Board of Trustees - 06 May 2016

Queen's University at Kingston

Agenda

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

May 6 - 7, 2016, 6:30 pm Peter Lougheed Room, 340 Richardson Hall

Note: Members who wish to have items moved from the Consent to the Regular Agenda should contact the

Secretary before the Board meeting. Members may also request to have items moved when the Agenda is

presented for approval at the Board meeting.

Trustees meet in camera from 6:30 pm to 6:45 pm. I IN CAMERA SESSION II OPEN SESSION 1. Adoption of Agenda [Action] (3 min) CONSENT 2. Approval of the Minutes 6 - 12 a) Minutes of March 4, 2016 Open Session

Motion:

That the Board of Trustees approve the Open

Session minutes of March 4, 2016 as circulated.

[Action]

3. Senate items requiring Board ratification (NONE) 4. Reports 13 - 18 a) Quarterly Advancement Report [Information] 19 - 22 b) Quarterly University Relations Report [Information] 23 - 45 c) Quarterly Financial Report [Information] 46 - 48 d) Quarterly Investment Report [Information] 49 - 51 e) Quarterly Pension Report [Information] 52 - 53 f) Aboriginal Council of Queen’s University Annual

Report 2015

[Information]

54 - 65 g) DBRS Credit Rating Report [Information] 66 h) Queen's University Planning Committee Report [Information] 67 - 72 i) 2016 Board-Senate Retreat Report [Information] 73 - 84 j) Professor Emeritus/Emerita Report [Information]

Agenda


REGULAR 5. Chair's Remarks - B. Palk [Information] (10 min) 6. Principal's Strategic Update - D. Woolf [Information] (20 min) a) Verbal Report 85 - 92 b) Report to Board on Completion of 2015-16 Goals 93 - 96 c) Strategic Framework Summary 7. Student Code of Conduct - D. Woolf 97 - 139 a) Approval of the New Student Code of Conduct and

Procedures

Motion:

That the Board of Trustees approve the following,

effective May 6, 2016:

• the Queen’s University Student Code of Conduct,

2016, being Attachment 1, superseding the Queen’s

University Student Code of Conduct approved by

Senate 24 April 2008 (effective 1 July 2008,

amended 21 January 2014);

• the Interim Procedures under the Queen’s

University Student Code of Conduct, 2016, being

Attachment 2, notwithstanding the provisions of the

Senate Policy on Appeals, Rights and Discipline

(SARD) and where there is a conflict between the

two documents, the Interim Procedures shall

govern; and,

• the establishment of the Non-Academic

Misconduct Sub-Committee of the Audit and Risk

Committee, with the Terms of Reference, being

Attachment 3.

[Action] (10 min)

8. Provost's Operational Update - A. Harrison [Information] (5 min) a) Verbal Report 140 - 142 b) Queen’s University Comprehensive International Plan

(QUCIP) 2015 – 2019 Interim Report

9. Research Report - S. Liss [Information] (5 min) 143 - 145 a) Research Report 10. Senate Report to the Board - C. Elliott [Information] (5 min) 146 - 147 a) Senate Report to the Board March 22, 2016 and April

19, 2016

11. Student Reports 148 - 150 a) Rector Report - C. Yung [Information] (3 min) 151 - 153 b) AMS Report - T. Lively [Information] (3 min) 154 - 156 c) SGPS Report - S. Farbodkia [Information] (3 min)

Page 2 of 363

Agenda


COMMITTEE MOTIONS AND UPDATES 12. Audit and Risk Committee a) Report - M. Wilson Trider [Information] (5 min) 157 - 162 b) Annual Approval of Policy Statements on General

Health and Safety, Environmental Management, and

Student Health and Wellness

Motion:

That the Board of Trustees, on the recommendation

of the Audit and Risk Committee, approve the

Policy Statement on General Health and Safety, the

Policy Statement on Environmental Management,

and the Policy Statement on Student Health and

Wellness.

[Action] (3 min)

13. Capital Assets and Finance Committee a) Report - E. Speal [Information] (5 min) 163 - 221 b) Approval of 2016-17 Operating Budget

Motion:


of the Capital Assets and Finance Committee,

approve the 2016-17 Operating Budget.

[Action] (15 min)

222 - 284 c) Approval of 2017-18 Residence Fees, 2016-17 Student

Activity Fees, and 2016-17 Course Related Fees

Motion:



approve the 2017-18 Residence fees, the 2016-17

Student Activity Fees as outlined in the schedules

provided by the Alma Mater Society, the Society of

Graduate and Professional Students, and the

Residence Society, and the 2016-17 Course Related

Fees as outlined in the fee schedules provided by

Queen’s faculties and schools.

[Action] (3 min)

285 - 292 d) Queen’s Protocol for Introducing or Changing Student

Activity Fees (revised 2016)

Motion:



approve the revised Queen’s Protocol for

Introducing or Changing Student Activity Fees.

[Action] (3 min)

293 - 294 e) Richardson Stadium Revitalization Project Scope and

Budget Increase

Motion:


[Action] (3 min)

Page 3 of 363

Agenda



approve the budget increase of $300k to the original

$20.27M Richardson Stadium project budget to

fund the construction of VIP boxes that were not

part of the original project scope of design.

14. Governance and Nominating Committee a) Report - I. van Nostrand [Information] (5 min) 295 - 299 b) Amendments to the Audit and Risk Committee Terms

of Reference and Human Resources Committee Terms

of Reference

Motion:


of the Governance and Nominating Committee,

approve the revised terms of reference for the Audit

and Risk Committee and the Human Resources

Committee.

[Action] (3 min)

300 - 303 c) Revisions to Trustee Code of Conduct

Motion:


of the Governance and Nominating Committee,

approve the revisions to the Trustees' Code of

Conduct, effective May 6, 2016.

[Action] (5 min)

15. External Relations and Development Committee a) Report - D. Tisch [Information] (5 min) 16. Investment Committee a) Annual Report - D. Raymond [Information] (5 min) 304 - 342 b) Approval of Statement of Investment Policies and

Procedures Amendments (SIP&P)

Motion:


of the Investment Committee, approve the

Statement of Investment Policies and Procedures

(SIP&P) for The Queen’s Investment Funds, as

amended, effective May 6, 2016.

[Action] (3 min)

17. Pension Committee a) Annual Report - D. Grace [Information] (5 min) b) Pension Plan Verbal Update - C. Davis [Information] (5 min) RECESS RECONVENE OPEN SESSION OF MEETING -

SATURDAY, MAY 7, 2016 8:30 am

Page 4 of 363

Agenda


REGULAR 18. Trustees’ Continuing Education Session: Academic

Freedom and Freedom of Speech in Canadian

Universities - Peter MacKinnon

[Information] (45 min)

343 a) Academic Freedom Background Information - D.

Woolf

344 - 359 b) Reference Articles:

What do we mean when we talk about

academic freedom? - P. MacKinnon

Academic Freedom, Revised - S. Jaschik

Exploring the Limits of Academic Freedom -

P. O'Neill

19. Trustees’ Continuing Education Session: Translational

Biomedical Research - S. Archer, S. Liss, & D. Munoz

[Information] (30 min)

360 - 363 a) Translational Biomedical Research III CLOSED SESSION IV IN CAMERA SESSION V ADJOURNMENT

Page 5 of 363


Minutes

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

March 4, 2016, 6:30 pm The Peter Lougheed Room, 340 Richardson Hall

Present: B. Palk (Chair), T. Abramsky, D. Bakhurst, D. Bruce, G. Denford, D. Grace, J. Leech, J. Li, C. Lynch,

J. MacLeod, R. McFarlane, K. McKinnon, K. Pritchard, S. Riddell Rose, E. Speal, S. Tanner, D. Tisch,

L. Tomalty, I. van Nostrand, M. Wilson Trider, D. Woolf, M. Young L. Knox (Secretary), C. Garneau

(Associate Secretary)

Also Present: C. Davis, M. Fraser, T. Harris, A. Harrison, S. Liss

Regrets: B. Warmbold

I CLOSED SESSION

Trustees met in closed session from 6:30 pm to 6:45 pm with the Principal, Vice-Principals and Secretariat

staff. As part of the closed session, the Board of Trustees approved the following motions:

Moved by I. van Nostrand, seconded by K. McKinnon that the Board of Trustees, on the recommendation

of the Governance and Nominating Committee, reappoint David Grace as Vice-Chair of the Board for a

two-year term effective June 1, 2016.

Carried 16-07

(Abstention: D. Grace)


of the Governance and Nominating Committee, reappoint Donald Raymond to the Board for a three-year

term effective June 1, 2016.

Carried 16-08

(Abstention: D. Raymond)


of the Governance and Nominating Committee, reappoint Edward Speal as Vice-Chair of the Board and

as a Trustee for a two-year term effective June 1, 2016. Committee.

Carried 16-09

(Abstention: E. Speal)


of the Governance and Nominating Committee, appoint James Keohane to the Board for a three-year

term effective June 1, 2016.

Carried 16-10

ITEM: Minutes of March 4, 2016 Open Session

Page 6 of 363

Minutes


II OPEN SESSION

1. Adoption of Agenda a) March 4, 2016

Moved by D. Woolf, seconded by K. Pritchard, that the Board adopt the agenda as circulated

with the provision that items 2 through 5 in the consent portion of the agenda be approved, or

received for information, by consent.

Carried 16-11

CONSENT

2. Approval of the Minutes 16 - 22 a) December 4/5, 2015 Open Session

That the Board of Trustees approve the Open Session minutes of December 4/5, 2015 as

circulated.

Carried 16-12

3. Naming Dedications a) Namings for Philanthropy - Faculty of Health Sciences

That the Board of Trustees, on the recommendation of the External Relations and

Development Committee, approve the dedication of the Meds ’80 Group Room (015), Meds

’81 Group Room (230), Meds ‘86 Group Room (017), and Meds ’60 Group Room (014) in the

New Medical Building in recognition of their gifts in support of Queen’s and the New Medical

Building.

Carried 16-13

4. Senate items requiring Board ratification a) Centre for Studies in Primary Care

That the Board of Trustees ratify the action of the Senate to approve the renewal of the Centre

for Studies in Primary Care for an additional period of five years, effective November 30,

2015.

Carried 16-14

5. Reports for Information 23 - 28 a) Quarterly Advancement Report

b) Quarterly University Relations Report

29 - 33 c) Quarterly Financial Report

34 - 37 d) Quarterly Investment Report

38 - 40 e) Quarterly Pension Report

41 f) Queen's University Planning Committee Report

g) S&P Credit Rating Report

42 - 50 h) Student Services Strategic Planning Framework

i) Climate Action Plan

REGULAR

6. Chair's Remarks - B. Palk a) Verbal Report

B. Palk welcomed incoming Provost B.-A. Bacon to the meeting and congratulated S. Riddell Rose

on receiving the Generosity of Spirit Award and Doc Seaman Individual Philanthropist Award in

Calgary. She announced that in the closed session, the Board made the appointments and

reappointments noted above.

B. Palk indicated that this would be the final meeting for Rector M. Young and invited him to accept

a small token of appreciation for his service. Trustees responded with applause. She congratulated


Page 7 of 363

Minutes


all the incoming student leaders on their election and asked that they raise stand and be

acknowledged by the Board.

The Board observed a moment of silence in memory of the Queen’s student who died in February.

7. Principal's Strategic Update a) Verbal Report

Principal Woolf began his remarks by thanking the outgoing student leaders for their service and

introducing incoming Provost B.-A. Bacon. He also spoke to recent activities in support of research

prominence, internationalization, financial sustainability and how the recently announced provincial

budget may impact the University. Queen’s student learning experience will be enhanced through

funding for classroom upgrades and online learning, both of which will help the University maintain

its competitive advantage. In response to the call to action from the Truth and Reconciliation

Commission, a task force has been formed to identify those items that pertain to Queen’s and to

make recommendations about how they may be implemented by the University. He noted that the

Climate Action Plan, included with the consent agenda, will be formally released to the community

following the Board meeting.

51 - 54 b) Strategic Framework Summary

Principal Woolf provided a brief overview of updated data in the student learning experience section

of the dashboard.

8. Provost's Operational Update a) Verbal Report

Provost Harrison noted that the Student Services Strategic Planning Framework, which was

included on the consent agenda and arose from discussions at the Board-Senate Retreat in September

2014, will ensure that appropriate levels of student support services are provided going forward. He

also spoke about progress regarding planning of the proposed revitalization of the Physical

Education Centre (PEC).

9. Research Report 55 - 57 a) Research Report

S. Liss provided a brief overview of his report, highlighting recent funding and award

announcements in support of Queen’s research prominence.

58 - 70 b) Research Metrics Working Group Report

S. Liss spoke to the formation of the working group and how it is guiding the development of

aspirational metrics in the area of research prominence to build on Queen’s national reputation and

grow its international profile. Next steps include consulting with faculty deans and returning to the

Board with the proposed targets later this year.

10. Senate Report to the Board - D. McKeown 71 - 72 a) December 1, 2015, January 26, 2016, and February 23, 2016

Senator D. McKeown provided a brief overview of the report.

11. Student Reports 73 - 74 a) Rector

M. Young observed this would be his final time addressing the Board and reflected on his time as

Rector. He spoke to the strength of the Queen’s community, especially among students, and


Page 8 of 363

Minutes


encouraged the Board to continue prioritize the broader student learning experience going

forward. He spoke about several instances where students were facing challenges and also some

examples of positive support provided to these students by the University. He introduced

incoming Rector C. Yung who will assume office on May 1, 2016.

75 - 77 b) AMS

K. Chinniah, President, introduced the incoming AMS executives and thanked the Board, Principal,

and members of the senior administration for working with his team over the past year. He stressed

that the student learning experience should continue to remain a priority of the Board and that while

increasing research prominence is important, this should not compromise the quality of instruction

Queen’s is known for.

78 - 79 c) SGPS

C. Cochrane, President, offered his support for the path laid out in the Research Metrics Working

Group report and indicated this would likely strengthen the doctoral student learning experience,

suggesting that the Board may wish to consider a metric in this regard. He thanked the Board, his

fellow student leaders, and the administration for the opportunity to work together over the past

year.

12. Queen's University Alumni Association and Queen's Student Alumni Association - G. Jackson &

N. Utioh 80 - 92 a) QUAA Report

G. Jackson, President, provided an overview of the report. He highlighted the Association’s

mission, priorities, recent events and Queen’s above average giving by alumni. He also introduced

incoming President S. Bates, who currently serves as QUAA Vice-Chair.

93 - 96 b) QSAA Report

N. Utioh, President, spoke to the role of the QSAA in facilitating networking opportunities between

current students and Queen’s alumni. He indicated that QSAA volunteers on exchange recently

held alumni events abroad and that the Association led the Tricolour gift in support of student mental

health.

COMMITTEE MOTIONS AND UPDATES

13. Audit and Risk Committee a) Report - M. Wilson Trider

M. Wilson Trider explained that as part of its meeting earlier that day, the Committee received a

report on the graduate student learning experience, cyber risk management and discussed the

outcome of the competitive procurement process for external audit services, which would see

KPMG selected to provide external audit services to Queen’s for the next five years, subject to

annual appointment by the Board.

97 - 106 b) Sexual Violence Policy

Moved by M. Wilson Trider, seconded by M. Young, that the Board of Trustees, on the

recommendation of the Audit and Risk Committee, approve the Sexual Violence Policy.

Carried 16-15

M. Wilson Trider explained that the policy was drafted in advance of provincial legislation requiring

its creation and that revisions may be required to comply with the legislation once approved, or its

regulations, which had not yet been released.


Page 9 of 363

Minutes


14. Capital Assets and Finance Committee a) Report - E. Speal

E. Speal reported that the Committee had a full agenda including the items listed below.

107 - 109 b) Approval to sign the Agreement for the Student Life Centre

Moved by E. Speal, seconded by C. Lynch, that the Board of Trustees, on the recommendation

of the Capital Assets and Finance Committee, approve the signing of the Student Life Centre

agreement with the Alma Mater Society and the Society of Graduate and Professional

Students.

Carried 16-16

E. Speal provided a brief overview of the proposed agreement.

110 - 118 c) 2016-17 Tuition Fees

Moved by E. Speal, seconded by C. Lynch, that the Board of Trustees, on the recommendation

of the Capital Assets and Finance Committee, approve effective May 1, 2016, of the domestic,

international and BISC tuition fees for 2016-17, for all programs other than doctoral and

doctoral-stream programs, for which the effective date is September 1, 2016.

Carried 16-17

(Abstentions: D. Allgood, T. Abramsky, D. Bruce, S. Riddell Rose, D. Tisch, I. van Nostrand)

Rector M. Young encouraged the Board and administration to remain mindful of how increasing

tuition fees impacts accessibility for international students.

119 - 121 d) Victoria Hall - Building Envelope Repairs

Moved by E. Speal, seconded by M. Wilson Trider, that the Board of Trustees, on the

recommendation of the Capital Assets and Finance Committee, approve the Victoria Hall

additional building envelope repairs at a cost of $1.6M over and above the previously

approved $4.5M project budget.

Carried 16-18

E. Speal explained that the additional funds will cover additional repairs that were not anticipated

at the outset of the project.

e) Preliminary 2016-17 Operating Budget and Enrolment Plan Overview

E. Speal reminded the Board that the Committee receives an overview of the preliminary operating

budget in March each year in advance of recommending it for Board approval in May. He briefly

spoke to the components of the 2016-17 preliminary operating budget including plans to further

drawdown carryforward funds, increased revenues from tuition fees, limited increases to

government support, and a focus on ensuring more funds are able to remain in the faculties by

containing shared services allocations.

15. External Relations and Development Committee a) Report - D. Tisch

D. Tisch reported that the Committee recently received a report summarizing the results of Queen’s

differentiation market research and reputational audit, is continuing to advise on the development

of metrics for the University’s advancement functions, and is exploring how it will implement the

Board’s recommendation that it set the tone from the top regarding issues of student health and

safety as identified by the Lewis Report.


Page 10 of 363

Minutes


16. Governance and Nominating Committee a) Verbal Report - I. van Nostrand

Moved by I. van Nostrand, seconded by J. Li, that the Board of Trustees, on the

recommendation of the Governance and Nominating Committee, form an ad hoc committee

to review the Board-approved Statement on Responsible Investing and bring forward any

recommendations for revision to the Board by October 2016, with Donald Raymond as chair,

and David Allgood, Kathryn Bush, David Grace, and incoming Rector Cameron Yung as

members.

Carried 16-19

(Abstentions: D. Allgood, D. Grace, D. Raymond)

I. van Nostrand spoke to the Committee’s recent focus on succession planning at the Board level,

including efforts to ensure future Trustees possess the skills required and contribute to the Board’s

diversity profile. He encouraged Trustees to complete the Board effectiveness survey when they

receive an invitation following the meeting and spoke to the reasons for forming the above ad hoc

committee.

17. Investment Committee a) Report - D. Raymond

D. Raymond provided an overview of recent Committee meetings and noted that Queen’s

investments continue to perform very well.

122 - 124 b) Pooled Endowment Fund Spending Policy Recommendation

Moved by D. Raymond, seconded by C. Lynch that the Board of Trustees, on the

recommendation of the Investment Committee, approve the following payout formula for

the Pooled Endowment Fund (PEF) for fiscal 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19:

70% * (prior year payout * (1 + CPI [max 2%])) + 30% *(December 31st unit value

* 4.0%)

The recommended formula includes upper and lower bands at +/- 0.5% of the long-term target

rate of 4.0% to prevent over- and under-spending in extreme market conditions.

Carried 16-20

D. Raymond explained that the Board establishes the PEF payout formula every three years and that

the proposed rate is 4.0%.

18. Pension Committee a) Report - D. Grace

125 - 149 b) Approval of Statement of Investment Policies and Procedures Amendments (SIP&P)

Moved by D. Grace, seconded by D. Raymond, that the Board of Trustees, on the

recommendation of the Pension Committee, approve the Statement of Investment Policies and

Procedures (SIP&P) for The Revised Pension Plan of Queen’s University, as amended

effective January 1, 2016.

Carried 16-21

(Abstentions: D. Bakhurst, G. Denford, S. Tanner, L. Tomalty, I. van Nostrand, D. Woolf)

D. Grace explained that the amended SIP&P will defer to the Board-approved Statement on

Responsible Investing with regard to prohibited investments. He spoke to the rationale for the

changes. In response to a question, D. Grace explained that a third party is contracted to determine

the list of prohibited investments.


Page 11 of 363

Minutes


III IN CAMERA SESSION

1. Trustees with the Principal and Secretary 2. Trustees without the Principal and Secretary

The Board met in camera as indicated above. The recording secretary was excused and no records were

kept of these discussions. No actions were taken in camera.

IV ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 pm.


Page 12 of 363

BOARD OF TRUSTEES Report

To: Board of Trustees Date of Report: Apr 12, 2016

From: Vice-Principal Advancement

Subject: 2015/16 Quarterly Advancement Report, as of March 31, 2016

Responsible Portfolio: Vice-Principal Advancement

Date of Board Meeting: May 6, 2016

1.0 PURPOSE ☐ For Approval ☒ For Information 2.0 RECOMMENDATION/MOTION - This report is for information only. 3.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On April 30, 2016, counting for the 10-year Initiative Campaign officially will come to a close. As of April 12, 2016, the Initiative Campaign total stands at $637 million against the goal of $500 million. Among the most recent contributions, two proud Queen’s parents, Marla and Aubrey Dan, have made a gift of $5 million to the study of Drama and Music at Queen’s. Their commitment to the University was recognized with a live performance from alumni, students, and staff at the Isabel and the announcement of the naming – the Dan School of Drama and Music. Also of utmost importance is our parallel goal of $100 million in future gifts to Queen’s (Gift Planning expectancies) which now stands at $115 million (115%). This total fluctuates over the life of the campaign as gifts are realized (e.g. bequests), then subtracted from the expectancies and added to the main Initiative Campaign total. The focus on innovation and student health and wellness remains a top priority for the University. In support of this priority, a comprehensive redevelopment plan for the former Physical Education Centre at 67 Union Street is in place and progressing well. The Principal and Provost continue to be directly involved in the project – they recently confirmed $7 million for the project and are committed to securing the balance of funds. The Provost secured program funding to support the innovation agenda. He was recently advised by the benefactor they wish to contribute $5 million to this initiative. We expect to finalize this gift prior to the Provost’s departure. As excitement builds for the opening of the revitalized Richardson Stadium this fall, we continue to advance fundraising for the Athletes Pavilion. Over the life of the Initiative Campaign alumni have contributed in key roles and over 35,000 alumni have made financial contributions. 4.0 INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES - None

ITEM: Quarterly Advancement Report

Page 13 of 363

- 2 -

5.0 ANALYSIS

A) Fundraising results May 1, 2015 to March 31, 2016 Table 1: Campaign Update

Faculty/School Campaign Goal Campaign Total % of Goal

Faculty of Arts and Science 70,000,000 84,610,673 121% Faculty of Education 1,500,000 1,294,072 86% Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science 85,000,000 90,115,703 106% Faculty of Health Sciences 50,000,000 59,052,138 118% Faculty of Law 10,000,000 12,005,254 120% Smith School of Business 65,000,000 115,381,008 178% School of Graduate Studies 8,000,000 3,921,051 49% Queen's Fund 12,000,000 11,598,997 97% Athletics and Recreation 32,000,000 27,479,741 86% Campus-wide 141,500,000 200,643,746 142% Campus-wide Student Assistance 20,000,000 21,322,605 107% Library and Archives 5,000,000 5,087,734 102% Total 500,000,000 632,512,722 127%

Table 2: Fiscal Year Update

Faculty/School Fiscal Year Total Faculty of Arts and Science 6,076,852 Faculty of Education 131,514 Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science 9,914,628 Faculty of Health Sciences 7,015,575 Faculty of Law 867,811 Smith School of Business 56,500,866 School of Graduate Studies 387,334 Queen's Fund 960,475 Athletics and Recreation 960,366 Campus-wide 63,238,320 Campus-wide Student Assistance 1,028,863 Library and Archives 1,066,837 Total 148,149,441


Page 14 of 363

- 3 -

Table 3: Comprehensive Totals by Campaign

Area

Monthly Total

(March) Monthly

Goal Fiscal Total Fiscal Goal Campaign

Total

% Campaign

Goal Annual Giving 423,401 625,000 6,734,853 7,500,000 68,690,974 14% Major Giving 7,798,096 3,850,000 134,431,686 46,200,000 468,834,109 94% Gift Planning 5,102 416,667 6,304,310 5,000,000 68,308,341 14% Partnership 20,825 108,333 678,592 1,300,000 26,679,298 5% Total 8,247,424 5,000,000 148,149,441 60,000,000 632,512,722 127% Table 4: Gifts and Commitments over $100K

Areas of Support Amount Month Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science

Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science Dean’s Excellence Fund

590,000 May 2015

Faculty of Law Student Assistance – Awards 150,000 Smith School of Business

Student Assistance – Awards & Scholarships 500,000 June 2015

Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science

Student Assistance – Bursaries 250,000

Campus Wide Agnes Etherington Art Centre Fund 249,060 Faculty of Arts and Science

Queen’s Conservatory of Music Fund 150,000

Library and Archives Library Friends 120,000 Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science

Student Assistance – Entrance Awards 106,836

Campus Wide Human Mobility Research Centre Fund 100,000 Faculty of Health Sciences

NCIC (Clinical Trials) 100,000

Campus Wide Planned Giving Unrestricted Fund 300,000 July 2015 Campus Wide Planned Giving Unrestricted Fund 218,626 Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science

Endowment in Chemical Engineering 190,000

Campus Wide Agnes Etherington Art Centre Fund 169,507 Campus Wide Agnes Etherington Art Centre Fund 165,620 Faculty of Education Education Outreach Centre 100,000 Faculty of Health Sciences

Graduate Fellowship in Biochemistry 525,001 August 2015


Equipment Fund in Chemical Engineering 325,025

Faculty of Arts and Science

Student Assistance – Scholarships 280,000

Smith School of Business

• Faculty – Recruit & Retain • Student Assistance – Scholarships

50,000,000 September 2015


Page 15 of 363

- 4 -


• Centre for Responsible Leadership – Program Development Fund

• Centre for Responsible Leadership – Thought Leadership Fund

500,000



Faculty of Health Sciences

Palliative Care Research 2,500,000 October 2015

Campus Wide Agnes Etherington Art Centre General Acquisitions Fund

1,004,550


Endowed Fund – Department of Physics 700,000

School of Graduate Studies

Doctoral Fellowship in Canadian Freshwater Resources Policy

250,000


Student Assistance - Awards 100,000

Campus Wide Public Service Internship Awards 100,000 Faculty of Arts and Science

Student Assistance – Scholarships 1,241,760 November 2015


Student Assistance – Awards 1,004,913


Queen’s Innovation Commons 1,000,000


Endowment Fund in support of Chemical Engineering

190,000


Fellowship in Obstetrics and Gynecology 150,000


Fellowship in Obstetrics and Gynecology 149,990


Research Award in support of CPCSS (pan-Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network)

105,000


Smith School of Business 100,000

Campus Wide Agnes Etherington Art Centre General Acquisitions Fund – Rembrandt painting

>25,000,000 December 2015


Funding towards a Chair in Geography 2,000,000


Centre for Customer Analytics 1,500,000

Campus Wide Awards for Excellence in Secondary School Teaching

500,000

Library and Archives Rare Book Collection Fund 500,000 Faculty of Health Sciences

Fellowship in Orthopedic Surgery 500,000


• Queen’s Innovation Connector Fund • Student Assistance – Summer

Studentship

250,000

Campus Wide Student Assistance



Page 16 of 363

- 5 -

Campus Wide Student Assistance



Sponsorship Fund in support of Health Sciences Conference

100,000


Campus Wide

• Student Assistance – Awards (500,000)

• Planned Giving Unrestricted Fund (500,000)

1,000,000 January 2016

Campus Wide The George Richardson Memorial Stadium Fund

300,000


• Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science Dean’s Excellence Fund

• Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science

• Experiential Learning Fund • Oil & Gas Speakers Series Fund • Fall Sedimentary Field Trips Fund • Surface Mining Experience Fund • TEAM Program Fund

300,000



Campus Wide The Isabel Bader Centre for the Performing Arts Concert Series Fund

152,240


Fellowship in Orthopaedic Surgery 500,000 February 2016

Library and Archives Rare Book Collection Fund 284,865 Faculty of Health Sciences

Fund in Ophthalmology 171,312


Service-Learning Fund 100,000


The Queen’s Innovation Commons 5,000,000 March 2016

Campus Wide Student Wellness Centre 2,000,000 Faculty of Health Sciences

Gastrointestinal Infection Research Trust Fund 250,000


Military and Veteran’s Health Sponsorship Fund

166,666


Fellowship in Obstetrics and Gynaecology 150,000

Campus Wide Endowment Fund in support of Institute of Intergovernmental Relations

100,000

Total 136,837,173

B) Engaging stakeholders May 1, 2015 to March 31, 2016 Alumni Engagement highlights The number of engaged alumni stakeholders (defined as those who participate in or volunteer with Alumni Relations programs) this year is 5,519, representing 98.5% of the annual target of 5,600. 17% of the 5,519 have been engaged more than once in 2015-16 (a behaviour which correlates strongly with giving). Non-philanthropic net revenue (affinity partners, alumni educational travel, alumni merchandise) so far this year is $1,567,600, or 111% of the fiscal year target of $1,410,500.


Page 17 of 363

- 6 -

As of March 31, 2016, 806 new alumni donors have been acquired, representing 115% of the goal of 696. In addition, 2,429 alumni donors were “reactivated” i.e. have rejoined the donor community this year after lapsing in their giving. This represents 112% of the goal of 2,170. The number of alumni donors overall is 6,412 representing 91.5% towards the fiscal year-end goal of 7,005. As of March 31, overall Annual Giving to Queen’s has reached $6,729,853 against a target of $6.5 million, representing 104% of the goal. $4,621,547 has been raised from alumni against a target of $4.2 million, representing 110% of the goal. Alumni Volunteer Summit (AVS): A weekend of learning for Queen’s volunteers Hosted by the QUAA, this year’s Alumni Volunteer Summit (AVS) offered a premiere conference-style learning opportunity designed by and for volunteer leaders of the Association. This year's theme of social media, featuring Professor Sidneyeve Matrix from the department of Film and Media, drew volunteer leaders from across Canada and internationally, including Honduras and Germany.

“Grad Bash”: Transitioning from students to alumni On Friday, April 1, the last day of classes, Queen’s Student Alumni Association hosted “Grad Bash”, bringing together in Grant Hall 738 graduating students with leaders of the Alumni Association. A variety of hosted booths introduced students to the benefits of membership in the Association to which they will soon belong. Grads of the Last Decade “GOLD”: leveraging the alumni network for students: Michelle Romanow, Sc’07, MBA,’08, CBC Dragon’s Den panelist and winner of the QUAA’s “One to Watch” Award, spoke to a packed student audience about her experience creating the Tea Room, and how it helped shape her career. QUAA Spring Planning Retreat, a day-long program of presentations, planning, and work sessions; staff and volunteers collaborated on shared projects, e.g. 175 celebrations. At the Annual General Meeting, George Jackson officially stepped down as President; Sue Bates was installed, together with her Board of Directors. Queen’s accomplished students: Agnes Benidickson Tricolour Awards. This is the highest award given by students, to students, for service to Queen’s. The Rector organizes the selection committee. This is the third year that Advancement has helped with the organization of the event, which now precedes the Alumni Awards Gala. Queen’s accomplished graduates: QUAA Gala Awards Dinner The grand finale of the spring alumni weekend; the QUAA recognizes accomplished students and alumni http://www.queensu.ca/alumni/GALA2016. This year’s recipient of the Alumni Achievement Award was Dr. Shirley Tilghman, Artsci’68, DSc’02, former President of Princeton University. Full list of recipients: http://www.queensu.ca/alumni/quaa/gala.html 6.0 STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT / COMPLIANCE The Initiative Campaign supports the highest priority needs of the university as articulated through the Strategic Framework. 7.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The most recent Standard & Poors rating (January 2016) of AA+ drew attention to the strong role of philanthropy in the financial health of Queen’s. The report pointed out the success of the current fundraising campaign in exceeding its C$500 million goal. 8.0 ENTERPRISE RISK ASSESSMENT Advancement efforts to increase donor base and scholarship / award support is recognized as a mitigation for the Undergraduate and Graduate Student Recruitment and Retention Risk and fundraising is identified as a mitigation for the Financial Sustainability Risk. 9.0 COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY - N/A ATTACHMENTS - None


Page 18 of 363

https://www.flickr.com/photos/queens_alumni_photos/albums/72157666115056740

http://www.queensu.ca/alumni/GALA2016

http://www.queensu.ca/alumni/quaa/gala.html


To: Board of Trustees Date of Report:

Apr 14, 2016

From: Vice-Principal University Relations

Date of External Relations and Development Committee Approval:

NA

Subject: University Relations Quarterly Report Date of Board Committee Meeting:

NA

Responsible Portfolio:

Vice-Principal University Relations

Date of Board Meeting:

May 6, 2016

1.0 PURPOSE ☐ For Approval ☒ For Information

2.0 RECOMMENDATION/MOTION This report is for information only.

3.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The University Relations quarterly report includes updates from University Communications, Government and Institutional Relations and University Marketing. It covers the period from Jan. 1 to Feb. 29, 2016. As this reporting period covers only two months, it reflects a lower level of total activity compared to the previous period, Oct. to Dec. 2015, which included significant amounts of activity around both the Nobel Prize win and the Smith School of Business naming. University Communications delivered a number of announcements in January and February, including the appointment of the new provost, the introduction of competency-based medical education in the School of Medicine, and a $4-million grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) to support the green energy research of Professor Gregory Jerkiewicz (Chemistry). Communications continued to manage several significant issues on campus during the reporting period. Government and Institutional Relations submitted both provincial and federal pre-budget submissions outlining our infrastructure asks, and developed an advocacy strategy and a targeted call plan in support of these asks. The Government of Ontario delivered its 2016 budget, which announced transformative changes to the student financial assistance system. Municipally, the university submitted a request for a further extension of its noise bylaw exemption, pending the finalization and approval of changes to the municipal bylaw.

ITEM: Quarterly University Relations Report

Page 19 of 363

- 2 -

University Marketing undertook a number of campaigns as part of its new marketing communications campaign-based approach, which helps ensure closer integration with communications initiatives and greater effectiveness and strategic impact. These included promotion of the new provost announcement, several news items related to the Faculty of Health Sciences, the successes of Indigenous learners, and provincial funding for online learning. Marketing continued to work on a number of priorities, including the re-development of Queen’s international webpages, and initiated several projects related to upcoming Convocation ceremonies. Marketing began a number of projects for the newly-named Canadian Cancer Trials Group (formerly NCIC-CTG), based on the identity work conducted by University Relations, and is working in partnership with Communications to develop an identity and marketing strategy for Queen’s new, fully online Bachelor of Health Sciences.

4.0 INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES Media metrics were obtained through regular media monitoring contracted through Infomart.

5.0 ANALYSIS 5.1 University Communications Communications planning University Communications delivered a number of announcements in January and February, including the appointment of Benoit-Antoine Bacon as the incoming provost and the introduction of competency-based medical education in the School of Medicine. Other significant stories included: the increase in Queen's first-year applications; and an announcement of a $4-million grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) to support the green energy research of Professor Gregory Jerkiewicz (Chemistry). In addition, Communications continued its work on a number of strategic files – including innovation and entrepreneurship, infrastructure renewal and internationalization – and continued to manage several significant issues on campus during the reporting period. Stories that may be of interest include the relocation of the SparQ Studios makerspace to Carruthers Hall, an overview of plans for the PEC revitalization, and an interview with the new director of the Queen’s University International Centre. Media Monitoring Queen’s media relations program has two areas of focus: to gain media placement for our faculty members commenting on their research or as experts on newsworthy events, and to manage media coverage of Queen’s as an institution. During the reporting period, Queen’s garnered 1,567 hits and 124 million impressions in traditional media, and 2,431 mentions and more than 5 million impressions on social media. Unfortunately, due to a change in reporting periods effective for 2016, a year-over-year comparison is not available for this reporting period. Top institutional mentions for Queen’s on both traditional and social media included various awards and grants given to the university and its faculty, including the $4-million NSERC grant to Professor Gregory Jerkiewicz, as well as events and conferences taking place at the university. Top academic mentions included Professor Heather Stuart’s work on mental health and anti-stigma research, which was heavily shared on social media around Bell Let’s Talk Day (Jan. 27, 2016).


Page 20 of 363

http://www.queensu.ca/gazette/stories/benoit-antoine-bacon-appointed-provost

http://www.queensu.ca/gazette/stories/new-model-medical-education

http://www.queensu.ca/gazette/stories/queens-sees-rise-applications

http://www.queensu.ca/gazette/stories/queen-s-university-researcher-leads-green-energy-project

http://www.queensu.ca/gazette/stories/sparq-innovation

http://www.queensu.ca/gazette/stories/breathing-new-life-pec

http://www.queensu.ca/gazette/stories/new-quic-director-comes-full-circle

http://www.queensu.ca/gazette/stories/new-quic-director-comes-full-circle

- 3 -

5.2 Government and Institutional Relations (GIR)

The most significant event during the reporting period was the release of the Government of

Ontario’s 2016 budget, which included an announcement of transformative changes to the student

financial assistance system. These changes include:

A fundamental restructuring of all of the province’s student grants into the new Ontario

Student Grant (effective in 2017-18)

Cessation of Ontario tuition tax credits and the re-allocation of those expenditures to direct

aid to students (effective September 2017)

A re-alignment of government policy and communications towards the concept of net tuition

billing (effective 2018-19), which will see students pay only the portion of tuition not offset

by government financial aid.

Over the past few months, GIR has worked to bring coherence to Queen’s capital asks and has

developed an advocacy strategy and a targeted call plan in support of these asks. This strategy

continued to roll out over January and February, including meetings with senior government

officials and the principal, provost and vice-principal (University Relations).

GIR submitted both provincial and federal pre-budget submissions outlining our infrastructure asks.

While we did not receive direct funding from the province in this budget, participating in the pre-

budget consultation process demonstrates that we take the budget processes seriously and are

active participants in government processes. Queen’s budget submission is also used to support

our in-person lobby efforts as we execute the infrastructure call plan.

A number of announcements occurred over the reporting period, including a $1.5-million boost for

online learning from the Government of Ontario’s shared online course funding program. At the

federal level, Queen’s welcomed the Honourable Kirsty Duncan, Minister of Science, Mario Pinto,

President of NSERC, and local Member of Parliament Mark Gerretsen to campus in January for a

lab tour and announcement of a $4-million grant from NSERC. On Feb. 9, Queen’s was awarded

three new tier two Canada Research Chairs, while three existing Canada Research Chairs were

renewed.

Municipally, the university submitted a request for a further extension of its noise bylaw exemption

for the West Campus fields and Richardson Stadium, pending the finalization and approval of

changes to the municipal bylaw. 5.3 University Marketing Marketing initiated 82 projects with 37 campus partners in January and February, while continuing its work on a number of priorities. This included the re-development of Queen’s international webpages, which provide a hub for target audiences to access information on Queen’s international activities, following a series of focus groups in the fall term. Marketing also initiated a number of projects related to upcoming Convocation ceremonies, began execution on a number of projects for the newly-named Canadian Cancer Trials Group (formerly NCIC-CTG) based on the identity work conducted by University Relations, and, in partnership with Communications, is undertaking an identity and marketing strategy for Queen’s new, fully online Bachelor of Health Sciences.


Page 21 of 363

http://www.queensu.ca/gazette/stories/boost-online-learning

http://www.queensu.ca/gazette/stories/boost-online-learning

http://www.queensu.ca/gazette/stories/queen-s-university-researcher-leads-green-energy-project

http://www.queensu.ca/gazette/stories/supporting-cutting-edge-research

- 4 -

University Marketing undertook a number of integrated marketing communications campaigns as part of its new marketing campaign-based approach, which helps ensure closer integration with communications initiatives and greater effectiveness and strategic impact. Among the campaigns in January and February were:

The announcement of the incoming provost, which included paid social media as well as print advertising in the Globe and Mail, The Hill Times and University Affairs

A campaign around a series of important news items related to the Faculty of Health Sciences, which drove attention to the School of Medicine’s announcement that it is adopting competency-based medical education, a new name for the Canadian Cancer Trials Group, and Bell Let’s Talk Day

Success stories of Indigenous learners at Queen’s as part of Future Further, an initiative of the Council of Ontario Universities

The announcement of $1.5 million from the provincial government to support online learning at Queen’s

The paid social media aspect of these campaigns generated good reach and engagement rates, helping to drive readers back to Gazette stories or other Queen’s pages that deliver strategic messaging.

