Volume 29 - Number 11 - Thursday, February 27, 1997


Senate highlights

by Karl Jarosiewicz

A document called Budget Considerations submitted by Vice-Principal (Administration and Finance) Phyllis Heaphy at the February 12 meeting of Senate, was both a wish list for new revenue and an apology for McGill's uncomfortable financial situation.

Principal Bernard Shapiro, after ceding the chair to Professor Pat Farrell, gave a preamble to Heaphy's presentation.

"We have been instructed by the Board to keep to an even-keel budget, neither increasing nor drastically reducing the accumulated debt," he said. "This has been an extremely difficult exercise. There are so many unknowns, what with an unknown grant cut and other pieces of the puzzle missing."

He added, "It will be difficult for everyone" to achieve the kinds of sacrifices we'll have to make to keep to the status quo. "Please bring forward any suggestions for how to do it differently."

"This budget model is for discussion only," emphasized Heaphy. "It's just the best effort so far. She noted that we still don't know the extent of the grant cut, "but we can guess." Rumours suggest that the cut to the Quebec university network will likely be between $130 million and $150 million. "Our share will then be $18-$19 million."

This means that in the last six years, McGill's operating budget will have fallen 27% in real dollar terms. The question of whether our traditional share of the university network budget will remain intact is also in question. A committee appointed by the Minister of Education is studying that issue (Reporter, February 13).

Profit and loss

Remarking on a budget surplus in the discussion paper, Heaphy said it was due to "the early retirement plan being paid for faster than we thought and a break on interest rates during the last year."

She drew attention to figures in an attached schedule that showed an anticipated deficit from this year's budget on the order of $6.1 million, due to "known and potential events." A list of "possible actions to eliminate deficit" became the basis for much of the afternoon's discussion.

Seven million dollars that will come from higher fees for out-of-province and international students will go directly to Quebec. "The only benefit to McGill will be oblique and indirect: there won't be as large a grant cut as we might otherwise have had."

To offset the anticipated cut in the operating grant from the province, the University will decrease operating costs in faculties and units by $11.3 million, or approximately 6%. As well, additional revenue from student service charges will amount to a hefty $6.3 million. However, the University will put $3.9 million from the operating budget at the disposal of students in the form of aid and scholarships.

"This is coming for the first time from the operating budget," said Heaphy. "We're digging deep into our own pockets. We're trying not to create hardships for students."

The amount represents double what's currently available. "Is it enough? We don't know."

Heaphy added that the "majority of student aid will be in the form of bursaries and scholarships. We're not interested in increasing student debt if we can avoid it."

The new student service charges fall into two categories. The first is an administrative service charge, which "rolls in various existing fees," and includes a new feature called a "general administrative fee" in the amount of $81.

The second is an academic service charge which "will roll in existing faculty-wide fees, which vary by faculty, as well as a uniform additional charge amounting to $184." Various fees charged at the departmental level will be eliminated. Of the $4.4 million raised by this new charge, 20% or almost $900,000 will be set aside for student aid.

Following Heaphy's presentation, the Committee of the Whole began its discussion of the Budget Considerations document.

"This is a step away from what we want to be," said Dean of Science Alan Shaver in reference to the reduced operating grant. "It's a step away from an investment in our youth! It's undermining the future of our society."

"Education is an investment in our intellectual capital," said Dean of Education Ted Wall. "The amount of time and money lost in finding ways to cope with the reductions is painful."

Student aid

Dean of Students Rosalie Jukier expressed her satisfaction with the amount of money reserved for student aid and scholarships. However, Associate Vice-Principal (Graduate Studies) Lydia White noted that the term "scholarships" generally applies to undergraduate student aid.

"Will fellowships for incoming graduate students be increased also?" she asked. Heaphy said that this would be noted and dealt with.

"Will the scholarships be need-based or merit-based?" asked Students' Society vice-president Don McGowan. "Usually scholarships are awarded on the basis of merit." He also asked if the money represented a "one-time-only budget item or continuing aid?"

"We'll have it available as needed," Heaphy replied.

Students' Society president Chris Carter asked if "aid for international students is included?"

"Our intention is to keep as much money as possible available for all," answered Heaphy.

Professor Bruce Shore said the levelling of fees, in particular the elimination of departmental fees, "amounted to a tax on some units."

Heaphy countered that that couldn't be avoided and the alternative would be an additional cut of 3% to all departments.

Mission impossible?

