Report: UTM Campus Affairs Committee - March 26, 2025

1. Chair’s Remarks
   
   The Chair welcomed members to the Committee’s cycle five meeting and noted that he would be addressing the business arising from the report of the previous meeting later in the agenda and that therefore he had removed that item from the consent agenda for discussion.
2. Establishment of an Extradepartmental Unit B (EDU:B) - Institute of Forensic Sciences, UTM*
   
   At the invitation of the Chair, Professor Bryan Stewart, Vice Dean of Academic Programs, presented the item.  He explained that the forensic science program was established in 1995 in response to societal needs for professionals who could apply scientific knowledge in legal contexts. It became one of UTM's most well-known and unique programs, offering a major, a minor, and four specialist programs, with enrollment varying between 400 and 500 students annually. Since 2006, the program has been administered as part of the Department of Anthropology, though it operated as a functionally autonomous subgroup with its own admissions category, curriculum, course codes, budget, technical staff, and administrative support. Professor Stewart introduced the current Vice Chair of the program, Professor Marc Dryer, who was present at the meeting.
   
   He then explained the rationale for establishing the Institute of Forensic Sciences (IFS). Over the years, forensics has matured into a distinct and self-contained field of study, with most specialties falling outside the scope of traditional anthropology disciplines. Two separate external reviews had recommended that the forensic science program be established as a separate academic unit, reflecting long-standing aspirations among forensic scientists. Given its multidisciplinary nature—encompassing forensic biology, psychology, chemistry and anthropology—the program aligned well with the model of an EDU:B.
   
   Professor Stewart elaborated on EDUs at the University of Toronto, which were defined as multidisciplinary entities organized around emerging research and teaching areas spanning multiple disciplines. He noted that there were four designations of EDUs (A to D), with A-level units having the most autonomy, comparable to a department. At UTM, there were three EDUAs: the Institute for Management of Innovation, the Institute of Communication, Culture, Information, and Technology, and the Institute for the Study of University Pedagogy. An EDU:B, with which the forensic science program fit well, was defined as a multidisciplinary unit fostering research and teaching in specialized academic areas.  An EDU:B can offer degree programs, administer research funds, and would have a director appointed under university policy. However, faculty in an EDU:B could not hold primary appointments within it. Under the proposed structure, faculty would be appointed up to 49% to the new Institute of Forensic Sciences and 51% to the Department of Anthropology. A new director would be appointed, while forensic science faculty would continue teaching the program’s courses. Administrative arrangements with anthropology would remain intact, with the department’s full support.
   
   Professor Stewart highlighted several benefits of creating the institute, emphasizing the disentangling of the research and teaching of forensic sciences from anthropology to make the activities of both more transparent. He paraphrased Professor Todd Sanders, the interim chair of the Department of Anthropology, who spoke at the recent Academic Affairs Committee meeting and described the current arrangement as collegial but sometimes confusing. Establishing the institute would relieve this confusion. In conclusion, Professor Stewart stated that the establishment of the IFS recognized the accomplishments and potential of the forensic science program. It would provide a foundation to support the current and future needs for academic excellence, research innovation, and societal impact for the program’s students and faculty, while promoting forensics within UTM and fostering future growth and excellence.
   
   Following the presentation, a member asked if the EDU:B staffing model, which limited faculty appointments to 49% in the institute and 51% in anthropology, could allow future appointments to other disciplines like psychology or chemistry, given the program’s multidisciplinary nature. Professor Stewart clarified that the 49% cap was flexible, not fixed, and while most appointments were in anthropology, two ongoing faculty searches might include other units, supporting the EDU:B structure’s adaptability.
   
   In response to member’s question about how the new EDU:B shift might affect enrollment and UTM’s profile, Professor Stewart responded that the program already had strong enrollment with controls in place due to faculty limits. Professor Marc Dryer then added that little would change operationally since the program had long acted autonomously, with a robust outreach program and unique admission category drawing students to UTM. He noted two new hires in forensic toxicology and psychology, suggesting the institute’s clear identity as the Institute of Forensic Sciences would reduce confusion for students, faculty, and external partners like the legal community.
   
   The Vice-President & Principal followed up, reinforcing that the program boosted UTM’s provincial, domestic, and global profile, attracting students and supporting interdisciplinary, research-driven learning with diverse career outcomes.
   