6.0 STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT / COMPLIANCE University Relations collaborates with campus-wide stakeholders to support the advancement of the Strategic Framework and other foundational planning documents.

7.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications.

8.0 ENTERPRISE RISK ASSESSMENT University Relations monitors potential and current issues and develops mitigation strategies for each.

9.0 COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY More detailed reporting is provided through the External Relations and Development Committee.

ATTACHMENTS None


Page 22 of 363


To: Board of Trustees & Capital Assets and Finance Committee Date of Report: Apr 13, 2016

From: Vice-Principal Finance and Administration

Date of Approval:

NA

Subject: Financial Update to the Board of Trustees Date of Board Committee Meeting: May 6, 2016

Responsible Portfolio: Vice-Principal Finance and Administration


1.0 PURPOSE ☐ For Approval ☒ For Information 2.0 RECOMMENDATION/MOTION This report is for information only. 3.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The May 2016 Financial Update is posted for review. The operating fund results to date project a $13.5 million positive variance to budget, which eliminates the need to draw on reserves (carry-forward balances) to balance the budget. Consistent with the March 2016 Financial Update, the primary reasons for the positive variance are higher than planned undergraduate enrolment, salary savings within several faculties, projected savings on utilities, and lower than budgeted expenditures on student aid. Enrolment variances are driven primarily by improvements in upper year retention rates in the Faculty of Arts and Science and the Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science along with higher than planned international enrolment. The additional revenues and savings has resulted in a planned increase in reserves at the end of the year. Since the report of March 2016, a significant change to the projections relates to investment income, which is now showing an unfavourable variance of $3.6 million, as opposed to a small positive variance. This is due to the failure of the Pooled Investment Fund (PIF) to rebound over the last few months. In fiscal 2014-15, the PIF experienced a significant gain that was unbudgeted, creating a

ITEM: Quarterly Financial Report

Page 23 of 363

http://www.queensu.ca/financialservices/sites/webpublish.queensu.ca.finwww/files/files/reports/FinancialReports/May%202016-Financial%20Update%20to%20the%20Board(1).pdf

- 2 -

reserve for university priorities or to mitigate against future PIF losses. This reserve will be used to offset any additional PIF investment income variances to the end of the fiscal year. Ancillary operations are projecting a negative variance to budget of less than $1 million primarily as a result of Residence operations. Residences is operating within a projected surplus, but it is less than originally anticipated mostly due to the cost of dining improvements and escalating food costs. 4.0 INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES

Budget and Planning: Information is collected from business units to prepare the operating budget and ancillary projections.

Office of the AVP Finance: Financial Services, Investment Services, Pension Services Physical Plant Services

5.0 ANALYSIS Operating Budget The operating budget projections for fiscal 2015-16 reflect a balanced budget with a projected contribution to reserves (carry-forwards). The $13.5 million favorable variance is primarily due to increased revenue associated with undergraduate enrolment, which flows to Faculties and Schools in the budget model, salary savings within faculties, projected savings on utilities, and lower than budgeted expenditures on student aid. The positive variance on student aid is due to a favourable adjustment to the Student Access Guarantee, lower than budgeted levels of need based and excellence awards, and a lower amount of Queen’s Graduate Awards disbursed as enrolment targets were not met. Operating revenues are projected to be $2.6 million higher than budget. This is lower than the March 2016 projection due to the failure of the Pooled Investment Fund (PIF) to rebound in the last few months, resulting in an unfavourable investment income budget variance of $3.6 million. The primary reason for the overall positive variance in total revenues is higher than planned undergraduate enrolment, which accounts for increased fee and grant revenue of $7.5 million. Increased revenues due to higher undergraduate enrolment are partially offset by a decrease in non-credit tuition revenue in the Smith School of Business and lower than planned eligible domestic graduate enrolments, which impacts grant revenue. In fiscal 2014-15, the PIF experienced a significant gain that was unbudgeted, creating a reserve for university priorities or to mitigate against future PIF losses. This reserve will be used to offset any additional PIF investment income variances to the end of the fiscal year. Additional details on the Operating Budget are available in Section I of the Financial Update. Ancillary Operations and Consolidated Entities Section II of the update provides projections against budget for the following ancillary operations: Residences, Event Services, Community Housing, Parking (Queen’s and the KGH joint venture), the Computer Store, the Donald Gordon Centre and the Creative Design unit.


Page 24 of 363

- 3 -

Ancillary operations are projecting a negative variance to budget of $0.8 million, primarily as a result of Residence operations. Residences is projecting a surplus, which is less than originally budgeted due to additional service offerings in dining, escalating food costs, and the reduction of revenue due to restoration of common rooms, which were confirmed after the budget was submitted. Other ancillary operations have variances less than $200 thousand. Section II also provides projections for PARTEQ and the Queen’s Centre for Enterprise Development (QCED), which in total are projecting a favorable variance from budget of $329 thousand. Pension Currently, government regulations require the university to fund both going concern and solvency deficits. Effective September 1, 2015 these going concern payments are $20.7 million annually. The actuarial valuation of the pension plan completed as of August 31, 2014 reported a solvency deficit of $385 million, funding of which will commence in September 2018 if a solution cannot be found. The university has applied for and received Stage II solvency relief, and opted for an additional 3 year deferral of solvency payments. The university has provided for benefit increases in its budget planning to help establish a reserve for future pension solvency payments or for transition costs into a JSPP. During the round of collective bargaining that was completed in the summer of 2015, the university and all its unions committed to participating in the project to design and build a new jointly sponsored pension plan (JSPP) for Ontario universities. The project is being jointly sponsored by the Council of Ontario Universities (for the employers) and Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (for the employees). If the project is successful the Revised Pension Plan of Queen’s University would be merged with the new JSPP. One condition for success would be agreement from the Government of Ontario that the new JSPP would have a permanent exemption from solvency payments. If it is not successful, Queen’s and its unions are committed to exploring merging with another JSPP that does have solvency exemption, and failing that, to discussing and negotiating such changes as may be needed to support the financial sustainability of the pension plan. Capital The higher deferred maintenance budget allocation in the current year, along with an increase in the MTCU grant provide for $8 million to address prioritized projects as part of a detailed five-year deferred maintenance plan. Investments, Debt and Liquidity The market value of the Pooled Endowment Fund at February 29, 2016 was $899 million, close to the value at the end of the prior fiscal year given recent market volatility. The University recently completed a review of its spending policy, and a three-year adjustment to the PEF payout for 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 that implements a long-term payout target of 4.0% was approved by the Board in March 2016. The PEF will contribute $32.8 million to fund student assistance, academic Chairs, and other operations this fiscal year.


Page 25 of 363

- 4 -

The University is within the established parameters of the ratios in the Board approved debt management policy. Investment Services and Financial Services have developed and are now refining a cash management forecasting model to better track the University’s cash inflows and outflows, and two-year projections are included in the report.

6.0 STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT / COMPLIANCE A key responsibility of the Capital Assets and Finance Committee and the Board of Trustees is approval of the operating budget. The quarterly financial update provides information on projections against the approved budget and an opportunity for the Board to ask questions of management. It is an important element of Board fiduciary oversight.

7.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The primary purpose of the Financial Update is to report on financial results of the Operating Fund and ancillary operations. Maintaining a balanced operating budget is critical to Queen’s financial health and its ability to meet objectives. 8.0 ENTERPRISE RISK ASSESSMENT Review of financial progress reports compared to Board approved budgets is an important mitigation factor in addressing a number of the top ten risks in the enterprise risk framework.

9.0 COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY This report will be posted on the Queen’s University website and made available to the public. See http://www.queensu.ca/financialservices/publications for all reports. ATTACHMENTS N/A


Page 26 of 363

http://www.queensu.ca/financialservices/publications

Financial Update

Report to the Board of Trustees

May 6, 2016


Page 27 of 363

Financial Update Page 1 May 2016

I: 2015-16 Operating Budget Update

The table below shows projected variances from the approved 2015-16 operating budget.

Note 1: The projection includes no investment income from the PIF against a budget of $4.2M. As the fiscal year end approaches,

a nil projection was deemed appropriate as the PIF has experienced a year of significant fluctuations. If the PIF does result in a

loss, the drawdown will be funded from unbudgeted PIF gains in 2014-15.

Approved Projected

Budget Actuals

2015-16 2015-16 Variance

REVENUE

Student Fees 271.7$ 276.1$ 4.4$

Government Grants 204.5$ 206.0$ 1.5$

Unrestricted Donations 1.3$ 2.3$ 1.0$

Other Income 7.5$ 7.6$ 0.1$

Research Overhead 4.0$ 3.2$ (0.8)$

Investment Income (Note 1) 12.5$ 8.9$ (3.6)$

Total Operating Revenue 501.5$ 504.1$ 2.6$

EXPENSE

Faculties and Schools Allocations 295.7$ 298.4$ 2.7$

Shared Services Allocations* 174.8$ 172.3$ (2.5)$

Infrastructure Renewal 4.4$ 4.4$ -$

Board Priorities & Compliance 1.0$ 1.0$ -$

Contingency 1.8$ 1.8$ -$

Total Allocations 477.7$ 477.9$ 0.2$

Flow Through Expenses, net of recoveries 10.4$ 12.6$ 2.2$

Indirect Costs of Research to External Entities 1.4$ 1.4$ -$

Total Operating Expenditures 489.5$ 491.9$ 2.4$

Net Surplus before Capital Expenditures 12.0$ 12.2$ 0.2$

Transfer to Capital Budget 12.3$ 12.3$ -$

Unit Expenses greater/(less) than Budget Allocation 11.4$ (1.9)$ (13.3)$

Net Budget Surplus (Deficit) (11.7)$ 1.8$ 13.5$

Draw down/(Contribution) Cash Reserves 0.3$ 0.1$ (0.2)$

Draw down/(Contribution) of Unit Carryforward balances 11.4$ (1.9)$ (13.3)$

Net Surplus (Deficit) -$ -$ -$

*Includes Undergraduate & Graduate Student Aid and Utilities

Queen's University 2015-16 Operating Budget (000,000's)


Page 28 of 363


The following table shows the detailed breakdown of the Shared Service Allocations and projections shown above:

Approved Projected

Budget Actuals Variance

2015-16 2015-16

Shared Services

Principal's Office 1.4$ 1.4$ -$

Secretariat 1.3$ 1.3$ -$

Communications 3.3$ 3.3$ -$

Vice-Principal (Research) 6.0$ 6.0$ -$

Vice-Principal (Advancement) 11.6$ 11.6$ -$

Vice-Principal (Finance & Admin ) 7.1$ 7.1$ -$

Provost & Vice-Principal (Academic) 3.8$ 3.8$ -$

Student Affairs 8.9$ 8.9$ -$

Library(operations & acquisitions) 26.4$ 26.0$ (0.4)$

Occupancy Costs (net of Shared Service Space Costs) 31.0$ 28.2$ (2.8)$

Environmental Health & Safety 1.5$ 1.6$ 0.1$

ITS 16.1$ 16.1$ -$

Human Resources 5.7$ 5.8$ 0.1$

Graduate Studies 1.8$ 1.8$ -$

University Wide Benefits & Pension Benefit Guarantee Fund 8.2$ 8.6$ 0.4$

Need Based & UG Merit Student Assistance 17.5$ 17.5$ -$

Graduate Students Assistance 13.4$ 13.4$ -$

University Wide 9.2$ 9.3$ 0.1$

Faculty Bridge Programs (QNS, QRC, FRP) 0.6$ 0.6$ -$

Total Shared Services 174.8$ 172.3$ (2.5)$


2015-16 Shared Services Budget Allocations (000,000's)

* The Occupancy Costs include $4.21M of deferred maintenance.

*


Page 29 of 363


The following table shows the Capital Allocations from the Operating Budget.

The Ministry announced in October 2015 an additional investment in the Facilities Renewal Program for the post-secondary sector, Queen’s portion of this is $1.64M. The entire Facilities Renewal Program funding will continue to be allocated to deferred maintenance within the capital budget.

Budget Projection

2015-16 2015-16

Grant Revenue

MTCU Facilities Renewal Fund 1,085,500$ 1,641,200$

MTCU Graduate Capital 1,700,000$ 1,700,000$

Total Revenue 2,785,500$ 3,341,200$

Capital Projects Financing

School of Kinesiology & Queen's Centre 6,900,000$ 6,900,000$

QUASR 3,000,000$ 3,000,000$

BISC 250,000$ 250,000$

Biosciences Complex 222,500$ 222,500$

Chernoff Hall 900,000$ 900,000$

Electrical Substation 900,000$ 900,000$

CoGeneration Facility 1,064,000$ 1,064,000$

Tools for Research Administration at Queen's (TRAQ) 640,000$ 640,000$

Boiler #8 166,526$ 166,526$

Deferred Maintenance

MTCU Facilities Renewal Fund 1,085,500$ 1,641,200$

Total Expenses 15,128,526$ 15,684,226$

Budget Surplus (Deficit) (12,343,026)$ (12,343,026)$

Transfer from Operating Budget 12,343,026$ 12,343,026$

Net Budget Surplus (Deficit) -$ -$

Queen's University 2015-16 Capital Budget Allocations from Operating


Page 30 of 363


Budget Analysis Since the report of March 2016, the most significant change to the projections relates to investment income, which is now showing an unfavourable variance of $3.6M, as opposed to a small positive variance. This is due to the failure of the PIF to rebound over the remaining months of the fiscal year, but the reserve that was created in 2014-15 from unbudgeted PIF gains will be used to offset this drop in income so that the budget remains balanced. The projected variances relative to the approved budget are explained below.

Enrolment Enrolment data shows that we are above target against our overall enrolment projections at the undergraduate level. At the graduate level, overall headcount is on budget, but the mix between eligible domestic and ineligible domestic has shifted resulting in a much higher proportion of ineligible domestic graduate students than was budgeted. Domestic ineligible students are those that are no longer eligible for grant funding, which resulted in lower graduate grant funding. Overall student fees are showing a positive variance of $4.4M, with undergraduate tuition revenue being the most significant contributor, with a positive variance of $6.3M. Most of this is a result of higher than projected retention rates in the Faculty of Arts and Science and the Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science. International enrolment is also above budget in both the Faculty of Arts and Science and the Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, further contributing to the variance. In addition, other student fees, mostly comprised of late fees, increased by approximately $0.8M. These positive variances were offset by a negative variance in graduate student tuition of $0.7M and a decrease in non-credit tuition of $2.0M, the latter due to lower enrolment in the Queen’s Executive Development Centre programs in the Smith School of Business, offset to a limited degree by increases in Continuing Teacher Education and the School of English in the Faculty of Education. Overall government grants are showing a positive variance of $1.5M. The undergraduate accessibility grant is projecting higher than budgeted because of the higher undergraduate enrolment ($1.2M). This is offset by a lower than budgeted graduate accessibility grant (-$1.9M) as the number of domestic eligible students has decreased relative to budget. The Performance fund increased by $0.2M and the targeted program grant funding increased by $2.0M. The targeted program grant funding increases are related to the Special Accessibility grant funding, the Regional Assessment and Resource Centre (RARC) funding, which was unbudgeted because of uncertainty about its continuation, and the municipal tax grant increase resulting from the increases in overall enrolment. In addition, there were slight increases, relative to budget, to the targeted grants within the Faculty of Health Sciences and the Faculty of Education. Unrestricted Donations Donation revenue is difficult to forecast, but based on donations received to date, Advancement is projecting that unrestricted donation revenues will be $2.3M, which is an increase over budget of $1M.


Page 31 of 363


Other Income Other income has a positive variance of $100K arising from a slight increase in flow-through revenues in the Division of Student Affairs; an increase in health fees and athletic fee revenue is being offset by lower than budgeted enrichment studies revenue. Research Overhead Research Overhead revenues are difficult to project because they are linked to expenditures in research projects, which are somewhat unpredictable, but current projections suggest we are $800K below what was budgeted. Investment Income Investment income is showing a negative variance of $3.6M which relates to a projection of nil income from the Pooled Investment Fund, offset by higher than budgeted returns on short-term investments. The Pooled Investment Fund (PIF) encountered significant fluctuations in fiscal 2015-16, and in recent months the market has showed some signs of rebounding. The returns include both realized and unrealized gains/losses, but it is highly unlikely the PIF will rebound to the budgeted amount of $4.2M. As a result, it was deemed prudent to project no income from the PIF at this point in the fiscal year. In fiscal 2014-15, the PIF experienced a significant gain that was unbudgeted, creating a reserve for university priorities or to mitigate against future PIF losses. This reserve, along with in-year savings, will be used to offset this year’s drop in income below budget. Expenditures Under the new budget model all tuition and grant revenues are attributed directly to the Faculties and Schools, resulting in higher than projected tuition and grant revenues, which have a direct effect on Faculty and School allocations. Research overhead is attributed to Faculties and Schools, so the reduction in revenue from this source will also be attributed to the Faculties and Schools. Shared Services are showing lower than budgeted net expenditures of $2.5M. This is the result of significant savings in utilities which is resulting in a projected net decrease of $2.8M in occupancy costs. The savings in utilities are due to electricity cost savings from the peak demand day program and a proactive shift in the way gas is supplied resulting in reduced transportation costs. The savings are also partially a result of a warmer than normal heating season. The utilities savings are also the major contributor to the reduced library costs of $400K. The size of the Library footprint results in large space costs being assigned to the Library and therefore any savings on utilities or occupancy costs will result in a savings in the Library costs that are attributed to the Faculties. Additional expenses of $0.1M are projected in Human Resources due to savings within the University Employee Assistance Program, which are offsetting additional costs related to supporting the tuition assistance program. There were a higher number of employees accessing the tuition assistance program this year. There is also a projected increase in University Wide Benefits and the Pension Benefit Guarantee Fund of $0.4M relating to increases in benefits for survivors, retirees, and long-term disability employees. Environmental Health & Safety costs are expected to be over budget by $0.1M


Page 32 of 363


due to increased cost for medical waste. In addition, there is a projected increase in University-wide expenses of $0.1M due to an increase in university membership fees. Flow-through expenses net of recoveries are higher than was originally budgeted. The majority of this variance relates to an unbudgeted targeted grant (RARC; see above) and an increase to the Special Accessibility grant. Both flow directly to the Division of Student Affairs. The RARC grant could not be confirmed prior to finalizing the budget for 2015-16, and it was assumed that it would not be realized, but the grant has now been received. Operating Budget Surplus (or Deficit) Current projections continue to show a balanced budget. The budget approved by the Board reflects the in-year revenue and expenses or budget allocations. Many units planned total expenditures to be higher than their budget allocation, with the additional expenditures being funded by prior-year reserves (carry-forward balances). The approved budget projected reserves being drawn down by $11.4M, but current projections indicate an estimated surplus of $1.9M. Part of the swing results from a net increase to the faculty and school allocations because of enrolment growth (primarily at the undergraduate level, both domestic and international). There have also been turnover salary savings within several faculties, primarily within the Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science and the Faculty of Arts and Science. The total impact of increased allocations and other savings within Faculties and Schools is a positive variance of $10.5M. There are also combined projected savings of approximately $2.5M in undergraduate financial aid and graduate student support. These savings are due to a favourable adjustment to the Student Access Guarantee by the MTCU, a lower than budgeted level of need-based and excellence awards required compared to historical trends, and a lower amount of Queen’s Graduate Awards disbursed as enrolment targets were not met. The remaining positive variance of $0.3M is spread across the shared services. The net result of all variances is a small drawdown of central cash reserves and a positive variance from budget of $200K; the original projection was that cash reserves would be drawn down by $300K.


Page 33 of 363


II: Ancillary Operations and Consolidated Entities Overall the projected deficit for the Ancillary Operations and Consolidated Entities has increased to a $3.3M loss compared with the budgeted deficit of approximately $2.8M. The significant individual variances are outlined below. Residence is now projecting a $587K surplus against the budgeted surplus of $1.9M. A decrease in revenue occurred as a result of the restoration of common rooms that were previously fee-generating residence rooms. This restoration was still under review by the Senate Residence Committee when the budget was finalized. The budget also omitted costs for plate dining improvements (i.e. additional service offerings) and some related management fees which have created a variance in externally contracted services. Externally contracted service costs escalated unexpectedly due to rising food costs. Savings in salaries due to new job classifications, as well as overhead expenses which are directly related to the decrease in revenue, will partially offset the increases in the externally contracted services. Some savings have been found in utilities due to seasonal fluctuations and in supplies and miscellaneous due to cost containment initiatives. In addition, $685K of unspent funds in repairs and alterations have been redistributed to deferred maintenance. Event Services is now projecting a $272K deficit which is $178K greater than budgeted. Unplanned construction disruptions in the summer resulted in additional labour costs to move, take down and set up guest rooms. Externally contracted service costs have also escalated due to increased food costs. Community housing is projecting a deficit that is a $62K improvement on budget. An increase in revenue has resulted from better than excepted occupancy rates and above planned listing service revenue. There are substantial property tax saving at An Clachan and the John Orr window project costs came in slightly under budget. The resulting savings from the John Orr window project will be contributed to the capital reserve. Offsetting these savings are an increase in utilities, and options for future cost containment are being explored both at the building sites and with the City of Kingston. The Computer Store is projecting a surplus of $16K, which is an improvement of $126K over budget. Most of this relates to a very conservative revenue budget being submitted in response to plans to close the Computer Store by the end of the fiscal year. There have also been savings in supplies and miscellaneous which is consistent with the decrease in sales, as well as the liquidation of inventory. In the summer of 2015 the Division of Student Affairs assumed operational oversight of the Donald Gordon Centre from the School of Business. They are projecting a deficit of $69K due to one-time severance and slightly higher utility costs. Offsetting these costs are savings in supplies and miscellaneous. In addition, $80K not spent in repairs and alterations was transferred to deferred maintenance. Queen’s Parking is projecting a deficit of approximately $2.0M. This is the result of savings from utilities that are being offset by lower than budgeted revenue. The Stuart Street Underground Parking Garage (which is a joint venture with Kingston General Hospital) is projecting a positive variance to budget of $51K. This is the result of savings in utilities ($21K) paired with a projected increase in revenue over budget ($31K).


Page 34 of 363


PARTEQ is projecting a surplus of $668K, an increase over budget of $568K. The increase in revenue is partially offset by distributions to license holders. The overall result is still a favourable positive projected variance to budget. Queen’s Centre for Enterprise Development (QCED) is projecting a $230K deficit verses the budgeted $9K profit. This is due to the transition year, during which QCED will ramp up work with a new partner. QCED is planning to sign a new partnership agreement resulting in renewed revenues beginning in May 2016. This agreement would see a return to a profitable position by 2018-19. The following tables provide budget and projection details for the Ancillary Operations as well as for the Consolidated Entities.

Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual Variance

Surplus

(deficit)

Surplus

(deficit)

Surplus

(deficit)

REVENUE 90,801 90,269 (532) 5,625 7,937 2,312 96,426 98,206 1,780

EXPENDITURE

Salaries & Benefits 11,954 11,705 (249) 1,475 1,392 (83) 13,429 13,097 (332)

External Contracts 27,633 29,433 1,800 739 2,284 1,545 28,372 31,717 3,345

Utilities 5,967 6,078 111 - - - 5,967 6,078 111

Repairs & Alter. 4,123 3,340 (783) - - - 4,123 3,340 (783)

Interest & Bank Charges 8,978 8,635 (343) 114 98 (16) 9,092 8,733 (359)

Supplies & Misc. 13,698 12,720 (978) 3,188 3,725 537 16,886 16,445 (441)

Overhead 2,830 2,821 (9) - - - 2,830 2,821 (9)

Total Expenditures 75,183 74,732 (451) 5,516 7,499 1,983 80,699 82,231 1,532

Net Surplus (Deficit) before

Capital and Contributions to

University Operations 15,618 15,537 (81) 109 438 329 15,727 15,975 248

Deferred Maintenance 6,606 7,096 490 - - - 6,606 7,096 490

Debt Servicing - Principal 5,903 6,200 297 - - - 5,903 6,200 297

Contributions to University

Operations 5,995 5,966 (29) - - - 5,995 5,966 (29)

SURPLUS (DEFICIT) (2,886) (3,725) (839) 109 438 329 (2,777) (3,287) (510)

2015-16 ANCILLARY & CONSOLIDATED ENTITIES FINANCIAL REPORT (000's)

TOTAL ANCILLARY TOTAL CONSOLIDATED ENTITIES

TOTAL ANCILLARY & CONSOLIDATED

ENTITIES


Page 35 of 363


Bu

dg

et

Pro

ject

ed

Va

ria

nce

Bu

dg

et

Pro

ject

ed

Va

ria

nce

Bu

dg

et

Pro

ject

ed

Va

ria

nce

Bu

dg

et

Pro

ject

ed

Va

ria

nce

Su

rplu

s

(de

fic

it)

Su

rplu

s

(de

fic

it)

Su

rplu

s

(de

fic

it)

Su

rplu

s

(de

fic

it)

RE

VE

NU

E6

3,6

74

6

3,0

68

(6

06

)

5,7

96

5

,79

6

-

5

,70

7

5

,82

7

1

20

3

,08

1

3

,00

0

(8

1)

EX

PE

ND

ITU

RE

Sa

lari

es

& B

en

efi

ts8

,43

4

7

,92

6

(5

08

)

1,2

60

1

,38

3

12

3

1,3

22

1,2

51

(71

)

2

96

2

82

(1

4)

Ex

tern

al

Co

ntr

ac

ts2

1,3

50

2

3,1

65

1

,81

5

3

,81

9

3,9

49

1

30

1

15

9

4

(21

)

4

21

3

56

(6

5)

Uti

liti

es

4,2

20

4,1

17

(10

3)

1

92

1

50

(4

2)

95

9

1,2

39

28

0

25

4

21

6

(38

)

Re

pa

irs

& A

lte

r.3

,03

5

2

,34

5

(6

90

)

43

25

(18

)

7

64

7

99

3

5

61

3

1

(30

)

Inte

res

t &

Ba

nk

Ch

arg

es

5,6

27

5,2

57

(37

0)

6

1

9

1

3

6

0

58

(2

)

2,5

17

2,5

17

-

Su

pp

lie

s &

Mis

c.

4,4

40

4,1

25

(31

5)

1

45

1

17

(2

8)

1,4

67

1,0

43

(42

4)

8

7

12

0

33

Ov

erh

ea

d2

,20

9

2

,14

7

(6

2)

93

93

-

2

85

2

91

6

11

4

15

0

36

To

tal

Ex

pe

nd

itu

res

49

,31

5

49

,08

2

(23

3)

5

,55

8

5,7

36

1

78

4

,97

2

4

,77

5

(1

97

)

3,7

50

3,6

72

(78

)

Ne

t S

urp

lus

(D

efi

cit

) b

efo

re

Ca

pit

al

an

d C

on

trib

uti

on

s t

o

Un

ive

rsit

y O

pe

rati

on

s1

4,3

59

1

3,9

86

(3

73

)

23

8

60

(17

8)

73

5

1,0

52

31

7

(66

9)

(6

72

)

(3)

De

ferr

ed

Ma

inte

na

nc

e2

,91

6

3

,60

1

6

85

-

-

-

3,1

15

3,3

65

25

0

52

5

52

5

-

De

bt

Se

rvic

ing

- P

rin

cip

al

4,6

70

4,9

63

29

3

-

-

-

5

3

57

4

80

2

80

2

-

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

ns

to

Un

ive

rsit

y

Op

era

tio

ns

4,8

50

4,8

35

(15

)

3

32

3

32

-

62

8

62

9

1

-

-

-

SU

RP

LU

S (

DE

FIC

IT)

1,9

23

58

7

(1,3

36

)

(94

)

(2

72

)

(1

78

)

(3

,06

1)

(2

,99

9)

6

2

(1,9

96

)

(1,9

99

)

(3)

OP

EN

ING

RE

SE

RV

E4

,67

4

4

,67

4

-

75

1

75

1

-

7

,93

9

7

,93

9

-

(6,8

32

)

(6,8

32

)

-

Ad

dit

ion

to

Ma

inte

na

nc

e

Re

se

rve

**

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5

25

5

25

-

SU

RP

LUS

(D

EF

ICIT

) -

PLA

NN

ED

ALL

OC

AT

ION

TO

(F

RO

M)

RE

SE

RV

ES

1,9

23

58

7

(1,3

36

)

(94

)

(2

72

)

(1

78

)

(3

,06

1)

(2

,99

9)

6

2

(1,9

96

)

(1,9

99

)

(3)

CLO

SIN

G R

ES

ER

VE

6,5

97

5,2

61

(1,3

36

)

65

7

47

9

(17

9)

4,8

78

4,9

40

62

(8

,30

3)

(8

,30

6)

(3

)

Re

sid

en

ceE

ve

nt

Se

rvic

es

Co

mm

un

ity

Ho

usi

ng

Pa

rkin

g

20

15

-16

AN

CIL

LA

RY

FIN

AN

CIA

L R

EP

OR

T (

00

0's

)

20

15

-16

AN

CIL

LA

RY

BU

DG

ET

(0

00

's)

RE

SE

RV

ES

* Th

e ac

cum

ulat

ed d

efic

it, c

reat

ed b

y th

e de

bt s

ervi

cing

pay

men

ts,

is p

roje

cted

to

be r

educ

ed t

o ze

ro 7

yea

rs a

fter

the

debt

ser

vici

ng p

aym

ents

are

com

plet

ed.

The

debt

ser

vici

ng

paym

ents

hav

e 26

yea

rs le

ft on

the

am

ortiz

atio

n sc

hedu

le.

Ther

e is

an

annu

al r

eser

ve s

et a

side

for

defe

rred

mai

nten

ance

of t

he s

urfa

ce lo

ts a

nd u

nder

grou

nd g

arag

es,

the

curr

ent

bala

nce

of t

hat

rese

rve

is $

5.6M

.**

A p

ortio

n of

the

res

erve

s w

ill b

e se

t as

ide

for

defe

rred

mai

nten

ance

and

will

be

tran

sfer

red

into

the

cap

ital f

und

as p

art

of t

he 2

015-

16 y

ear-

end.

**


Page 36 of 363


Note: The Bader International Study Centre is a consolidated entity but under the New Budget model its academic operations are now included as a faculty in the operating budget.

Bu

dge

tP

roje

cte

dV

aria

nce

Bu

dge

tP

roje

cte

dV

aria

nce

Bu

dge

tP

roje

cte

dV

aria

nce

Bu

dge

tP

roje

cte

dV

aria

nce

Surp

lus

(def

icit

)

Surp

lus

(def

icit

)

Surp

lus

(def

icit

)

Surp

lus

(def

icit

)

REV

ENU

E2

20

2

49

2

9

6,9

00

6

,75

6

(14

4)

4

,35

8

4,4

78

1

20

1,0

65

1,0

95

30

EXP

END

ITU

RE

Sala

ries

& B

enef

its

-

-

-

56

5

4

99

(66

)

-

28

9

2

89

77

7

5

(2)

Exte

rna

l C

on

tra

cts

17

1

6

(1)

-

-

-

1

,86

5

1,8

07

(5

8)

46

4

6

-

Uti

liti

es-

-

-

-

-

-

28

5

3

20

35

5

7

36

(2

1)

Rep

air

s &

Alt

er.

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

80

99

(8

1)

40

4

1

1

Inte

rest

& B

an

k C

ha

rges

-

-

-

-

-

-

5

76

59

2

1

6

19

2

19

2

-

Sup

pli

es &

Mis

c.1

0

55

4

5

6,4

00

6

,18

5

(21

5)

1

,11

2

1,0

37

(7

5)

37

3

8

1

Ove

rhea

d8

8

-

4

5

56

1

1

76

7

6

-

-

-

-

Tota

l Ex

pen

dit

ure

s3

5

79

4

4

7,0

10

6

,74

0

(27

0)

4

,09

4

4,2

20

1

26

44

9

42

8

(21

)

Net

Su

rplu

s (D

efic

it)

bef

ore

Ca

pit

al

an

d C

on

trib

uti

on

s to

Un

iver

sity

Op

era

tio

ns

18

5

17

0

(15

)

(11

0)

1

6

12

6

2

64

25

8

(6

)

61

6

66

7

51

Def

erre

d M

ain

ten

an

ce-

-

-

-

-

-

-

8

0

80

5

0

50

-

Deb

t Se

rvic

ing

- P

rin

cip

al

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

47

24

7

-

13

1

13

1

-

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

ns

to U

niv

ersi

ty

Op

era

tio

ns

18

5

17

0

(15

)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

SUR

PLU

S (D

EFIC

IT)

-

-

-

(11

0)

1

6

12

6

1

7

(69

)

(8

6)

43

5

48

6

51

-

OP

ENIN

G R

ESER

VE

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Ad

dit

ion

to

Ma

inte

na

nce

Res

erve

**-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

SUR

PLU

S (D

EFIC

IT)

- P

LAN

NED

ALL

OC

ATI

ON

TO

(FR

OM

)

RES

ERV

ES-

-

-

(1

10

)

16

1

26

17

(6

9)

(86

)

4

35

4

86

5

1

CLO

SIN

G R

ESER

VE

-

-

-

(11

0)

1

6

12

6

1

7

(69

)

(8

6)

43

5

48

6

51

20

15

-16

AN

CIL

LAR

Y F

INA

NC

IAL

REP

OR

T (0

00

's)

Co

mp

ute

r St

ore

Do

nal

d G

ord

on

Ce

ntr

eSt

uar

t St

. Un

de

rgro

un

d P

arki

ng*

Cre

ativ

e D

esi

gn

20

15

-16

AN

CIL

LAR

Y B

UD

GET

(0

00

's)

RES

ERV

ES

* Thi

s is

own

ed a

nd o

pera

ted

with

KG

H an

d th

is re

pres

ents

a 5

0% s

hare

.**

A po

rtion

of t

he re

serve

s wi

ll be

set

asi

de fo

r def

erre

d m

aint

enan

ce a

nd w

ill be

tran

sfer

red

into

the

capi

tal f

und

as p

art o

f the

201

5-16

yea

r-end

.


Page 37 of 363


Budget Projected Variance Budget Projected Variance

Surplus

(deficit)

Surplus

(deficit)

REVENUE 5,180 7,914 2,734 445 23 (422)

EXPENDITURE

Salaries & Benefits 1,283 1,230 (53) 192 162 (30)

External Contracts 535 2,195 1,660 204 89 (115)

Utilities - - - - - -

Repairs & Alter. - - - - - -

Interest & Bank Charges 114 98 (16) - - -

Supplies & Misc. 3,148 3,723 575 40 2 (38)

Deferred Maintenance - - - - - -

Total Expenditures 5,080 7,246 2,166 436 253 (183)

SURPLUS (DEFICIT) 100 668 568 9 (230) (239)

PARTEQ Consolidated QCED Inc.

2015-16 Consolidated Entities Financial Report (000's)


Page 38 of 363


III: Pension Plan Currently, government regulations require the university to fund both going concern and solvency deficits. Effective September 1, 2015 these going concern payments are $20.7 million annually. The actuarial valuation of the pension plan completed as of August 31, 2014 reported a solvency deficit of $285 million, funding of which will commence in September 2018 if a solution cannot be found. The university has applied for and received Stage II solvency relief, which allows the solvency deficit to be amortized over 10 years instead of the normal 5 years. Stage II relief also provides universities with a choice to take advantage of an additional 3-year deferral of making solvency deficit payments and to amortize the solvency deficit over the remaining 7 years of Stage II relief. The university has decided to take advantage of the additional 3-year deferral and is also building a reserve in case the solvency deficit payments have to be made in future years, as outlined in the budget planning section (VII) of this report. The Revised Pension Plan of Queen’s University is not financially sustainable, and the university is committed to examining all options to make the plan financially sustainable over the long term. During the round of collective bargaining that was completed in the summer of 2015, the university and all its unions committed to participating in the project to design and build a new jointly sponsored pension plan (JSPP) for Ontario universities. The project is being jointly sponsored by the Council of Ontario Universities (for the employers) and Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (for the employees). If the project is successful the Revised Pension Plan of Queen’s University would be merged with the new JSPP. One condition for success would be agreement from the Government of Ontario that the new JSPP would have a permanent exemption from solvency payments. If it is not successful, Queen’s and its unions are committed to exploring merging with another JSPP that does have a solvency exemption, and failing that, to discussing and negotiating such changes as may be needed to support the financial sustainability of the pension plan.


Page 39 of 363


IV: Capital The table below provides an overview of Board approved capital projects with related findings information. In May 2015, the Board of Trustees approved a revised Major Capital Projects Approval Policy (Built Environment) Board approval is required for projects in excess of $2.5 million, with the continued requirement for a business case identifying impact on operations, strategic alignment, risks etc., as well as full project funding.


Page 40 of 363

http://www.queensu.ca/secretariat/policies/board-policies/major-capital-projects-approval-policy-built-environment



Deferred Maintenance A Facilities Condition Audit was conducted in 2010 for most Ontario Universities so that the data could be stored in a common database. The data is updated annually to provide for inflationary increases and also offset by the deferred maintenance projects via a data management service provided by a facility auditing company, VFA. The deferred maintenance for campus buildings and residences is $223.6M as shown in the table below. In 2016, VFA have been contracted to conduct a more comprehensive audit of the campus buildings to refresh the data. The audit will be complete by late November.

In addition, there is an estimated $30M of campus infrastructure (underground systems) deferred maintenance based on a 2006 audit. In 2016, Physical Plant Services (PPS) will refresh the underground infrastructure audit. It is expected that the estimate will increase. The University receives annual provincial funding for deferred maintenance under the Ministry of Training Colleges and Universities (MTCU) Facilities Renewal Program. The recent Provincial budget committed to an increase in this funding and as a result Queen’s University allocation has been increased from $1.1M (2014-15) to $1.6M for 2015-16 and 2016-17. Queen’s also commits annual operating budget funds for deferred maintenance. The 2015-16 operating budget allocation is $6.3M, which includes a one-time allocation of $2.1M from the University Fund. The industry standard for annual deferred maintenance funding is 1%-1.5% of Current Replacement Value (CRV). For the university campus buildings the annual number at 1% would be $14M. The table below shows Queen’s projected deferred maintenance expenditures in 2015-16. For the MTCU funded program, there is a list of pre-approved projects (roofs, infrastructure in the current year) and the expenditures are subject to external audit. Physical Plant Services has a detailed five-year deferred maintenance plan which allows for engineering design work ahead of the fiscal year for prioritized projects, with the flexibility to adjust plans based on available funding. There are also contingency funds to deal with unanticipated issues. A detailed multi-year deferred maintenance plan for the residence buildings is being developed and planned for as part of the Housing and Hospitality Services budget projections.

($000's)

Campus buildings 165,900

Residences 57,700

223,600

Facilities Condition Audit



Page 41 of 363


PPS Deferred Maintenance 2015-16: ($000’s)

V: Investment Funds

Market volatility can have a significant impact on investment holdings and financial planning. Although the university has largely recovered from the 2008 decline in the financial markets, its investment holdings remain susceptible to further volatility. The University has two investment portfolios, the Pooled Endowment Fund and the Pooled Investment Fund, which are now over $1 billion. The Pooled Endowment Fund ("PEF") is an investment pool composed of funds that have been designated for University Endowment accounts. Donations received by the University are invested in the PEF and each year certain amounts are withdrawn according to the spending policy. These annual withdrawals (“payout”) fund scholarships, academic chairs, book funds, lectureships, as well as a diverse range of university programs, in accordance with donor wishes. The Pooled Investment Fund (“PIF”) is made up of reserve funds and unspent balances. In the past, spending from the PIF was based on a percentage of mean assets, even in periods when returns have been weak. As the PIF’s primary objective is to preserve the nominal capital of the fund, the decision was made to limit the operating budget reliance on income from the PIF. Thus, commencing in 2012-13, budgeted income from the PIF was reduced to $4.2M. Investment Fund balances are shown in the table below. Note that $20 million in surplus cash was transferred to the PIF in August 2015, which accounts for part of the change in market value:

Funding Source:

Available funds

May 1, 2015

Spend and

Committed to

Feb 29, 2016

Operating Budget / University Fund 6,310 5,880

MTCU: Facilities Renewal Program* 1,641 1,641

Total: 7,951 7,521

* Annual Funding based on Ontario MTCU - System Share for 2015-16

Investment Portfolios (000's)

Market Value Market Value Market Value Market Value

April 30, 2013 April 30, 2014 April 30, 2015 Feb 29, 2016

Pooled Investment Fund (PIF) 156,463 177,054 192,423 209,493

Pooled Endowment Fund (PEF) 694,010 787,474 896,352 896,983

Total 850,473 964,528 1,088,775 1,106,476


Page 42 of 363


As shown in the graph below, the Endowment market value has recovered strongly since fiscal 2008-09. The market value of the PEF for the end of the 2014-15 fiscal year was approximately $896 million. The market value as of February 29, 2016 was approximately $897 million.

