the scope and importance of the proposed approach, the introduction of Campus Councils will merit a careful review. In this context, we would recommend that there be a review undertaken by the Governing Council after the first full year of operation.”12
At this meeting, the Governing Council approved the Terms of Reference of the Campus Councils and Standing Committees, a requirement that quorum provisions be reconsidered, and the following:
THAT, following the first year of operation, the Governing Council conduct a review of the new model to determine its effectiveness and any changes that might be necessary.13
4. Further Consultation and Changes to Membership and Quorum Provisions
In the period between June and December, 2012, further consultation took place with respect to the quorum and membership provisions for the UTM and UTSC-related bodies. This series of consultation activities is summarized in the documentation14 provided to the Governing Council for its meeting held on December 13, 2012 as well as in the minutes for that meeting.15
The Governing Council was addressed by representatives of several of Representative Student Committees, and a member of the teaching staff. The Governing Council considered and approved changes to quorum and membership provisions.
The Campus Councils and their Standing Committees came into effect on July 1, 2013, and each of the bodies held their first meetings in the fall of 2013.
5. The Committee to Review the UTM and UTSC Campus Councils, 2014
As referenced above, when the Governing Council approved the Terms of Reference for the UTM and UTSC Campus Councils and their Standing Committees in June, 2012, the resolution included a provision which mandated a review of the new governance model at the end of the first year of operation. In June 2014 the Governing Council struck the Committee to Review the UTM and UTSC Campus Councils to undertake such review.
The Committee to Review the UTM and UTSC Campus Councils reported its findings and recommendations to Governing Council on December 11, 2014.
The CRCC recommended a follow-up review of the tri-campus governance model in three years’ time, that is, in the 2017-2018 academic year. On October 12, 2017 following approval by the Executive Committee1, the timing of the review of the tri-campus governance was adjusted further to the recommendation of the Presidential Review with regard to a review of the tri-campus administrative structure.16
 The Representative Student Committees were: the University of Toronto Students Union, (UTSU), the Association of Part-time Undergraduate Students (APUS), the Graduate Students’ Union (GSU), the Scarborough Campus Students’ Union (SCSU), and the University of Toronto Mississauga Students’ Union, (UTMSU).
 Note: The Implementation Committee concluded that with respect to the St. George Campus, the campus-specific duties should be included in the Terms of Reference of the University Affairs Board along with the University-wide responsibilities for policy and oversight it would continue to have as recommended by the Task Force.
 The December 2014 Report of the Committee to Review the UTM and UTSC Campus Councils recommended that a review of the tri-campus governance model take place in the 2017-18 academic year. The Presidential Review Report had noted that the review of the tri-campus administrative structure should precede the review of the tri-campus governance model and as such the timing of the governance review should be adjusted as needed.