   Another member asked about the research and graduate components, wondering how the IFS would strengthen campus research and graduate collaboration beyond anthropology. Professor Dryer explained that past hires had graduate appointments in anthropology, but new hires, like ones in forensic psychology, would seek appropriate graduate affiliations elsewhere. He envisioned collaborative potential in fields like toxicology and a possible future professional master’s program, building on the program’s strong undergraduate research tradition. He also praised Professor Tracy Rogers for her foundational work since 2008–2009, noting her success in guiding students from undergraduate research to graduate studies.
   
   On motion duly moved, seconded, and carried
   
   YOUR COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED
   
   THAT the CAC concur with the recommendation of the AAC,
   
   THAT the proposal to establish the Extradepartmental Unit B (EDU:B) – Institute of Forensic Sciences at the University of Toronto Mississauga, as described in the Proposal for the Establishment of an EDU:B, Institute of Forensic Sciences, UTM dated February 21, 2025, be approved, effective July 1, 2025.
3. Compulsory Non-Academic Incidental Fees: UTM Student Societies (UTMSU) - Proposals for Fee Increases for 2025-26
   
   The Chair noted that student society fees were subject to the terms and conditions of the Policy on Ancillary Fees and the Policy for Compulsory Non-Academic Incidental Fees.
   
   At the invitation of the Chair, Mr. Nutall, Acting Dean of Students, advised members that the fee increases requested by UTMSU under the item had adhered to their internal approval processes which met University standards.
   
   The Chair then noted that Joelle Salsa, President, UTMSU, and Felipe Nagata, Executive Director of UTMSU, were present to answer questions about the internal processes related to UTMSU’s proposed fees. 
   
   During the discussion, a member expressed concerns about the recurring fee increase requests from the UTMSU, questioning how student funds were being spent and whether the increases were justified. The member highlighted that the proposed fee hike would add over $38 per session for full-time students and an 8.2% increase for part-time students, which he argued was significant given rising living costs. He also criticized the lack of transparency and accountability within UTMSU, stating that the organization had become increasingly polarizing and failed to explore alternative funding sources. He urged the committee to vote against the proposal.
   
   In response, Mr. Nagata clarified that the total collected fees amounted to approximately $2 million annually, not $10 million as claimed. He also noted that audits were publicly available online and presented at the UTMSU’s annual general meeting. Additionally, he emphasized that fee increases were tied to inflation and pointed out that student engagement remained high, as reflected in the election turnout. No further comments or questions were raised.
   
   On motion duly moved, seconded, and carried
   
   YOUR COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED

   Be It Recommended:
   THAT, beginning in the Fall 2025 session, the University of Toronto Mississauga Students’ Union
   (UTMSU; legally, Erindale College Students’ Union) fee be modified as follows:
   (a) an increase of $0.02 per session in the society portion of the fee for part-time students;
   (b) an increase of $0.02 per session in the Academic Societies portion of the fee (full-time & part-time);
   (c) an increase of $0.18 per session in the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) portion of the fee (full-time only);
   (d) an increase of $0.02 per session in the Downtown Legal Services portion of the fee (full-time only);
   (e) an increase of $0.01 per session in the Food Bank portion of the fee (full-time & part-time);
   (f) an increase of $0.09 per session in the HOUSE UTM portion of the fee for full-time students;
   (g) an increase of $0.01 per session in the On-Campus First Aid Emergency Response portion of the fee (full-time & part-time);
   (h) an increase of $0.09 per session in the Regenesis UTM portion of the fee for full-time students; and
   (i) an increase of $0.04 per fall and winter session and $0.02 per summer session in the World University Service of Canada (WUSC) Levy portion of the fee for full-time students.
   
   THAT, subject to confirmation of approval of the following fee change proposals by the UTMSU Board of Directors, beginning in the Fall 2025 session, the UTMSU fee be modified as follows:
   (a) an increase of up to $0.70 per session in the society portion of the fee for full-time students;
   (b) an increase of up to $12.35 per fall and winter session in the Health Plan portion of the fee (full-time only);
   (c) an increase of up to $9.86 per fall and winter session in the Dental Plan portion of the fee (full-time only);
   (d) an increase of up to $14.91 per session in the Mississauga Transit U-Pass portion of the fee (full-time & part-time);
   (e) an increase of up to $0.04 per session in the HOUSE UTM portion of the fee for part-time students;
   (f) an increase of up to $0.04 per session in the Regenesis UTM portion of the fee for part-time students; and
   (g) an increase of up to $0.02 per fall and winter session in the WUSC Levy portion of the fee for part-time students.
   