The PEF income payout is approved annually by the Investment Committee of the Board of Trustees and is based on a hybrid formula, which is meant to preserve capital for inflationary increases while producing income to support current operations. As the formula is weighted 70% on the previous year’s payout adjusted for inflation, and 30% on the most recent calendar year’s ending market value, there is a significant smoothing effect and the full impact of market movements is not felt immediately. The University recently completed a review of its spending policy, and in March 2016 the Board approved a three-year adjustment to the PEF payout for 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 that implements a long-term payout target of 4.0%. The 2015-16 PEF payout to unitholders is approximately $29.5 million ($26.7 million in 2014-15), of which $3.7 million is included in investment income in the operating budget as it is from the unrestricted endowment. The remainder of the payout supports donor directed priorities such as student assistance and academic chairs, as previously noted. An additional $3.34 million is being withdrawn from the PEF during 2015-16 to support the operating budget. In 2016-17, this annual withdrawal will be reduced to $1.5 million.

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

-150,000

-100,000

-50,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015

End

ing

Mar

ket

Val

ue

($

00

0s)

Do

nat

ion

s/P

ayo

uts

/In

vest

me

nt

Inco

me

($

00

0s)

PEF Asset Changes Fiscal Years 2007-08 to 2014-15

Donations Income Paid Out Net Investment Income Market Value - April 30


Page 43 of 363


VI: Debt and Liquidity

Debt

Debt Portfolio as at February 29, 2016

Issue $

Millions Rate Maturity

BNY Series A Senior unsecured debenture $ 90.0 6.100% 2032

CMHC Residences loans $ 0.13 5.375% 2016

Infrastructure Ontario senior unsecured debenture $ 75.0 5.090% 2040

Infrastructure Ontario Senior unsecured debenture $ 50.0 5.100% 2040 Bank of Montreal (floating rate amortizing loan & interest rate swap) $ 69.1 3.180% 2030

Total $ 284.2

Sinking Fund The University has a voluntary sinking fund set up for the sole purpose of paying off the principal amounts of its outstanding non-amortizing debt when it falls due. As of February 29, 2016, in accordance with the Debt Management Policy, a total amount of $54.4 million has been invested in fixed income investments which will have a value of $126.6 million at maturity. This represents 59% of the $215 million in non-amortizing debt that the University has outstanding.

The ratios, excluding liabilities associated with employee future benefits and including deferred contributions, in the Board approved Debt Management Policy are as follows:

Board Debt Management Policy Apr. 30, 2014 Apr. 30, 2015

Viability Ratio (1) ≥ .1.25x 1.97 2.23

Debt Burden Ratio (2) ≤ 3.25% 2.59% 2.18%

1) Viability Ratio: 2) Debt Burden Ratio:

Unrestricted Net Assets Annual Interest Cost + Annual Debt Principal

+ Internally Restricted Net Assets Total Operating Expenses + Internally Restricted Endowments - Amortization of Capital Assets

Total University External Debt + Annual Debt Principal

The University is within the established parameters of both the Viability Ratio and the Debt Burden Ratio.


Page 44 of 363


Cash Flow

The University administration uses a cash management forecasting model to manage its short-term investment portfolio and to optimize interest income. The model will continue to evolve over time as it becomes more robust, and it’s forecasting ability becomes more refined. The graph below shows the projected short-term investment and external debt balances from April 2015 through April 2017. University cash balances are cyclical in nature with higher balances in September & October and January & February, due to tuition and residence fee receipts, and lower balances experienced during the late spring and early summer months. As a result, University administration invests its excess cash balances received from term billings in bank demand deposits, bank term deposits and guaranteed investment certificates maturing between one month and 3 years, and with a short-term bond fund with a targeted maturity of 3 years (fully redeemable at any time). These investments are made taking into account the projected operating needs of the University with the aim of matching inflows and outflows. The investment of a portion of the University’s cash balances into longer-dated maturities allows the University to earn higher interest income than would otherwise be earned in a demand deposit account. In compliance with the University’s investment policy on short-term investments, no more than $60 million has been deposited with any one of the five major Schedule I Canadian banks.


Page 45 of 363



Apr 14, 2016

From: Investment Committee

Date of Investment Committee Approval:

N/A

Subject: Investment Committee Report to the Board Date of Board Committee Meeting:

May 19, 2016


Vice-Principal Finance and Administration


May 6, 2016



3.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Pooled Endowment Fund (PEF), Pooled Investment Fund (PIF), Short Term Fund

and Sinking Fund comprise over $1.3 billion. Long-term returns continue to be strong on an absolute basis and versus their

benchmarks. Investment Services has been implementing new absolute-return fixed income

investments with BlackRock and Loomis Sayles. PIMCO has been taken off the formal “watch” list and retained as a fixed income

manager for the PEF and PIF.

4.0 INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES Performance data is from CIBC Mellon.

5.0 ANALYSIS I. STATUS OF FUNDS

As of February 29, 2016, the market values of the Queen’s funds for which the Investment Committee has oversight were as follows:

ITEM: Quarterly Investment Report

Page 46 of 363

- 2 -

Queen's Pooled Endowment Fund (PEF) - $897 million Queen's Pooled Investment Fund (PIF) - $209 million Queen's Short Term Funds - $163 million Queen's Sinking Fund - $73 million

While the PEF and PIF are subject to broadly similar market forces, given the relative size of the funds our comments will focus on the PEF.

II. PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

Although this performance summary includes information on both short-term and long-term results, it should be kept in mind that the PEF has a very long investment horizon. Therefore, the Investment Committee places more importance on the long-term results. Returns to February 29, 2016 The first two months of Q1 2016 were negative, with the PEF returning -1.5% in January and -1.1% in February (both numbers gross of fees). Global markets have continued to be volatile amid concerns about negative interest rate policy consequences and slow global growth. The Canadian dollar appreciated against the U.S. dollar during the first two months of the year, closing February at 74 cents U.S., up from the December 31, 2015 closing value of 72 cents U.S. We hedge approximately 50% (100% for fixed income) of our USD, Euro, Pound Sterling, and Yen exposures back to Canadian dollars. The performance of each of the active managers is compared to a benchmark comprised of the relevant index. The total performance of the PEF is also compared to a benchmark which reflects the weighting of the Strategic Policy Asset Mix and the respective asset class benchmarks. Long-Term Long-term returns continue to be strong on an absolute basis and versus their benchmarks as shown in the following table:

Annualized Nominal Returns as of February 29, 2016

10 years 15 years 20 years

PEF Nominal Return 6.3% 6.8% 8.4%

Benchmark 6.1% 5.6% 7.2%

Added Value 0.2% 1.2% 1.2%

In order to sustain a payout of 4.0% per year, the PEF needs to earn a real return (i.e. above inflation) of approximately 4.2%, the difference being the amount transferred to the operating budget annually (historically linked to Advancement


Page 47 of 363

- 3 -

funding), as well as a small cost recovery for Investment Services. The annualized real returns for various periods are as follows:

Annualized Real Returns as of February 29, 2016

10 years 15 years 20 years 25 years

PEF Real Return 4.7% 4.9% 6.6% 7.3%

III. MANAGER CHANGES

As noted previously, late last year the committee approved new absolute-return fixed income investments with BlackRock and Loomis Sayles. The implementation of the investment with BlackRock is complete, while the implementation of the Loomis Sayles investment is ongoing. This transition was expected to take some time, as the firm is in the process of creating a new Canadian pool with Queen’s as the seed investor. The committee has removed PIMCO from its formal “watch” list. The firm had been put on watch in November 2015 due to members’ concerns over recent developments among senior management. PIMCO was invited to present at the committee’s February meeting, and members were satisfied that the changes are not expected to have a material impact on Queen’s investments.

6.0 STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT / COMPLIANCE The investment returns from the PEF and PIF support the financial sustainability strategic driver by providing revenue diversification to the operating budget.

7.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The investment returns from the PEF and PIF support university operations.

8.0 ENTERPRISE RISK ASSESSMENT There are no risk implications arising from the enterprise risk management framework.

9.0 COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY There are standard procedures for communicating investment performance and the annual payout from the PEF. The information is available on the Queen’s website. ATTACHMENTS

N/A


Page 48 of 363

http://www.queensu.ca/financialservices/contact-us/investment-services



Apr 14, 2016

From: Pension Committee

Date of Pension Committee Approval:

N/A

Subject: Pension Committee Report to the Board Date of Board Committee Meeting:

May 6, 2016




May 6, 2016




The cumulative net return for the plan year (from September 1, 2015 to February 29, 2016) was -1.4%.

The first two months of Q1 2016 were negative, with the QPP returning -2.3% in January and -0.4% in February (both numbers net of fees).

The university continues to participate with the Council of Ontario Universities in discussing pension reform in the broader public sector, particularly options relating to the creation of a sector-specific jointly sponsored pension plan (JSPP).

4.0 INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES Performance data is from CIBC Mellon.

5.0 ANALYSIS I. FUND RETURN

The first two months of Q1 2016 were negative, with the QPP returning -2.3% in January and -0.4% in February (both numbers net of fees). This brought the

ITEM: Quarterly Pension Report

Page 49 of 363

- 2 -

cumulative net return for the 2015-16 plan year (from September 1, 2015 to February 29, 2016) to -1.4%. Global markets have continued to be volatile amid concerns about negative interest rate policy consequences and slow global growth. The Canadian dollar appreciated against the U.S. dollar during the first two months of the year, closing February at 74 cents U.S., up from the December 31, 2015 closing value of 72 cents U.S. We hedge approximately 50% of our USD and Euro exposures back to Canadian dollars.

II. MANAGER WATCH LIST

Manning & Napier was removed from the formal watch list and retained as global equity manager. The firm had been placed on the watch list in May 2015 after a major change in the team’s internal structure and decision-making process following a period of underperformance. After a thorough review with the help of Investment Services, members agreed that the changes in the decision-making structure make sense, and all questions pertaining to the investment process and risk controls were answered satisfactorily. Performance has also improved significantly over the past year.

III. ACTUARIAL UPDATE

The final results of the August 31, 2014 valuation were filed with FSCO and CRA at the end of May 2015. There was an increase in the going-concern deficit to $175.6 million (up from $126.4 million as at August 31, 2011). The solvency deficit, however, improved to $285.4 million (from $332.3 million). Queen’s going-concern deficit payments increased from $14.4M per annum to $20.7M per annum effective September 1, 2015.

IV. PENSION PLAN UPDATE

Stage 1 solvency relief measures approved by the Ontario government for Queen’s expired on August 31, 2015. Under Stage 2, the university elected to defer solvency payments to September 1, 2018 (these special solvency payments will then be amortized over seven years). The University continues to participate with the Council of Ontario Universities in discussing pension reform, specifically the creation of a sector-specific jointly sponsored pension plan (JSPP). University and employee group participants in the “University Pension Project” met in late November for mediated discussions held to finalize outstanding design and governance issues; agreement was arrived on some but not all of the main features, and the participant reports were received by the government in early 2016. Implementation of the Plan's pension administration outsourcing arrangement with Aon Hewitt is nearing completion, and is on track to provide employee self-service by spring 2016.


Page 50 of 363

- 3 -

6.0 STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT / COMPLIANCE N/A



9.0 COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY University Relations has worked closely with the Office of the Vice-Principal (Finance and Administration) and the Office of the Provost and Vice-Principal (Academic) to keep university stakeholders informed of the funding status of the Queen’s Pension Plan, the impact on the operating budget, and the university’s desire to find a solution that results in a permanent exemption from funding the plan on a solvency basis. ATTACHMENTS / LINKS

1. QPP Quarterly Reports (http://www.queensu.ca/humanresources/total-compensation/pensions/reports/quarterly-investment-reports)

2. QPP Monthly Reports (http://www.queensu.ca/financialservices/contact-us/investment-services/pension-plan-monthly-reports)


Page 51 of 363

http://www.queensu.ca/humanresources/total-compensation/pensions/reports/quarterly-investment-reports

http://www.queensu.ca/humanresources/total-compensation/pensions/reports/quarterly-investment-reports

http://www.queensu.ca/financialservices/contact-us/investment-services/pension-plan-monthly-reports

http://www.queensu.ca/financialservices/contact-us/investment-services/pension-plan-monthly-reports


To: Board of Trustees Date of Report: Mar 24, 2016

From: Provost and Vice-Principal (Academic)

Date of Choose Committee or enter. Approval: Click here to enter approval date.

Subject: Aboriginal Council of Queen’s University Annual Report 2015

Date of Board Committee Meeting: May 6, 2016

Responsible Portfolio: Provost and Vice-Principal (Academic)


1.0 PURPOSE ☐ For Approval ☒ For Information 2.0 RECOMMENDATION/MOTION This report is for information only. 3.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Aboriginal Council of Queen’s University (ACQU) provides advice to the university and is involved in all decisions affecting Aboriginal programs and services at Queen’s. The annual report summarizes and highlight the Council’s activities in the 2015 calendar year. 4.0 INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES Aboriginal Council of Queen’s University 5.0 ANALYSIS The ACQU normally meets three times per year. Meeting of January 19, 2015:

o Council participated in a re-visioning exercise to identify potential areas of focus in each of Council’s four policy domains - Access, Climate, Curriculum and Capacity.

o The results of this exercise were used to develop annual action plans for Council’s three working groups.

Meeting of May 11, 2015:

ITEM: Aboriginal Council of Queen’s University Annual Report...

Page 52 of 363

- 2 -

o Council hosted its first meeting on the Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory and was welcomed by the Chief.

o Among other things, Council reviewed and approved the annual report to the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities as part of the Post-Secondary Education Fund for Aboriginal Learners requirements, and received an update on the first year 2015-16 admission cycles.

Meeting of October 26, 2015: o Principal Daniel Woolf provided brief remarks and commented positively on the

progress made by Council and the working groups. o Council discussed the lack of applications to the community-based Aboriginal

Teacher Education program due to the provincially-mandated changes to the Bachelor of Education program, and it was agreed that this should be brought to the ministry’s attention.

On October 3 2015, several Council members celebrated the opening of the Brant house, which was named in honour of Dr. Marlene Brant Castellano, ACQU co-chair, and her brother Dr. Clare Clifton Brant.

6.0 STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT / COMPLIANCE The ACQU has a university-wide mandate and is the principal source for advice, assessment and guidance to the Board of Trustees and the Senate with respect to Aboriginal programs and services, compliance, policy, as well as supports for Aboriginal students. 7.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The ACQU was established in 1992, in conjunction with the Aboriginal Education and Training Strategy introduced by the Ministry of Education (now the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities) and plays an instrumental role securing funding for new aboriginal programs. 8.0 ENTERPRISE RISK ASSESSMENT Council’s role in promoting and supporting aboriginal student recruitment and retention helps to mitigate the undergraduate and graduate student recruitment, retention and graduation risk. 9.0 COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY The annual report is posted on the ACQU website. University Communications proactively communicates about Aboriginal programs, supports and student success stories. ATTACHMENTS 1. Aboriginal Council of Queen’s University, 2015 Annual Report

ITEM: Aboriginal Council of Queen’s University Annual Report...

Page 53 of 363

http://www.queensu.ca/aboriginalcouncil/sites/webpublish.queensu.ca.acquwww/files/files/ACQU%20Annual%20Report%202015%20FINAL.pdf

Public Finance: Universities March 11, 2016

Rating Report

Queen’s University

Debt Rating Rating Action TrendIssuer Rating AA Confirmed Stable

Senior Unsecured Debt AA Confirmed Stable

Ratings

Rating Update

DBRS Limited (DBRS) has confirmed the Issuer Rating and Se-nior Unsecured Debt rating of Queen’s University (Queen’s or the University) at AA with Stable trends. The ratings reflect the University’s very strong academic profile, high level of endow-ment assets and relatively strong operating performance in re-cent years. The Stable trends reflect DBRS’s view that, despite a declining university-age population, Queen’s has a consistently strong applicant pool and profile that should support enrolment growth in the near to medium term, providing stability to tuition fee revenues and government operating grant allocations. DBRS does not expect Queen’s to materially increase its debt burden over the medium term following the completion of recent con-struction of new residences.

In 2014-15, the University recorded a very solid consolidated surplus of $61.9 million or 7.3% of revenues, primarily because of higher-than-budgeted investment returns. In 2015-16, DBRS anticipates that another consolidated surplus will be achieved, albeit narrower than the prior year. Debt has risen in line with expectations as the University drew down the final tranche of a bank loan facility for two new residences in 2015-16, bringing debt per full-time equivalent (FTE) to an estimated $11,475, up from $10,242 in 2014-15. Queen’s academic profile and strong balance sheet, including $919 million endowment assets, miti-gate the elevated debt burden.

The most significant financial risk facing the University contin-ues to be pension sustainability, namely the potential for signifi-cant special payments to address the solvency deficit, and on-going going-concern payments. Queen’s has been approved for Stage 2 provincial solvency relief, deferring solvency payments for an additional three years. The University remains a leading proponent of sector-wide efforts to establish a multi-employer jointly-sponsored pension plan (JSPP) with other Ontario uni-versities to achieve a solvency exemption. While a JSPP is un-likely to be established in the near term, DBRS believes that the Province of Ontario (the Province or Ontario; rated AA (low) by DBRS) will continue to accommodate pension solvency deficits in the sector as discussions around a JSPP progress.

The credit profile may come under downward pressure if the University’s debt burden evolves above current expectations, or if operating performance and debt service coverage deteriorate on a sustained basis because of negative developments in the op-erating environment, a weaker enrolment outlook or significant cash funding requirements for pension liabilities. Upward pres-sure on Queen’s credit profile remains limited, given the Univer-sity’s current ratings that are above that of the provincial funder and its relatively high debt burden. The post-secondary operat-ing environment remains challenging, given uncertainty over the provincial funding formula and tuition framework, although DBRS does not anticipate that any potential changes will be ma-terially negative to Queen’s.

The University is a mid-sized institution established in 1841 by the Royal Charter of Queen Victoria. Located in Kingston, Ontario, a census metropolitan area of about 167,200 residents at the northeastern end of Lake Ontario, the University offers a comprehensive range of undergraduate, graduate and professional programs, with a student population of 24,710 FTEs in 2015-16.

Issuer Description

For the year ended April 30

2015 2014 2013 2012 2011Operating balance (DBRS-adjusted, $ millions) 61.9 45.6 22.6 (24.9) (8.7)

Surplus (deficit) to revenue (%) 7.3% 5.5% 2.8% (3.3%) (1.2%)

Interest coverage ratio (times) 4.1 4.2 4.0 3.6 3.1

Long-term debt per FTE ($) 10,242 9,997 10,048 10,603 10,819

Scott Cherry+1 416 597 7343

[email protected]

Travis Shaw+1 416 597 7582 [email protected]

Financial Information

ITEM: DBRS Credit Rating Report

Page 54 of 363


Rating Report | Queen’s University DBRS.COM 2

Rating Considerations

Strengths

1. High level of expendable resources and endowment income The University’s total endowment assets grew by nearly 15% to $919 million at fiscal YE2015, up from $800.2 million the pre-vious year. At $38,358 per student, Queen’s has the largest en-dowment per FTE among DBRS-rated universities, providing considerable support to the credit profile. Unlike many other DBRS-rated universities, Queen’s derives a material percentage of its annual revenue (3.9% in 2014-15) from investment returns on its endowment. Expendable resources, including internally restricted endowment assets and unrestricted reserves, totalled $476.4 million as of April 30, 2015.

2. Flagship provincial and national institution A very strong reputation and a long history of academic excel-lence provide strong support for enrolment and fundraising ac-tivities. The University is internationally known and has some of the highest admission standards in Canada, with an average un-dergraduate entering average of 89.1% in 2014-2015, which leaves room to grow enrolment if necessary. The University benefits from a solid academic profile and reputation, ranking among the top four medical-doctoral universities in Canada and within the 200 to 300 range globally, somewhat limited by its smaller size.

3. Prudent management practicesQueen’s has introduced several key measures to entrench pru-dent fiscal management practices and encourage departmental spending restraint. These measures include a three-year budget planning framework and the adoption of an activities-based bud-get model in 2013-14. The budget model attributes revenues to individual faculties based on enrolment and teaching after a de-duction for a broader University Fund and other indirect costs. A more focused approach to labour relations is evident in more sustainable collective agreements as well as adjustments made to pension rules and contribution rates in re¬cent years

4. Successful fundraising and advancement operationsThe University has built up its fundraising capacity through leadership, an increased workforce and more sophisticated data mining techniques to tap its alumni base. Queen’s is amid its Ini-tiative Campaign and has raised over 124% of its $500 million campaign goal. Fundraising is aided by the status of the Universi-ty as one of Canada’s oldest universities with alumni in all stages of career and life.

Challenges

1. Sizable employee future benefit liabilitiesThe latest filed valuation of the University’s hybrid pension plan as of August 31, 2014, showed an estimated going-concern deficit of $176 million and a solvency deficit of $285 million. Queen’s was approved for Stage 2 provincial solvency relief and elected to take advantage of further relief provisions that allow it to de-fer solvency deficit payments for three years, with the remaining deficit amortizing over the following seven years beginning in F2019. The University had been making going-concern payments totalling $14.4 million per year for three years and commenced making annual special going-concern payments totalling $20.7 million as of September 1, 2015. DBRS notes that Queen’s has prudently established a reserve fund to cover the higher going-concern payments and future solvency payments, charging all academic and service units an additional 4.5% pension charge as of September 2015 while it also explores sector-wide reforms, such as a JSPP.

2. Relatively high debt burdenAt an estimated $11,475 per FTE in 2015-16, the University’s debt burden is high among DBRS-rated universities. Queen’s has fi-nalized construction on two new residences, using an amortizing bank loan facility of $70 million. While the residences generate increased ancillary revenues to service-associated borrowing, the increased debt burden has exhausted much of the debt flex-ibility within the current rating.

3. Salary and wage pressuresThe University must compete with other high-profile institu-tions in North America for faculty, which leads to significant salary pressures. A lower pension expense in 2014-15 allowed Queen’s to reduce salary and benefit expenses by 1.0% for the year; however, as the largest expense category, this has been an area of significant pressure in recent years. The aging faculty de-mographic, a new collective bargaining cycle and potential for increased pension costs will only exacerbate these pressures in the years ahead.

4. Limited tuition and fee-setting autonomyIn the face of escalating costs, tuition fee revenues remain a key source of incremental revenue for universities. Average annual undergraduate tuition fee increases have been capped at 3% since 2013-14 for regulated programs. The tuition fee framework is set to expire in 2017-18; however, the government has not giv-en an indication with respect to the future permitted increases, adding a degree of uncertainty to future budget planning. DBRS does not believe, however, that changes to the tuition framework will be materially negative to Queen’s.


Page 55 of 363



Operating Performance

Budget 2015-2016

Queen’s reported a solid consolidated surplus of $61.9 million or 7.3% of revenues in F2014-2015, up from $45.6 million the prior year. The sizable surplus and year-over-year (YOY) improvement was largely driven by gains within the University’s investment portfolio from strong capital market performance, deemed for budget purposes to be non-recurring and one-time in nature. DBRS views this as prudent practice in light of capital market volatility and the associated impact on investment income and reported results, which may not reflect the underlying financial position of ongoing operations. A positive variance within the Pooled Investment Fund of approximately $14 million on net investment income recognized on the income statement, savings on the University’s pension expense and higher-than-budgeted fee revenue produced a significant positive variance to budget, avoiding the drawdown of $7.7 million in reserve funds. Queen’s has deployed the surplus funds to create a central reserve to smooth the impact of future investment income weakness or for capital renewal purposes. The University also left carry-forward balances with departments for future strategic priorities or pension payments.

Revenues expanded by a modest 1.8% in 2014-2015, primarily supported by a notable increase in revenue from student tuition and fees from the maximum permitted fee increases within the provincial tuition framework and robust growth in FTE enrolment of 4.7% YOY. Enrolment growth at Queen’s stands in contrast with other DBRS-rated universities that have experienced a slowdown or outright decline in enrolment in 2014-15, highlighting the importance of the University’s strong academic profile in supporting student demand and financial performance. Government operating grants, the second-largest source of revenue, declined by 0.4% on account of the final year of provincial efficiency cuts to the base operating grant and policy changes mandating a 50% reduction in Faculty of Education intake, offset by growth in accessibility funding to accommodate enrolment growth.

Expenditures were well contained, declining by 0.1%, primarily because of a 1.0% reduction in salary and benefit expense stemming from a reduction in the financing component of the University’s pension expense from stronger plan returns and a divestment of a subsidiary of a not-for-profit commercialization and innovation centre. Spending was reduced across several other categories, including reduced outlays for supplies, equipment, utilities and insurance. Minor increases in student aid spending tied to rising enrolment, modestly higher interest charges to service the University’s higher debt burden and an approximately 8.0% increase in miscellaneous expenses nearly offset the significant reductions in other spending categories.

Queen’s approved a balanced operating budget for 2015-2016, relying on the drawdown of reserves totalling $11.7 million for one-time initiatives to balance the operating fund. The drawdown of prior surpluses and carry-forward funds within faculties and schools will total $11.4 million for one-time priority items, capital upgrades or as a bridge to a sustainable budget. A further $0.3 million in central cash reserves will be used for non-recurring expenses related to a talent management initiative. University administration prudently does not permit ongoing base budget commitments to be made against departmental cash reserves.

The budget forecasts a revenue increase of 4.5% versus the prior year’s budget plan. Revenue growth is expected to be driven by growth in tuition fees of 9.3% versus the prior-year budget (or 4.8% versus actual results), supported by an expansion in FTE enrolment of 3.1% and tuition fee increases to maximize

revenues while remaining within the provincial framework cap. Government operating grants remain constrained, with the base operating grant budgeted to decline by $2.4 million or 1.6% from the prior year, but to be more than offset by $5.9 million in accessibility growth funding for undergraduate and graduate enrolment gains. After accounting for earmarked grants for other purposes and a federal grant for indirect research costs, total grant funding is expected to rise by 1.3% over the 2014-15 budget and 1.0% over actual results.

Total expenses are budgeted to rise by $26.5 million or 5.6% versus the prior-year budget, largely driven by higher salary and benefit costs within the faculties and schools as well as a moderate increase in shared services expenses, such as libraries, occupancy costs, information technology (IT), advancement as well as central academic and financial administration. The budget

Total Enrolment (FTE)

Student fees31.6%

Ancillary10.0%

Gov’t grants*43.0%

2014-2015 Consolidated Revenue Sources ($850.8 million)

Donations0.9%

Other5.9%

Investment8.6%

Note: In 2011-12, Queen's revised its internal definiton of full-time students to - a student with a 60% course load.

* Provincial and Federal.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2010

-11

2011

-12

2012

-13

2013

-14

2014

-15

2015

-16

Undergraduate Graduate


Page 56 of 363



Budget 2015-2016 (CONTINUED)

Medium-Term Outlook

continues to include a contingency buffer of approximately $1.8 million and a $12.3 million transfer from operating accounts for capital, a reduction of $1.5 million from the prior year. The $1.5 million reduction reflects a loan repayment and is redirected to deferred maintenance, bringing up the allocation from operations to $4.2 million. A separate operating allocation for infrastructure renewal is also budgeted at $4.4 million, down slightly from the prior year, with the difference reallocated to the budget for Information Technology Services. Most faculties and schools are budgeting for expenditure increases, with the exception of the School of Policy Studies and Faculty of Education, with the most notable increases in the Faculty of Arts and Science and in the Faculty of Business reflecting student demand dynamics.

DBRS deems assumptions in the budget to be conservative, noting that positive variances on salaries and benefits in recent years have allowed the University to avoid drawing down reserves as anticipated. The 2015-16 budget is the third prepared under the activities-based revenue allocation model and the first budget year in which transitional hold harmless payments to certain faculties and schools are to be phased down. As the fiscal year nears a close, the budget plan appears to be on track with no major deviations identified by Queen’s management. DBRS expects that, on a consolidated basis, the University will post another surplus in F2016.

The operating environment will remain challenging for Queen’s and all Ontario universities over the current planning horizon. An update to the tuition fee framework expiring in 2016-17 has yet to be announced, although DBRS does not anticipate that it will be materially negative. The government is also reviewing the results of its sector consultation regarding changes to the provincial funding formula more directly linking funding envelopes to student performance metrics and institutional differentiation. DBRS believes that changes to the funding formula will not adversely affect Queen’s, given the University’s notable academic and research profile and the Province’s generally strong support for post-secondary education.

DBRS expects that Queen’s will continue to see robust student demand over the medium term, given its academic reputation and high entrance standards, limiting downside risk to the enrolment outlook despite headwinds from a declining university-age population. In 2016, Queen’s forecasts that total FTE enrolment will rise by a notable 6.4% YOY, with gains driven by a 2.1% increase in undergraduate enrolment and robust graduate growth of 8.9%, although DBRS notes that there is downside risk to this projection in the current climate. The University has not had to relax entrance standards to generate incremental enrolment growth, with entering averages stable at 89.1%, among the highest in the country. Applications and yield rates remain robust. Expansion of campus residence capacity has allowed the University to accommodate a moderate expansion in undergraduate enrolment and applications remain particularly strong for high-demand space-limited programs such as Commerce, Nursing and Engineering. Graduate enrolment gains will be supported by continued demand for professional Master’s programs at Queen’s, including those in Aging and Health, Management Analytics, Entrepreneurship and Innovation as well as Education. International undergraduate enrolment currently sits at 6.5%, but is targeted to increase to 10.0% through 2019, a level below other DBRS-rated institutions that have relied heavily on foreign students. International graduate enrolment is stable at roughly 20.0%.

Labour relations at the University are generally stable, with Queen’s reaching four-year collective agreements with its largest labour groups, namely the faculty association and staff association, as well as heating and maintenance, technicians, IT and library staff. Outstanding agreements include a small employee health-care group. Negotiations for post-doctoral fellows commence in June 2016, while the current agreement for academic assistants expires in August 2016. Graduate teaching assistants have an agreement in place until 2017. Salary and wage increases that have been negotiated are included in the medium-term balanced-budget framework for faculties, schools and shared-service units, which are required to absorb rising salary and wage costs within the new budget model. For outstanding agreements or those set to be negotiated over the planning horizon, 2% annual increases are assumed. The University has relative cost certainty for the majority of the current budget outlook, which provides comfort that growth in the primary cost driver will remain reasonably contained.

Solvency Funding ReliefOntario Regulation 178/11 came into force in June 2011 and allows for solvency funding relief in two stages for certain public-sector pension plans.

Stage 1: • Allows universities up to three years to make changes that will

improve the sustainability of their plans.

• Special payments are only required to ensure that the solvency shortfall does not increase.

Stage 2: • Provided sufficient progress is made to improve the sustainabil-

ity of pension plans, solvency deficiency can be amortized over ten years instead of five.

• For plans with a Stage 2 valuation date before 2015, updated reg-ulations (O. Reg 118/14) create the option to make interest-only payments for the first three years of the ten-year period, amor-tizing the deficit balance over remaining seven years.


Page 57 of 363



Medium-Term Outlook (CONTINUED)

Capital Plan

The most significant downside risk to Queen’s financial outlook remains uncertainty on the scale and timing of potential special deficit payments on its hybrid pension plan. The most recent actuarial valuation of the Queen’s Pension Plan as of August 31, 2014, revealed a going-concern deficit of $53.5 million on a market basis or $175.6 million on a smoothed basis, a deterioration from the previous valuation. The University has been making going-concern payments totalling $14.4 million per year for three years, which rose to $20.7 million as of September 1, 2015.

The most recent official valuation also showed a solvency shortfall of $285.4 million, an improvement from the prior valuation driven by strong investment returns partially offset by lower interest rates. The University was approved for Stage 2 provincial solvency relief and has elected to defer solvency deficit payments for three years, with the remaining deficit amortizing over the following seven years beginning in F2019. Solvency payments are estimated at roughly $19 million. DBRS notes that Queen’s has prudently established a reserve fund to cover the higher going-concern payments and future solvency

payments, charging all academic and service units an additional 4.5% pension charge as of September 2015.

Queen’s is a leading participant in discussions and modelling around the creation of a multi-employer JSPP, which aims to achieve a solvency test exemption and would likely move to an equal contribution and risk-sharing model between employers and employees. Although progress is being made through the University Pension Project, DBRS does not expect that a new plan will be established for several years, given the challenge in agreeing on a plan design, administrative structure and negotiated acceptance from employee groups at universities across the Province. DBRS expects, however, that the provincial government will continue to accommodate pension solvency deficits in the sector given (1) the impact that a significant increase in pension payments would have on university budgets and programming, (2) ongoing progress by universities to improve the sustainability of their defined benefit pension plans and (3) sector-wide progress on discussions around the establishment of a JSPP.

The University’s gross capital spending was $52.3 million in 2014-2015, down from $71.0 million the prior year as two new student residences were completed and opened in the fall of 2015, housing a total of 550 new student beds. The residences had a total estimated project cost of $63 million. Following the completion of the residences, the capital plan at Queen’s is now fairly modest and largely funded through internal sources or donation pledges. In September 2015, the University also completed the Reactor Materials Testing Laboratory, an $18.4 million facility funded mostly by the provincial government. In April 2015, a new $2.0 million micro-nano research facility also opened.

The other major capital project currently underway is the renovation of Richardson Memorial Stadium, which will create a modern multi-purpose facility with new stands capable of seating 10,000 spectators. The project budget is $20.3 million and is funded primarily through donations, including a major gift of $10.0 million received in 2014, with a modest $3.0 million contribution from the University. The stadium renovation is set to be completed in the fall of 2016. Plans are also underway to renovate the Physical Education Centre building into the new Queen’s Health, Wellness and Innovation Centre. The $87.0 million project will transform the building into a mixed-use academic and student facility, with the Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science being a major occupant. When completed, the building will be home to an interactive learning commons,

an innovation hub, interdisciplinary laboratory space as well as high-technology design and teaching studios. The building will also house an integrated Wellness Centre with co-located student services including mental health and accessibility supports, along with three gymnasia and other athletic and recreation facilities. The project will not proceed without full funding from government or private sources, but the University has already raised a considerable portion of the required funds. The design phase is now underway.

The transfer from operations to the capital budget for repayment of prior internal loans and debt servicing was budgeted to fall by $1.5 million from the prior year to $12.3 million, reflecting the repayment of a loan related to Richardson Hall and University Avenue. The reduced transfer savings have been directed toward higher spending on deferred maintenance. As one of the oldest universities in Canada, Queen’s has a significant backlog of deferred maintenance totalling roughly $253 million. In 2015-16, the University allocated $7.4 million to deferred maintenance, including a $4.2 million allocation from operations, $2.1 million from the University Fund and $1.1 million from the provincial Facilities Renewal Grant. In 2016-17, the provincial grant for deferred maintenance will rise modestly to $1.6 million from $1.1 million while Queen’s will also modestly increase contributions through 2019.


Page 58 of 363



Debt and Liquidity

University Funding in Ontario

Queen’s debt burden rose in line with expectations at the time of DBRS’s last review as the University drew down a $20 million tranche of the bank loan facility for the two new residence buildings in 2014-15. Long-term debt rose to $245.4 million, up from $228.8 million the prior year, translating to $10,242 per FTE, up from $9,997. DBRS notes that the University has since made a final draw of $40 million on the $70 million loan facility. To reduce interest rate risk, Queen’s has obtained a total return swap with an effective annual interest rate of 3.18% for the loan. The balance of the University’s debt burden comprises a $90 million Series A senior unsecured bullet debenture maturing in 2032 and two senior unsecured bullet debentures totalling $75 million and $50 million maturing in April 2040 and June 2040, respectively. Queen’s has established a sinking fund to repay the debentures upon maturity, with a balance of $66.7 million at YE2014-15, up $17.6 million from the prior year.

The size of the University’s endowment remains a notable strength of the credit profile and offsets the elevated debt burden. The value of endowment funds grew by nearly 15% YOY to $919 million as at April 30, 2015, or $38,358 per FTE, the highest on a per-student basis of DBRS-rated universities and second highest after the University of Toronto on a gross basis. Queen’s targets a long-term drawdown rate of 3.7% on the endowment, releasing $30.5 million in 2014-15. The University’s expendable resources, which comprises internally restricted endowment funds and other operating reserves including sinking funds, totalled $476 million or 194% of total debt in 2014-15, among the highest of DBRS-rated institutions. Queen’s Pooled Endowment Fund returned a solid 12% for the year ending April 30, 2015, while the Pooled Investment Fund returned 10%.

Interest coverage as measured by DBRS remained largely stable at 4.1 times in 2014-15, supported by still-solid cash flows from operations from the sizable surplus. DBRS anticipates that interest coverage will likely soften somewhat as surpluses narrow and interest costs rise modestly with a higher debt burden, but is likely to remain very manageable for the rating.

OutlookFollowing the final $40 million draw on the bank loan facility and after accounting for enrolment gains in 2015, Queen’s debt-per-FTE ratio now totals roughly $11,475, in line with expectations at the time of the last review. The higher debt burden associated with the construction loan is viewed as manageable given the revenue-generating nature of the residences, which should repay the loan over time. The University has no current plans for additional debt over the medium term. DBRS also takes comfort from Queen’s internal debt management policy and requirements that new capital projects be limited to those with a full business case and committed funding. Through 2016-17, the debt burden should trend below $11,000 based on projections indicating additional enrolment gains.

DBRS notes that Queen’s debt burden is relatively high for the rating. If the University proceeds to take on significant additional debt or if operating performance meaningfully deteriorates, the credit profile may come under pressure as financial metrics weaken.

Canadian universities generally have access to three key sources of revenue for their core teaching research activities: (1) government grants, (2) student fees and (3) fundraising and endowment income. For Queen’s, these accounted for about 76% of total revenues in 2014-2015.

Provincial government funding has historically been the primary source of revenue for universities across the country, although its relative importance remains under pressure in most provinces as a result of steady cost pressures in competing areas of provincial responsibility, notably health care, and ongoing fiscal restraint. In Ontario, the lack of indexation in base operating grants has also contributed to this trend.

Government Funding (provincial and federal, 43%): This includes operating grants, research grants and contracts as well as capital grants, of which operating grants are by far the most important and stable revenue source. They are provided exclusively by the Province, primarily through a formula that allocates a certain number of basic income units to each student based on the program in which they are enrolled. Targeted

funding, which is aimed at expanding enrolment in high-demand programs, and performance-based grants also account for a small portion of provincial operating funding. No inflation adjustment is provided for base operating funding in Ontario, although the Province continues to provide full average funding for enrolment growth.

Total Enrolment (FTE)

Student fees31.6%

Ancillary10.0%

Gov’t grants*43.0%

2014-2015 Consolidated Revenue Sources ($850.8 million)

Donations0.9%

Other5.9%

Investment8.6%

Note: In 2011-12, Queen's revised its internal definiton of full-time students to - a student with a 60% course load.

* Provincial and Federal.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2010

-11

2011

-12

2012

-13

2013

-14

2014

-15

2015

-16

Undergraduate Graduate


Page 59 of 363



University Funding in Ontario (CONTINUED)

In recent years, the Ontario government has introduced refinements to its post-secondary education plan that embrace a number of priorities, including additional student spaces, tuition and financial assistance for students, long-term capital funding to support expansion and renewal of campus infrastructure as well as renegotiation of multi-year accountability agreements. Furthermore, the government has expressed its intention to reform the current enrolment-based university funding model with a focus on improving quality and student experience. In December 2015, the government released a consultation paper on university funding model reform, although DBRS notes that it is too early to determine what implications this could have on university funding in Ontario if implemented.

Government grants for research and capital projects are also an important source of funding. The federal government typically provides 65% to 75% of all public research funding while the Province provides the bulk of capital funding; however, the provincial government’s increased emphasis on spending restraint to address its own budgetary challenges suggests limited flexibility for funding increases, making cost containment at universities that much more crucial.

Student Fees (32%): In March 2013, the Province announced that, starting with the 2013-2014 academic year and for the next four years, the cap on annual total tuition fee increases would be limited to 3.0%. Within the 3.0% overall cap, tuition fee increases for graduate and professional programs would be limited to 5.0%.Despite provincial tuition restraint, student fees have continued to grow faster than provincial operating grants as student fees now comprise 32% of Queen’s total revenues compared with less than 21% ten years earlier; however, Queen’s is less reliant on fees than some other DBRS-rated universities.