Dean of Engineering John Dealy stated that the cuts come "dangerously close to endangering our mission. The savings from early retirement will come from people we don't replace," further eroding McGill's ability to maintain quality.

Post Graduate Students' Society representative Anna Kruzynski stated that "this body should lobby the government to increase our grant. We shouldn't take this passively." She also expressed her opposition to the increased student service fees.

"I object to this tactic [by the administration] to increase our fees. I'm against students shouldering the burden. Will the government approve?"

"It's our budget," said Heaphy. "The government allows all universities to charge such fees."

Professor Sam Noumoff referred to the increased student service fees as "the wedge" that would open up the whole issue of tuition hikes and stated that we should be more open and honest about increasing fees. "We should then face the political consequences."

Heaphy replied that this involved service charges that were permitted by the Ministry, and not tuition fees.

Carter reminded Senate that many students are already under a considerable financial burden and would now face thousands of dollars in increased debt.

"Students have been very generous to the University when they were consulted and involved with decisions." He named support of the athletics fieldhouse and a new student services building as examples of students' willingness to contribute funds.

Some students called for the additional fees to be phased in over a period of time. "We're not in a high income bracket, even if some of our parents are," said McGowan.

Painful remedies

"None of these charges are good," said Dean of Medicine Abraham Fuks. "But five years ago we had $12,000 per student to spend, now we have $9,000. Princeton has roughly $40,000 per student. If we drop any more we are in serious trouble. It's a choice between two evils and we're trying to choose the least of these."

Dealy took up the same appeal. "The people running the University feel they have an obligation to stop it from going down the drain. I don't like telling students 'You'll have to pay more.' But I also don't like telling professors, 'There's no increase in salaries again this year.'

"You didn't come here to study at a low-quality institution at a very low cost. You came here because of the reputation of the University. My faculty will have to lose five more professors this year. Without these remedies, it will have to be 10."

Privatizing problems

Referring to increased tuition for self-funded programs, Carter said he "heard alarms bells; this could be hinting at privatization." He worried that a lot of international students will no longer be able to afford to come to McGill.

Kruzynski asked if there was any provision for keeping such fees stable, suggesting that once outside government control, the fees would go through the roof.

Vice-Principal (Research) Pierre Bélanger stated that allowing self-funded programs "does not mean that fees will continue to go up." In fact, he said that deregulated international student fees have gone down in Ontario.

Shapiro said that a deregulated fee level "would have to meet both direct and indirect costs." There would be no room for error because once off the public purse, McGill would have to bear the full cost of such programs. "We don't even know if it's a wise move," he admitted. "This is just open for discussion. We're not trying to surprise anyone."

He added that "there's no pleasure or profit to the University in increasing fees."

Kruzynski argued that "this proposal is the privatization of international students. It removes the regulations; we're the first in Canada to do this."

"Wrong," said Bélanger and others. "All Ontario universities have deregulated international student fees."

Kruzynski also attacked a proposal to increase additional-session fees for graduate students.

Under the current rules, certain graduate students pay reduced fees ($400 per year) once they have gone beyond a certain period of time at the University. The proposal calls for all graduate students to "gradually move up to the Quebec resident full tuition fee over a period of three years, commencing in September 1997."

In a PGSS press release issued earlier in the week, Kruzynski criticized Heaphy for not giving graduate students enough notice of the increase.

Too Conservative?

Calling the measure unnecessary, she said it mimicked the Conservatives in Ontario who, under Premier Harris, were undoing social programs.

Bélanger countered that a quick search on the World Wide Web had revealed that most universities were abandoning the special additional-session fee system or had it under review.

"The University of British Columbia will only continue it for students registered before September, 1996. And the last time I checked, BC had an NDP government."

He continued. "One could even argue undergraduate students are being cheated by the additional-session fees. These graduate students are using libraries, services and other resources. What's more, among those eligible, 25% have typically been part-time students with income from other jobs."

Shapiro added that the University receives no support from the government for additional-session students. "The fees are not out of line with the services."

The Committee of the Whole ended and Kruzynski made a motion to bring the budget draft back for further discussion before Senate. "I fully intend to, as in the past," said Shapiro, but he nevertheless allowed the motion. The motion carried.

Kruzynski then made a second motion calling for Senate to oppose the increased additional-session fees. "I'm unhappy with the way it was done. I'm not opposing it forever--just for now."

Her motion failed, with what looked like a majority of undergraduate senators voting against it.




URO Central



Front Page



Contact us



Back issues