   THAT, subject to confirmation of approval of the following fee change proposals by the UTMSU Board of Directors, beginning in the Fall 2025 session, the UTMSU fee charged to Mississauga Academy of Medicine students be increased as follows:
   (a) an increase of up to $7.44 per fall and winter session in the Mississauga Transit Summer U-Pass portion of the fee.

4. Overview of the UTM Campus Operating Budget: 2025-26
   
   At the invitation of the Chair, Professor Gillespie (Vice-President & Principal), Deborah Brown (CAO), Christine Esteban (Executive Director, Budget, Planning & Finance) and Rabeeya Amjad (Director of Planning and Analysis, Budget, Planning & Finance) provided a presentation of the UTM Campus Operating Budget.
   
   Professor Gillespie began the presentation and noted that UTM had achieved a balanced budget despite a challenging financial context. She then framed the discussion by emphasizing U of T’s impact: its graduates became highly employable, created 3.7 million jobs worldwide, and volunteered 2.8 million hours monthly. In Ontario, U of T alumni drove the economy as entrepreneurs, engineers, and more, with a third of family physicians, 60% of colorectal surgeons, 63% of child psychiatrists, and 75% of pediatric oncologists trained there, including nearly 500 MDs from UTM’s Mississauga Academy of Medicine.
   
   Professor Gillespie then addressed budget challenges. Provincial funding cuts in 2019 reduced tuition by 10% and froze it, with the freeze extended to 2026–27. Over the last twenty years, provincial grants have fallen from above 45% to below 20% of U of T’s revenue. Federal visa restrictions in 2024, alongside geopolitical tensions, hampered international enrollment, with applications from India dropping 45% last year and 39% this year. Post-pandemic inflation also raised costs, notably construction by over 40% since 2021. This inflation, coupled with new collective agreements after the repeal of bill 124, also increased salaries (72% of the budget) from $183 million in 2019–20 to $263 million now.
   
   To adapt, UTM balanced its budget by deferring hires, slowing capital spending, including by cancelling the F2 project, and boosting international and summer enrollment targets. At the same time, investment in UTM’s academic mission rose by 12% and student services by 43%.
   
   Christine Esteban and Rabeeya Amjad then detailed the 2025–26 budget: $455 million in gross revenue (64% tuition), with $368 million net after tri-campus allocations. Expenses included 72% for salaries, plus student services, equipment, and maintenance. Enrollment was at 3,974 new students in 2024–25, slightly above target domestically but below internationally, prompting increased strategic recruitment efforts. UTM tackled deficits through the Strategic Priorities Advisory Committee (SPAC), slowing hiring, re-orienting its capital portfolio around smaller projects like robotics labs and the second node of the central utilities plant. By leveraging some cost-effective administrative tactics (e.g., use of one-time-only reserves, etc.), and a loan for deferred maintenance, UTM balanced the five-year budget through to 2029–30, sustaining student aid. The campus also funded strategic initiatives like student advising, co-op programs, and IT security.
   
   Professor Gillespie concluded the presentation by thanking the Budget, Planning & Finance team for a robust budget process.
   
   A member asked about efforts to improve student recruitment and conversion, referencing slide six of the presentation and specifically early January offers. Professor Gillespie responded that UTM had convened two task forces to innovate recruitment and enrollment processes, focusing on yield (acceptances) and melt (attendance). She mentioned 26 new efforts, including high-touch post-offer events—like her upcoming trip to Dubai to meet prospective students—and a website overhaul to target applicants and offer holders. She noted the cross-portfolio collaboration involving chairs, student services, communications, and recruitment teams.
   
   Another member then asked if future budget presentation could break down total compensation by units (faculty, staff, librarians) for better tracking, and questioned why Bill 124 was consistently labeled in U of T’s long-term budget report as an “extraordinary situation.” Professor Gillespie clarified that the term reflected the rare government intervention in collective bargaining and the court’s subsequent ruling against it, which disrupted salary planning during and post-pandemic. Ms Esteban noted that there was an approximate 60% academic and 40% administrative staff split and promised further breakdowns in future reports.
   