Fundraising and Endowment Contributions/Income (5%): The University is one of the few DBRS-rated universities to derive a material percentage of its revenue from fundraising and endow-ment income. Investment income on endowment assets contributed 3.9% to total revenue in 2013-14 while donations contributed 1.0%, down from 4.7% the prior year because of the

large gifts in kind of artwork and lower expendable donations, offset by an increase in endowed donations. While this undoubtedly remains an underlying strength of the credit profile, it introduces an element of volatility into annual results as evidenced by the significant surplus in 2014-15. Payout to the operating fund from the endowment continues to be fairly stable as the current policy is to determine the payout based largely on the prior-year results plus inflation. A two-year payout was approved by the Board in March 2014, reflecting stability through 2015-16.

Queen’s has a fundraising and advancement apparatus that is among the most sophisticated in the country. The University is in the end stages of its ten-year Initiative Campaign that has raised $622 million as of January 2016, 124% of the $500 million target. For F2015-16, Queen’s has already surpassed a target of $60 million and raised $138 million, with the majority of funds coming from major gifts over $100,000. In 2015-16, $50 million was donated to the Queen’s School of Business in the largest gift to a business school in Canada, significantly boosting pledges for the year. The University’s fundraising efforts are aided by the status of Queen’s as one of Canada’s oldest universities with many alumni in all stages of career and life.

2015-16 Average Undergraduate Tuition Fees

Source: Statistics Canada

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

NL PE NS NB QC ON MB SK AB BC

Source: Statistics Canada

Canada


Page 60 of 363



Consolidated Financial Summary (DBRS-adjusted)


($ thousands) 2014-2015* 2013-2014* 2012-2013* 2011-2012* 2010-2011Total operating revenue 850,794 835,410 799,164 743,436 742,467

Total expenditures 788,853 789,823 776,603 768,306 751,154

Recurring Operating Balance 61,941 45,587 22,561 (24,870) (8,687)

Employee future benefits remeasurements & other items 1 n/a n/a n/a 5,234 n/a

Non-recurring items - - - - 4,268

Surplus/deficit as reported 61,941 45,587 22,561 (19,636) (4,419)

RevenueStudent fees 2 268,548 244,534 233,095 214,468 203,757

Government operating grants 195,169 196,041 187,472 187,127 180,210

Other grants and contracts 170,989 161,244 169,029 177,310 184,399

Ancillary operations 85,401 81,149 77,841 72,765 69,872

Investment income 3 73,357 64,958 62,033 27,570 39,942

Donations 7,413 39,896 21,496 20,757 15,750

Earned capital contributions 26,130 24,797 26,676 25,587 23,274

Other revenue 23,787 22,791 21,522 17,852 25,263

Total Revenue 850,794 835,410 799,164 743,436 742,467

ExpendituresSalaries and benefits 430,108 434,425 433,581 424,122 404,834

Student aid 56,026 55,396 53,001 55,134 54,751

Supplies and minor equipment 131,387 133,887 118,164 122,081 119,899

Utilities and insurance 23,008 23,828 20,870 18,584 19,479

Interest 12,885 12,562 12,371 12,606 12,552

Amortization 51,828 52,201 57,186 57,792 55,255

Other expenses 83,611 77,524 81,430 77,987 84,384

Total Expenditures 788,853 789,823 776,603 768,306 751,154

Gross Capital Expenditures 52,288 71,026 70,997 73,219 93,817

* In 2012-2013 the University adopted Canadian accounting standards for not-for-profit organizations moving to the immediate recognition approach for its employee future benefit plans. This moved the recognition of investment and actuarial gains and losses on plan assets to the income statement. In 2013-2014, Queen’s early-adopted Section 3463 that have moved the recognition of these investment and actuarial remeasurements as a charge directly to net assets, reducing volatility in reported results. The standards were retroactively applied to the transition date of May 1, 2013.

1 Comprised of actuarial gains and losses on pension plan and other benefit plans, investment gains and losses, and plan amendments. In 2013-2014, these remeasurements began be-ing recognized directly on the Statement of Net Assets. 2 Includes fees for continuing education. 3 Investment income includes unrealized gains and losses on investments, excluding externally restricted endowments.


Page 61 of 363



Consolidated Balance Sheet


($ thousands) 2014-2015 2013-2014 2012-2013* 2011-2012 2010-2011

AssetsCash 95,959 84,010 46,797 46,136 66,109 Short-term investments 23,808 3,026 59,309 32,506 2,453 Receivables 37,648 41,553 46,798 45,604 44,226 Deferred and prepaid expenses 6,784 7,646 9,525 6,404 6,244 Long-term investments 1 1,180,189 1,029,856 871,781 802,251 830,019 Capital assets 2 841,432 840,972 822,147 808,336 745,893 Other assets 3 3,476 1,228 4,803 1,484 11,087 Total Assets 2,189,296 2,008,291 1,861,160 1,742,721 1,706,031

Liabilities and EquityPayables and other current liabilities 301,882 286,458 284,377 288,905 355,384 Deferred capital contributions 373,919 375,658 352,043 329,806 308,304 Employee future benefit obligations 4 111,441 67,298 150,017 220,172 72,354 Long-term debt 245,373 228,821 225,325 231,623 237,722 Other liabilities 5 - 885 15 8 1,153 Total Liabilities 1,032,615 959,120 1,011,777 1,070,514 974,917

Fund balancesCommitted funds 6 164,181 174,491 63,410 (25,585) 209,552 Endowment – internally restricted 7 200,742 183,780 162,501 143,238 194,881 Endowment – externally restricted 7 718,236 616,458 547,750 473,559 362,870 Equity in capital assets 222,122 236,492 244,780 246,907 194,026 Unrestricted net assets (148,600) (162,050) (169,058) (165,912) (230,215)Total Liability and Equity 2,189,296 2,008,291 1,861,160 1,742,721 1,706,031

Other Obligations ($ thousands)Capital commitments 23,325 49,004 127,878 106,846 127,871 Other 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Pension plan deficit 8 - - - - 180,104 Post-employment benefit plan deficit 8 - - - - 62,869

24,325 50,004 128,878 107,846 371,844

* In 2013-2014 the University adopted Section 3463 of Canadian accounting standards for not-for-profit organizations requiring the use of the immediate recognition approach for em-ployee benefit plans. The University elected to account for all employee future benefit plans using funding valuation assumptions rather than accounting assumptions, resulting in an increase and restatement in net assets reported as of May 1, 2012.

1 Market value. 2 As of May 1, 2011, land assets were revalued at fair value. 3 Includes unamortized issue costs and derivative assets for interest rate hedging purposes. 4 Total funded status of pension and non-pension benefit plans. Prior to fiscal 2011-2012, represents accrued benefit liability after unamortized actuarial gains/losses & past service cost. 5 Includes unrealized losses on derivatives for currency hedging purposes. 6 Funds set aside for specific purposes (e.g., departmental carry-forwards, sinking fund, and other internal reserves etc.) 7 Externally restricted endowment assets consist of funds that are subject to restrictions imposed by the donors. Internally restricted endowment assets are funds whose use is restricted internally by the Board of Trustees. 8 As at May 1, 2011, accounting standards require presentation of full funded status of pension and non-pension benefit plans directly on the Balance Sheet as “Employee future benefit obligations”.


Page 62 of 363



Statement of Cash Flow (DBRS-adjusted)


($ thousands) 2014-2015 2013-2014 2012-2013* 2011-2012 2010-2011Operating balance before fund contributions 61,941 45,587 22,561 (19,636) (8,687)

Amortization 51,828 52,201 57,186 57,792 55,255

Other non-cash adjustments 1 (73,714) (58,162) (42,677) (5,416) (20,754)

Cash flow from operations 40,055 39,626 37,070 32,740 25,814

Change in working capital 18,940 9,876 (9,429) (9,034) 10,634

Operating cash flow after working capital 58,995 49,502 27,641 23,706 36,448

Net capital expenditures * (27,897) (22,614) (22,084) (26,130) (16,577)

Free cash flow 31,098 26,888 5,557 (2,424) 19,871

* In 2013-2014 the University adopted Section 3463 of Canadian accounting standards for not-for-profit organizations requiring the use of the immediate recognition approach for em-ployee benefit plans. Remeasurements including actuarial gains and losses, investment gains and losses and plan amendments are now recognized as a charge directly to the Statement of Net Assets, rather than the Statement of Operations. The standards were retroactively applied to the transition date of May 1, 2013.

1 Includes unrealized gains and losses on investments, exluding externally restricted endowments after transition date of May 1, 2011.


Page 63 of 363



Summary Statistics (DBRS-adjusted)


2014-2015 2013-2014 2012-2013 2011-2012 2010-2011

Total Enrolment (FTE) 1 23,958 22,888 22,425 21,845 21,973

Undergraduate 84% 84% 84% 84% 84%

Graduate 16% 16% 16% 16% 16%

Total annual change 4.7% 2.1% 2.7% -0.6% 5.1%

Total Employees (FTE) 2 4,039 3,978 4,022 4,095 3,940

Faculty 1,610 1,594 1,582 1,630 1,588

Operating ResultsSurplus (deficit) 3 61,941 45,587 22,561 (24,870) (8,687)

- As a % of revenues 7.3% 5.5% 2.8% (3.3%) (1.2%)

Revenue Mix (as % of total DBRS-adjusted revenue)

Government funding (federal + provincial) 43.0% 42.8% 44.6% 49.4% 49.1%

Student fees 31.6% 29.3% 29.2% 28.8% 27.4%

Ancillary 10.0% 9.7% 9.7% 9.8% 9.4%

Expendable donations 0.9% 4.8% 2.7% 2.8% 2.1%

Other 14.5% 13.5% 13.8% 9.2% 11.9%

Debt and Liquidity AnalysisTotal debt ($ millions) 245.373 228.8 225.3 231.6 237.7

- per FTE student ($) 10,242 9,997 10,048 10,603 10,819

Debt, contingencies & commitments ($ millions) 4 381.1 346.1 504.2 559.6 609.6

- per FTE student ($) 15,909 15,122 22,484 25,618 27,742

Liquid assets ($ millions) 119.8 87.0 106.1 78.6 68.6

- as % of total expenses 15.2% 11.0% 13.7% 10.2% 9.1%

- as % of current liabilities 39.7% 30.4% 37.3% 27.2% 19.3%

Interest costs as % of total expenditures 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7%

Interest coverage ratio (times) 4.1 4.2 4.0 3.6 3.1

Endowment FundsTotal market value ($ millions) 919.0 800.2 710.3 616.8 557.8

- per FTE student ($) 38,358 34,963 31,672 28,235 25,383

- annual change 14.8% 12.7% 15.2% 10.6% 5.8%

Payout ratio: 70% (prior year’s payout plus inflation) + 30% (3.5-4.0% of current market value).1 Full-time equivalent (FTE) enrolment excludes continuing education. In 2015, DBRS shifted reporting of FTE enrolment to a standard credit load approach to better reflect revenue potential of enrolment and to provide greater consistency across the sector. 2 FTE excludes teaching assistants and sessional lecturers. 3 Excludes employee future benefits remeasurements and other non-recurring items. 4 Includes long-term debt, funded status of pension and non-pension benefit plans and capital commitments.


Page 64 of 363



Current 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011

Issuer Rating AA AA AA AA AA NR

Senior Unsecured Debt AA AA AA AA AA AA

Related Research• Rating Public Universities, June 2015.

• Confirmed, February 12, 2015.

Rating History

Previous Action

Previous Report• Queen’s University, Rating Report, February 15, 2015.

Notes:All figures are in Canadian dollars unless otherwise noted.

For the definition of Issuer Rating, please refer to Rating Definitions under Rating Policy on www.dbrs.com.

Generally, Issuer Ratings apply to all senior unsecured obligations of an applicable issuer, except when an issuer has a significant or unique level of secured debt.

© 2016, DBRS Limited, DBRS, Inc. and DBRS Ratings Limited (collectively, DBRS). All rights reserved. The information upon which DBRS ratings and reports are based is obtained by DBRS from sources DBRS believes to be reliable. DBRS does not audit the information it receives in connection with the rating process, and it does not and cannot independently verify that information in every instance. The extent of any factual investigation or independent verification depends on facts and circumstances. DBRS ratings, reports and any other information provided by DBRS are provided “as is” and without representation or warranty of any kind. DBRS hereby disclaims any representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, timeliness, completeness, merchantability, fitness for any particular purpose or non-infringement of any of such information. In no event shall DBRS or its directors, officers, employees, independent contractors, agents and representatives (collectively, DBRS Representatives) be liable (1) for any inaccuracy, delay, loss of data, interruption in service, error or omission or for any damages resulting therefrom, or (2) for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, compensatory or consequential damages arising from any use of ratings and rating reports or arising from any error (negligent or otherwise) or other circumstance or contingency within or outside the control of DBRS or any DBRS Representative, in connection with or related to obtaining, collecting, compiling, analyzing, interpreting, communicating, publishing or delivering any such information. Ratings and other opinions issued by DBRS are, and must be construed solely as, statements of opinion and not statements of fact as to credit worthiness or recommendations to purchase, sell or hold any securities. A report providing a DBRS rating is neither a prospectus nor a substitute for the information assembled, verified and presented to investors by the issuer and its agents in connection with the sale of the securities. DBRS receives compensation for its rating activities from issuers, insurers, guarantors and/or underwriters of debt securities for assigning ratings and from subscribers to its website. DBRS is not responsible for the content or operation of third party websites accessed through hypertext or other computer links and DBRS shall have no liability to any person or entity for the use of such third party websites. This publication may not be reproduced, retransmitted or distributed in any form without the prior written consent of DBRS. ALL DBRS RATINGS ARE SUBJECT TO DISCLAIMERS AND CERTAIN LIMITATIONS. PLEASE READ THESE DISCLAIMERS AND LIMITATIONS AT http://www.dbrs.com/about/disclaimer. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING DBRS RATINGS, INCLUDING DEFINITIONS, POLICIES AND METHODOLOGIES, ARE AVAILABLE ON http://www.dbrs.com.


Page 65 of 363

Queen’s University Planning Committee

Report to the Board and Senate April 20th, 2016

The Queen’s University Planning Committee (QUPC) held its fourth and final meeting of the 15-16

academic year on April 4th, 2016.

As part of the meeting, the Committee received:

An update on the Strategic Framework from Principal D. Woolf;

An update on the development of the 2016-17 operating budget from Provost A. Harrison.

An update on enrolment from Provost A. Harrison and A. Tierney, Vice-Provost and Dean, Student

Affairs;

An update on the implementation of the Academic Plan from Provost A. Harrison;

The annual report on the Long-Term Strategic Enrolment Management Framework from Provost

A. Harrison;

A report on the Comprehensive International Plan from K. O’Brien, Associate Vice-Principal

(International) and Provost A. Harrison; and

An update on major capital projects currently under construction from D. Boughton, Director,

Director, Design and Construction, Physical Plant Services.

The Committee approved two preliminary business cases for approval by the Board of Trustees, via the

Capital Assets and Finance Committee, in accordance with the Major Capital Projects Approvals Policy:

Physical Education Centre Revitalization Project; and

Biomedical Unit Project.

The Committee also received an update on the work of the QUPC Governance Review Working Group,

from E. Speal and D. Detomasi. The Working Group is currently reviewing the governance function of the

Committee and is considering the degree to which the Committee has fulfilled the mandate as specified in

its terms of reference. The Governance and Nominating Committee of the Board and Trustees will hold a

preliminary discussion in May regarding the Working Group's recommendations with the intention of

seeking approvals by the Senate and Board in fall 2016.

The terms of reference are available here: http://www.queensu.ca/secretariat/board-

trustees/committees/planning-committee

2015-16 Membership

D. Woolf (Chair)

T. Abramsky

D. Detomasi

A. Harrison

S. Mumm

B. Palk

E. Rapos

D. Rappaport

E. Speal

M. Wilson Trider

L. Knox (Secretary)

C. Garneau (Associate Secretary)

ITEM: Queen's University Planning Committee Report

Page 66 of 363

http://queensu.ca/provost/budget-and-enrolment-planning/budget

http://queensu.ca/secretariat/sites/webpublish.queensu.ca.uslcwww/files/files/index/QUniversityAcademicPlanFinal2011.pdf

http://www.queensu.ca/mc_administrator/sites/default/files/assets/pages/strategicframework/SEMGlongtermframeworkFeb28forSCAD.pdf

http://www.queensu.ca/gazette/mc_administrator/sites/default/files/assets/pdf/Comprehensive%20International%20Plan%20Booklet.pdf


http://www.queensu.ca/secretariat/board-trustees/committees/planning-committee

http://www.queensu.ca/secretariat/board-trustees/committees/planning-committee

1 | P a g e

Queen’s University Joint Board/Senate Retreat 2016

Final Report

Queen’s University’s fourth Board/Senate Retreat was held on March 5, 2016. Its theme was the

university’s ongoing review of the student non-academic misconduct (NAM) system.

Attendees included trustees, senators, members of the Advisory Committee on Non-Academic

Misconduct (ACNAM), and members of Queen’s senior administration. The agenda (Appendix

1) was divided into three modules, each focused on one aspect of the NAM review:

the Central Intake Office and Interim Protocol;

the draft Student Code of Conduct; and

the proposed governance structure of the revised NAM system.

Each module began with a presentation, after which attendees provided detailed feedback and

asked questions of the presenters, which are summarized below.

Attendees received background reading prior to the retreat (the Lewis Report, the Bastarache

opinion, and summaries of ACNAM’s consultation to date), as well as three documents related

to the second and third module: the draft Student Code of Conduct, and draft terms of reference

for a proposed Subcommittee on Student Non-Academic Misconduct and a Non-Academic

Misconduct Systems’ Roundtable.

A comprehensive survey was undertaken after the retreat, and the results will be studies prior

to the commencement of planning for the next retreat.

Module 1 – Central Intake Office and Interim Protocol

Alan Harrison (Provost and Vice-Principal Academic), Harry Smith (University Ombudsman),

and Roxy Denniston-Stewart (Associate Dean of Student Affairs - Student Services and

Community Relations) outlined the implementation over 2015-16 of the interim NAM protocol,

and provided details on the processes used in the Office of the University Ombudsman and the

Office of the Provost and Vice-Principal (Academic) during this period. In addition, specific

cases were discussed to provide attendees with a better understanding of the types of cases

being dealt with. The cases were appropriately anonymized to ensure confidentiality.

The following information was subsequently confirmed in the participants’ discussion:

Students are offered supports via offices that are both internal and external to Queen’s.

The specific service(s) offered depend both on the situation and the students’

ITEM: 2016 Board-Senate Retreat Report

Page 67 of 363

2 | P a g e

preferences. To date, the level of service offered by the university has been well

received by those students wishing to take advantage of it.

All university-level cases have reached a resolution through an outcome agreed to by

the individual(s) in question; for this reason, a university conduct panel has yet to be

convened.

The sanctioning process has focused primarily on educational sanctions to date, but may

take into account various forms of restorative justice in the future, especially those that

may prove educational for students (i.e., healing circles).

At least one university has worked with the Crown to offer police the opportunity to

refer certain types of cases to the Nam process. Discussions between Queen’s and the

Crown will take place in the coming weeks.

All university-level cases to date have involved student health, safety and risk issues

(e.g., prohibited roof access). In more than a few cases, students at risk have been

identified and supported in seeking help.

Going forward, gender will not be identified in the NAM process.

Residence deals with hundreds of cases on its own each year, all of which involve “level

1” or “level 2” complaints as laid out in the ResRules. These are incidents such as noise

violations, minor guest violations, minor failure to cooperate violations, etc.

The privacy rights of students must be kept in mind at all times when dealing with

cases. Information should be shared on a need-to-know basis.

Module 2 – Draft Student Code of Conduct

Lisa Newton (University Counsel) took attendees through the draft Student Code of Conduct,

as drafted by the Policy Writing Subcommittee of ACNAM. Attendees were provided with a

detailed explanation of the processes used in the planning and writing of the Code, what was

included and excluded, and why.

It was explained that the Code is an attempt to strike an appropriate balance between the

university’s responsibility for the health and safety of the Queen’s community, and the

recognition that students are adults with the freedom to make appropriate decisions with

respect to their behaviour. Some community members expect the university to take

responsibility for all behaviour of Queen’s students, regardless of where an incident may occur.

Both ACNAM and the Policy Drafting Subcommittee have had lengthy conversations about this

and how the Code should appropriately reflect the university’s responsibility and the extent of

its jurisdiction.

Attendees provided the following feedback for ACNAM’s consideration:

Where possible, the Code should be framed in a more positive manner. Currently, it is a

“code of misconduct” and emphasizes negative behaviour and its consequence. While it


Page 68 of 363

3 | P a g e

is important that students understand the sanctions that may be applied for a violation

of the Code, the document should be based on the premise that all students are capable

of appropriate conduct.

A readability review should be a priority. The draft Code is long and, if the university

wants to emphasize compliance on behalf of students, the Code should be written in a

way that promotes readability and comprehension from the perspective of a young

adult.

A reorganization of the various sections of the Code may improve readability. It could

begin with the principles, followed by types of non-academic misconduct and the

sanctions. The other sections could be moved to the end, including the authority section.

o It was noted that both the readability exercise and the development of a

communications plan for the Code will take place as further versions of the Code

are produced. An executive summary and visual diagrams.will also be

produced.

o All sections of the Code will be hyperlinked to a table of contents to ensure that

readers can quickly get to the section of the Code in which they have the most

interest.

It was suggested that all students be required to electronically acknowledge their

agreement with the requirements laid out in the Code. The version of the Code

presented for students could be the executive summary with links to the full Code.

o It was noted that students are already required to do this with the current Code

once per year before they are permitted to access the online student system used

for course registration, etc.

o If there are concerns about whether students are actually reading what is being

signed, a short quiz could be a component of the process.

It was confirmed that information relating to the Student Conduct Panel will be

included in the Code. ACNAM will soon consider the appropriate composition of the

Panel and will ensure student representation.

It was suggested that the BISC code be reviewed to ensure it aligns with the new Code.

The existing language referring to student groups and the responsibilities of each

student group’s leadership with respect to the behaviour of group members should be

clarified to ensure it conveys the intended meaning. It was emphasized that student

group leaders strive to create inclusive and welcoming spaces and experiences for fellow

students.

It was suggested that if students are held responsible for the actions of invited guests,

bystander intervention training should be provided by the university.

Further information regarding free and lawful assembly and freedom of speech should

be added to the section on disruption/interference to emphasize students’ rights.

Thought should be given to the Code and its intersection with the beliefs and practices

of Aboriginal students.


Page 69 of 363

4 | P a g e

Module 3 – Governance of Queen’s Non-Academic Misconduct System

Daniel Woolf (Principal and Vice-Chancellor, and Chair of ACNAM) presented the proposed

governance structure for the university’s revised NAM system, including draft terms of

reference for a Subcommittee on Student Non-Academic Misconduct (SONAM) and a Non-

Academic Misconduct Systems’ Roundtable.

It was confirmed that SONAM would be a subcommittee of the Board of Trustees’ Audit and

Risk Committee, with significant Senate representation, which would regularly review the

Student Code of Conduct, receive semi-annual reports from the University Student Appeals

Board and each unit of the NAM system, and address any matter referred to it by the Audit and

Risk Committee.

It was also confirmed that the NAM Roundtable would serve as an informal forum for those

involved in the operation of the university’s NAM system to aid in the coordination of policies

and procedures, share information on best practices, and submit an annual report to SONAM.

It was confirmed that, if approved, the Subcommittee on Student Non-Academic Misconduct

(SONAM) would replace the existing Senate Committee on Non-Academic Discipline

(SONAD). In the past, SONAD has considered both policy and governance issues related to

non-academic misconduct and dealt with the operation of the system itself, while being

populated largely by those individuals who run the various units of the university’s non-

academic misconduct system. It has been recognized that this is not a best practice, and does

not permit a level of oversight that ensures the university is meeting its risk management

responsibility, hence the proposed separation of SONAD’s duties to SONAM and the

Roundtable. The Provost will be a non-voting member of SONAM.

Attendees provided the following feedback for ACNAM’s consideration:

The proposed composition of SONAM should reflect that the members from Senate

should include one faculty member and at least one student. A similar modification

should be made to the Trustee membership, noting that “at least” one of the Trustees

should also be a member of the Audit and Risk Committee….”

It would be more appropriate for SONAM to receive one inclusive report from the

Central Intake Office, rather than from the various units of the NAM system, given the

information management role of the Central Intake Office as outlined in the draft Code.

SONAM’s terms should also state that guests/resource persons, such as deans, should be

permitted to attend meetings at the invitation of the Chair, in addition to representatives

from each unit of the NAM system.


Page 70 of 363


Agenda

JOINT BOARD-SENATE RETREATMarch 5, 2016, 9:00 am Ellis Hall Active Learning Classrooms (Ellis Hall, 3rd Floor)

Retreat Theme

The 2016 Board/Senate Retreat will bring together Trustees and Senators to discuss the proposed revisions to the non-

academic misconduct system, with particular focus on the draft revised Student Code of Conduct and the proposed

governance of the revised system. Members of the university’s senior administration and the Principal’s Advisory

Committee on Non-Academic Misconduct will also participate in the Retreat.

Retreat Objectives

The primary objective of the Board-Senate Retreat is to provide an opportunity for Trustees and Senators to discuss

current issues and ideas of interest to both governing bodies, with the aim of fostering greater collaboration between

them. This year’s Retreat will function as the final consultation session with both governing bodies concerning the

university’s review of its non-academic misconduct system, which has been underway since September 2015.

I Registration and Breakfast

Registration and continental breakfast will be available from 8:30

am onward outside the meeting room.

(8:30 am)

II Welcoming Remarks (D. Woolf, B. Palk) (9:00 am)

III Module 1 - Interim Protocol and Central Intake Office (A.

Harrison, R. Denniston-Stewart, H. Smith)

Alan Harrison, Provost and Vice-Principal (Academic), Roxy

Denniston-Stewart, Associate Dean of Student Services and

Community Relations, and Harry Smith, University Ombudsman,

will complete a brief presentation on the Interim Protocol and

Central Intake Office. They will share their experiences over the

past several months, with a specific focus on their day-to-day

involvement with the non-academic misconduct system, and will

provide time for questions and feedback from attendees.

(9:10 am)

3 - 6 1. The Interim Protocol - Non-Academic Student

Misconduct at Queen’s

7 - 17 2. Procedure re: Interim Protocol for Non-Academic

Misconduct

IV Refreshment and Networking Break

Light refreshments will be provided outside the meeting rooms. (10:00

am)

V Module 2 - Draft Student Code of Conduct (L. Newton)

Lisa Newton, University Counsel and Chair of the ACNAM Policy (10:30

Appendix AITEM: 2016 Board-Senate Retreat Report

Page 71 of 363

Agenda


Writing Subcommittee, will present the draft Student Code of

Conduct and explain the process used by the Subcommittee when

planning and writing the draft Code. Attendees will have the

opportunity to ask questions and provide their feedback on the draft

document.

am)

18 - 27 1. Draft Queen's University Student Code of Conduct VI Lunch

Lunch will be provided outside the meeting rooms.

(12:00

pm) VII Module 3 - Governance of Queen's Non-Academic

Misconduct System (D. Woolf)

Daniel Woolf, Principal and Vice-Chancellor, and Chair of the

Principal's Advisory Committee on Non-Academic Misconduct,

will present the proposed governance structure for the university's

revised non-academic misconduct system. Attendees will review

the draft terms of reference for the proposed Subcommittee on

Student Non-Academic Misconduct and Non-Academic

Misconduct Systems' Roundtable, and will be able to provide their

feedback.

(12:45

pm)

28 - 29 1. Subcommittee on Student Non-Academic Misconduct -

Terms of Reference

30 2. Non-Academic Misconduct Systems’ Roundtable - Terms

of Reference

VIII Closing Remarks and Review of Next Steps (D. Woolf, B.

Palk)

(1:15

pm) IX Adjournment

(1:30

pm) X Background Reading

All participants are being asked to review the following documents

in order to provide themselves with knowledge sufficient for a

robust and worthwhile discussion at the Retreat:

31 - 136 1. The Lewis Report to the Board of Trustees’ Audit and

Risk Committee concerning Queen’s non-academic

discipline process (including the 2012 report of the review

of the non-academic misconduct system, which was an

appendix to the Lewis Report).

137 - 187 2. The legal opinion of M. Bastarache concerning the

responsibility for student non-academic discipline and

welfare at Queen’s University.

188 - 190 3. Summaries from the consultation sessions held to date by

the Principal’s Advisory Committee on Non-Academic

Misconduct.

Page 2 of 190


Page 72 of 363

1

Queen's University BOARD OF TRUSTEES

May 6-7, 2016

1. PROFESSOR EMERITUS/EMERITA (for information only)

FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCE Keith Banting, Department of Political Studies Keith Banting is one of Queen’s University’s leading scholars, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, a Member of the Order of Canada, and a holder of the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal. He holds the Queen’s Research Chair in Public Policy. After receiving his BA at Queen’s and his DPhil at Oxford, he began his academic career at UBC, returning to Queen’s in 1986 as a joint appointee in the Department of Political Studies and the School of Policy Studies. He is one of the leading Canadian scholars on the welfare state and social policy, who has built an international reputation for his research in areas such as federalism, immigration, and multiculturalism, and their relationship to the welfare state, as well as other aspects of social policy. He has written, co-edited, or edited as total of 19 books and 86 articles and book chapters. In 2010, he was elected President of the Canadian Political Science Association. He has presented the results of his research and reflection to policy-makers in many different contexts in Canada and abroad. At the same time, Keith Banting has played a major role in the life of the University, most notably as a member and then Director of the School of Policy Studies, where he did much to develop the School and enhance its reputation. In this, he was assisted by his wide circle of friends in Canadian public life as well as in the academic world, and his many academic contacts abroad, which he has developed further as a visitor at the European University Institute (Florence), Stockholm University, the University of California (Berkeley), the Brookings Institution, and Harvard, among others. He has been a very active participant in the work of both the Department and the School. Lorne Carmichael, Department of Economics Lorne Carmichael was born in Deep River, Ontario. He received an Honours BA from Western University in 1976 and then studied at Stanford University, obtaining his PhD in 1980. He was initially appointed to Queen's in 1980 and was promoted to Associate Professor in 1986 and to Professor in 1990. Professor Carmichael was a visiting professor at the University of Washington (1986), UBC (1988), Melboure (1997), Aukland (1998) and Queensland (2003). He was also a National Fellow at the Hoover Institution (1983-4) and a visiting fellow at Australian National University (1989) and the University of Munich (2003). During his thirty six years at Queen's, Professor Carmichael distinguished himself as an internationally renowned researcher in labour economics. He was Head of the economics department from 1994 to 2001, served as Undergraduate Chair from 2006 to 2010 and sat on numerous committees at all levels in the University. He has been an outstanding teacher and mentor and has supervised numerous MA and PhD students over the years. In 2015-16, he was nominated for the Frank Knox teaching award. Professor Carmichael's research contributions are widely cited and influential. His paper with Bentley MacLeod “Worker Cooperation and the Ratchet Effect”, won the prestigious H. Gregg Lewis Prize for the best paper in the Journal of Labour Economics in 2000-01. He served as Editor of the Journal of Labour

ITEM: Professor Emeritus/Emerita Report

Page 73 of 363

2

Economics for ten years (1997-2007) and was also Managing Editor for the Canadian Journal of Economics (1993-94) and was on the editorial board for the American Economic Review (1991-97). Robert W. Dalrymple, Department of Geological Sciences and Geological Engineering Dr. Bob Dalrymple received his Ph.D. from McMaster University in 1977, and came to Queen’s in 1980 after a Post-doctoral Fellowship at Oxford University and two years of teaching at Brock University. In his 35 years at Queen’s, he has served on many committees at the Department, Faculty and University levels, including a term on Senate, and was Head of his department for 5 years. He taught almost every student who graduated from his department over this 35-year period. He is an internationally recognized specialist in the sedimentary record of coastal zones, and particularly of areas with significant tidal influence. He and his students have undertaken research in such modern depositional environments as the Bay of Fundy, the Fly River delta (Papua New Guinea), and the west coast of South Korea, as well as ancient sedimentary successions in western Canada, Norway, France, Spain and Argentina. He is best known for his work on the sedimentary record of estuaries and incised valleys. He has also contributed to research on the oldest animals, the sedimentology of the non-actualistic time before land plants evolved, and the oldest-known terrestrial tracks that are exposed north of Kingston. He has authored or co-authored more than 100 refereed publications, and has co-edited five books, including the latest edition of the globally popular textbook Facies Models. Dr. Dalrymple has received the Middleton Medal from the Geological Association of Canada, and the Twenhofel Medal, the highest award given by the international organization SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology), in recognition of “a career of outstanding contributions in sedimentary geology”. Janice Glasgow, School of Computing Dr. Glasgow received her PhD degree at the University of Waterloo. She began her distinguished career at Queen’s in 1981 in the (then) Department of Computing and Information Science. In her 35 years of service, Janice made profound and lasting contributions to the QSC’s mission of teaching, research, and service, to Queen’s University, and to the scientific community at large. In a predominantly male dominated field, she has been a role model to young women aspiring to become computer scientists, and it is thanks to her pioneering work that the QSC is now a leader in promoting women’s participation at all levels of the discipline. Over the last 35 years, Dr. Glasgow taught computing courses at every undergraduate level, including introductory programming courses (for both computing and engineering students), discrete mathematics, logic, programming languages, artificial intelligence and ethics. She also taught seven different graduate courses in the areas of artificial intelligence, bioinformatics and research methods. Most of these courses were initially designed by her. Dr. Glasgow supervised numerous undergraduate students, 40 MSc and PhD students, and 6 postdoctoral fellows. Janice has also been involved in program development. During her time as Head of Department, she initiated a novel undergraduate degree program in Biomedical Computing (the first of its kind in Canada). Along with Susan Lederman, she also founded a new program in Cognitive Science, jointly with Psychology. During the last two years, she has been involved in the development of new professional graduate programs (Diploma and MSc) in Biomedical Informatics (jointly with DBMS). These programs are currently under review by the university. Dr. Glasgow has published over 200 journal and conference papers. She is an international research leader in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Bioinformatics: Queen's Research Chair in


Page 74 of 363

3

Biomedical Computing; Founding Director of the International Society for Computational Biology; Co-editor of one book and one special issue of AI Magazine; Principal Investigator: Protein Engineering Center of Excellence, Institute for Robotics and Intelligent Systems, Communication and Information Technology Ontario, Genomics for Informed Decisions Center of Excellence; Principal Investigator on Multiple NSERC Discovery and Strategic Grants; Elected Visiting Research Fellow: University of Bologna, Italy; Visiting Scientist: Cambridge Crystallographic Data Center, Cambridge, UK; Adjunct Professor: University of Toronto; over 50 invited talks and conference presentations. The main focus of Dr. Glasgow’s research in AI and Cognitive Science has been on the development of a novel automated reasoning system for Computational Imagery. This ground breaking work is based on psychological models for imagery, and provides an alternative to logical reasoning systems. As well, along with her graduate students she has made several contributions in the area of Case-Based Reasoning. Based on research results from her laboratory, she was a co-founder of the company Molecular Mining in 1999. Along with her colleagues, she received a CITO Innovation Award for Excellence in Entrepreneurship. Dr. Glasgow served as Department Head (1997-2002), Undergraduate Chair, and a member of multiple internal committees, including Chair of Arts and Science Curriculum committee, Scholarship Committees, member of Faculty Board. Her external activities include membership on 7 Editorial Boards for top journals, NSERC member and chair of grant selection committee, and NSERC group chair for engineering and computing; conference chair (twice) for ISMB (top international bioinformatics conference), executive committee and advisory committee of IJCA (top international artificial intelligence conference), program/organizing committee member for over 40 conferences and workshops; Consultant: IBM, Bell Canada, Canadian Space Agency, Ontario Hydro; and President of the Canadian Society or Artificial Intelligence. Janice Helland, Department of Art Janice Helland obtained her PhD from the University of Victoria in 1991. She taught at Concordia University from 1991 until 1999 where she was University Research Fellow (1999) and promoted to Professor (1999). During her years at Concordia, she served a five-year term as Co-editor, Revue d’art Canadienne/Canadian Art Review and a 3-year term as Project Advisor for Dictionary of Women Artists (London: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1997). In 1999 she was appointed Queen’s National Scholar in Art History and Women’s Studies. Twice she served as Acting Head in Women’s Studies/Gender Studies, she was Graduate Coordinator in Art History 2003-2005 and again from 2007-2010. From 2011 to 2015 she was Head, Art Department (now Art History & Art Conservation). She also served on the College of Reviewers for the Canada Research Chairs Programme, SSHRC (Committee 3), held a 3-year appointment to the Killam Selection Committee, was an Advisory Editor for Visual Culture in Britain (1999-2005) and for Victorian Review (2008-2015). Beginning in 1993 she held five consecutive SSHRC Standard Research Grants and, while teaching at Concordia, she held a Fonds pour la Formation de Chercheurs et l’Aide à la Recherche (FCAR) “les nouveaux chercheurs,” 1994-1997, and was co-investigator with Anthony Synnott (Sociology) of “Towards a Multi-Sensory Aesthetic: Exploring the Proximity Senses in Art”, Fonds pour la Formation de Chercheurs et l’Aide à la Recherche (FCAR), 1997-2000. In 1995, she was Visiting Research Fellowship, The Institute


Page 75 of 363

4

for Advanced Studies in the Humanities, The University of Edinburgh. She has published three single-authored books, co-edited four edited volumes, published fifteen book chapters and seventeen refereed journal articles, plus written numerous book reviews, dictionary entries, presented papers at refereed conferences, given invited papers, and refereed manuscripts for journals and publishers, She has supervised thirty-two MA students, 10 PhD students and has nine in-progress PhDs. Frank Lewis, Department of Economics Frank Lewis was born in Montreal where he grew up. He received an Honours BA from McGill University in 1967 and then studied at the University of Rochester, obtaining his MA in 1970 and his PhD in 1976. He was initially appointed to Queen's in 1972 and was promoted to Associate Professor in 1980 and to Professor in 1987. Professor Lewis was a visiting professor at UBC (1977-8), the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (1994, 2004) and the University of Colorado (2011). He was also a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research (1978-80, 2012) and the Australian National University (1987). During his forty four years at Queen's, Professor Lewis distinguished himself as an internationally renowned researcher on many aspects of the economic history of Canada and the U.S. He was Head of the economic department in 1997-8 and 2001-3 and has served on numerous committees at all levels. He has been an outstanding teacher and mentor and, in 2015, he received the Queen’s economics undergraduate teaching award. Professor Lewis's research contributions are widely cited and he has received several prestigious awards for his work. He won the Harry Johnson Prize in 1999 for the best paper in the Canadian Journal of Economics, “Property Rights, Competition and Depletion in the Eighteenth-Century”. He received the Library Company of Philadelphia Prize for 2001 for the best article in early American economic history, “Trade, Consumption, and the Native Economy: Lessons from York Factory, Hudson Bay,” Journal of Economic History, vol. 61 (2001), pp. 1037-64 (with Ann Carlos). He was also a finalist for the Alice Hanson Jones Prize (best book in North American Economic History in 2010-11) for Commerce by a Frozen Sea: Native Americans and the European Fur Trade, with Ann Carlos. Roderick Lindsay, Department of Psychology Rod Lindsay received his B.Sc. from the University of Toronto in 1974, his M.Sc. and Ph.D. from the University of Alberta (1982). After completing a postdoc at the University of Manitoba, Dr. Lindsay came to Queens University in 1982 and was promoted to the rank of Professor in 1990. He is internationally known for his work on police investigative procedures, particular lineups. This work has been important for our understanding of why so many wrongful convictions are the result of identification error. His research has also made important contributions toward the solution of the misidentification problem with the development of alternative lineup procedures, most notably the sequential lineup which is now widely employed both in Canada and around the world. Dr. Lindsay has published over 100 papers in peer-reviewed journals and peer-reviewed chapters in addition to over 180 conference papers. His two edited books brought the research in the eyewitness field together in the Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology. Dr. Lindsay is a Queen’s University Research Chair and received awards for mentoring graduate students both from Queen’s and the American Psychology-Law Society. Dr. Lindsay has consulted widely both in criminal and civil cases. Most notably he was called to testify in one of the Rwandan genocide cases. His work also has been cited in national guidelines for police procedures in Canada, The UK, Australia, and the US (where he co-wrote the policies).


