SENATE wary of international college of MB

Magally Zelaya, Staff

At the university’s Jan.9 senate meeting, senate members were determined to discuss the university’s agreement to house the International College of Manitoba — a decision that was made without notifying elected decision-makers.

The university administration did not make any formal announcements regarding the contract that was signed with Navitas, the company that operates ICM, to any of its governing bodies — neither the Board of Governors nor senate.

The agreement was revealed when Mark Gabbert, head of the history department and a senate member, came across a Navitas press release issued on Nov. 26, 2007. Gabbert then raised questions about the contract and the institute at the December meeting of senate.

“Why was senate not informed of plans for the establishment of this institution and given a chance to make any recommendations?” he asked in a question submitted for the December meeting’s question period.

In response, as the facilitator of the contract, Robert Kerr, vice-president (academic) and provost, gave a presentation at January’s senate meeting summarizing the details and reasoning behind the contract with Navitas.

Many senators were not satisfied with the report and discussion surrounding the institute reached the time allotted for a single topic. A vote was taken to ascertain that two-thirds of senate wanted to continue discussing the topic. The discussions then continued for an additional 10 minutes.

Senate members questioned the legality of the agreement, as many were uncertain whether or not the administration had violated the University Act in signing the contract.

The administration refuted the claim and said that their legal counsel advised that the contract was legal.

The debate continued and dominated senate’s two-hour meeting. The discussion became heated, ending with U of M president and senate chair, Emöke Szathmáry, apologizing for saying that those who refuted the veracity of Kerr’s presentation were calling him and her “liars.”

Towards the end of the senate meeting, Gabbert made a formal motion to have the contract released to senate for their recommendations.

Susan Prentice, senate member and sociology professor, said after the meeting, “I’m quite optimistic that the administration will realize the importance of senate’s review and will be acting on the notice of motion that professor Gabbert gave.”

After the meeting, Rachel Heinrichs, senator and UMSU vice-president (advocacy), said, “Something like this, obviously with the implications it has for privatization, and teaching, and unions on campus, and students’ rights, and all those kinds of things,” said Heinrichs, “it’s a very big deal and something that should have come to us.”

Robert Kerr, vice-president (academic) and provost, who developed the contract, explained, “I should be informing senate and the board. Unfortunately — I apologized for the mistake — due to miscommunication in my own office, Navitas released information about this agreement before I had the opportunity to inform senate.”

He noted that because “this particular contract falls within existing policies” he was not required to inform either senate or the board of governors of the contract negotiations.

“You negotiate contracts in confidence and most of the contractual issues are not things which we make public, anyway,” he added.

Prentice has said she is not convinced that the Navitas contract is like any other at the U of M.

“What makes this really different is that it’s on campus. What makes it really different is that it appears to be a kind of hybrid organization half run by us and half run by Navitas,” she said.

The U of M act indicates in several sections that a partnership with ICM is a senate jurisdiction. However, Kerr asserted that while the issues dealt with in the contract are in senate’s jurisdiction, because the contract did not deviate from usual practice, there was no reason that he had to take the contract to either senate or the board of governors.

Furthermore, in regards to the transferring of credits, which is also typically part of senate’s jurisdiction, Kerr said that this issue is no longer dealt with by senate, but has been delegated to individual departments.

Since the senate meeting, Heinrichs has elaborated on the issues that concern her and UMSU

She said, “Another thing I mentioned at senate and that I am very worried about is the rights of these students and the rights of the people working there.

“Without bicameral government structure, without the type of things you find at colleges and universities there’s no way to protect both the people teaching and students.”

Heinrichs added that many of the services that are heavily used by U of M students, such as the student advocacy offices, the food bank, and legal aid will not be available to ICM students, because they will be independent of the U of M.

Legally, ICM is classified as a corporation and not as an educational institute since it does not grant degrees; the Navitas press release stated, “For Navitas, this is also a major step forward for our international expansion as it further increases our footprint in the Canadian education market in a cost effective manner.”

Though Kerr has indicated that a proportion of the revenue accrued by Navitas would go to the university, Heinrichs has said she is concerned about the university dealing with a corporation for its education needs.

“All we know is that a for-profit organization is doing something that the university doesn’t think it can do properly itself and that is in itself extremely worrying to me. What kind of precedent does it set?” said Heinrichs.

Kerr said it would be difficult and risky for the university to initiate a two-year pathway program itself. He said it would be difficult to attract students to a two-year program that has no track record, whereas Navitas has a success rate of 80-90 per cent.

Until the board of governors meeting on Jan. 29 or the next meeting of senate on Feb. 6, it is unlikely that more details surrounding the contract will be known.

The provincial Freedom of Information Act does not apply to the contract between the university and Navitas, because Navitas is not a publicly funded organization.

“We can’t get anything related — communications or records — because they’re pertaining to a private company, which is concerning,” said Heinrichs.