   A member then asked if UTM planned to capitalize on potential enrollment increases from students avoiding American institutions due to emerging geopolitical issues. Professor Gillespie called it the “Trump bump,” seen in 2016, and suggested Canada might appear more stable despite federal visa restrictions. She mentioned challenges in predicting yield amid such uncertainty.
   
   Another member praised the presentation and asked if UTM had a “doom scenario” plan for a worse-than-expected future, citing McGill’s recent staff cuts and potential economic tightening. Professor Gillespie said a new working group, sponsored by the CAO, was modeling scenarios with reduced international enrollment, confident in domestic targets but cautious about international ones. The CAO then emphasized the difficulty in such modeling amid inflation, recession risks, and tariffs, while Professor Gillespie added optimism that Canada’s productivity crisis might boost education investment.
   A member commented on the balance between public funding and government oversight at the university and noted that while the institution remained a public university, a significant portion of its budget was now supported by non-governmental sources. A key consideration was whether the government's 15% contribution to the budget was proportionate to its level of financial control over the university’s decisions. 
   
   The Chair thanked the presenters and members for their thoughtful contributions.

5. Debt Financing for the UTM Deferred Maintenance Program
   
   The CAO referred to the earlier budget presentation and UTM’s balanced budget for the next five years. She noted that initially, UTM faced an $8.5 million deficit, which was eliminated by transferring funds from the internal deferred maintenance budget into the operating budget. To replace those funds, UTM requested and received a debt allocation of $8.5 million from a new university-wide deferred maintenance program.
   
   Ms Esteban then described the university’s recently approved debt financing for deferred maintenance, a mechanism UTM used to balance its budget. She recapped the prior presentation’s budget context, highlighting challenges from provincial, federal, and institutional factors. UTM’s staffing, capital, and administrative tactics had reduced a $98 million deficit to $8.5 million over five years. To cover this, UTM transferred funds from its deferred maintenance program and replenished them with a loan from U of T’s central deferred maintenance envelope, achieving a balanced budget and relieving operating fund pressures.
   
   Mr. Barber then presented a table from the annual deferred maintenance report, which showed that UTM performed well within the tri-campus system, as the only campus with positive index movements. Its total replacement value rose due to the new Science Building and Student Services Hub, while the backlog of systems needing replacement decreased, thanks UTM’s asset management team. This improved UTM’s facilities condition index, a ratio of end-of-life assets to total assets, which dropped in both absolute and relative terms compared to peers like St. George. This data shaped the size of UTM’s loan request from the deferred maintenance financing.
   
   Discussion following the presentation focused on priority one maintenance needs, which included past-due and current-year deferred maintenance items. Priority two covered needs expected in the next one to two years, while priority three focused on proactive planning for future projects.
   
   In response to a member’s question about addressing emergencies, it was noted that a contingency fund was in place, supported by a risk prioritization matrix that assessed building and asset conditions. Additionally, it was noted that $8.5 million had been temporarily used from the deferred maintenance fund to balance the budget but was later replenished. This funding supported three specific projects: a boiler replacement in the Communication, Culture and Technology Building, a fire alarm upgrade in the W. G. Davis Building, and horizontal deaerator replacement in the central utility plant.
6. Business Arising from the Report of the Previous Meeting
   
   The Chair reported that at the Committee’s previous meeting, an increase in fees for the UTM Association of Graduate Students' (UTMAGS) summer U-Pass was considered and recommended. The proposed increase was $2.44 per fall session and $2.43 per winter session. However, it was later discovered that this increase was unnecessary due to an error in interpreting the U-Pass contract.  As a result, the fee remained unchanged from the previous year, and the item was withdrawn from further governance consideration by the Executive Committee. A note was added to the report of the previous meeting to reflect this correction, and the administration planned to follow up with the UTM Association of Graduate Students to address the matter.
   
   Members had no questions.
7. Report of the Previous Meeting: Report Number 69 – February 6, 2025
   
   The Chair explained that an appropriate explanation in the form of a Secretary’s note had been added to the report of the previous meeting to address the issue of the UTMAGS fee item’s withdrawal from further governance consideration.
   
   On motion duly moved, seconded, and carried
   
   YOUR COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED
   
   THAT the Report of the Previous Meeting, dated February 6, 2025, as amended, be approved.
8. Date of the Next Meeting – May 7, 2025
   
   The Chair reminded members that the next meeting would take place on May 7, 2025.
9.  Other Business
   
   There was no other business. 

The meeting was adjourned at 4:37 p.m.

March 31, 2025