Page 76 of 363

5

Douglas Mewhort, Department of Psychology Douglas Mewhort received his ARCT (1960) and BA (1964) from the University of Toronto. Following an MA (1965) and PhD in Psychology (1968) at the University of Waterloo, Dr. Mewhort came to Queen’s University in 1968 and was promoted to the rank of Professor in 1982. He is internationally known for his work on memory, reading and high-performance computing. His early work was important for our understanding of early visual processes in reading and his later work for understanding the representation of meaning in memory, implicit learning and decision. He has published over 100 papers in peer-reviewed journals, two edited books on high-performance computing. He was instrumental in the establishment of the high-performance computing environment at Queen’s (the High Performance Virtual Laboratory). He supervised 21 Masters and 17 Doctoral students. He has served as Editor of the Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, as Associate Editor of Psychologische Forschung, and as President of the Canadian Society for Brain, Behaviour, and Cognitive Science. Dr. Mewhort is a Fellow of the Canadian Psychological Associations and the Zentrum für interdisziplinäre Forschung, Universität Bielefeld. Christine Overall, Department of Philosophy Christine Overall received her PhD in philosophy from the University of Toronto in 1980. She began teaching at Marianopolis College, Montreal, in 1975. In 1984 she was awarded a Webster Fellowship in the Humanities at Queen’s University. In 1987 she was hired as a Queen’s National Scholar and Assistant Professor in Philosophy. She was promoted to Associate in 1988, tenured in 1990, and promoted to Professor in 1992. From 1997 to 2005 she served as an Associate Dean in the Faculty of Arts and Science. In 2004-05 she was the John and Ella G. Charlton Professorship in Philosophy at Queen’s, and from 2005 to 2016 she held a Queen’s University Research Chair. She was invited to serve as the first Humphrey Professor in Feminist Philosophy at the University of Waterloo in 2003, and in 2006-2007 she held the Nancy’s Chair in Women’s Studies at Mount Saint Vincent University. In 2011-12 she was the Visiting Professor in Canadian Studies at Kwansei Gakuin University in Nishinomiya, Japan. Deeply interested in teaching, she won two teaching awards, in 1990 and 1996, and is proud of the successes of the graduate students whom she supervised. Elected to the Royal Society of Canada in 1998, Dr. Overall won the Abbyann D. Lynch Medal in Bioethics from the Royal Society in 2006, and the Award in Gender Studies from the Royal Society in 2008. She was awarded Queen’s University’s Prize for Excellence in Research in 2014. Dr. Overall’s main areas of research are feminist philosophy, applied philosophy (especially procreative ethics), and philosophy of religion. She has published over 90 journal articles and book chapters, many of which have been reprinted multiple times. She is the editor or co-editor of four books and the author of six. Her book, Aging, Death, and Human Longevity: A Philosophical Inquiry (2003) won the Canadian Philosophical Association’s 2005 Book Prize. Her book, Why Have Children? The Ethical Debate (2012), has been translated into Italian, Spanish, and Korean. Dr. Overall is also committed to disseminating philosophy beyond academe. In 1988 she was invited to contribute guest editorials to the Kingston Whig-Standard, and by 1993 she was a regular columnist, writing over 400 columns until 2006. From 2008 to 2011 she authored a column, “It’s All Academic,” for University Affairs.


Page 77 of 363

6

Dr. Overall continues to be active in philosophical research. Her next book, an edited anthology entitled Pets and People: The Ethics of Our Relationships with Companion Animals, will be published by Oxford University Press in 2016. Charles Pentland, Department of Political Studies Charles Pentland’s distinguished career in the Political Studies Department at Queen’s has spanned 45 years, from 1969 to 2014. He obtained a BA and MA in Political Science at UBC, followed by a PhD in International Relations at LSE. He made a name early on as a leading scholar in the field of European integration, with his International Theory and European Integration. Since then, he has published widely, with a total of ten authored and edited books and over 45 scholarly articles and chapters. In his research he has investigated international organizations, EU enlargement, and EU foreign and defence policy, among other subjects in international relations. He has placed a significant role in the international scholarly community, notably as a co-editor of the International Journal and the Journal of European Integration. Charles Pentland is also a very popular and well-like teacher, who has inspired and enlightened many students over his career. He has made a significant contribution to Queen’s as Head of the Department of Political Studies and later as Director of the Centre for International Relations, and as a charming, genial colleague who has always been ready to do his share and more for our common enterprise. Robert Tennent, School of Computing Bob Tennent studied Engineering Science at the University of Toronto. He was in the Electrical option; but in his 1st year he took a short non-credit course on FORTRAN programming and was hooked. For graduate work, he did a Master's and Doctorate in the new Computer Science Department at the University of Toronto. He was hired at Queen's in 1971. The Department of Computing and Information Science at Queen's was rather small at that time and he had to teach a wide variety of subjects: programming, data structures, computers and society, artificial intelligence, compilers, theory of computing. In recent years, his main undergraduate course has been CISC-465 (Foundations of Programming Languages), offered as an "Oxbridge"-style tutorial and reading course. Bob’s first research publication, on the semantics of SNOBOL4, was based on material in his thesis. An expository paper on semantics of programming languages, published in the Communications of the ACM in 1976, was quite influential. He supervised several graduate students. Bob Tennent has published three textbooks based on courses he has taught at Queen’s. Two of these are still in print and in use at Queen's and elsewhere. Dr. Tennent’s research area was theoretical, but he has continued to be active in software development since his days as a programmer. To help him debug graphics intended for the Calcomp printer (used in those days for charts and graphs), he developed a "Calcomp emulator" which approximated the output on a line printer. This program was released to the open-source repositories of the day and used widely. When he became Undergraduate Chair in the School of Computing, he thought he could improve on the crude prerequisite chart then available and he developed advanced LaTeX-based technology for generating and editing attractive and informative prerequisite charts for the School’s main programs. This software has been open-sourced and is used at other institutions.


Page 78 of 363

7

As Undergraduate Chair, he has been primarily responsible for several key additions to our curriculum: CISC-223 (Software Specifications), CISC-260 (Programming Paradigms), CISC-220 (System-Level Programming), CISC-320 (Software Development), CISC-102 (Discrete Mathematics I) and CISC-500 (Undergraduate Thesis). Professor Tennent has also been involved in establishing several new programs in the School of Computing: Computer Science and Software Design (to meet accreditation requirements), Professional Internship versions of our Honours programs, Computing and the Creative Arts (to attract BAH students to computing), Computing and Mathematics (to attract the most ambitious students) and the Game- Development option in Software Design. He also led several attempts at creating a joint program in Computing and Commerce. Professor Tennent brought a wealth of expertise to our undergraduate programs. The QSC’s educational mission was served well by his dedication, vision, perseverance and hard work, which led to the enrichment of the School’s program offerings. Most particularly, it is worth noting that bringing two departments to work together is usually not an easy task, succeeding, as he did, in uniting five units (Art, Computing, Drama, Film, and Music) to create the Computing and the Creative Arts program was an exceptional accomplishment. His knowledge of our undergraduate curriculum is unique and it will be missed. Eugene Zaremba, Department of Physics, Engineering Physics and Astronomy Eugene Zaremba received a BASc in 1969, a MSc in 1970 and a PhD in 1974, all from the University of Toronto. His PhD work, under the supervision of Allan Griffin, was in the area of surface physics and he continued his studies as an NSERC Postdoctoral Fellow with Walter Kohn (a Nobel laureate) at the University of California, San Diego from January 1974 to June 1976. There he made important contributions to the theory of physisorption of rare gas atoms on metal surfaces. Two of his papers published at this time are among his most highly cited publications. Eugene returned to Canada in 1976 to take up a position in the Department of Physics at Queen's University. There he established a collaboration with Malcolm Stott, with whom he worked intensively for almost a decade on, among other things, the electronic properties of atoms in solids using density functional methods. His first sabbatical leave was taken in 1983-84 and was held at the IFF, Kernforschungsanlage, Juelich, Germany. There he continued his research in surface physics and density functional theory. On his return to Queen's, Eugene became interested in the electronic energy loss of ions moving rapidly through matter, the so-called stopping power problem. A paper on this topic published together with Chong der Hu, a postdoctoral fellow, ultimately led to a close and long-term collaboration with Pedro Echenique and Andres Arnau of the Unversidad del Pais Vasco in San Sebastian, Spain working on stopping power problems. As a result of this collaboration, Eugene was awarded the Iberdrola Chair. Also during the period 1985-95, Eugene worked closely with Robin Fletcher, an experimentalist at Queen's, with whom he published several papers on the transport properties of semiconductor heterostructures. This period also saw the publication of the book, Physical Adsorption: Forces and Phenomena, which he coauthored with L. W. Bruch and M. W. Cole.


Page 79 of 363

8

In 1996, Eugene began research in a completely new area that was stimulated by the discovery of Bose Einstein condensation in trapped atomic gases. Interestingly, after a twenty-two year hiatus, he resumed a productive collaboration with Allan Griffin, his former Ph.D. supervisor, which culminated in the publication in 2009 of the book Bose-condensed Gases at Finite Temperatures by Allan Griffin, Tetsuro Nukuni and EZ. Ultracold matter continues to be Eugene's primary research interest. Of all his university-related activities, by far his most enjoyable has been coaching the Queen's Men's Squash Team which he has done without interruption for more than twenty years. An avid and proficient squash player in his day, he now takes pleasure in passing on his squash-playing knowledge and experience to a continuous stream of talented Queen's student-athletes. Elisabeth Zawisza, Department of French Studies Dr. Zawisza has been a prolific and influential scholar throughout her academic career. Dr. Zawisza received her PhD from the lnstitut de Philologie Romane, University of Wroclaw, Poland, in 1980. After taking up positions, first, at the University of Wroclaw from 1980 to 1983, and then at l'lnstitut des langues vivantes et etrangeres, at the University of Constantine in Algeria from 1984 to 1987, Dr. Zawisza was hired by the Department of French Studies at Queen's University. A specialist in 18th Century French Literature, Dr. Zawisza taught French literature at Queen's from 1988 to 2015 and established herself as a prominent scholar in the field of 18th century studies. Her numersous publications include 3 books: Le roman dans Ia culture de lecture de Ia France du XV/1/e siecle, published in 1988; Paratextes. Etudes aux bards du texte, published in 2000; L'Age d'or du peritexte. Titres et prefaces dans les romans du XV/1/e siecle, published in 2013. Over the course of the 27 years she spent at Queen's, Dr. Zawisza played an exemplary role in the Department of French Studies and at Queen's through her dedication to research, her commitment to teaching, her investment in and contributions to the university community as a whole. FACULTY OF HEALTH SCIENCES Richard J Beninger, Department of Psychiatry Dr. Beninger earned his BA degree in 1973 from Western University, and a MA in 1974 and PhD in 1977 from McGill University. He was a Medical Research Council of Canada (now CIHR) postdoctoral fellow at the University of British Columbia from 1977-1980. Dr. Beninger joined the Department of Psychology in 1980 as an Assistant Professor, was promoted to Associate Professor in 1983 and to the rank of Professor in 1988. He was appointed to Psychiatry in 1983 as an Adjunct Professor, cross appointed in 1986 and was a Joint Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry from 1995 until his retirement. Dr. Beninger served as Head of Psychology form 2009-2014. Dr. Beninger received an Ontario Ministry of Health Career Scientist Award in 1982 that he held for 10 years. He is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Association for Psychological Science, and the International Behavioral Neuroscience Society. Dr. Beninger was a Visiting Scientist at the Faculté de Médecine Pitié-Salpétrière, Université Paris IV, Paris, France (1987-1988), at the University of Western Australia, Perth (2007) and at Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic (2014). Dr. Beninger taught undergraduate courses in the area of behavioural neuroscience in Psychology at UBC and numerous undergraduate and graduate courses in that area at Queen’s over the years. He also taught psychiatric residents for a number of years. Dr. Beninger has mentored dozens of undergraduate thesis


Page 80 of 363

9

students and numerous MSc and PhD thesis students. Some of the alumni of his Neurotransmitters and Behaviour lab now work in industry and many are professors at Canadian and international universities. Throughout his career, Dr. Beninger’s research concerned the role of neurotransmitters in the control of behaviour, often with a focus on dopamine. He has published over 200 peer-reviewed scientific articles and has an H index of 43. He has edited a number of books and written numerous book chapters. Dr. Beninger continues to run an active research lab presently with seven graduate students under his supervision. The work continues to focus on the role of dopamine in incentive learning and inverse incentive learning and on molecular mechanisms of dopamine-mediated learning. J. Kenneth Le Clair, Department of Psychiatry Dr. Le Clair has been a Professor and member of the Division of Geriatric Psychiatry at Queen’s University for the past 15 years having moved to Queen’s from McMaster University where he was the Vice-Chair of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and Associate Director of the Educational Centre for Aging and Health. He graduated cum laude in Medicine in 1977 from the University of Ottawa and received his Fellowship in Psychiatry in 1986. Dr. Le Clair has had a career in the field of knowledge exchange in Geriatric Psychiatry that spans over three decades and has been recognized by the Canadian Academy for outstanding contributions to the field in 2004 and received a Lifetime Achievement Award in Geriatric Psychiatry in 2009 from the Canadian Academy. He has also been recognized by the International Psychogeriatric Association for Distinguished Service (Host Country). His major interests have been in learning and development, knowledge exchange and health service delivery research for older persons with complex health care challenges and associated behavioural, mental health and cognitive disorders in terms of the development, dissemination and delivery of new knowledge that inform policy and practice. He is the Co-Lead of National Brainxchange and is a member of the Executive of the Seniors Health Knowledge Network for the province of Ontario. He was scientific lead of the knowledge exchange division of the Canadian knowledge exchange network a national Canadian Institute of Health Research initiative. In the field of senior mental health, he has assumed various policy research, education and service system leadership positions and engaged in policy development and related research. He was a founding member and continues as Co-Chair of the Canadian Coalition for Seniors’ Mental Health and a former member of the Mental Health Commission of Canada, Seniors’ Advisory Group. Dr. Le Clair also was a major lead in the development and implementation of a $40M annualized Behavioral Support initiative which has provided leadership and development in seniors’ mental health initiatives across Ontario. Dr. Le Clair is Senior Clinical Consultant for “P.I.E.C.E.S. Canada”, a well-recognized learning and development program in seniors’ mental health.


Page 81 of 363

10

Alan Mak, Department of Biomedical and Molecular Sciences Dr. Alan Mak completed his undergraduate and graduate education in Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of Manitoba receiving a doctorate in Plant Biochemistry in 1976. Following a Postdoctoral Fellowship in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Alberta he was successful in obtaining an MRC scholarship and began his career as Assistant Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at Queen’s University in 1982. Dr. Mak has been very successful in his research career, he is well-published and has been supported by various funding agencies including the Ontario Heart and Stroke Foundation and Canadian Institute for Health Research. He acted as Director of the Protein Function and Discovery Unit. Dr. Mak is a well-respected supervisor and mentor as evidenced by his long list of successful graduate students and post-doctoral fellows. John Matthews, Department of Medicine John Matthews attended Clare College Cambridge, and received his medical degree from there and University College Hospital, London. His hematology training was at Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, followed by Leicester Royal Infirmary. He spent one year as a fellow in hematology at Queen’s University. He was appointed Senior Lecturer in Hematology at St Mary’s Hospital and Imperial College Medical School, and then moved to Queen’s University where he currently holds the rank of Professor in the Division of Hematology. Initially involved with laboratory research into the cellular effects of vitamin B12 deficiency, he has spent most of the last 15 years in clinical work, teaching and residency training. He has been chief examiner in hematology for the Royal College of Physicians, and has directed both the Internal Medicine and the Hematology Training Programs at Queen’s University. He developed the autologous transplant program at Kingston General Hospital, and serves as its director. Ross Morton, Department of Medicine Ross Morton graduated from the Victoria University of Manchester with the degrees Bachelor of Medicine and of Surgery (M.B., Ch.B.) in 1980. He undertook training in Internal Medicine in the Greater Manchester area during 1980 – 1984, and became a Member of the Royal College of Physicians of London (M.R.C.P.) in 1983. Dr. Morton was appointed Tutor in Medicine (Nephrology) at the University of Manchester (1984 – 1986) during which time he was trained in Clinical Nephrology. In 1986 he became a Research Fellow in Endocrinology and Medical Oncology at the University of Manchester where I completed my doctorate thesis In Vivo and In Vitro Studies on 3-Amino-1-hydroxy-1,1-Bisphosphonate and was awarded the degree Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) in 1988. In 1988 Dr. Morton took up the position of Clinical Fellow in Nephrology and Mineral Metabolism at the University of Toronto. He became a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (F.R.C.P.C.) in 1990 with specialty certification in Internal Medicine (1989) and Nephrology (1990). He was elected to the Fellowship of the Royal College of Physicians of London (F.R.C.P.) in 2002 and to the Fellowship of the American College of Physicians (F.A.C.P.) in 2008. Dr. Morton was appointed to Queen’s University as Assistant Professor of Medicine in 1990, promoted to Associate Professor in 1994, and to Professor in 2002. He is primarily a Clinician Scholar who has a major interest in Education. He provided strong direction to the Clinical Clerkship in Internal Medicine while Departmental Coordinator (1991 – 1994) and in 1994 was appointed Program Director in Internal Medicine (1994 – 1997), leading the program through a major reorganization of the way General Internal Medicine was taught at Queen’s University. Ross Morton was a prime force in the development of the Internal


Page 82 of 363

11

Medicine Units (IMUs) at Kingston General Hospital. The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons subsequently recognized these units for the strength of their teaching. He developed de novo an Adult Nephrology Training Program. Since 2011 he has been Chair of the Division of Nephrology at Queen’s University. Dr. Morton is an effective teacher and has received two provincial teaching awards (PAIRO Trust Fund Travel Award 1992, PAIRO Excellence in Clinical Teaching Award 2001), Faculty of Medicine Teaching Awards (2001, 2003), the 2003 WF Connell Award for excellence in teaching, and numerous Departmental Teaching Awards at the Undergraduate and Post Graduate level. He is a Vice-Chair of the Internal Medicine Oral Examinations for the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Although his primary role is as an Educator Scholar / Clinician Scholar, he has maintained a strong Research interest in the field of Nephrology and Mineral Metabolism, where he has a national and international reputation. Dr. Morton has published 20 book chapters and invited editorials, 70 papers in peer reviewed journals, numerous letters in respected journals, and over 100 abstract publications based on presentations at national and international meetings. Dr. Morton remains active in the ongoing developments within the clinical domain of Internal Medicine. He is considered an excellent clinician and a highly respected and effective teacher, and continues to foster high quality medical education, specifically in the area of Clinical Skills. FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND APPLIED SCIENCE Ronald J. Neufeld, Department of Chemical Engineering Ronald Neufeld has degrees in Cell Biology (McGill) and Chemical/Biochemical Engineering (Western). He worked in the Engineering and Process Development group at the Domtar R&D Centre, (Montreal), served as Asst/Assoc/Full Professor of Chemical Engineering at McGill from 1980 to 1997, Associate Dean (Academic) of Engineering at McGill from 1993 to 1997, Founding Director of the Center for Bioprocess Engineering at McGill from 1988 to 1997, as Head of the Department of Chemical Engineering at Queen's University from 1997 to 2006, and as Professor of Chemical Engineering at Queen's from 1997 to the present.

He served as Vineberg Visiting Professor (Lady Davis Fellowship) in the Department of Chemical Engineering at the Technion, Haifa in 1989-1990; as the Forchheimer Visiting Professor (Lady Davis Fellowship) at the Hebrew University Hadassah Medical School in Jerusalem in 1990; as Professeur Invité in the Dépt Génie des Procédés at ENITIAA/ONIRIS, Nantes, France from 2002-2003; and Professeur Invité in the Dépt Systèmes énergétiques et environnement of the Ecole des Mines de Nantes, France from 2003-2007. He also worked as a visiting researcher at the Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry, Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow in 2006.

His research interests are in the micro- and nanoencapsulation of biologically active materials including mammalian and plant cells, microorganisms, enzymes, nucleotides, genomic DNA, therapeutic peptides and growth factors, and molecular-targeting therapeutics. He is the author/coauthor of 135 refereed publications plus 16 refereed review papers and book chapters, and holds 6 patents. Dr. Neufeld is the


Page 83 of 363

12

co-founder and presently serves as treasurer and is on the scientific program and steering committee of Bioencapsulation.net, which since 1980 has organized 26 international conferences on Bioencapsulation and applications, 23 industrial symposia, and 8 training schools. In 2013, he was presented with the Procter & Gamble Innovation Award in Berlin, and he is also the recipient of a Golden Apple Teaching award at Queen's. FACULTY OF EDUCATION Nancy Hutchinson Dr. Nancy Hutchinson received her BA from Trent University, her Diploma in Education and Special Education and MA from McGill University, and her PhD from Simon Fraser University. She joined the Faculty of Education at Queen’s University in 1987 as an assistant professor and was promoted to the rank of professor in 1999. At the Faculty of Education, Dr. Hutchinson served on a numerous committees and boards in various capacities, including Chair of the Graduate Admissions Committee (Doctoral and Master’s programs), Chair of Review Committee for SSHRC fellowships, Chair of the Research Ethics Board, and Coordinator of Graduate Studies and Research. External to the Faculty, she was involved with a number of national organizations, such as president of the Canadian Association for Educational Psychology, member of the Regional (Eastern Ontario) Special Education Council with the Ministry of Education and Training, and researcher in the Canadian Centre for Inclusive Education. Dr. Hutchinson’s research interests include: teacher education; inclusion of exceptional learners; co-operative education; workplace learning; learning disabilities; social competence and social networks of exceptional individuals; mathematics and cognitive processing of students with learning disabilities; and differentiating teaching to meet the needs of exceptional learners. Dr. Hutchinson has published regularly in major journals in the fields of special education, teacher education, and workplace learning. In addition, she has authored one of the most respected and widely used university textbooks in special education in Canada. Dr. Hutchinson’s research has been supported through grants from SSHRC and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research among others. In 2014, Dr. Hutchinson received the 2014 School of Graduate Studies Award for Excellence in Graduate Student Supervision in recognition of her excellence in advising, monitoring and mentoring graduate students through their training.

FACULTY OF LAW

Allan Manson Professor Allan Manson was first appointed to the Faculty of Law in 1977 as Associate Director of the Correctional Law Project and Special Lecturer, followed by his appointment as an Assistant Professor in 1978. He received his LLB from the University of Western Ontario in 1972 and his LLM in 1973 from the University of London. Prior to joining the faculty at Queen’s, he practised criminal law. He specializes in the areas of sentencing and prison law. He has served as Deputy Judge on the Yukon Territorial Court. He is the author of numerous articles dealing with criminal law issues, co-author of the text Release from Imprisonment: The Law of Parole, Sentencing and Judicial Review (1990) and co-author of the casebook Sentencing and Penal Policy (2000, 2008), which is now in press for the third edition. Professor Manson was Project Director of the Ontario Law Reform Commission study of the coroner system. Most recently, he was elected as the 2015-16 Keeley Visiting Fellow at Wadham College, Oxford.


Page 84 of 363

IQjeens

UNIVERSITY

INITIATIVEApril14, 2016 CAM FAIGN

PRINCIPAL AND VICE-CHANCELLOR

Board of Trustees Richardson Hall, Room 351

Q_2eens UniversityAttn: Mr. Lon Knox, University Secretary Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6Queen’s Umversity Tel 6;- 3-z2cio

Rix 613 533-6815

Dear Trustees:

I am pleased to report to you on my accomplishments and those of my senior administrative teamfor the 2015-16 academic year. With Stephen Smith’s landmark $50M donation and the namingof the Smith School of Business, Dr. Art McDonald’s Nobel Prize for Physics, and the gift fromthe Drs. Bader of a third Rembrandt, Queen’s has generated significant momentum over the pastyear.

I have sub-divided this report according to Strategic framework drivers, and professional andpersonal commitments. In addition to reporting on goal achievement, I have included some earlysignals of where I believe my attention should be focused in 2016-17.

1) Strategic framework drivers

a) Student learning experience

The two major priorities under the student learning experience driver that the administration hadfor 20 15-16 have been fulfilled. Those commitments were: implementing an evidence-basedapproach to identify areas for improving student engagement, and developing a university-wideset of learning outcomes. We now have an annual process to share and discuss university-wideand faculty/School-specific NS$E results with deans to help inform enrollment planning,cyclical program reviews, and performance planning. The Queen’s Learning Outcomesframework will be voted on at Senate on April 19. The framework, designed to sit betweenprovince-wide degree level expectations and program and course learning outcomes, identifiessix categories of learning outcomes for Queen’s students. It applies to all program levels frombachelor’s, through professional and research master’s to the PhD.

Queen’s continues to lead on developing and implementing a learning outcomes focus orcompetency-based approach to major programs. In January, the Queen’s School of Medicineannounced that it had been approved by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons ofCanada as the first medical school in the country to transition all of its residency programs to amodel of competency-based education.

queensu.ca/initiative

ITEM: Report to Board on Completion of 2015-16 Goals

Page 85 of 363

For the third year in a row, Queen’s was the top performer among universities applying to theOntario government’s Shared Online Course Fund, receiving over $1.7M to develop 31 onlinecourses in Arts and Science, Health Sciences, and Engineering and Applied Science.

In February, at Senate, I announced that Queen’s will invest $3M to renew classrooms over aperiod of three years to enhance the teaching and learning environment for students. We knowthat both faculty and students thrive with the technology enhancements and flexible spaceoffered by the Ellis Hall classrooms, and we want to expand those opportunities across campus.

The Principal’s Dream Courses Initiative was launched this year, with the results announcedearlier this month. I introduced this pilot program to fund creative and imaginative courseredesign proposals from faculty. Applicants responded to the call for experiential learningopportunities combined with a focus on sustainability and indigenous identities.

Considerable time and effort was devoted by me and other members of the senior administrativeteam this year to overhaul two policies related to the non-academic side of the student learningexperience: sexual assault prevention and response, and non-academic misconduct (NAM).The new sexual violence policy, approved by Trustees in March, brings together optionsavailable to anyone who has witnessed or experienced sexual violence with the university’sresponsibilities relating to awareness, education, training and reporting, all of which is informedby best practices and extensive consultation.

With the mandate given to me by Trustees in September to revamp the NAM system at Queen’s,I am committed to modernizing our NAM policy and practice to ensure student safety andwellbeing and reflect the realities of a 21St century university while meeting the Board’s timeline.Chairing the Advisory Committee on the NAM process has consumed a great deal of my timesince September. I believe this to have been time well spent. The extensive stakeholderconsultation has helped us to find consensus on a major policy shift in a compressed timeframe.

b) Research prominence

In my 2015-16 goals and priorities letter, I committed to seeing at least two new Queen’sNational Scholars positions filled this year; I am pleased to report that candidates for theseappointments will be recommended by the end of April. My other commitments under theumbrella of research prominence—proceeding to fill 26 tenure-stream approved appointments(plus one three-year appointment) and one new Tier 2 Canada Research Chair—are complete.

We have much to celebrate this year about the increasing prominence of Queen’s research. Onthe heels of the announcement about the Nobel Prize in Physics, Dr. McDonald and hisSNOLAB collaborators became joint recipients of the US$3M Breakthrough Prize infundamental Physics. In a non-STEM field, Queen’s Sociology professor, David Lyon, whopioneered the field of surveillance studies, was awarded the SSHRC Insight Award for drawingcritical attention to the implications of life in a ‘surveillance society’. Minister of Science KirstyDuncan visited campus early in 2016 to announce a $4M grant for an international researchproject on nickel-based materials. Our researchers continue to succeed in being elected to the

2


Page 86 of 363

Royal Society of Canada, where we gained five new fellows and two professors receivedprestigious medals.

Queen’s received a green light to submit to the Canada first Research Excellence fund(CFREF), a Government of Canada investment of $1 .5B over 10 years. This is a program thatobliges a Torced choic& on the part of institutions to a single area of research for the application.Late last summer, we made the choice (amid several competing areas of the university) to focuson particle astrophysics as a world-class area of research strength at Queen’s. As part of ourinstitutional match, the university is committing to an allocation of $7M, of which $4.2M will beused for new faculty positions.

I am conscious that we are not yet seeing the smooth, steady, measurable improvements in ouroverall research prominence that are apparent on the student learning experience metrics. In2015-16, I committed to working with VPs on three initiatives to help us make progress on thisfront: 1) an institutional-level faculty renewal strategy; 2) greater Board engagement on researchmetrics; and 3) a PARTEQ sustainability strategy.

Over the past year, I have engaged the VP team and the deans on strategizing around facultyrenewal. The outgoing provost and I have had substantive discussions with the deans tounderstand better how faculty hiring takes place at the departmental and faculty level. Ourinvestment in the Queen’s National Scholars program will be doubled for 20 16-17 to allow us toenhance research prominence in selected fields and further diversify the faculty ranks. TheCFREF hiring will direct faculty growth in a clear area of research strength, should oursubmission be successful. Faculty renewal will be a priority for me and the provost-designate in20 16-17.

Another key project for next year related to research prominence will be a revision of theStrategic Research Plan (SRP), which concludes in 2017, and refinement of the metrics used toevaluate research prominence. Each institution is required to have an SRP to be eligible undercertain federal funding programs. Within the constraints imposed by the necessity for Senatediscussion and approval, we shall be attempting to sharpen the focus from the areas articulated inthe current SRP. The initial report of the research metrics working group (that included inputfrom Trustees) and ongoing work on this issue will help us articulate more clearly our researchaspirations as well as the research prominence risk.

A new PARTEQ sustainability strategy will require a decision by the end of this calendar year.VP Liss has formed an external panel to undertake a review of the future state and structure ofPARTEQ Innovations which is expected to be completed before the end of June 2016. We must,of course, continue to work directly with the PARTEQ Board on solutions as the unit is currentlyan arm’s-length corporation.

To ensure that we have an adequate handle on all the instruments available to us to advanceresearch prominence, I have, with VP Liss’s complete support, commissioned an expert panel toreview research programs, platforms and structures at Queen’s and report to me by mid-summer.The purpose of the review is to assist the senior administration in developing a roadmap forresearch at Queen’s, which has not been subject to an external review for over a decade.

3


Page 87 of 363

c) Internationalization

Both of my major 20 15-16 goals related to the internationalization driver have been achieved:adding 50-75 new undergraduate international fee-paying students in 2015 over 2014 enrollment,and increased international visibility in locations that assist in advancing our strategic drivers.

We added 74 incoming undergraduate international fee-paying students in 2015 over 2014,bringing that number to 277. Application and offers data from the Registrar’s Office indicateprojected acceptances for 20 16-17 safely on track to reach our target of 10 percent of ourundergraduate body by 2019 from this cohort. Many visa student applications come fromindividuals already in Canada as well as China, the United States, and India.

At the recent conversion events in Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Beijing, we hosted over 150prospective students and parents, detailing why they should choose Queen’s and how they canprepare for a successful transition into our community. These events are essential to buildingprofile internationally, and must be tailored to particular markets. Profile-raising is a longer-termproject than a single Principal’s term but we have started well.

With the Comprehensive International Plan now in place, the office of the AVP (International)coordinates international travel by members of the senior administration (including deans) toensure that trips and visits achieve multiple objectives. In 20 15-16, in addition to personalacademic conferences and academic partnership meetings in Paris and Germany, I visitedCalifornia (Advancement events, diplomatic visits), New Zealand (research collaborations,international profile-raising) and, most recently, Hong Kong, Shanghai and Beijing (academicand research partnerships, diplomatic relationship-building, student recruitment, alumniengagement and key donor visits). My visit to Stockholm, aimed primarily at promoting theworld-class SNOLAB research collaborations, also included engagement with key donors, thediplomatic corps and federal government officials, including Minister of Science Duncan.

As our contribution to the Syrian refugee effort, we directed Student Affairs to work with theWorld University Service of Canada (WUSC) Student Refugee Program to sponsor five refugeesfrom Syria for the 2016-17 academic year.

Looking ahead to 2016-17, I will be turning my attention to international research collaborationsand international rankings. The VPs and I have had an initial, fmitftil discussion with theprovost-designate about improving institutional rankings—this, again, is a project that must beviewed in the longer term and we should not expect instantaneous or rapid climbing up theladder.

4


Page 88 of 363

d) Financial sustainability

By its very nature, financial sustainability depends on three things: revenue generation, revenuediversification, and cost containment. This section describes some specific strategies thatcontributed to financial sustainability in 20 15-16.

My fundraising goal for 20 15-16 was to exceed the campaign goal of $500M and pursuetransformational gift opportunities, both of which have been achieved. As of February 2016,campaign donations total $624.3M or 125 percent of the campaign target. Gift planningexpectancies now total $114.7M (115 percent) towards a parallel goal of $100M.

The $50M donation to name the Stephen J.R. Smith School of Business was successfullyconcluded and announced in October 2015; I was closely involved at all stages as this gift andthe naming opportunity proceeded through various stages of approval. The launch event was anexemplar of cross-unit collaboration.

Vice-Principal Harris has developed a post-campaign strategic plan for Advancement to 2020.The pillars of this strategic plan with which I will be most personally engaged are: concentratingsolicitations on those with the capacity to make transformational gifts ($1OM+), personalizedstewardship for top benefactors, and building engagement with international alumni.Sustainability of our fundraising capacity outside a formal campaign was reinforced to ensureAdvancement has the capacity to continue to reach their annual $60M target.

My goal for collective bargaining in 2015 was to successfully conclude negotiations withaffordable agreements. I am pleased to report that we now have four-year agreements, expiringon June 30, 2018, with three CUPE unions and an agreement with USW that will expireDecember 31, 2018. Our agreement with QUFA representing university faculty, librarians andarchivists will expire April 30, 2019. The agreement with the Ontario Nurses’ Association localis effective to March 31, 2017. In addition, the university and the Ontario Public ServiceEmployees Union (OPSEU) local have reached a tentative settlement.

For my 2015-16 goals, I committed to continued pursuit of a resolution to our pension planchallenges. During last summer’s round of collective bargaining, Queen’s reached agreementwith all its unions to commit to the ‘design’ and ‘build’ phases of the project for a JointlySponsored Pension Plan (JSPP) for Ontario universities. In the event the project does notsucceed, the unions are committed to exploring a merger with another JSPP, and as a further fall-back position, to discussing and negotiating certain changes as may be needed to support thesustainability of the Queen’s Pension Plan. Completing a permanent, structural fix to thepension plan remains a key part of our financial sustainability strategy.

The deferred maintenance strategy, to which I committed delivering in 2015-16, is currently onhold pending the recruitment of a vice-principal with responsibility for facilities, properties andsustainability. Although the position was authorized by Trustees in October, the search for thenew vice-principal was deliberately delayed for several reasons. First, I felt it was important to

fill the key provostial position prior to going to the market for a newly created vice-principal

position. Second, a good deal of internal work by me and other VPs also had to occur to prepare

5


Page 89 of 363

the various portfolios (three of which will be losing some area of responsibility to the new VP).Third, I reached the decision over the winter to include explicit responsibility for sustainability(including implementation of the Climate Action Plan) in the new vice-principal’s title. The keydeliverables in 2016-17 for the newly appointed VP will be the real estate strategy, a multi-yearcapital plan and a complementary strategy to deal with deferred maintenance; we aim to have thesuccessful candidate in place by September 2016.

In my 2015-16 goals and priorities letter, I noted that the provincial government’s review of thefunding formula for universities was key to our financial sustainability. The December 2015report by Sue Herbert largely focused on outcomes relative to the undergraduate studentexperience and remained relatively silent on graduate student and research. Queen’s continues toadvocate with the government for a funding formula with an increased focus on graduateeducation and research, as well as institutional outcomes, as Queen’s does very well compared toour peers on retention, graduation and employment rates, as well as NSSE scores.

I committed last year to continue lobbying government for capital priorities, as well as otherQueen’s-based research or capital projects. In 2015, the Ministry of Training, Colleges andUniversities decided that it neded a ‘refresh’ of universities’ and colleges’ capital priorities. Wesubmitted our top three priorities in August: the Weilness and Innovation Centre (therevitalization of the former PEC), renovation of a research facility supporting translational biomedical research, and classroom renewal. We have a plan to pursue infrastructure fundingannounced in the federal March 22 budget.

Financial sustainability depends on our ability to grow revenue, which in turn increasinglyrequires that we diversify our sources of revenue. The annual reports on the StrategicFramework provide an indication of progress in respect of both revenue growth and revenuediversification. With respect to the latter, all but one of the faculties and schools reportedincreases for 2014-15 in the percentage of revenue not from government or government-regulated sources (operating grant and domestic student tuition). An important strategycontributing to this (and the one that has thus far produced the greatest results) was increasedinternational enrollment. Other strategies that support revenue diversification at the faculty levelinclude developing more online courses, 2+2 and 3+2 programs with international partners, andintroducing new non-credit programs focused on career advancement for working professionals.The next Strategic Framework annual report, to be released in December 2016, will indicatefurther progress in diversifying our revenue sources. (It should be noted that it normally takes atleast two years from program conception through design and internal/government approvals for anew program to begin to produce revenue.)

2) Personal and professional priorities

I continue to champion the Talent Management Initiative, and am pleased that several movesarising from the succession plan requested by the Board have been implemented. I successfullyadvocated for continued funding for talent management in 2016-17, which will allow focus ongrooming the non-unionized professional and managerial cohort, providing hiring managers with

6


Page 90 of 363

better interviewing and on-boarding tools to ensure attraction and retention of quality employees,and identifying and coaching high potential successors.

I will be exploring, over the upcoming year, ways in which we can improve diversity at Queen’s,particularly on the staff and administrative side, and I have recently formed a small workinggroup reporting directly to me in order to develop a fuller plan.

Before outlining progress on last year’s priorities, I will note that I have recently been appointedas COU’s representative on the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research Board, continue to serve(till August 2016) as vice-chair of the Ui 5 group of research-intensive universities, and wasrecently appointed vice-chair of the Council of Ontario Universities (COU), to succeed to theChair for a two-year period beginning in July 2017.

The search for Provost Harrison’s replacement which was identified as a priority for 20 15-16,went exceedingly well. We attracted a very robust applicant pool and all the finalist candidateswere sitting provosts at prominent institutions. Dr. Benoit-Antoine Bacon’s energy, experienceand collaborative nature made him the unanimous choice. I trust that Trustees have had anopportunity to meet and talk with the provost-designate. He and I have already had extensivediscussions about priorities for his first few months on campus.

This past year I continued my voluntary part-time involvement in the History Department’s firstyear course and I supervised one PhD comprehensive reading field. I co-published one articleand several book reviews. I assessed several articles and three book manuscripts for journals orpublishers. I was a member of the J. Franklin Jameson Book Prize Committee of the AmericanHistorical Association. I continued to serve as a Board member of Historica Canada and, untilNovember 2015, as a member of the Executive Committee and Council of the Royal Society ofCanada. Ijoined the editorial boards of two journals, CROMOHS (Cyber Review of ModernHistoriography) and Journal ofthe History ofHumanities. I committed to two projects for nextyear: first, an essay for an Oxford University Press volume in honour of a distinguishedcolleague, and second, the direction of a faculty/PhD weekend seminar at the Folger ShakespeareLibrary in Washington D.C. (which will occur in February 2017).

With the consultations on non-academic misconduct running throughout the 2015-16 academicyear, it was crucial to maintain a positive working relationship with the AMS and SGPSexecutives, and with Rector Michael Young. They enjoyed frequent and rapid access to me andmembers of my senior administrative team. While there is never total agreement on issues, thetone of conversations has been much more constructive, with the result that we have been, so far,able to work our way through as sensitive an issue as the reform of the non-academic misconductsystem with goodwill on all sides.

7


Page 91 of 363

3,) Conclusion

I believe that Queen’s has had a very successful year and wish to commend my senioradministrative colleagues for their essential contributions to the momentum we currently enjoyand advancing our goals under the Strategic framework. I particularly wish to recognize ouroutgoing Provost Alan Harrison for his outstanding achievements during his five-yearappointment and wish him well in his future endeavours. I remain grateful to Trustees for theiradvice and input on our path forward.

Sincerely,

Daniel R. WoolfPrincipal and Vice-Chancellor

8


Page 92 of 363



Apr 6, 2016

From: Principal and Vice-Chancellor


Subject: Strategic Framework Summary Date of Board Committee Meeting: Click here to enter Committee date.



1.0 PURPOSE ☐ For Approval ☒ For Information 2.0 RECOMMENDATION/MOTION This report is for information only. 3.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Strategic Framework Summary has been updated with recently available data to reflect progress in the following areas:

• Expanded alternative credential opportunities (Student Learning Experience: Skill

Development) • International undergraduate student engagement (Internationalization)

4.0 INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES Office of the Associate Vice-Principal (International) Office of Institutional Research and Planning Office of the Vice-Provost and Dean (School of Graduate Studies) Provost and Vice-Principal (Academic) 5.0 ANALYSIS Expanded Alternative Credential Opportunities: Professional and Other Innovative

Programming

ITEM: Strategic Framework Summary

Page 93 of 363

- 2 -

• Three new professional and innovative graduate programs were introduced in 2015-16: a Master of Aging and Health, a Graduate Diploma in Aging and Health, which ladders into the new Master’s program, and a Master of Entrepreneurship and Innovation. In addition, a PhD in Aging and Health and a dual degree program with the University of Stuttgart (Master of Science in Chemistry) have been approved to commence and will launch in September 2016.

• Professional and innovative graduate programs are those defined as satisfying at least one of the following criteria: advanced course work and applied research elements in specialized or

professional fields delivered at an alternative location or in an alternative format (e.g. online) designed specifically for part-time students delivered in collaboration with a partner university offering a non-traditional credential/program length (e.g. certificate, diploma) interdisciplinary by design

• There were 17 professional and innovative programs in 2014. The goal is to roughly double this number by 2019, and to increase the number of students in these programs to the point where they account for almost half of total graduate enrolment.

• Increases in the number of new innovative graduate programs, enrolment in innovative graduate programs, and enrolment in professional master’s programs, together indicate that we are making good progress towards our interim and final targets in this area.

• Actions taken to expand Queen’s professional and innovative programs, as well as to increase enrolment within those programs, are guided by the Long-Term Strategic Enrolment Management Framework.

• Progress reports on the implementation of the 2014 Long-Term Strategic Enrolment Management Framework are provided annually to the Queen’s University Planning Committee.

International Undergraduate Student Engagement • As noted in the Strategic Framework Year One Implementation Report, a

performance indicator for international undergraduate student engagement was not originally identified when setting targets for the Strategic Framework’s key performance indicators.

• Following the development of the Queen’s University Comprehensive International Plan (QUCIP), it was subsequently determined that the QUCIP’s objective to increase international exchange activity would act as the Strategic Framework’s performance indicator for measuring our success in increasing international undergraduate student engagement.

• Our goal in this regard is to increase participation in exchange activity by 25 percent between 2014 and 2019. The Strategic Framework Summary has been updated to reflect this target.

• Undergraduate exchange activity (incoming and outgoing) has increased from 1,122 students in 2013-14 to 1,293 students in 2015-16.

• The increases in international undergraduate exchange activity, which captures incoming and outgoing undergraduate students on exchange under formal


Page 94 of 363

http://www.queensu.ca/mc_administrator/sites/default/files/assets/pages/strategicframework-annualreports/QU_Strategic-Framework_Year-One-Implementation-Report-v2.pdf

http://www.queensu.ca/strategicplanning/framework/kpis

http://www.queensu.ca/strategicplanning/framework/kpis

http://www.queensu.ca/strategicplanning/international


- 3 -

reciprocal agreements with partner institutions, indicate good progress is being made with respect to fostering opportunities for international undergraduate student engagement.

• The continued expansion of participation in international exchange opportunities will be supported by the effective management of strategic international exchange partnerships, adding new strategic partnerships when appropriate, and providing the academic and personal supports to incoming and outgoing exchange students to help them succeed.

• Over time, progress towards our goal of enhancing international undergraduate student engagement will also be supported by a number of strategic initiatives, such as the successful delegation to China in March 2016 which resulted in the renewal of existing agreements with two partner institutions, Tongji and Fudan Universities, and the formalization of new activities through signing of new agreements.

6.0 STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT / COMPLIANCE As the development of the Strategic Framework was informed by the Academic Plan,

the Strategic Research Plan, the Long-Term Enrolment Management Framework and the Strategic Mandate Agreement with the provincial government, the Strategic Framework Summary also indirectly reflects our progress with respect to several major strategic planning documents.

Tracking our progress with respect to areas of strategic focus is critical to ensuring the

university continues to fulfill its vision as the quintessential balanced academy. 7.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no direct financial implications. 8.0 ENTERPRISE RISK ASSESSMENT Regular reporting on the Strategic Framework and its related key performance indicators is crucial to both monitoring the implementation progress of a critical strategic document and mitigating risks outlined in the Key Risk Register. 9.0 COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY A communications strategy is not required as the Strategic Framework Summary will

not be shared outside of the Board of Trustees.

University Communications regularly reports on initiatives and activities related to the Strategic Framework.

ATTACHMENTS 1. Strategic Framework Summary, May 2016


Page 95 of 363

Priority Trending at or above target

Secondary priority Trending below target

Institutional strength Carefully watched

The student learning experience: student engagement

2013-14 2014-15

Discussions with diverse others FY Research income/faculty $193,300 $240,500

Discussions with diverse others SR National research intensity rank 11 Available Nov.2016

Student-faculty interaction FYEffective teaching practices FY

Effective teaching practices SRCanadian Institutes for Health

Other engagement indicators FY ResearchOther engagement indicators SR Natural Sciences and Engineering

Research CouncilSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council

Professional mastersResearch mastersDoctoral

International profile

StudentsInnovative graduate program enrolment Undergraduate program students intakeInnovative graduate programs Undergraduate exchange (in+outgoing)Professional masters program enrolment

ResearchInternational research collaboration

Student population quality indicators: Queen's core strengths

Financial sustainability Entering (admission) average

Revenue growth and diversification Graduation rate

Revenue from non-regulated sources

104% stable 105% 106% $240,000 $200,000 - $240,000

Strategic Framework Summary: Implementation Progress, May 2016

102% stable 103% 104% 5 5th - 8th

Research prominence

Undergraduate student engagement

Priority (1st Yr)

Priority (4th Yr)

2014 (vs Ont) Sept' 15 Target 2017

Goal 2019 Research intensity Priority 2012-13 Target 2017

Goal 2019

85% increasing 89% 94%

96% increasing 100% 102% Share of national Tri-Council funding Priority

3 years to 2011-12 Target 2017

Goal 2019102% stable 103% 104% April '15

2.0% 1.9% maintain106% avg stable/

increasing

106% 106%

106% avg 106% 106%3.4% 3.3% maintain

Graduate student engagementTarget Goal

Priority 2013 Sept '15 2017 20192.7% 2.5% maintain

% Rating academic experience "very good" or "excellent" Alignment with Strategic

Research Plan Sept '15 Target 2017Goal 201963% 70% 75%+ Priority68%

68% 70% 75% CRC, CERC and QNS Faculty Appointments

maintain69% 70%+ 75%

Appointments align with the themes of the Strategic Research Plan

74%

65%

The student learning experience: skill developmentExpanded alternative credential opportunities 2014 Target 2017

Goal 2019 Target 2017

Goal 2019Priority Priority 2013-14May '16 May '16

996 1,255 (+ 26%) 1,445 1,525 116 285 359 500

1,329 1,403 (+25%)

1,746 2,036 (+ 17%) 2,187 2,277

Target 2017Goal 2019

Target 2017

17 23 (+ 6) 32 32 1,122 1,293

Goal 2019Priority Sept '15 40% (2011-12-

13) Available April 2017 43%

Goal 20192014

89% 88.3% maintain

45%Undergraduates completing internship/practicum

45% 45% 48% 50%

Experiential education opportunities 2013

Prof'l master's students rating experiential learning "excellent" or "very good"

52% 58% 65% 70%Admission, retention and graduation Priority Target 2017March '16

88.7% maintain

Faculty revenue growth n/a most faculties grew revenue to offset inflation and enrolment growth offset inflation and

enrolment growth11.4% 12.2%

Priority Sept '15 90%Target 2017Goal 2019

First- to second-year retention rate 95% 94.2% maintain

2013-14

ITE

M: Strategic Fram

ework Sum

mary

Page 96 of 363



From: Principal and Vice-Chancellor

Date of Approval:

Subject: New Student Code of Conduct and Procedures Date of Board Committee Meeting:

Responsible Portfolio: Principal and Vice-Chancellor


1.0 PURPOSE ☒ For Approval ☐ For Information 2.0 RECOMMENDATION/MOTION That the Board of Trustees approve the following, effective May 6, 2016:

• the Queen’s University Student Code of Conduct, 2016, being Attachment 1, superseding the Queen’s University Student Code of Conduct approved by Senate 24 April 2008 (effective 1 July 2008, amended 21 January 2014);

• the Interim Procedures under the Queen’s University Student Code of Conduct, 2016, being Attachment 2, notwithstanding the provisions of the Senate Policy on Appeals, Rights and Discipline (SARD) and where there is a conflict between the two documents, the Interim Procedures shall govern; and,

• the establishment of the Non-Academic Misconduct Sub-Committee of the Audit and Risk Committee, with the Terms of Reference being Attachment 3.

3.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On September 11, 2015, the Board of Trustees tasked the Principal with undertaking a review of the current policies and procedures that constitute the student non-academic misconduct system (NAM) at Queen’s University and bringing forward a revised system for the approval of the Board. The table below outlines how the materials presented herein deliver on the mandate given by the Board of Trustees:

recommend what, if any, authority for non-academic misconduct should be explicitly delegated by the Board, or sub-delegated, and to whom;

See Student Code of Conduct: Section IX.3

and,

ITEM: Approval of the New Student Code of Conduct and Proced...

Page 97 of 363

- 2 -

ENDNOTE Authority

determine what, if any, rights or responsibilities are not to be delegated but retained by the Board and managed by the administration on the Board’s behalf;

See Student Code of Conduct: Section V.4 Section IX.3

and, ENDNOTE

Authority examine the authority delegated to Athletics & Recreation

and Residences to ensure that the revised system is constructed in a holistic manner;

See Student Code of Conduct: ENDNOTE

Authority examine what, if any, conditions should be placed on any

potential sub-delegation of responsibilities for student non-academic discipline to other parties or entities outside of the University’s governance structure;

See Student Code of Conduct: ENDNOTE

Authority ensure appropriate consultation with stakeholders as

identified by the Principal, and that the Principal strike an advisory committee to provide guidance to him during the review.

See below Section 5.a)

recommend what, if any, authority for non-academic misconduct should be explicitly delegated by the Board, or sub-delegated, and to whom;

See below Section 5.c)

determine what, if any, rights or responsibilities are not to be delegated but retained by the Board and managed by the administration on the Board’s behalf;

See below Section 5.c)

Include recommendations two through nine of the April 2012 Review of Nonacademic Student Conduct Policies and Protocols as further recommended by Harriet Lewis, are adopted as action items and incorporated into the revised non-academic discipline system;

Recommendations below

2) That the University develop one comprehensive document called the Queen’s University Student Code of Conduct that outlines policies and procedural details for addressing non-academic student misconduct at Queen’s

See Student Code of Conduct and Appendix on procedures

3) That the revised Code include a process for responding to cases with dual or overlapping jurisdiction.

See Student Code of Conduct: Section IV.4

4) That the revised Code include a process for diverting students-at-risk

See below Section 5.b)

5) That the revised Code include a process for addressing misconduct by student groups

See Student Code of Conduct: Section III.5

6) The revised Code clarify the role and authority of faculty boards in addressing non-academic misconduct in an academic setting

See Student Code of Conduct: Section III.2


Page 98 of 363

- 3 -

7) That the revised Code include a clearly defined andcategorized list of conduct (major and minor) thatconstitutes a violation of the Code, with an associatedrange of possible sanctions for each category

See Student Code of Conduct: Section V

8) That the revised Code clearly establish procedures forhandling major violations

See Appendix on procedures

9) That a central searchable database be developed andmaintained by the university to manage and track allincidents of non-academic misconduct.

See Student Code of Conduct: Section

VIII.1 Note: The recommendation from the Lewis Report regarding oversight structures for the use of student fees has been taken under consideration by the Student Health and Wellness Working Group and reports through the Audit and Risk Committee. The recommendation from the Lewis Report regarding ‘tone from the top’ has been referred to ERD.

The Board of Trustees instructed the Principal to bring forward recommended policies and procedures to constitute the non-academic discipline system, including a revised Student Code of Conduct that articulates levels of offenses, for approval by the Board of Trustees and subsequently receipt by the Senate no later than May 31, 2016.

This report delivers on the mandate from the Board of Trustees and includes a revised Student Code of Conduct, procedures, with transitional provisions to move the university from the existing interim protocol system to the newly integrated system as of August 31, 2016. The agency agreements with the AMS, SGPS, and Residences (the latter insofar as the Residence Society is an independent organization) must be in place by the August 31 for those entities to retain responsibility for Category 1 NAM cases after that date. A revision of SARD procedures in relation to this new system will be in place no later than December 31, 2016.

The Advisory Committee on Non-Academic Misconduct (ACNAM) recommended unanimously that the Principal bring forward the attached Student Code of Conduct and interim procedures, and terms of reference for a new governance oversight mechanism, for approval by the Board.

4.0 INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES

Advisory Committee on Non-Academic Misconduct (ACNAM) and all those individuals and groups consulted by ACNAM, and from whom ACNAM received comments and input Office of the Provost Office of the Vice-Provost and Dean of Student Affairs University Secretariat Legal Counsel Office of the Vice-Principal (University Relations) University Ombudsman


Page 99 of 363

- 4 -

5.0 ANALYSIS a) Consultation process To fulfill the commitment to the Board of Trustees, the Principal struck the Advisory Committee on Non-Academic Misconduct (ACNAM) in September 2015. Since October 2015, the Advisory Committee on Non-Academic Misconduct (ACNAM) undertook a large-scale consultation process. The committee met once with representatives from Kingston General Hospital, Kingston Police Force, staff and Councillors of the City of Kingston, Residences non-academic misconduct system, Athletics and Recreation non-academic misconduct system, as well as Deans, Ombudsman’s office, and University Council. The Committee met twice with the AMS assembly, SGPS, the Senate Committee on Non-Academic Discipline (SONAD), Senate and Board of Trustees. ACNAM received seven written submissions in total via a dedicated email address, and the draft Student Code of Conduct was posted online for review. The committee also met more than 20 times during its seven-month mandate. b) Structure of the new NAM system The integration of the five NAM processes (AMS, SGPS, Residences, Athletics and Recreation, and the Student Conduct Office) into one holistic system fulfills another commitment to the Board of Trustees. The Central Intake Office, established under the interim protocol, will seamlessly become the Non-Academic Misconduct Intake Office (NAMIO) and remain situated within the Office of the Ombudsman where all reports of NAM will be assessed, referred and tracked. This will ensure that cases with dual or overlapping jurisdiction are dealt with in a timely manner. The NAMIO will receive all reports of non-academic misconduct, track and refer cases and maintain a secure database. One of the benefits of the tracking system will be identifying students-at-risk, as the same student may have multiple encounters with sub-systems; enhancing wellness and safety of students-at-risk was one of the recommendations from the 2012 NAD review. c) Governance Since the Board of Trustees has the power to delegate authority to non-university bodies, the new governance oversight body will report to the Board of Trustees, through the Audit and Risk Committee; consequently, Senate will be asked to dissolve the Senate Committee on Non-academic Discipline (SONAD). The new oversight committee will be called the Non-Academic Misconduct Sub-Committee (NAMSC). This subcommittee will have responsibility for policy review and oversight of the University’s non-academic misconduct system. It will be composed mainly of Trustees and Senators, one of each of whom shall be a student. This joint Board-Senate committee composition was supported by ACNAM and echoes comments received during consultations. The new Non-Academic Misconduct Roundtable will be the forum where representatives of the NAM processes will be able to interact and share best practices. ACNAM felt that it was important to retain a forum where representatives of the existing NAM processes could discuss operational matters. The roundtable will produce reports for NAMSC.


Page 100 of 363

- 5 -

d) Categorization of offenses/expected behaviour The Student Code of Conduct, 2016 outlines the expected behavior of Queen’s students and includes examples of offenses by type. The Code defines the extent to which off-campus behaviour is covered. Non-academic misconduct in an academic setting and a diversion process for students-at-risk was added. The roles of students, student leaders and student groups are clearly defined in the Student Code of Conduct, 2016. e) Implementation An implementation plan will be rolled out after Board approval. To improve compliance, plain language supplements will be used to ensure documentation is easy to read and understand, and further investigation into the possibility of a mandatory quiz will be conducted. A review of how several private sector organizations communicate their employee codes of conduct is also underway. Implementation of the Student Code of Conduct, 2016 will be a joint responsibility of the Ombudsman’s Office, the Office of the Provost, and University Relations. These offices will work in partnership with student groups. 6.0 STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT / COMPLIANCE This initiative aligns with the Student Learning Experience driver of the Strategic Framework. Queen’s prides itself on providing an exceptional student experience both inside and outside the classroom. Supporting students’ health, wellness and safety is critical to promoting their success. 7.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are currently no financial implications that are not already accounted for in the operating budgets of the affected portfolios. Any incremental costs not currently accounted for will be reviewed and addressed through the upcoming annual budget cycle. 8.0 ENTERPRISE RISK ASSESSMENT The integration of the five existing NAM systems, with the establishment of the NAMIO where all reports of NAM will be assessed, referred and tracked, into one well-functioning non-academic system, mitigates the Student Health, Wellness and Safety Risk. Furthermore, the NAMSC will provide reporting to Audit and Risk Committee, as the Board of Trustees committee with oversight responsibility for this risk. 9.0 COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY In consultation with key stakeholders, University Relations led a working group to develop a communications plan for the Student Code of Conduct, 2016. The working group will continue to meet over the next several months to finalize details of the launch and communicate the code of conduct to students. The attached memo provides a summary of the communications plan, which covers the official announcement and the ongoing process of informing students of the new code of conduct.


Page 101 of 363

- 6 -

ATTACHMENTS For Approval: Attachment 1: Queen’s University Student Code of Conduct, 2016 Attachment 2: Interim Procedures under the Queen’s University Student Code of Conduct, 2016 Attachment 3: Terms of Reference of the Non-Academic Misconduct Sub-Committee For information Attachment 4: Terms of Reference of the Non-Academic Misconduct Roundtable Attachment 5: Summary guide for Board purposes only Attachment 6: University Relations Communications memo


Page 102 of 363

QUEEN’S UNIVERSITY STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT, 2016i

I. PREAMBLE 1) Queen’s University (the “University” or “Queen’s”) is dedicated to learning, intellectual inquiry, the

dissemination and advancement of knowledge, personal and professional development, and good citizenship.

2) Students are responsible individuals and members of society with rights and responsibilities as learners and citizens in the communities in which they learn and live.

3) In becoming a member of the Queen’s community, every Student accepts the University’s policies, rules and procedures and acknowledges the right of the University to set standards of conduct, as well as the right of the University and/or its Authorized Agent(s) to impose sanctions for conduct found to have violated those standards.

4) Students are expected to adhere to and promote the University’s core values of honesty, trust, fairness, respect and personal responsibility in all aspects of University life, academic and non-academic. It is these core values that are intended to inform and guide Student conduct as they foster mutual respect for the dignity, property, rights and well-being of others.

5) The University is committed to a developmental and educational response to student misconduct. The University is a place for Student growth and development. The non-academic misconduct system at Queen’s (“NAM System”) is part of that broader learning environment; the process for responding to non-academic misconduct seeks to take into account the well-being of each student and the safety and well-being of the community, and encourages informal resolution.

6) The principles of development, deterrence, restitution, and where appropriate, Restorative Justice, will guide decision-makers within the NAM System.

7) Sanctions under the NAM System are intended to be educational rather than punitive whenever appropriate.

8) This Student Code of Conduct (“Code”) outlines the kinds of activities and behaviours that constitute non-academic Student misconduct and associated sanctions.

II. DEFINITIONS 1) Authorized Agents means an entity or organization authorized by formal written agreement with the

University to administer, on behalf of the University, the non-academic misconduct cases referred to it by the NAM Intake Office.

2) NAM Intake Office means the University Office that receives and refers reports of Student non-academic misconduct in accordance with the criteria set out in this Code.

3) Diversion Process means the process by which a case of non-academic misconduct may be diverted to an alternate University process that is determined to be more appropriate to the health and wellbeing of the Student. This may involve the student-at-risk process or other similar processes that may be established by the University from time to time.

4) NAM Subcommittee (“NAMSC”) means the sub-committee of the Audit and Risk Committee of the Queen’s Board of Trustees, which is responsible for receiving reports about the NAM System and for recommending to the Board, via the Audit and Risk Committee, any proposed changes to this Code.

5) Guest means a person who is visiting a Student on campus; this includes Student Guests and non-


Page 103 of 363

P a g e | 2

Student Code of Conduct - Board

Student Guests.

6) Host means a Student who has a Guest on campus; this includes Student Guests and non-Student Guests.

7) Incident Report means the information received and compiled by the NAM Intake Office for the purposes of initial assessment and referral to the appropriate NAM Unit.

8) Non-Academic Misconduct is described below in Section V: Types of Non-Academic Misconduct; it is classified as either Category 1 or Category 2 by the NAM Intake Office. The Categories and the factors to be considered in are described in more detail in Section IV: Referral and Carriage of Non-academic Misconduct Cases.

9) Non Academic Misconduct System / NAM System means the totality of:

a) all NAM Units;

b) the NAM Intake Office;

c) this Code;

d) all procedures, guidelines and instructions concerning the administration of this Code issued by a NAM Unit; and,

e) the University Student Appeals Board in its capacity as the University’s final internal adjudicative body for non-academic misconduct cases.

10) NAM Roundtable serves as an informal forum for those involved in the operation of the University’s non-academic misconduct system.

11) NAM Unit: means each of the Student Conduct Office, Athletics and Recreation, Residences, and any Authorized Agent of the University, involved in the administration of this Code.

12) Public Official includes law enforcement officers, fire & rescue personnel, paramedics, by-law officers, and other similar municipal, provincial or federal officials, acting in their professional capacity.

13) Restorative Justice emphasizes the importance of elevating the role of victims and community members through active involvement in the misconduct process, holding Students directly accountable to the people and communities harmed by their conduct, restoring the emotional and material losses of victims, and providing a range of opportunities for dialogue, negotiation, and problem solving, whenever possible. The goal is to achieve a greater sense of community safety and social harmony for all involved, and, requires the willing participation of Students and victims together.

14) Sanctioned Activity means an activity that has been formally approved by the University (through a University administrator authorized to do so), or by one of the University’s Authorized Agents.

15) Student means anyone who is registered, full-time or part-time, in an academic program, including a non-degree program, offered through the University, or anyone who was so registered when the reported misconduct was said to have occurred. It also means a person registered at another university on a letter of permission from Queen’s and a person on exchange at Queen’s or abroad.

16) Student Conduct Office means the University Office that handles cases of alleged Category 2 non-academic misconduct.

17) Student Group means any extracurricular organization or club that is recognized or ratified by the University or by an Authorized Agent of the University.


Page 104 of 363

P a g e | 3


18) University means Queen’s University at Kingston1

19) University Property means property owned, rented or otherwise used by the University.

20) University Student Appeal Board (“USAB”) means the University’s final internal adjudicative body.

III. SCOPE 1) This Code applies to non-academic misconduct by a Student or group of Students that takes place:

a) on University Property;

b) off University Property, in circumstances where:

i) a Student is participating in a Sanctioned Activity, regardless of where that activity takes place;

ii) a Student’s conduct has a real and substantial connection to the legitimate interests of the University, which include, but are not limited to, its reputation or goodwill in the community; or,

iii) a Student represents, claims to represent or would reasonably be perceived to be representing, the University or an organization affiliated with the University; and,

c) through electronic media, regardless of where it originates, where there is a clear connection to the University community;

2) This Code covers non-academic misconduct that occurs in the context of an academic program, including conduct that occurs when a Student is participating in:

a) any class activity, including a lecture, tutorial, lab or the like, on University Property; and,

b) any organized academic activity, such as a clinical placement, exchange, field placement, field trip, internship, research activities, or the like, that occurs off University Property;

3) Students are responsible for advising their Guests about this Code and the standards of appropriate conduct. Students are responsible for the conduct of their Guest(s), including violation(s) of this Code, if the Student encouraged the misconduct, or if the Student knew of, or could have reasonably foreseen, the misconduct and failed to take steps to discourage or prevent it, or to advise Security Services.

4) Students will be held individually responsible for their actions, whether acting on their own or as part of a group.

5) Student Groups and/or their leaders or any identifiable spokesperson for a Student Group can be held responsible, collectively and/or individually, for violations of this Code by their members or by participants in their Group’s activities, whether sanctioned or not, and whether on or off University Property, if the leaders gave encouragement or consent for the misconduct, or if they knew of, or could have reasonably foreseen, the misconduct and failed to take steps to discourage or prevent it, or to advise Security Services.

6) Nothing in this Code replaces or supersedes any complaint, grievance or appeal process set out in any collective agreement to which the University is a party. However, Student misconduct that occurs while a Student is acting in their capacity as an employee of the University may, in addition to any employment-related discipline process, be addressed as non-academic misconduct under this Code

1 “Queen’s University at Kingston” is the formal legal name of the institution; it does not refer to any geographical boundary.


Page 105 of 363

P a g e | 4


where the NAM Intake Office determines that a non-employment University interest is also involved.

7) Student conduct that falls outside the scope of this Code, and which will be addressed by other University policies and procedures includes:

a) an alleged departure from academic integrity;

b) an alleged departure from research integrity; and,

c) incidents of workplace violence or harassment.

8) In circumstances where alleged conduct would constitute a violation of more than one policy applicable to Student conduct, the NAM Intake Office will determine the most appropriate procedure to be followed to ensure an efficient and streamlined process.

9) Nothing in this Code prohibits Student participation in lawful and peaceful public assemblies and demonstrations, nor inhibits Students’ freedom of expression. This does not, however, relieve a Student who is also an employee of the University of employment-related obligations in this regard.

10) Procedures under this Code may be undertaken before, at the same time as, or after, civil, criminal, or employment-related proceedings; but, if a report of misconduct has also resulted in civil, criminal, or employment-related proceedings against a Student, the NAM Intake Office will determine whether the case under this Code should be deferred until the conclusion, or partial conclusion, of such other proceedings.

11) The University retains discretion to impose temporary/interim terms, conditions and/or restrictions that are appropriate in the circumstances (e.g.: interim suspension of the Student, full or partial Notice of Prohibition, etc.) in the interest of a safe campus environment.

IV. INTAKE AND REFERRAL OF NON-ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT CASES 1) The NAM Intake Office will manage initial intake and referral of all non-academic misconduct cases,

with the following limited exceptions:

a) Athletics & Recreation Cases: A report of non-academic misconduct by a Student-Athlete or an Intramural Sport Program Participant in a sport-related context will be dealt with by the Athletics & Recreation Department under the Athletics & Recreation Discipline Policy. If it appears that a matter involves a “Major Infraction” or a “Repeat Infraction”, as those terms are defined by the Athletics & Recreation Discipline Policy, the Athletics & Recreation Department must submit the matter to the NAM Intake Office for assessment and referral.

b) Residence Cases: A report of non-academic misconduct that occurs in University residences or that is otherwise subject to Residence Rules & Regulations (“ResRules”) will be dealt with under the Residence conduct system, with the exception of a report that alleges “Level Three” misconduct, as that term is defined in the ResRules. Such cases must be submitted to the NAM Intake Office for assessment and referral.

2) Non-academic misconduct falls into two general categories: Category 1 and Category 2. While Category 2 is generally considered to encompass relatively more grievous types of misconduct than Category 1, the demarcation between these Categories is not absolute.

3) The NAM Intake Office will first determine whether it is appropriate to refer a case to a Diversion Process.

4) If the NAM Intake Office does not refer a case to a Diversion Process, it will determine the Category of the case, and thus the most appropriate NAM Unit to have carriage of that case, guided by various


Page 106 of 363

P a g e | 5


factors, including:

a) whether the alleged misconduct jeopardized, or to a reasonable person potentially jeopardized, the health or safety of an individual. In this context, “jeopardize” includes physical, emotional or psychological impacts;

b) whether the alleged misconduct constitutes a violation of Municipal, Provincial or Federal law or involves interfering with, obstructing, disrupting, misleading, or failing to comply with the directions of, a Public Official;

c) the gravity of the consequences/harm alleged. This includes a consideration of whether the alleged misconduct resulted in the dispatch of University or public emergency services;

d) prior findings of misconduct of the same or similar nature; and,

e) the complexity of the fact situation; and,

f) the presence of mitigating or aggravating factors identified in the Incident Report.

5) Every NAM Unit receiving a referral from the NAM Intake Office will assign that case to a case manager (“Case Manager”)

6) Decisions of the NAM Intake Office are not subject to appeal. But if, upon receipt of a case from the NAM Intake Office, a Case Manager determines the case ought to have been referred elsewhere, the Unit may request that the NAM Intake Office re-direct the case accordingly.

7) NAM cases, if not informally resolved pursuant to an applicable procedure, shall be dealt with by the adjudicative body of the NAM Unit to which the case was referred.

8) A Student against whom a NAM case is pending or against whom a sanction is outstanding may not voluntarily withdraw from the University. Similarly, the University will not issue Official Transcripts to the Student directly; transcripts will be sent to specified recipients at the Student’s request. If the sanction Required to Withdraw is subsequently imposed, previous recipient(s) will be sent an updated Official Transcript after any available appeal process has been exhausted or the time for appealing has expired.

V. TYPES OF NON-ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT 1) Non-academic misconduct can take the form of a single act, repeated acts, or, be part of a pattern of

behaviour that taken in its entirety constitutes a violation of this Code.

2) Respondents are encouraged to seek advice from the Office of the Ombudsman in all matters related to non-academic misconduct, and may be accompanied by the Ombudsman or other advisor to any meeting or proceeding related to non-academic misconduct.

3) The various types of non-academic misconduct are described below, but the examples contained under each class are not intended to be exhaustive.

4) Cases described as PRESUMPTIVELY CATEGORY 2 NON-ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT must be referred by the NAM Intake Office to the Student Conduct Office, unless the NAM Intake Office determines that it is more appropriate to refer the case to a different NAM Unit, based on the criteria listed in Paragraph 4 of Section IV.

A. ABUSE OF PROCESS ALL ABUSE OF PROCESS CASES ARE PRESUMPTIVELY CATEGORY 2 NON-ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT a) Failure to comply with a process or requirement under this Code or a Procedure under this Code.


Page 107 of 363

P a g e | 6


b) Failure to comply with a non-academic misconduct sanction.

c) Knowingly making false report of misconduct against any member of the University community or assisting another person in making or pursuing same.

d) Interference with the administration of this Code, such as:

i) a misrepresentation or false statement during an investigation or proceeding;

ii) trying to discourage any individual's proper participation in, or use of, a misconduct process;

iii) any retaliation (e.g. through coercion, intimidation, threats or social pressure) against a complainant, a person who reports misconduct, or a potential witness in a misconduct case;

iv) disrupting, or otherwise interfering with, the orderly conduct of a misconduct proceeding;

v) electronically or digitally recording, in any format, a misconduct proceeding without the express permission of the Chair of the proceeding; or,

vi) harassing (physically, verbally, or in writing), intimidating or attempting to influence, the impartiality of any individual in a decision-making role in a misconduct process.

B. AIDING IN THE COMMISSION OF AN OFFENCE a) Encouraging or aiding others, by words or by action, to engage in the commission of an act that is

in violation of this Code, a University policy, rule or procedure, or, a Municipal, Provincial or Federal law.

C. ALCOHOL AND DRUG USE CASES UNDER C (e) and (f) ARE PRESUMPTIVELY CATEGORY 2 NON-ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT

a) Possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages on University Property, except when properly in attendance at a licensed campus pub or event, or as permitted under the Residence Contract or the University Alcohol Policy.

b) Possession of narcotics or controlled substances, excluding medication prescribed to the Student.

c) Contravention of provincial liquor laws or violation of University policies governing the possession, distribution or consumption of alcoholic beverages on University Property.

d) Violation of a University policy, rule, or procedure or a Municipal, Provincial or Federal law, that arises from, or that is related to, the consumption of alcohol or of a controlled substance. This is distinct from, and is considered to be non-academic misconduct in addition to, prohibited consumption of alcohol or controlled drugs/substances.

e) Furnishing alcohol to any person who is under the age of majority.

f) Possession of any narcotic or controlled substance, including medication prescribed to the Student, for other than personal use, which includes administering, delivering, giving, selling, sending, transferring or transporting a narcotic or controlled substance, or attempting to do any of these things.

D. CONTRAVENTION OF POLICY a) Violation of a University policy, rule, or procedure published or posted by the University.

b) Violation of a policy, rule or procedure published by an Authorized Agent of the University.

E. DISRUPTION OR INTERFERENCE a) Disruption or obstruction by action, threat or otherwise, of any University event or any Sanctioned


Page 108 of 363

P a g e | 7


Activity, including teaching, learning, research, administration, events, and, any conduct that disrupts the normal operations of the University or that infringes on the rights of another member of the University community.

b) Interfering with, obstructing, disrupting, misleading, or failing to comply with the directions of, any University official or any official of an Authorized Agent of the University, who is acting within the scope of their duties.

F. IMPROPER USE OF DANGEROUS OBJECTS AND SUBSTANCES – ALL CASES OF IMPROPER USE OF DANGEROUS OBJECTS AND SUBSTANCES ARE PRESUMPTIVELY CATEGORY 2 NON-ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT

a) Possession or use of any weapon (as outlined in the Queen’s University Weapons Policy), explosive, chemical, biohazardous, radioactive or controlled material, or the like, except by authorized personnel and in an area formally designated for that purpose.

G. MISCONDUCT AGAINST PERSONS AND DANGEROUS ACTIVITY CASES UNDER G (g) and (h) ARE PRESUMPTIVELY CATEGORY 2 NON-ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT

a) Assault.

b) Harassment or Discrimination.

c) Physical, verbal or written abuse.

d) Threatening behaviour, whether physical, verbal or written.

e) Coercion or intimidation.

f) Use by an individual or group of information or other communication technology that is, or that should reasonably be known to be, harassing, hostile, intimidating or threatening, or that deliberately seeks to control, manipulate, falsely discredit or otherwise harm another individual (e.g. cyberbullying, cyberstalking, internet trolling, etc.).

g) Sexual Violence.

h) Hazing. Hazing activities include, but are not limited to, pranks, jokes, public ridicule, and any activity that does not respect an individual’s rights, integrity, dignity, safety or well-being. Hazing includes conduct that is, or ought to be reasonably known to be:

i) abusive (physically or psychologically);

ii) demeaning;

iii) dangerous;

iv) humiliating;

v) ridiculing; or,

vi) contrary to this Code, to a University policy, rule or procedure, or to Municipal, Provincial or Federal law;

that is used as a means of coercing, compelling, forcing, or otherwise socially pressuring, a person to gain or maintain: (i) membership in; (ii) the acceptance of; or, (iii) association with; any group or organization.

Express or implied consent from, or the acquiescence of, the affected person(s) shall not be an excuse or defense for such behaviour.


Page 109 of 363

P a g e | 8


H. MISCONDUCT INVOLVING PROPERTY CASES UNDER H (e) (f) and (g) ARE PRESUMPTIVELY CATEGORY 2 NON-ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT

a) Misappropriation, damage, unauthorized possession, defacement, vandalism or destruction of University Property.

b) Theft or possession of property belonging to any person or entity without the permission of the rightful owner, including in circumstance where there was an intent to return the property.

c) Use of University facilities, equipment, supplies or resources contrary to express instruction or without proper authorization, or misuse or abuse of same.

d) Abuse or misuse of University documents, including without limitation identification cards, credit cards, meal cards, smart cards, or telephone calling cards, or, misuse of fees collected and distributed by the University to any Student group, either directly or indirectly (e.g. through the Alma Mater Society).

e) Altering or misuse of official University documents.

f) Interference with, obstruction of, or tampering with life safety or emergency equipment.

g) Setting unauthorized fires.

I. MISREPRESENTATION OR FALSE INFORMATION a) Furnishing false information to a University official or to an official of an Authorized Agent of the

University.

b) Possessing, distributing or using false or altered identification/credentials.

J. MISUSE OF UNIVERSITY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ALL CASES OF MISUSE OF UNIVERSITY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ARE PRESUMPTIVELY CATEGORY 2 NON-ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT

a) Altering or removing University computer files or software without proper authorization.

b) Intentionally jeopardizing the confidentiality, integrity and availability of electronically maintained Queen's University information or data.

c) Using Queen's Information Technology resources to do anything that is a violation of the rights of others, such as displaying or distributing obscene, harassing, defamatory, or discriminatory material or messages.

d) Using Queen's Information Technology resources for any illegal activities or purposes.

K. UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY AND/OR PRESENCE CASES UNDER K (d) ARE PRESUMPTIVELY CATEGORY 2 NON-ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT

a) Unauthorized entry, attempted entry or presence in or on any University Property;

b) Unauthorized entry, attempted entry or presence at any Sanctioned Activity.

c) Refusing to leave University Property when instructed to do so by a University official, or by an official of an Authorized Agent of the University, acting within the scope of their duties.

d) Knowingly inviting or admitting into or on University Property, a person to whom a Notice of Prohibition has been issued.


Page 110 of 363

P a g e | 9


VI. SANCTIONS 1) The primary approach of NAM sanctions is to be educational. In addition, the principles of restitution,

deterrence, and where appropriate, Restorative Justice, will guide decision-makers within the NAM System.

2) More than one sanction may be applied for any violation of this Code.

3) Repeated or multiple breaches of the Code will normally result in progressively more severe sanctions.

4) In addition to the sanctions described in 7 and 8 below, sanctions delineated in the ResRules and the Athletics and Recreation Discipline Policy will be available in cases arising from those Units of the NAM System, but which have been referred by the NAM Intake Office to the Student Conduct Office.

5) Sanctions will be appropriate to the conduct involved in each case.

6) Every NAM decision imposing a sanction(s) must describe any mitigating and/or aggravating factors that were considered by the decision-maker.

7) Sanctions that may be applied by any Unit in the University NAM System include, but are not limited to:

a) Written warning or reprimand – A notice given to a Student indicating the details of the Code violation(s) and including a direction that the conduct cease and not be repeated. This notice must include a statement regarding the possibility of progressively more severe sanctions being applied in the event of future misconduct.

b) Letter of behavioural expectation – A letter to be signed by the Student that includes an undertaking not to engage in certain behaviour and which sets out the range of possible consequences if the stated behavioural expectations are not met.

c) Educational assignments – A requirement to complete specific educational activities, which may include participation in, and completion of, an educational program (webinar, on-line program, in-person workshop etc.) or a written assignment or an educational meeting with a University or Public Official.

d) Apology – A written or oral apology to be delivered to a specified party/parties within a specified timeframe.

e) University or Community Service – Service to the community or to the University, with type of service, location (as applicable) and timeframe to be specified.

f) Restitution – A monetary compensation for loss, damage or injury, or replacement of damaged or destroyed property.

g) Monetary fine – An amount and timeline for payment must be specified.

h) Behavioural bond – The Student is required to commit a specified sum of money for a defined period of time, and the Student is required to sign and abide by a letter of behavioural expectations. If, at the end of the time period, the Student has not breached the terms of the letter, the bond will be vacated. A breach of the behavioural expectations may result in additional sanctions.

i) Loss of privilege – The loss of specified privileges, indefinitely or for a specified period of time.

j) No Contact – A requirement that a Student have no direct or indirect contact (including, but not limited to in-person, phone, text, email, social media, through a third party etc.) with a specified


Page 111 of 363

P a g e | 10


individual, individuals or group, as outlined in a letter of behavioural expectations.

8) The following sanctions may be imposed only by an authorized Queen’s administrator:

a) Notice of Prohibition from campus, in part(s) or in its entirety.

b) Requirement to Withdraw2, only available in cases of Category 2 non-academic misconduct.

VII. APPEALS 1) A party to a NAM proceeding may appeal to the USAB, to challenge a decision of the adjudicative body

of the NAM Unit to which the case was referred, on any ground(s) permitted by the Policy on Student Appeals, Rights and Discipline.

2) Except as altered by the Interim Procedure under the Queen’s University Student Code of Conduct, 2016, appeal procedures are governed by the Policy on Student Appeals, Rights and Discipline.

VIII. RECORDS MANAGEMENT AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 1) The NAM Intake Office will maintain a secure database, containing a record of all incidents of non-

academic misconduct3, which will include:

a) the Incident Report;

b) identification of the NAM Unit to which the case was referred;

c) the case report from the NAM Unit;

d) the decision; and,

e) a final report, if applicable.

2) Every Case Manager will submit an electronic case report to the NAM Intake Office within 7 days of the date on which the responsible NAM Unit’s decision was issued. The case report must: (i) include a summary of the case; (ii) state the finding(s); list the sanction(s) imposed, if any; (iii) state the timeframe within which any Sanction(s) must be completed; and (iv) append a copy of the decision.

a. In cases where there is no finding of non-academic misconduct, the case report will also confirm that the case has been closed. There cannot be any reliance on, or reference to, the matter in any subsequent NAM case.

b. In cases where an informal resolution is reached, the case report will also summarize the requirements, if any, of the informal resolution.

3) In cases where an informal resolution is reached, and the Student has met all of the requirements of the informal resolution, if any, the Case Manager will submit a final report to the NAM Intake Office within 7 days after the completion of the requirements. The final report will confirm the informal resolution, the completion of any requirements, and will state that the case has been closed.

4) In cases where a finding of non-academic misconduct has been made and no appeal of the decision has been filed within the required timeframe, then:

a) if the Student has completed all Sanctions(s) within the stipulated timeframe, the responsible Case Manager will submit a final report to the NAM Intake Office within 7 days after the

2 See the Policy on Transcript Terminology for Students Withdrawing from Queen's University. 3 This includes all NAM cases, including those arising under the Athletics & Recreation and Residence NAM Systems that are not referred to the NAM Intake Office.


Page 112 of 363

http://www.queensu.ca/secretariat/sites/webpublish.queensu.ca.uslcwww/files/files/policies/senateandtrustees/SARDPolicy.pdf


http://www.queensu.ca/secretariat/policies/senate/policy-transcript-terminology-students-withdrawing-queens-university

P a g e | 11


completion of Sanction(s), which will confirm the completion and which will state that the case has been closed; or,

b) if the Student has not completed all Sanctions(s) within the stipulated timeframe the Case Manager will determine, after consultation with the student about the reasons for the failure, if, given more time, the student is likely to complete the sanctions(s). If the Case Manager determines that this is not likely, then the Case Manager will file a final report with the NAM Intake Office noting the Sanction(s) the Student failed to complete. The NAM Intake Office will refer the matter as appropriate, according to applicable procedure.

5) All case records will be maintained by the NAM Intake Office for a minimum period of 7 years following the date of decision in the case, but it is within the discretion of the NAM Intake Office to maintain a specific case file for a longer period.

6) Annual statistics on the NAM System, including a summary of the reported misconduct, the findings and any Sanction(s), will be reported annually by the NAM Intake Office to the Audit and Risk Committee of the Board of Trustees in an anonymized format and will be posted on the appropriate University webpage.

7) All case records must be maintained, and destroyed, according to guidance from the Chief Privacy Officer, in compliance with the Ontario Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

IX. TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS 1) The effective date of this Code is the date on which it receives approval of the University’s Board of

Trustees.

2) Between the effective date and August 31, 2016:

a) each unit or entity involved in the administration of the Code under Interim Procedure under the Queen’s University Student Code of Conduct, 2016, will develop, and/or review and revise, its forms, guidelines, policies, procedures and the like, to be consistent with this Code. Such revised forms, guidelines, policies and procedures, and all subsequent amendments thereto, shall be subject to approval by the Vice-Principal’s Operations Committee before they become effective;

b) the Office of the Provost will negotiate Agency Agreements with each organization seeking to be recognized as an Authorized Agent for the purposes of this Code;

3) After August 31, 2016 the Student Conduct Office, Athletics and Recreation, Residences, and any Authorized Agent of the University shall be the only entities authorized to receive case referrals of non-academic misconduct from the NAM Intake Office; and,

4) The Interim Procedure under the Queen’s University Student Code of Conduct, 2016, as amended by Paragraph IX. 3 above, shall guide the implementation and administration of this Code until such time as Procedures under the Queen’s University Student Code of Conduct, 2016 have been finalized and approved by the Vice-Principal’s Operations Committee and the Policy on Student Appeals, Rights and Discipline has been amended and approved by the Senate and the Board, which shall be no later than December 31, 2016.

X. RELATED POLICIES: 1) There are several University policies, rules and procedures that normally act independently of one

another. However, in circumstances where the alleged Code violation is reported to the NAM Intake Office, the sanctions in other relevant policies or procedures will be available to the decision-maker.


Page 113 of 363



P a g e | 12


2) These policies, rules and procedures may include, but are not limited to the following:

a) Acceptable Use of Information Technology Policy

b) Code of Behaviour for Library Users

c) Core Tenant Handbook for University-Owned Rentals

d) Harassment and Discrimination Policy

e) Queen’s University Weapons Policy

f) Sexual Violence Policy

g) Professional behaviour offences under professional programs. Nothing in this Code prohibits or prevents any Faculty, School or Department from enforcing its professional standards or professional codes of conduct in addition to any steps taken pursuant to this Code.

3) The University also has existing behavioural expectations for specific Student populations:

a) Athletics and Recreation’s Guidelines of Behaviour for Student-Athletes

b) Summary of Infractions for Student Athletes

c) Athletics and Recreation Discipline Policy

d) ResRules for Students living in residences

4) Student governments have policies and bylaws that relate to their members:

a) The Constitution of the Alma Mater Society of Queen’s University

b) AMS Policy Manuals

c) SGPS Bylaws and Policies

d) Constitution of the Residence Society

e) Bylaws of the Residence Society (Feb, 11th, 2016)

f) Secondary Residence Society Policies

ENDNOTE i AUTHORITY The Queen’s University Board of Trustees (“Board”) is vested with the authority over student non-academic misconduct (“NAM”) by Royal Charter of Queen Victoria dated October 16, 1841, as amended. By Resolution dated May 6, 2016, the Board:

a) vested responsibility for the management of the Queen’s NAM System in the senior administration of the University;

b) approved this Student Code of Conduct, 2016 c) directed the creation of the NAM Intake Office; d) directed the creation of the Student Conduct Office, which will function as part of the Office of the Vice-

Provost and Dean of Student Affairs within the portfolio of the Provost and Vice-Principal (Academic); e) conferred on the Office of the Provost and Vice-Principal (Academic) the authority to delegate, by

contract, certain powers over student non-academic misconduct to Authorized Agents of the University;


Page 114 of 363

http://www.queensu.ca/secretariat/policies/senate/electronic-information-security-policy-framework/acceptable-use-information

http://www.queensu.ca/secretariat/policies/senate/electronic-information-security-policy-framework/acceptable-use-information

http://library.queensu.ca/about/code-behaviour

http://community.housing.queensu.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Tenant-Handbook-CORE-2016-2017.pdf

http://www.queensu.ca/secretariat/policies/senate/harassmentdiscrimination-complaint-policy-and-procedure

http://www.queensu.ca/secretariat/policies/senate/harassmentdiscrimination-complaint-policy-and-procedure

http://www.queensu.ca/security/news/weappol.html

http://www.queensu.ca/secretariat/sexual-violence-policy

http://gogaelsgo.com/documents/2010/10/8/GuidelinesForBehaviour_Student-Athlete.pdf?id=454

http://gogaelsgo.com/documents/2010/10/8/GuidelinesForBehaviour_Student-Athlete.pdf?id=454

http://gogaelsgo.com/documents/2010/9/11/A_R_Disciplinary_Process_-_FULL_-_APPROVED_-_April_22-10.pdf?id=373

http://residences.housing.queensu.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ResRules-Handbook.pdf

https://myams.org/wp-content/uploads/AMS-Constitution.pdf

https://myams.org/data-documents/

http://www.sgps.ca/info/downloads/bylaws-policies_Mar2016.pdf

http://www.ressoc.org/v12/policies/



P a g e | 13


and,

f) directed the creation of the Non-Academic Misconduct Sub-Committee (the “NAM Sub- Committee”), being a sub-committee of the Audit and Risk Committee of the Board, as defined in this Code.


Page 115 of 363

2016-04-20 5:03 PM

PROCEDURE

Re: INTERIM PROCEDURES UNDER THE

QUEEN’S UNIVERSITY STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT, 2016

Contact Officer Provost and Vice Principal (Academic)

PR

OC

ED

UR

E

PURPOSE Pursuant to the approval of the Queen’s University Student Code of Conduct, 2016 (“Code”) by the Queen’s University Board of Trustees on May 6, 2016, 2016 this Interim Procedures document shall remain in effect in accordance with Section 1x.4 of the Code.

PROCEDURES

GENERAL PROVISIONS

1. These General Provisions apply to all allegations, complaints and reports (“cases”) received by the NAM Intake Office, against Students and Student Groups (“Respondent(s)”) pursuant to the Code.

2. Terms in this Interim Procedure have the meaning given to them in the Code, unless they are expressly defined in this Interim Procedure.

3. The Code and this Interim Procedure do not preclude any member of the Queen’s community impacted by non-academic misconduct from pursuing criminal or civil action, nor from reporting the case to an applicable professional licencing body, nor does it preclude Campus Security and Emergency Services staff from carrying out their responsibilities.

4. The NAM Intake Office’s decision to refer a case to a specific NAM Unit is final and is not subject to review by any person or body.

5. The NAM Intake Office can also divert a case from the NAM System, to be addressed under the University’s student-at-risk policies and practices.

6. If a staff member of the NAM Intake Office is unavailable, the University Secretary or designate has full authority to make any decision that a NAM Intake Officer is entitled to make under the Code or this Interim Procedure.

7. All notices and written communication pursuant to the Code or this Interim Procedure must be sent by email, to Students, Student Groups, faculty or staff using their @queensu.ca email address. All email attachments must be password protected. In all other cases, notices and communications must be sent by registered mail or by courier. If sent by regular mail, receipt is deemed to occur on the 3rd business day1 after the date on the notice or other document.

1 “business day” means Monday to Friday, excluding statutory holidays and any other day on which the University is closed, such as the Christmas Shutdown period.


Page 116 of 363

mailto:[email protected]

P a g e | 2

Procedures of other NAM Units

CATEGORY 2 NAM PROCEDURES

Interim Measures

8. The Procedures set out in Paragraphs 11-91 of this Interim Procedure apply only to those cases that the NAM Intake Office refers to the Student Conduct Office.

9. When the NAM Intake Office refers a case to any other NAM Unit, the procedures of that Unit must, at a minimum, contain the following components of procedural fairness:

(a) Information: Respondents have the right to be advised, in writing, of the allegations.

(b) Rule against bias: Respondents have the right to have a case heard and decided by an unbiased decision-maker.

(c) Notice: Respondents have the right to formal written notice of any proceeding. Notice should include the nature of the proceeding, including whether the proceeding will be conducted by way of written submission, oral presentation, or both.

(d) Disclosure: Respondents have the right to disclosure of the evidence and information to be relied upon by the other party in the case.

(e) Representation: Respondents have the right to the assistance of a University Dispute Resolution Advisor or any other person, including a legal representative.

(f) Participatory Right: Respondents have the right to present evidence and arguments in response to an allegation of non-academic misconduct.

(g) Reasons: Respondents have the right to be provided with written reasons for the decision made in their case.

10. The procedures outlined below apply to cases of alleged Category 2 non-academic misconduct that are referred to the Student Conduct Office.

11. Notwithstanding Paragraph 4 above, and notwithstanding a case of alleged non-academic misconduct having been referred to the Student Conduct Office, the Case Manager can divert the case from the NAM System to be addressed under the University’s student-at-risk policies and practices.

12. The Procedure for cases of alleged Category 2 non-academic misconduct referred to the Student Conduct Office can be implemented at the same time as, or following, other off-campus processes, including civil or criminal proceedings.

13. If the NAM Intake Office is aware that a case of alleged Category 2 non-academic misconduct has also resulted in criminal and/or civil proceedings against a Respondent(s), that Office, in consultation with the Provost and Vice-Principal (Academic) (the “Provost”), will first determine whether it is appropriate to defer the application of this Interim Procedure until the conclusion, or partial conclusion, of such proceedings. If, at any time after the case has been referred it subsequently becomes known that criminal and/or civil proceedings have been commenced against a Respondent(s), the Provost, will determine whether it is appropriate to defer the application of this Interim Procedure until the conclusion, or partial conclusion, of such proceedings.

14. If it is decided that deferral is appropriate, the University retains the right to impose interim terms and conditions that are appropriate in the circumstances to ensure a safe campus environment. The NAM Intake Office or the Case Manager, as the case may be, can request a Notice of


Page 117 of 363

P a g e | 3

Initial Exploratory Meeting

Preliminary Informal Resolution

Violation of Informal Resolution Requirements

Prohibition to alter or suspend a Respondent’s access to the campus, or part of it, or for an interim period, or, ask the Provost to impose interim terms and conditions that are appropriate in the circumstances to ensure a safe campus environment.

15. A Respondent who is subject to interim measures can seek an expedited review of the interim measures by the Chair of the University Student Appeals Board (“USAB”) by filing a request with the University Ombudsman.

16. Upon receipt and review of an Incident Report from the NAM Intake Office, the Case Manager shall write to the Respondent(s) inviting the Respondent(s) to an initial exploratory meeting.

The letter must:

(a) Provide the Respondent(s) with a summary of the Incident Report;

(b) State the specific date, time and location of the initial exploratory meeting. This must normally be scheduled within 10 business days after the case referral.

(c) Advise each Respondent of the right to have an advisor present at the meeting;

(d) Advise the Respondent(s) that:

the initial exploratory meeting is the Respondent’s opportunity to explore the possibility of informally resolving the case;

any retaliatory conduct by the Respondent(s), either towards the complainant or any potential witness, is itself Category 2 non-academic misconduct subject to sanction; and,

if they do not attend the initial exploratory meeting, the Case Manager will proceed with a formal investigation of the case.

17. If the Respondent(s) admits to the alleged misconduct and accepts responsibility, the Case Manager and the Respondent(s) can agree, in writing, to the sanction(s). The written agreement must also specify any requirement(s) the Respondent(s) must meet/fulfill, and the deadline for doing so.

18. Upon the timely completion of the requirements agreed to in the informal resolution the Case Manager must prepare a case report pursuant to Section VIII of the Code and provide it to the NAM Intake Office.

19. The Case Manager can, in their discretion, determine if a failure to meet any of the requirements is substantial enough to warrant negating the informal resolution. If the failure is determined to be substantial enough, the Case Manager must so advise the University Ombudsman, who will refer the case to the Student Conduct Panel, (the “Panel”) providing the Panel with the following information:

(a) information about the misconduct alleged and admitted; and,

(b) the sanction(s) and requirement(s) agreed to during the informal resolution process.


Page 118 of 363

P a g e | 4

Formal Investigation Process

20. The Panel shall invite each party to make a submission, orally or in writing, about the appropriate sanction(s).

21. The Panel shall only render a decision about sanction(s), which can include the original sanction(s) agreed to in the informal resolution and additional sanction(s) for failure to complete/fulfill the original sanctions(s).

22. If the Case Manager determines, based on the NAM Intake Office’s Incident Report, that no informal resolution is appropriate, or, if after the initial meeting with the Respondent(s) the Case Manager determines that no informal resolution is possible at this stage, then the Case Manager will initiate a formal investigation to determine if there is sufficient evidence of non-academic misconduct to warrant further action. Normally, the investigation must start no later than 15 business days after the Case Manager received the Incident Report.

23. The Case Manager can ask that the university engage an external investigator where the subject matter of the case requires specialized knowledge or expertise.

24. Throughout the investigation the Case Manager shall observe the principles of procedural fairness, including:

(a) Interviewing the complainant(s) to identify the scope of the evidence available to support the case and to identify any relevant witnesses. The Case Manager must send each complainant a Notice of Investigation, requesting an interview to discuss the allegation(s).

(b) Interviewing relevant witness(es). The Case Manager must send a Notice of Investigation to each witness, requesting an interview; and,

(c) Interviewing the Respondent(s). The Case Manager must send Notice of Investigation to each Respondent, which shall:

provide each Respondent with the specifics of the allegation(s) against him/her;

invite the Respondent to meet with the Case Manager and/or provide a written response to the allegations;

advise the Respondent(s) of the right to have an advisor present at all meetings during the investigation;

advise the Respondent(s) that any retaliatory conduct is itself Category 2 non-academic misconduct, subject to sanction;

advise the Respondent(s) of the place, date and time that has been scheduled for the interview, which must not be earlier than 5 business days after the date on the Notice of Investigation;

indicate the date by which a written response, if the Respondent chooses to submit one, must be provided to the Case Manager, which must not be earlier than 5 business days after the date on the Notice of Investigation; and,

Advise the Respondent that if the Case Manager receives no response to the Notice of Investigation (by providing a


Page 119 of 363

P a g e | 5

Insufficient Evidence of Category 2 NAM

written response to the allegations and/or confirming attendance at the interview) the Case Manager will proceed with the investigation and will draw any reasonable conclusions based on the information that is available at the conclusion of the investigation.

25. A Notice of Investigation constitutes a direction of a University official for the purposes of the Code.

26. As part of the investigation the Case Manager is entitled to, and should if they deem it appropriate, meet with, seek assistance from, or consult with, any member of the University community who might have relevant knowledge of the incident and/or the Respondent(s) (including Faculty Deans, administrators and staff), or who have specific expertise with regard to the substance of the allegation (e.g. the Human Rights Office, the Equity Office, the Department of Athletics and Recreation, Residence, etc.).

27. The formal investigative process must normally be completed by the Case Manager within 10 business days after all interviews are completed.

28. During the investigation, the Case Manager must instruct all persons interviewed that:

(a) the interview/investigation process is confidential;

(b) any information communicated by or to the Case Manager during the investigation is not to be disclosed to, or discussed with, others (except with an advisor from whom the person is seeking assistance related to the case, or, a counsellor, physician, support person or the like); and,

(c) failure to abide by this confidentiality requirement will compromise the integrity of the investigative process, and constitutes Category 2 non-academic misconduct.

29. If the Case Manager concludes that the evidence does not support a finding of Category 2 non-academic misconduct, the Case Manager shall send a written notice to the complainant, if any, and to the Respondent(s), along with a case report to the NAM Intake Office, advising either:

(a) that the evidence does not support a finding of non-academic misconduct; or,

(b) that, while the evidence does not support a finding of Category 2 non-academic misconduct, the evidence could support a finding of other non-academic misconduct.

30. Upon receiving the case report, the NAM Intake Office must either:

(a) close the file if the case report is as described in 28(a) above; or,

(b) refer the case to the most appropriate of the Alma Mater Society (“AMS”), the Society of Graduate and Professional Student (“SGPS”), the Athletics & Recreation Department, or, Residences, if the case report is as described in 29(b) above. When referring a case under this provision, the NAM Intake Office must provide a copy of the case report to the receiving office.


Page 120 of 363

P a g e | 6

Sufficient Evidence -

Informal Resolution Process

Sufficient Evidence -

Referral to Student Conduct Panel

STUDENT CONDUCT PANEL

Student Conduct Panel Procedures

31. If the Case Manager concludes that the evidence obtained could support a finding of Category 2 non-academic misconduct and concludes that an informal resolution at this stage is be appropriate, the Case Manager retains the discretion to pursue such resolution with the Respondent(s), following the process described in Paragraphs 17-21 above.

32. If no informal resolution is reached, or, if the Case Manager determines that an informal resolution is not appropriate, the Case Manager must provide the NAM Intake Office with a case report outlining the conclusion(s) of the investigation and the reason(s) therefor. The NAM Intake Office will refer the case to a Student Conduct Panel.

33. Normally a Student Conduct Panel will consist of one faculty member, one Student, and one staff member. The Chair of the Student Conduct Panel (the “Chair”) will normally be a faculty member, but in any case must be someone with university tribunal experience.

34. All members of a Panel will normally be appointed by the University Ombudsman from a roster of individuals who have indicated their willingness to serve on a Student Conduct Panel. The roster will be maintained and managed by the NAM Intake Office.

35. The University Ombudsman can engage external panelists to hear cases where the subject matter requires specialized knowledge or expertise.

36. The Office of the University Ombudsman will provide training and education to members of the roster about their roles and responsibilities on a Student Conduct Panel.

37. The NAM Intake Office must provide a copy of the case report to each member appointed to the Student Conduct Panel and to the Respondent(s) within 3 business days of the members’ appointment.

38. Appointments to a Student Conduct Panel must take into consideration:

(a) The availability of individuals to serve on the Panel; and,

(b) The need to avoid bias, a reasonable apprehension of bias, and, conflict of interest.

39. After receiving the case report, the Student Conduct Panel can, if it deems necessary, request additional information/document(s) from a party. The Panel must provide the other party with all information/documents so obtained.

40. A Student Conduct Panel is not bound by strict legal procedures. The procedural guidelines outlined below are designed to assist the parties in preparing and presenting their case(s), and to ensure they are given a fair opportunity to be heard. The procedural guidelines need not, however, be followed strictly or in their entirety, provided that the requirements of procedural fairness are satisfied.

41. Parties: The parties in a proceeding before a Student Conduct Panel are:

(a) The Case Manager, or, a person appointed by the Provost to represent the Student Conduct Office; and,

(b) the Respondent(s).

42. Notice: The parties must be given at least 10 business days’ written notice of the proceeding. The Notice of Proceeding must include:


Page 121 of 363

P a g e | 7

(a) a statement of the time, place and purpose of the proceeding; and

(b) a statement that if a party does not attend the proceeding, the Panel can proceed in the party’s absence and that the party will not be given any further notice of the proceeding.

43. Scheduling: The proceeding will be scheduled by the Chair (or delegate). The Chair will try to set a time and date for the proceeding that is convenient for the parties. However, if it is clear that a party has been notified in writing of the scheduled time and date for the proceeding, the Panel can proceed in that party’s absence.

44. Normally a proceeding must be scheduled within 15 business days after the date on the Notice of Proceeding. The Chair can extend this time limit if a written request for an extension is submitted and if the Chair is satisfied:

(a) that the reason given for the delay is valid; and,

(b) that the delay will not prejudice the other party.

45. Right to Representation and Assistance: Every Respondent has the right to the assistance of a University Dispute Resolution Advisor or other person, including a legal representative, in a proceeding before a Student Conduct Panel. Respondent(s) can appear before the Panel on their own, but are encouraged to seek representation or assistance.

46. Whether or not a Respondent(s) has representation, members of a Student Conduct Panel is entitled to question the Respondent(s) directly. While a Respondent(s) cannot be compelled to answer questions, the failure to do so might lead to an adverse inference.

47. Evidence: All Respondents are entitled to receive details of the allegation(s) before a proceeding starts. Normally this information will be in the case report. A party seeking further details, information or documents must direct their request to the Chair. The Chair must ask the other party for submissions about the request, and will issue a written direction to the parties.

48. A Panel can allow oral, documentary or other evidence that it deems relevant to the proceeding, whether or not such evidence would be admissible in a court; the Panel must determine its credibility and weight.

49. If the Student Conduct Panel satisfies itself as to the authenticity of a copy of a record or document, the Panel can accept the copy as evidence, without requiring the original record or document to be produced.

50. The Panel can require a party to produce documentary or other physical evidence at any time before or during the proceeding if it deems the evidence to be relevant. The Panel must provide the other party with a copy of such evidence.

51. The Panel must not hear evidence or receive or representations about the case without all parties present, unless, having been provided with a Notice of Proceeding, a party fails to attend the proceeding.

52. Attendance of Witnesses: Each party must provide the Chair with a list of witnesses at least 5 business days before the proceeding is scheduled to start. The Chair must provide the list(s) the other party at least 3 business days before the proceeding is scheduled to start.

53. If a party believes that a person has relevant evidence, the party can ask


Page 122 of 363

P a g e | 8

the Chair, in writing, to formally invite that the individual attend the proceeding as a witness. The party’s written request to the Chair must include the following information about the requested witness:

(a) Full name;

(b) Status (i.e. faculty, staff, Student or other);

(c) Current contact information;

(d) A summary of the evidence the person is expected to give at the proceeding; and,

(e) A statement outlining the relevance of the evidence.

54. The Chair will send a written invitation to the person if the Chair believes that the requested witness is likely to have relevant evidence. The Chair has no authority to compel a witness to attend a proceeding.

55. The Chair will advise the parties of the identity of all persons who accept the Chair’s invitation to attend the proceeding, and will indicate which party requested the person’s attendance at the proceeding.

56. Witnesses are not expected to be sworn or affirmed.

57. Examination of Witnesses: At the proceeding a party or their representative is entitled to, examine and cross-examine witnesses as in Chair’s discretion is reasonably required for a full and fair disclosure of all relevant matters at issue in the case.

58. The Chair can limit examination and cross-examination of a witness when the Chair is satisfied that the examination has been sufficient to fully and fairly disclose all relevant matters, or if the Chair believes the questioning is irrelevant or abusive.

59. Open/Closed Proceedings: Any party to a proceeding before a Student Conduct Panel can request that the proceeding be closed to observers. The Chair will grant the request if he/she is of the opinion that the interests of any person affected by the proceeding outweigh the desirability of conducting an open proceeding.

60. It is up to the Chair to decide who is permitted to be present at any stage of a proceeding.

61. Order of Proceedings: The Student Conduct Office representative will first present the findings of the investigation and call witnesses. The Respondent(s) will be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. The Student Conduct Office representative will then be permitted to address any new points that arose from cross examination.

62. The Respondent(s) will next present evidence and call witnesses. The Student Conduct Office representative will be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. The Respondent(s) will then be permitted to address any new points that arose from cross examination

63. The Student Conduct Office representative can present evidence in response to evidence presented by the Respondent(s).

64. At any time during a witness’ evidence members of the Panel can ask for clarification or further information from the witness.

65. The parties will be permitted to summarize their respective cases and make closing statements.


Page 123 of 363

P a g e | 9

Sanction Proceeding

66. The Chair can alter the order described above in the interests of fairness.

(f) Adjournment: The Panel can agree to an adjournment request at any time during a proceeding if the Panel is satisfied that the reason for doing so is valid and that that the delay will not prejudice the other party.

67. Time Limits: Normally time limits will be extended during exam or holiday periods. The Chair of a Panel retains the discretion to extend time limits as circumstances may require; in exceptional circumstances the Chair can also abridge time limits provided that a party to a proceeding is not prejudiced thereby.

68. Alternate Dispute Resolution: The Chair can, at any stage before a the Panel makes its decision, defer the case to allow the parties to participate in an alternative dispute resolution process to resolving the case or an issue arising in the case if:

(a) the Chair decides that alternative dispute resolution is appropriate for the case; and

(b) the parties consent to participating in the alternative dispute resolution process.

69. Where the parties participate in an alternative dispute resolution process, time-lines for resolving the dispute must be established and agreed upon or determined by the Chair. Normally, the deferral period for an alternative dispute resolution process will not exceed 4 weeks. If at the conclusion of 4 weeks the parties have not reached agreement, either party can request that the proceeding be scheduled or re-commenced, as the case may be.

70. No person called upon to facilitate a dispute resolution process can be required to give oral evidence or to produce any document or other record in a proceeding.

71. Decision: The decision of a Student Conduct Panel, if not unanimous, must be based on the decision of the majority of its members.

72. The burden of proof, which lies with the Student Conduct Office, required to prove a case of Category 2 non-academic misconduct is the balance of probabilities. This means that the evidence the Panel regards as reliable and credible supports the conclusion that it is more likely than not that a Respondent engaged in the non-academic misconduct alleged.

73. Every decision of a Student Conduct Panel must include a statement about the Respondent’s right to appeal its decision to the University Student Appeal Board (“USAB”). The decision must also provide information about the deadline for appealing and reference the University Ombudsman as a resource for information and advice.

74. Notification of Decision: Normally, within 3 business days after the conclusion of the proceeding, the Chair will notify the parties and the NAM Intake Office in writing of the Panel’s decision.

75. If the Panel decides that the alleged non-academic misconduct has not been proven on a balance of probabilities, then within a further 10 business days, the Chair will issue the Panel’s formal written decision, which must include the Panel’s supporting reasons.

76. If the Panel decides that the alleged non-academic misconduct has been proven on a balance of probabilities, then within a further 10 business


Page 124 of 363

P a g e | 10

Available Sanctions

Timing of Sanction(s)

days, the Panel will re-convene to hear the parties’ submissions about appropriate sanction(s) (“Sanction Proceeding”).

77. Among the factors that a Panel can consider in determining sanction(s) are:

(a) the intent of a Respondent;

(b) the impact of the misconduct on:

the complainant, if any;

the University community;

the University (including any impact on its reputation and/or its goodwill in the community); and

the broader community;

(c) the presence or absence of past findings of non-academic misconduct on the part of a Respondent; and,

(d) the presence of mitigating or aggravating factors.

78. Sanctions must be proportionate to the misconduct and/or the harm arising from it.

79. Sanctions should, where appropriate, be educational, developmental and progressive

80. Sanctions that can be imposed by a Student Conduct Panel include those stated in the Queen’s University Student Code of Conduct, 2016, the Residence Student Conduct process (“ResRules”) and/or the Athletics & Recreation Non-Academic Discipline Judicial Process (Discipline Policy), as applicable, but do not include a requirement to withdraw. If a sanction from the ResRules or the Athletics & Recreation Discipline Policy is imposed, the senior administrator in the applicable office shall be notified of the sanction and will be responsible for ensuring it is met by the Student in a timely fashion.

81. A Student Conduct Panel can recommend to the Provost that a Respondent be Required to Withdraw from studies at the University. The Provost can endorse the recommendation and require the Respondent to withdraw from studies at the University. The requirement to withdraw may be limited to a specified period of time. In the event that a Respondent is Required to Withdraw, their transcript will bear a notation, during the period for withdrawal, indicating that the Respondent was required to withdraw from the University for Non-academic Misconduct.

82. If the panel intends to impose a sanction provided for in either the ResRules or the Athletics & Recreation Non-Academic Discipline Judicial Process (Discipline Policy), it must consult with those offices before making a decision on sanction(s).

83. Within 5 business days after the Sanction Proceeding ends, the Chair will issue the Panel’s formal written decision on the merits of the case and on any sanction(s). The decision must include the Panel’s supporting reasons.

84. Sanctions will not normally be put into effect until a Respondent has either exhausted all internal channels of appeal, or the time for filing an appeal has expired.

85. Any interim measures will continue during the appeal period unless the


Page 125 of 363

http://www.queensu.ca/secretariat/policies/senate/residence-discipline-process

http://www.gogaelsgo.com/documents/2010/9/11/A_R_Disciplinary_Process_-_FULL_-_APPROVED_-_April_22-10.pdf?id=373




P a g e | 11

Appeal of Immediate Sanction(s)

Appeal from Student Conduct Panel Decision

ADDITIONAL MATTERS

Panel’s decision indicates otherwise.

86. Notwithstanding Paragraph 84, in exceptional circumstances where the Student Conduct Panel is satisfied that the interests of other Students, faculty, staff or any other member of the University community could be significantly adversely affected the Panel can order that a sanction(s) be put into effect immediately.

87. A Respondent(s) who is subject to immediate sanction(s) under Paragraph 86 can appeal that decision to the Chair of USAB by filing a completed Notice of Appeal with Office of the University Ombudsman on or before the deadline for appealing stated in the Panel’s decision.

88. The Chair of USAB will hear and decide the appeal within 2 business days from the date of its filing. The immediate sanction issued by the Student Conduct Panel will not take effect until the matter is decided by the Chair of USAB.

89. A party to proceeding before a Student Conduct Panel can appeal the Panel’s decision, or the endorsement of a Requirement to Withdraw, to the USAB on any ground(s) permitted by, and in accordance with the appeal procedure outlined in, the Senate Policy on Student Appeals, Rights and Discipline.

90. Additional Procedures: With respect to any procedural matter that is not specifically addressed in this Interim Procedure, the Student Conduct Panel is entitled, after hearing submissions from the parties and considering the requirements of procedural fairness, to determine an appropriate procedure.

91. Any procedural requirement contained in this Interim Procedure can be waived with the agreement of the Student Conduct Panel and each party.

92. Any matter of process or procedure not addressed by the Code, or by this Interim Procedure, but which might be necessary for the proper administration or management of the NAM System, can be established from time to time by the University Secretary and the has good and valid authority to do so. Where the University Secretary exercises this authority, it must be reported to the next regular meeting of the NAM Governance Committee.


Page 126 of 363



Non-Academic Misconduct Sub-Committee

Terms of Reference

The Non-Academic Misconduct Sub-Committee has been charged with the responsibility of

policy review and oversight of the University’s non-academic misconduct system. The Board of

Trustees is vested with the authority over student non-academic misconduct by Royal Charter of

Queen Victoria dated October 16, 1841, as amended.

The Sub-Committee will:

Regularly review the Student Code of Conduct (the “Code”) and related student non-

academic misconduct policies and procedures to ensure they remain current, meet best

practices, and support a living and learning environment that promotes the well-being of

students. A comprehensive review of the Code, including consultation with stakeholder

groups, will be completed after the third anniversary of its establishment and not less than

every five years thereafter and a report on any recommended changes following such

reviews will be submitted to the Audit and Risk Committee for its consideration and

subsequent recommendation to the Board of Trustees.

Receive semi-annual reports from the University Student Appeals Board and from each

unit of the university’s non-academic misconduct system, as well as from the Non-

Academic Misconduct System Roundtable, which shall be an operational body created to

share best practices across the units of the system and provide policy recommendations

from time to time for the review and recommendation of the Subcommittee. The reports

will be reviewed for the purposes of identifying trends, issues, risks, and initiatives

related to student non-academic misconduct across and within the units of the

university’s non-academic misconduct system that may require action.

Address any other matter referred to it by the Audit and Risk Committee.

The Sub-Committee shall meet no less than two times per year. The Chair of the Sub-Committee

will report semi-annually (May and December) to the Audit and Risk Committee. Those Sub-

Committee members elected by Senate will be responsible for providing regular updates to

Senate on the Sub-Committee’s work, and for soliciting feedback from Senate on student non-

academic misconduct matters.

A representative from each of the university’s non-academic misconduct systems will be

available to attend Sub-Committee meetings as needed.

Composition

Ex Officio

Principal

Provost (non-voting)

University Ombudsman (non-voting)


Page 127 of 363

Elected

3 Board of Trustees’ representatives, only one of whom shall be a student and one of whom shall

be both a member of the Audit and Risk Committee and an external Trustee who is among those

appointed or elected to the Board by either the Board or University Council. This member shall

be the Chair of the Sub-Committee.

3 representatives elected by and from the Senate, at least one of whom must be a faculty member

and only one of whom shall be a student.

Sub-Committee members shall be selected per the normal election procedures established by

their respective governance body.

No member of the Sub-Committee, other than ex officio members, shall administer, appear, or

advise on any non-academic misconduct case, irrespective of which unit is handling the case.

The Presidents of the AMS and the SGPS, as well as members of the Roundtable, shall be

ineligible to be elected to the Subcommittee.

The Office of the University Secretariat shall appoint a Sub-Committee secretary and provide

administrative support to the Sub-Committee.


Page 128 of 363

¹ NB: The Ombudsman’s Terms of Reference provide that s/he shall not be a voting member of any University Committee

Non-Academic Misconduct Systems’ Roundtable

Terms of Reference

The Non-Academic Misconduct Systems’ Roundtable serves as an informal forum for those

involved in the operation of the university’s non-academic misconduct system.

Appointed representatives will gather on a regular basis, at the call of the Chair or on petition of

any two members, but in any case not less than four times per year, twice in the fall term and

twice in the winter term, to:

Coordinate their procedures and practices to ensure that each unit within the system is

administered on a consistent and equitable basis, as much as is practicable;

Share information on best practices and trends within their unit, at Queen’s, and across

the post-secondary education sector in general;

Submit, at least annually, a report to the Subcommittee on Student Non-Academic

Misconduct with information on system administration, recommendations for changes to

the Student Code of Conduct and related policies, and emerging issues worthy of note.

Reports may include suggestions for changes to policy; and

Consider and discuss any other matter brought to it by a Roundtable member.

Members will be responsible for bringing issues from their own units of the system to the

Roundtable for discussion, and for communicating with those involved in the administration of

their unit on the information shared at the Roundtable.

Prior to each meeting of the Roundtable the Central Intake Officer shall prepare a report of all

cases of student non-academic misconduct received and referred since the previous meeting of

the Roundtable.

Composition

University Ombudsman (Chair¹)

Central Intake Officer

One representative selected by each unit of the university’s non-academic misconduct system.

The Office of the University Ombudsman shall appoint a Roundtable secretary and provide

administrative support to the Roundtable.


Page 129 of 363

FOR BOARD INFORMATION ONLY

SUMMARY GUIDE TO THE QUEEN’S UNIVERSITY STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT, 2016

RIGHTS, EXPECTATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Queen’s expects all Students, when they are on and off campus, to behave in a mature and responsible manner, which means taking responsibility

for their own well-being and making responsible decisions about the physical and mental health, safety and wellness of themselves and others.

In becoming a member of the Queen’s community, every student accepts the university’s policies, rules and procedures and acknowledges the right

of the university to set standards of conduct and impose sanctions for misconduct.

Queen’s University is dedicated to learning, intellectual inquiry, personal and professional development and good citizenship. Students are expected

to adhere to and promote our core values of honesty, trust, fairness, respect and personal responsibility in all aspects of university life. Everyone has

a responsibility to foster mutual respect for the dignity, property, rights and well-being of others.

This Summary Guide outlines the kinds of activities and behaviours that breach standards of non-academic conduct and the sanctions that may be

applied. When determining sanctions across the NAM System decision-makers will be guided by the principles of educational development,

deterrence, restitutions and, where appropriate, restorative justice.

The rules affecting student non-academic misconduct have been established by the Queen’s University Board of Trustees in the Student Code of

Conduct, 2016. For more detailed information, please refer to the complete Code.

THE NON-ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT (NAM) SYSTEM

Non-academic misconduct at Queen’s falls into two general categories, 1 and 2. Category 2 offenses are usually more serious than Category 1, but the

classification will depend on a series of factors described in the Code and will be classified by the NAM Intake Office for referral to the appropriate

Unit within the NAM System. Some offenses, because of their severity, are presumed to be Category 2. The NAM Intake Office can re-classify those

as Category 1, depending on the situation.

SANCTIONS

Sanctions are intended to be education and progressive. They can include:

Apologies

Educational assignments

Letters of behavioural

expectations

Loss of Privilege

No contact or

Behavioural Bond

University or Community

Service Written warnings

Restitution

Notice of Prohibition

(Only of Category 2)

Requirement to Withdraw

(Only of Category 2)

ITE

M: A

pproval of the New

Student Code of C

onduct and Proced...

Page 130 of 363


Type of Non-

Academic

Misconduct

Category 1 or 2

(To be determined by the NAM Intake Office)

Presumed Category 2 Misconduct

(May be re-classified by the NAM Intake Office)

2 | P a g e

The Chart below lists the types of Non-Academic Misconduct in the Code, and provides examples of each type, including those that are presumed

to be Category 2 misconduct:

Abuse of Process

a) Failure to comply with a process or requirement under this Code.

b) Failure to comply with a non-academic misconduct sanction.

c) Knowingly making false report of misconduct against any member of the University community or assisting another person in making or pursuing same.

d) Interference with the administration of this Code, such as:

i) a misrepresentation or false statement during an investigation or proceeding;

ii) trying to discourage any individual's proper participation in, or use of, a misconduct process;

iii) any retaliation (e.g. through coercion, intimidation, threats or social pressure) against a complainant, a person who reports misconduct, or a potential witness in a misconduct case;

iv) disrupting, or otherwise interfering with, the orderly conduct of a misconduct proceeding;

v) electronically or digitally recording, in any format, a misconduct proceeding without the express permission of the Chair of the proceeding; or,

vi) harassing (physically, verbally, or in writing), intimidating or attempting to influence, the impartiality of any individual in a decision-making role in a misconduct process.

ITE

M: A

pproval of the New

Student Code of C


Page 131 of 363


Type of Non-

Academic

Misconduct

Category 1 or 2




3 | P a g e

Aiding in the Commission of an Offence

a. Encouraging or aiding others, by words or by action, to engage in the commission of an act that is in violation of this Code, a University policy, rule or procedure, or, a Municipal, Provincial or Federal law.

Alcohol and Drug Use

a. Possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages on University Property, except when properly in attendance at a licensed pub or event, or as permitted under the Residence Contract or the University Policy.

b. Possession of narcotics or controlled substances, excluding medication prescribed to the Student.

c. Contravention of provincial liquor laws or violation of University policies governing the possession, distribution or consumption of alcoholic beverages on University Property.

d. Violation of a University policy, rule, or procedure or a Municipal, Provincial or Federal law, that arises from, or that is related to, the consumption of alcohol or of a controlled substance. This is distinct from, and is considered to be non-academic misconduct in addition to, prohibited consumption of alcohol or controlled drugs/substances.

e. Furnishing alcohol to any person who is under the age of majority.

f. Possession of any narcotic or controlled substance, including medication prescribed to the Student, for other than personal use, which includes administering, delivering, giving, selling, sending, transferring or transporting a narcotic or controlled substance, or attempting to do any of these things.

Contravention of Policy

a. Violation of a University policy, rule, or procedure published or posted by the University.

b. Violation of a policy, rule or procedure of an organization that is an Authorized Agent of the University.

Disruption or Interference

a. Disruption or obstruction by action, threat or otherwise, of any University event or any Sanctioned Activity, including teaching, learning, research, administration, events, and, any conduct that disrupts the normal operations of the University or that infringes on the rights of another member of the University community.

ITE

M: A

pproval of the New

Student Code of C


Page 132 of 363


Type of Non-

Academic

Misconduct

Category 1 or 2




4 | P a g e

b. Interfering with, obstructing, disrupting, misleading, or failing to comply with the directions of, any University official or any official of an Authorized Agent of the University, who is acting within the scope of his/her duties.

Improper Use of Dangerous Objects and Substances

a. Possession or use of any weapon (as outlined in the Queen’s University Weapons Policy), explosive, chemical, biohazardous, radioactive or controlled material, or the like, except by authorized personnel and in an area formally designated for that purpose.

Misconduct Against Persons and Dangerous Activity

a. Assault.

b. Harassment or Discrimination.

c. Physical, verbal or written abuse.

d. Threatening behaviour, whether physical, verbal or written.

e. Coercion or intimidation.

f. Use by an individual or group of information or other communication technology that is, or that should reasonably be known to be, harassing, hostile, intimidating or threatening, or that deliberately seeks to control, manipulate, falsely discredit or otherwise harm another individual (e.g. cyberbullying, cyberstalking, internet trolling, etc.).

g. Sexual Violence. h. Hazing. Hazing activities include, but are not limited to,

pranks, jokes, public ridicule, and any activity that does not respect an individual’s rights, integrity, dignity, safety or well-being. Hazing includes conduct that is, or ought to be reasonably known to be:

i. abusive (physically or psychologically); ii. demeaning;

iii. dangerous; iv. humiliating; v. ridiculing; or,

vi. contrary to this Code, to a University policy, rule or procedure, or to Municipal, Provincial or Federal law;

that is used as a means of coercing, compelling, forcing, or otherwise socially pressuring, a person to gain or maintain: (i) membership in; (ii) the acceptance of; or, (iii) association with; any group or organization. Express or implied consent from, or the acquiescence of, the affected person(s) shall not be an excuse or defense for such behaviour.

ITE

M: A

pproval of the New

Student Code of C


Page 133 of 363


Type of Non-

Academic

Misconduct

Category 1 or 2




5 | P a g e

Misconduct Involving Property

a. Misappropriation, damage, unauthorized possession, defacement, vandalism or destruction of University Property.

b. Theft or possession of property belonging to any person or entity without the permission of the rightful owner, including in circumstance where there was an intent to return the property.

c. Use of University facilities, equipment, supplies or resources contrary to express instruction or without proper authorization, or misuse or abuse of same.

d. Abuse or misuse of University documents, including without limitation identification cards, credit cards, meal cards, smart cards, or telephone calling cards, or, misuse of fees collected and distributed by the University to any Student group, either directly or indirectly (e.g. through the Alma Mater Society).

e. Altering or misuse of official University documents.

f. Interference with, obstruction of, or tampering with life safety or emergency equipment.

g. Setting unauthorized fires.

Misrepresentation or False Information

a. Furnishing false information to a University official or to an official of an Authorized Agent of the University.

b. Possessing, distributing or using false or altered identification/credentials.

ITE

M: A

pproval of the New

Student Code of C


Page 134 of 363


Type of Non-

Academic

Misconduct

Category 1 or 2




6 | P a g e

Misuse of University Information Technology

a. Altering or removing University computer files or software without proper authorization.

b. Intentionally jeopardizing the confidentiality, integrity and availability of electronically maintained Queen's University information or data.

c. Using Queen's Information Technology resources to do anything that is a violation of the rights of others, such as displaying or distributing obscene, harassing, defamatory, or discriminatory material or messages.

d. Using Queen's Information Technology resources for any illegal activities or purposes.

Unauthorized Entry and/or Presence

a. Unauthorized entry, attempted entry or presence in or on any University Property;

b. Unauthorized entry, attempted entry or presence at any Sanctioned Activity.

c. Refusing to leave University Property when instructed to do so by a University official, or by an official of an Authorized Agent of the University, acting within the scope of his/her duties.

d. Knowingly inviting or admitting into or on University Property, a person to whom a Notice of Prohibition has been issued.

ITE

M: A

pproval of the New

Student Code of C


Page 135 of 363

MEMORANDUM

To: Board of Trustees

From: Michael Fraser, Vice-Principal, University Relations

Date: April 16, 2016

Subject: Student Code of Conduct – Communications Plan

In May 2016, a new student code of conduct will be presented to the Board of Trustees for approval. Following that approval, Queen’s will announce the new code of conduct and begin the process of implementation. In consultation with key stakeholders, University Relations led a working group to develop a communications plan for the new student code of conduct. The working group will continue to meet over the next several months to finalize details of the launch and communicate the code of conduct to students. The success of the communications plan requires collaboration with several university portfolios, including the Office of the Provost and Vice-Principal (Academic) and Student Affairs, as well as with the Alma Mater Society and the Society of Graduate and Professional Students. This memo provides a summary of the communications plan, which covers the official announcement and the ongoing process of informing students of the new code of conduct and encouraging positive behaviour. Communications Context

While the new student code of conduct provides the framework for the non-academic misconduct (NAM) system, and outlines what constitutes misconduct, it is a formal document that needs to be supported with plain-language communications. To inform the development of the communications plan, University Relations reviewed communication policies, procedures and practices regarding non-academic misconduct and employee codes of conduct – including value statements, info graphics and the use of video – at post-secondary institutions and private sector organizations. Several Canadian and American universities, including the University of Toronto, Ryerson, York University, McGill University, McMaster University, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania and Columbia


Page 136 of 363

were reviewed. University Relations also examined how several private sector organizations communicate their employee codes of conduct and found that the Royal Bank of Canada, Scotiabank and Morgan Stanley have developed effective communications methods that could/can inform how Queen’s communicates its student code of conduct. For example, the Royal Bank’s employee code of conduct highlights key words that exemplify corporate values, uses graphics and animation, and the company uses videos for employee training. Scotiabank’s code outlines six of the bank’s principles as themes and then provides a breakdown of what each principle means. Morgan Stanley’s code of conduct contains many questions, examples and information about how to report practices that may violate the company’s Code of Conduct. Communications Objectives

The communications rollout includes two phases: the initial announcement of the new code of conduct, and the ongoing process of informing students about the code. Communications will support the overall objectives of ensuring students and other stakeholders understand the code and that it informs students’ behavior. Communications will highlight Queen’s expectations with regard to student conduct while promoting positive behaviour. Positioning and Communications Considerations

The code of conduct is new and is a result of extensive consultations and a working partnership with students. The changes to the non-academic misconduct system will be positioned as consistent with the NAM review process and as necessitated by changed and increased expectations of the role and responsibilities of universities, students, and society at large. Messaging will emphasize what led the university to make changes to the code, including societal changes and student safety, and will highlight that students are important partners in the review and implementation of the new code of conduct and the non-academic misconduct system. The values laid out in the preamble of the code will be emphasized. Communications and implementation will take into consideration a number of factors, including why the new system was developed, the unique aspects of the Queen’s multi-unit system, and the need for coordinated messaging by the various units involved the system. While the majority of students will not realize that there is a new student code of conduct it is essential that all students are aware of the code from the beginning of their academic career at Queen’s. A stakeholder outreach plan has been developed to inform stakeholders directly including students, alumni, former AMS alumni, student leaders, faculty and staff.


Page 137 of 363

Communications Overview University Relations and members of the communications working group, which includes incoming student leaders, will work over the summer months to complete all NAM system materials. The following is a summary of communications activities that are planned for implementation once the Board of Trustees has approved the new code of conduct. This list is not exhaustive and will continue to evolve as additional opportunities and platforms are identified.

• University Communications will formally announce the approval of the Code of Conduct immediately following Board approval. The announcement will reiterate the key motives that helped drive the review and its consultative approach and be targeted at key stakeholders including students, alumni and the Queen’s community.

• The announcement will include a cascade approach for internal audiences, including senior executives, deans and department heads, as well as the AMS, residence life staff, students, etc.

• A social media plan will be developed to support the ongoing process of educating

students about the code of conduct, in addition to supporting the initial announcement. • At the beginning of the academic year, an introductory letter will be sent to all students

from Principal Woolf that reiterates Queen’s values and what it means to be a member of Queen’s community. A link to the code will be included.

• A new webpage will be created for the NAM Intake Office and content for this page will be created in consultation with University Communications and Marketing, as well as in coordination with the members of the policy drafting subcommittee, the Office of the Provost and Student Affairs, and the Office of the University Ombudsman. This webpage will take a consumer friendly, retail focus with the goal of enhancing understanding. It will be designed with user-friendliness in mind, with clear language and graphics. A webpage will also be created for the new Student Conduct Office.

• University Communications will also create a brief statement from the Principal on student conduct in the Queen’s community to be included before the code, similar to Harvard University’s ‘Standards of Conduct’ and the corporate examples examined.


Page 138 of 363

• University Communications will work with the AMS, SGPS, Residences, Athletics and Recreation, Student Affairs and the Office of the Provost as they create and update their websites.

• University Communications and Marketing will create a webpage that lists all policies and

resources available to students in one central location, including the Student Code of Conduct. This will appear on the Queen’s main webpage, under Campus Life. These policies would still live under the University Secretariat’s page, but this webpage will link to those policies. The code and supporting documents will also be accessible through various Queen’s websites.

• A new statement will be uploaded to the SOLUS online system which will ensure that all

incoming students accept Queen’s terms regarding behaviour and conduct prior to being able to register for courses. Further investigation into the possibility of a mandatory quiz is required prior to implementation.

• Orientation Week materials from SGPS, the AMS and Residences will be updated to

reflect the Student Code of Conduct.

• A Gazette article with information regarding the Student Code of Conduct will be published at the beginning of each term.

• University Communications and Marketing will examine the benefits of a general

campaign focused on positive student behaviour. This campaign would be distinct from communications around the Student Code of Conduct.

• Communications will take a multiplatform approach, and may include video and printed

materials in addition to online and social media communications.


Page 139 of 363




Date of QUPC Approval:

Apr 4, 2016

Subject: Queen’s University Comprehensive International Plan (QUCIP) 2015 – 2019 Interim Report

Date of Board Committee Meeting: Click here to enter Committee date.



1.0 PURPOSE ☐ For Approval ☒ For Information 2.0 RECOMMENDATION/MOTION This report is for information only. 3.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This interim report on the Queen’s University Comprehensive International Plan (QUCIP) provides a progress update on the key performance indicators, reporting progress in fall 2015, with projections for 2015-16 where available, and using the baseline year of 2014-15 for reporting purposes. This update is organized according to the four pillars of the plan: International Research Engagement, International Mobility, International Enrolment Management, and International at Home. Regular annual reporting to the Board of Trustees on the University’s international performance indicators will be aligned with the updates provided on the Queen’s University Strategic Framework. 4.0 INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES • International Strategy Group (ISG) members, both collectively and individually • Associate Vice-Principal (International) • Vice-Provost (Teaching and Learning) • Vice-Provost and Dean of Student Affairs • Vice-Provost and Dean of the School of Graduate Studies • Faculty Deans, or Associate Deans (International), as appropriate • Leadership team at the Bader International Study Centre (BISC) • Queen’s University International Planning Committee (QUIPC)

ITEM: Queen’s University Comprehensive International Plan (Q...

Page 140 of 363

- 2 -

• Office of the Vice-Principal (Research) • Office of the Vice-Principal (Advancement) • Office of the Vice-Provost and Dean of Student Affairs • Communications and Marketing • Director of the Isabel Bader Centre for the Performing Arts (IBCPA) • School of English • Queen’s University International Centre (QUIC).

5.0 ANALYSIS Queen’s University is one of the few Canadian universities that has a formalized international strategy that aligns with its institutional strategy. Much progress has been made since the launch of the QUCIP in August 2015. Of particular note are the successes in achievement of international awards and accolades received by our faculty, the number of new study-abroad programs facilitating study by international students on a fee-paying basis, and the successful recruitment efforts, resulting in an incoming undergraduate student population that is 6.8% international fee-paying. 6.0 STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT / COMPLIANCE As reported to the Board last year, when the QUCIP was introduced, it is founded on the institutional vision and aligns with the Strategic Framework. The long-term goal of the Comprehensive International Plan is to ensure that focused and coordinated international activities are integrated into Queen’s overall governance discussions, strategic planning, risk management, operational decision-making, progress reporting, and enhancements to the student learning experience, and aligned with institutional values and culture. 7.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS A number of strategic targets identified within the four pillars of international activity have resource requirements. Throughout the current academic year, an analysis of financial resource requirements has taken place in affected units. The level of resources required to sustain the progress of the QUCIP will be determined and discussions about resource allocation will take place at the Provost Advisory Committee on Budget (PACB). 8.0 ENTERPRISE RISK ASSESSMENT The University is in the process of revising its key risk register. The following will be added as a Top 10 Risk: “The risk that if we don’t achieve the objectives of the Comprehensive International Plan, we will not gain the desired international standing.”


Page 141 of 363

- 3 -

9.0 COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY The Office of the Associate Vice-Principal (International) works closely and collaboratively with University Communications and University Marketing to ensure the work of these units supports the goals of the QUCIP, including international student recruitment, and raising awareness of Queen’s international priorities and initiatives among internal and external audiences. ATTACHMENTS 1. Comprehensive International Plan Interim Report, March 2016


Page 142 of 363




Apr 11, 2016

From: Vice-Principal Research

Date of Choose Committee or enter. Approval:

Click here to enter approval date.

Subject: Research Report

Date of Board Committee Meeting:

Click here to enter Committee date.


Vice-Principal Research


May 6, 2016



3.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides an update to the Board of Trustees on the following items:

Queen’s Research Opportunities Funds Canada First Research Excellence Fund Provincial Focus on Innovation Research Funding Highlights

4.0 INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES None

5.0 ANALYSIS Queen’s Research Opportunities Funds

The Queen’s Research Opportunities Funds (QROFs), a new suite of internal awards launched in fall 2015 to support the research enterprise at Queen’s, has just

ITEM: Research Report

Page 143 of 363

http://www.queensu.ca/gazette/stories/internal-awards-program-invests-researchers

- 2 -

announced its first round of successful applicants. Research prominence is a key driver in Queen’s Strategic Framework and is guided by the Strategic Research Plan. With up to $1 million awarded in the first competition, the QROFs are intended to provide researchers and scholars the opportunity to accelerate their research programs. The next QROF competition is scheduled to launch in the fall.

Canada First Research Excellence Fund

Queen’s submitted its application for competition two of the Canada First Research Excellence Fund. The focus of Queen’s submission is on particle astrophysics - Transformational science and technologies in Particle Astrophysics. Results of competition two will be announced in summer 2016.

Provincial Focus on Innovation Queen’s alumna, Premier Kathleen Wynne, visited Queen’s to tour Innovation Park. Premier Wynne heard first-hand from several Innovation Park representatives as well as from a number of businesses and research groups located at Innovation Park about their work developing and bringing their innovative products to market. Following the tour, Premier Wynne, Kingston and the Islands MPP Sophie Kiwala and Principal Daniel Woolf held a roundtable discussion with partners and startups based at Innovation Park.

Research Funding Highlights

Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI)

JELF (8) $1,354,242

Canada Research Chairs (CRC)

Tier 2, new (3) $1,500,000

Tier 2, renewal (1) $500,000

Tier 1, renewal (2) $2,800,000

Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)

MD/PhD Program Grants (1) $132,000

Development Grant (1) $47,725

Mitacs

Accelerate (2) $45,000

Globalink (1) $5,000

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)

Collaborative Research and Development Grant (1) $64,000

Engage (3) $75,000

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC)

Impact Award (1) $50,000


Page 144 of 363

http://www.queensu.ca/gazette/stories/internal-awards-program-invests-researchers

http://www.cfref-apogee.gc.ca/home-accueil-eng.aspx

http://www.cfref-apogee.gc.ca/home-accueil-eng.aspx

http://www.queensu.ca/gazette/stories/premier-tours-innovation-park

https://www.innovation.ca/en/OurFunds/CFIFunds/john-r-evans-leaders-fund

http://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/home-accueil-eng.aspx

https://www.mitacs.ca/en/programs/accelerate

http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/Professors-Professeurs/RPP-PP/CRD-RDC_eng.asp

http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/programs-programmes/impact_awards-prix_impacts-eng.aspx

- 3 -

6.0 STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT / COMPLIANCE The above items serve to support Queen’s Strategic Research Plan and Strategic Framework (e.g., Research Prominence).



9.0 COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY A communications strategy is not required. ATTACHMENTS None


Page 145 of 363

Senate Report to the Board of Trustees

Highlights from the March 22, 2016, and April 19, 2016 Meetings

To access the Senate agenda packages for these meetings:

• Go to the university’s Governance Portal at https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/Portal/

• Use the calendar in the top right of the homepage to navigate to December, January, or

February

• Click on the appropriate date

• Click on the Senate meeting that is listed

At its meetings, Senate approved:

The establishment of:

o A Certificate in Film and Media Studies;

o Proposal to Name the School of Drama and Music;

o Principles of Good Practice for upper year undergraduate and professional program

Scholarship Selection;

o A Collaborative Bachelor of Music Theatre Program;

o A Combined BScH/MSc (Physics) Degree Program;

o A Certificate in Employment Relations; and

o Queen’s Learning Outcomes Framework.

Reports received included:

The Monthly Chair’s reports from a number of Senate Committees;

The Senate Cyclical Program Report of Film and Media, Gender Studies, History, Kinesiology

and Health Studies, Languages, Literatures and Cultures, Neuroscience, Physics, Engineering

Physics and Astronomy, School of Computing, Rehabilitation Therapy, and Sociology;

The Principal’s Reports for March and April as well as the Principal’s Schedule Highlights for

March and April;

The Provost’s Reports for March, and April;

The March and April Research Report;

The Advancement Report for April;

The Board of Trustees Report to Senate for March;

A COU Academic Colleague Report for March and April;

The Report of the Faculty of Arts and Science;

The Report of the School of Graduate Studies for March and April;

The Report of the Faculty of Education;

The revisions to the new : SGNC- QUIC Council, QUIC Terms- Clean Version;

The 2016 version of the Orientation Policy Manual;

Enrolment Targets for 2016-17 and 2017-18;

New Hood Designs for the Master of Science (Aging and Health) and Professional Master of

Education;

Nominations as recommended by the Senate Governance and Nominating Committee;

The revised terms of Reference for the Senate Advisory Research Committee;

ITEM: Senate Report to the Board March 22, 2016 and April 19...

Page 146 of 363

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/Portal/

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/79911/SCAD%20Certificate%20in%20Film%20and%20Media%20-%20for%20Agenda.pdf?handle=0A4EF0023B4445CC8115912226223682

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/80103/Academic%20Unit%20Naming%20-%20For%20Agenda.pdf?handle=B741172AFCFE4B3F8E5EFFC0E797545B

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/79679/Report%20to%20Seanate%20request%20for%20approval%20Best%20Practi.pdf?handle=03B8FECC80BC45049C8FD6F2FF03DF10

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/79679/Report%20to%20Seanate%20request%20for%20approval%20Best%20Practi.pdf?handle=03B8FECC80BC45049C8FD6F2FF03DF10

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/82184/SCAD%20Bachelor%20of%20Music%20Theatre.pdf?handle=1BF39A329A8A4CC1B68A7844B5A37704

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/82195/SCAD%20combined%20BScH%20MSc%20Physics.pdf?handle=55D239D6E1CF4D5C9D7D45BD35D510C0

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/82202/SCAD%20Certificate%20in%20Employment%20Relations.pdf?handle=559EEC210E3841C7876F99B103667F0D

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/82650/SCAD%20Queen_s%20Learning%20Outcomes%20Framework.pdf?handle=8A9A3CD4A53542A49380D4139D15D444

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/79520/Film%20and%20Media.pdf?handle=55CC68AA179D47409477D16A4A435D65

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/79525/Gender%20Studies.pdf?handle=162E3A8BAE9E4D1CA1538BE5FF7E8ED5

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/79530/History.pdf?handle=096263D13697442190EDA3C19F944EC1

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/79571/Kinesiology%20and%20Health%20Studies.pdf?handle=42F0059F25D642169C0FB6446451E01E

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/79571/Kinesiology%20and%20Health%20Studies.pdf?handle=42F0059F25D642169C0FB6446451E01E

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/79576/Languages,%20Literatures%20and%20Cultures.pdf?handle=D60EC296B8814F8AB389ABDFA2A2DDF7

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/79584/Neuroscience.pdf?handle=D65E30E6040A43EEBE3F66A7F3D9F168

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/79592/Physics,%20Engineering%20Physics%20and%20Astronomy.pdf?handle=261FF54282F748E7B91DDCC70C60E51A

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/79592/Physics,%20Engineering%20Physics%20and%20Astronomy.pdf?handle=261FF54282F748E7B91DDCC70C60E51A

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/79597/Final%20Assessment%20Report%20School%20of%20Computing.pdf?handle=A21E93A6D63C4B9C8B93274D12C29F8B

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/79604/Rehabilitation%20Therapy.pdf?handle=B374FCC27E404122813ED59A131899D4

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/79609/Final%20Assessment%20Report%20Sociology.pdf?handle=F3FDD8AF399F4CE2AE3FD426AB380F97

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/79658/Senate%20written%20report%20March%202016%20(004).pdf?handle=2E6B47E8209C460E9C098034F71F5F3C

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/82643/Senate%20written%20report%20April%202016%20(03).pdf?handle=5F98D6FA414842F997E01A9472890484

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/79670/Principal_s%20Schedule%20Highlights%20for%20Senate%20Feb%2025%20.pdf?handle=5D7A14897A7C4A66BA6920DC5178657D

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/82358/Principal_s%20Schedule%20Highlights%20for%20Senate%20Mar%2023%20.pdf?handle=7DF977D816AD4CEE98DB3B00833753A3

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/79888/Provost_s%20Senate%20Report%20v2%20_%20AH.pdf?handle=E28C7D4E80DE4FF4B47CAE829DE7A066

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/82645/4-19-2016%20Provost_s%20Report%20to%20Senate%20final.pdf?handle=4CF6A1BCC105477388C0C8BA2072916A

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/79668/Senate%20Research%20Report.pdf?handle=629E8949D073469AA23DDC57A68B81D9

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/82283/Senate%20Research%20Report.pdf?handle=81370E100989488382299749DD0DE5C9

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/82927/Advancement%20Fundraising%20Report%20to%20University%20Leade.pdf?handle=A8A84D84ADCB46BCA277AFDD58DC211E

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/82285/Board%20report%20to%20Senate.pdf?handle=0B8ED45B95784ABFB57A7CF1A79A109D

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/79661/COU%20Academic%20Colleagues%20Report.pdf?handle=BC03F78E11BB487BA64B7CC842414FF3

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/82707/Council%20of%20Ontario%20Universities%20Academic%20Colleague.pdf?handle=21F9AAC30E15476F85217C79BCDE88CA

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/79512/ASC%20Faculty%20Board%20Report%20to%20Senate%20-%20September%20201.pdf?handle=548C7309F3134BFCB7CB83B40F4F182C

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/79510/GSEC%20February%202016%20meeting%20highlights.pdf?handle=C8A6618CA7F744F68FBF87FB646C0CE1

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/82207/French%20Studies%20Extension%20Request%20-%20for%20Agenda.pdf?handle=07AC5EB793BD43FEB3D2DEAEFC24110B

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/79508/Faculty%20of%20Education%20Report%20to%20Senate.pdf?handle=840885AAFF814CBBB91B7D92F262E553

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/79645/SGNC%20-%20QUIC%20Council%20Amendments.pdf?handle=5D093C2A49FF4B5A8D1FBD8F7FC86FC6

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/80522/International%20Centre%20Council_Version%20for%20Council.pdf?handle=0F0FDDE9FE584E0B95C09B5B64579E26

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/80099/SOARB%20-%20Policy%20Manual%20-%20For%20agenda.pdf?handle=D02D8814E4B54A5E9A10E4C9E7F183FA

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/82186/SCAD%20Enrolment%20Targets.pdf?handle=F3F1D2863A8E4941A64A290794C2094F

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/81153/Mar16.SCAP.Report%20to%20Senate.Hood%20Design%20-%20New%20Degr.pdf?handle=4D1D1DA066AB47E1988651ABEF7971F9

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/81153/Mar16.SCAP.Report%20to%20Senate.Hood%20Design%20-%20New%20Degr.pdf?handle=4D1D1DA066AB47E1988651ABEF7971F9

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/82257/Nominating%20Report.pdf?handle=66F847AE1E2E4C60AE007D71A5A0DC51

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/82983/SGNC%20-%20SARC%20Terms%20for%20Agenda.pdf?handle=A3E307DB38D94E81A9EBD91E45D7BFE1

Teaching Award Recipients- 2014/15;

A Special Senate Meeting to take place on March 7, 2017 as part of Queen’s 175th anniversary

celebrations;

An update on Honorary Degree recipients for 2016;

Report on New Senators;

Board/Senate Retreat Report; and

Division of Student Affairs Annual Report.

Matters referred included:

To SEEC: Letter re: Faculty of Colour;

To SCAP: Sessional Dates Feedback; Letter from The Orientation Roundtable, Letter from

Senate Residence Committee, Letter from Senate Orientation Activities Review Board.

Presentations

At its March 22, 2016 meeting, the Provost completed a presentation on the 2016-17 Operating Budget of

Queen’s, and the Vice Provost (Teaching and Learning) had also completed a presentation on the

Learning Outcomes Framework.

ITEM: Senate Report to the Board March 22, 2016 and April 19...

Page 147 of 363

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/79636/2014-2015%20Queen_s%20University%20Teaching%20Award%20Recipi.pdf?handle=BD3E2B663E9547CEBDC121FEC89311A9

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/79902/SASAC%20-%20March%207,%202017%20Senate%20Meeting.pdf?handle=3DA02CCFA223418B8FDBD3CAF5431D48

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/81171/HDs.ReportToSenate.17Feb16.Tragically%20Hip.pdf?handle=177C41B8A6B5404F9DA0189FDBB52180

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/82290/Report%20of%20New%20Senators%202016.pdf?handle=141D913B0C384AE6BC1279E303F29932

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/82929/Board%20Senate%20Retreat%20-%20Report%20FINAL%20w%20Agenda%20Appen.pdf?handle=20CDC52DB3C24503BA1821B037F158FD

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/82662/16-0037%20DSA%20Annual%20Report.pdf?handle=76A8607029C54D4DA9EDC6D70C853CF9

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/79440/To%20SEEC%20-%20Professors%20of%20Colour%20in%20Dept%20of%20English.pdf?handle=EDB4463103704E9F8CE25A2A3631C128

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/80183/To%20SCAP%20-%20Concerns%20re%20Sessional%20Dates%20Framework%20FI.pdf?handle=25B1DEAAF79040FA8D344D38A21031B0

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/82299/Letter%20To%20Senate-%20Fall%20Sessional%20Dates%20Proposal.pdf?handle=BAD6938BE69A4779840F5D212640A7F4

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/82300/SRC%20-%20Comment%20on%20Sessional%20Dates%20Framework%20Proposa.pdf?handle=00E68EFB3D044982B305F8569DB279A3

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/82300/SRC%20-%20Comment%20on%20Sessional%20Dates%20Framework%20Proposa.pdf?handle=00E68EFB3D044982B305F8569DB279A3

https://queensuniversity.civicweb.net/document/82353/SOARB-Letter-on-Fall-Break.pdf?handle=3262579E716A442CB9F566465E4EB2D8

Rector’s Report to Board of Trustees

Cam Yung

May 6, 2016

[email protected]

Introduction and Background

It is with great delight that I am able to submit my first report to the Board of Trustees, and to

begin my role as a trustee member and as Rector. For a few on this board, I have had the

wonderful opportunity to meet through my prior attendance at the past two Board of Trustees

meetings and the joint Senate and Board Retreat. For those who I have not had the pleasure of

introducing myself to as of yet, I do look forward to meeting and discussing how we might work

to enhance the Queen’s experience. I am very humbled to have the opportunity to collaborate and

work alongside all of you. Each and every one of you brings exceptional perspectives and

leadership. Queen’s University is very lucky to have you committed to guiding us into the future.

Throughout these next 2-3 years, I look forward listening and learning from each of you. My

hope is that I will be able to contribute a perspective that will continue to enhance Queen’s

University into the future.

To provide you all with some background information about who I am, my name is Cam Yung. I

am a fourth year Biology student who is currently conducting a thesis research project with Dr.

Sharon Regan. My thesis project is focused on bioremediation and a proof of concept to

determine the uptake of the heavy metal arsenic using a gene from Poplar, transformed into the

model organism Arabidopsis thaliana. Much of my student leadership experience on campus has

been centered in residence. I am currently working as a Residence Don. Prior to this year I

worked for the Residence Society (ResSoc) as a Residence Facilitator, and as the Vice President

of Judicial Affairs. My experiences in residence were the reasons as to why I campaigned for the

position of Rector. The responsibilities that I want to continue on as Rector - similar to that of

Don - are supporting and directing student to appropriate resources. At all times, I hope to be an

effective liaison for students to the governing bodies and administration of Queen’s.

Furthermore, as a student leader, the Rector has the incredible opportunity to enact positive

social change in the Queen’s community. My mentor and predecessor Mike Young championed

this through his hard work and dedication to improve the awareness and available resources for

Mental Health support on campus. My acknowledgements to Mike are at the end of this report.

Goals

The landscape of student needs and challenges at Queen’s University is dynamic, and constantly

changing. The areas and topics that I will advocate on to this body will reflect what is brought to

my attention. With this in mind, three areas that I will focus my efforts on in my capacity as

Rector are improving mental health education, equity, and supporting the implementation of the

Sexual Violence Policy. The mental health support and resources that are available to our

students are what sets Queen’s apart from many other Canadian Universities. However, in the

spirit of Queen’s, we must continue to further these resources in order to strive for excellence. I

believe that the mental health and wellness of students is of high importance for us all. I will

continue on with the work of my predecessor and continue to discuss mental health in the

forefront of my conversations. These discussions will centralize around tackling the stigma that

still surrounds mental health when reaching out to resources and supports. I believe an important

ITEM: Rector Report - C. Yung

Page 148 of 363



Cam Yung

May 6, 2016

[email protected]

first step is to both encourage and educate students about being a proactive support for each

other, and to continue to seek ways to hold healthy discussions about mental health in the

Queen’s family. Although much of this work falls outside of the scope of this body, I will

provide regular updates of my progress in my reports. I look forward to collaborating with each

of you with future initiatives. If you are interested in having further discussions on this topic,

please reach out to me.

During the course of my term, I will work closely with student faculties and organizations in

order to create a safe and inclusive environment for all peoples at Queen’s regardless of gender

identity, sexual orientation, creed, race, etc. One initiative of how I will achieve this is by

creating a resource fair that raises awareness of different cultural groups available to domestic

and international students on campus. This is one of the many examples that we can achieve our

mandate of creating an inclusive campus. Similar to that of mental health, I look forward to

holding conversations with each of you and discussing how we might continue to improve equity

on campus.

Finally, I must congratulate and commend this governance body for approving our new Sexual

Violence Policy this past March. I strongly believe that this policy is an important first step in

order to create a campus that protects anyone who has witnessed or is a survivor of sexual

violence. With this in mind, we focus our efforts on the correct implementation of this policy on

campus, and continue to apply the recommendations of the Sexual Assault Prevention and

Response Working Group. For me, taking proactive steps in order to educate our student

population about enthusiastic, verbal consent, and bystander intervention training are crucial for

creating a safe campus. I know that many on this Board are highly invested in this topic as we all

strive to ensure the safety of our students. With such encouraging momentum, I look forward to

collaborating with you all in order to continue to improve our practices on campus. If anyone

wishes to engage in further discussions, please reach out to me so that we can enhance our

policies and continue to protect all in our community.

Approach and Guiding Principals

The history and important impacts that my role has held is something that I take very seriously. I

will to uphold with honour and respect. I understand that I am a representative and advocate for

the students who elected me into my position, as well as an officer of the university. As such, I

will liaise the interests of the university to the student body, and make decisions with their

interests in mind. More importantly, as an officer I will continue to represent the university in a

manner that is professional and representative of our university.

A guiding principal of mine is to develop mutually respectful relationships with each of you,

such that we may collaborate efficiently and make decisions that enhance the Queen’s student

experience. As such, I will work hard in order to gain all of your respect, which I believe will

contribute to developing strong, working relationships. Furthermore, I am a believer for holding

preogessive discussions that challenge ideas, not individuals.


Page 149 of 363



Cam Yung

May 6, 2016

[email protected]

Thank You and Goodbye to our 34th Rector, Mike Young

I would like to end my first report with a thank you to my predecessor, Mike Young. Over the

last two years he has dedicated his time and effort into serving the student body. A true student

leader, he has worked tirelessly to focus on supporting, listening, and advocating for the needs of

Queen’s students. As he had set out from the beginning, Mike has had an incredible impact on

our community as he has worked closely with many student groups and organizations in order to

raise awareness of mental health. In his capacity as Rector, Mike championed equity on campus

through initiatives such as Positive Space training that focuses on educating many about the

LGBTQ+ community. Over my past few months of transition, he has left me in awe as to how he

has managed to balance this role alongside his academics. Mike’s time as Rector has been with

great trials and tribulations, but he has served the role with great honour, dignity and humility.

Ever the mentor, Mike has already begun to encourage me to grow into this role. Therefore, to

express my gratitude for all that Mike has accomplished, I will not show my appreciation by

simply uttering his words. I embody all that he has done and continue to work for the students.

Thank you for all you have done Mike.

I look forward to working with you all, and I am truly humbled to have this opportunity.

Princeps Servesque Es

Cam Yung

35th Rector of Queen’s University


Page 150 of 363


The Executive of the Alma Mater Society

John Deutsch University Centre, Queen’s University

Kingston, ON K7L 3N6

Phone: (613) 533-3001 | Fax: (613) 533-3002

Tyler Lively Dave Walker Carolyn Thompson

President Vice-President (Operations) Vice-President (University Affairs)

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Dear Members of the Board of Trustees,

On behalf of Dave Walker, Vice President (Operations), and Carolyn Thompson, Vice

President (University Affairs), we want to express our deepest gratitude for the privilege

to serve the students of Queen’s University and work with such accomplished Trustees.

In this report, we outline some of our main priorities for the year that will require broad

support across the university, key platform initiatives, and what we have done in the lead

up to May 1st.

The Road Ahead

As an Executive, we are conscious of the challenges that we as a University face. Queen’s

is in a resource-constrained environment, and faces growing competition to attract the

best and brightest students from across the world. We want to engage the issues students

face with that understanding in mind. In particular, we want to highlight some important

initiatives we will seek to undertake in the coming year:

John Deutsch University Centre Revitalization | Building on the work of the previous

Executive, we want to work with the University to turn the JDUC into a building that all

students can and want to use. Our primary comparative advantage at Queen’s is student-

life, yet we lack a suitable space to foster the engagement on which we pride ourselves.

The JDUC can be that space, but only with a substantial investment. Before the end of our

term, we aim to secure an agreement with the University to renovate the John Deutsch

University Centre into a world-class student life space.

Faculty of Colour | Students and faculty across our campus have noted a lack of

racialized faculty. Research shows that this leads to lower retention rates for students in

marginalized groups, as those students do not see themselves in the professoriate.

Additionally, we face a growing societal concern to address inequities within the

University. By making teaching focused faculty appointments aimed at bringing in

professors of colour, we can renew Queen’s faculty complement in a way that puts more

role models in front of students who need them the most and bring new perspectives to

the classroom. At the same time, we address many of the financial constraints associated

with the renewal of traditional faculty.

ITEM: AMS Report - T. Lively

Page 151 of 363







Phone: (613) 533-3001 | Fax: (613) 533-3002




Personal Statement of Experience | This past year, the University made the Personal

Statement of Experience, a defining element of the Queen’s admissions process, optional.

While we understand the reasoning – lack of resources – we think that there needs to be

a broader conversation about the kind of student that Queen’s wants to attract, and how

best to entice them to come to our University. We want to bring back a new, mandatory

personal statement of experience that allows Queen’s to continue to attract bright,

engaged, and diverse classes of students.

Key Platform Initiatives

When Dave, Carolyn, and I started to develop our platform the first quality that came to

our minds was “achievable”. We come into office with a commitment to pursue

achievable short-term goals, and lay the foundation for continued success on longer term

initiatives.

Focused Services | Over the past few years, our corporate services have evolved to meet

student needs. Moving forward, we continue to focus on remaining relevant to the

student by implementing practical, calculated changes to improve our ability to serve

students. Two such changes are remote printing at the Publishing and Copy Centre and

expanded bus routes at Tricolour Outlet. Both changes will provide a more convenient

customer experience at our two retail services.

Determined Advocacy | The AMS is the only student organization at Queen’s that

advocates on a pan-University level and to the City of Kingston. We have a responsibility

to advocate for practical changes that benefit both the University and students. Some of

our advocacy priorities for the year include continuing to work with Student Wellness

Services on improving health service delivery, advocating for an acceleration of the

Library and Archives Master Plan, and maintaining a strong relationship with the City of

Kingston.

Better Student Life | Queen’s attracts a certain kind of student – those who are bright

and engaged; students with a keen sense of community and a desire to do great things.

As the AMS, it is our responsibility to foster the ambitions of Queen’s students by giving

them an environment where they can succeed at whatever endeavors they so choose. To

that end, we pledged to better support our Faculty Societies and our clubs. Moreover, we


Page 152 of 363







Phone: (613) 533-3001 | Fax: (613) 533-3002




want to celebrate the Queen’s history, and in particular the feats of student leaders who

came before us – to show the students of today that they can accomplish what they wish,

because those who came before them did just that.

Our Work Prior to May 1st

Since our election in January, we have undertaken the recruitment, hiring, and

appointment process to build our team of around 60 salaried student staff members,

around 600 part-time service staff, and almost 1,000 volunteers. While the AMS Executive

will be the most visible part of the AMS, we have already learned that a successful year

results from the exceptional dedication and tireless work of the team around us.

Our entire team is engaged in a transition process with their immediate predecessors to

prepare for the year ahead. The AMS has a unique practice of complete turnover in all

positions every May, which provides more opportunities for students to gain meaningful

experiences and ensures that the AMS gains a fresh perspective every year.

A Final Word

Queen’s celebrates its 175th Anniversary this coming academic year. Over the course of

the past nearly two centuries, Queen’s has become home to the greatest student

experience in the country. Much of the progress we’ve made is the result of a rich history

of student leadership working in concert with the University Administration, Senate, and

Board of Trustees. It is our responsibility as the AMS Executive to carry on this work, and

ensure that the history of Queen’s only gets brighter.

We are looking forward to the upcoming year, and welcome the opportunity to work

alongside the Board.


Page 153 of 363




Society of Graduate and Professional Students Report to the Board of Trustees

May 2016

Dear Members of the Board of Trustees,

It is my pleasure to submit my first report to you as SGPS President for 2016/2017 academic year. I am submitting a two-

part report: the first part by me, and the second part from my predecessor, Chris. I hope that in collaboration with

Sebastian Gorlewski (VP Graduate), Kishan Lakhani (VP Professional), Anastasiya Boika (VP Campaigns and Community

Affairs), and Stuart Clark (VP Finance and Services), I can serve SGPS members according to the following platform goals:

Governance Review:

Thanks to the efforts of our predecessors, SGPS has undergone extensive internal audits and reviews with regard to the

policies and bylaws, executive processes, finances, and the general relations of the executives to the staff and members.

The review process needs to be continued until completed.

Marketing and Communications:

The rate of participation of members in the governance or social events, or using some of the services offered by SGPS

has historically been low. In order to increase this rate, new strategies in marketing and communication will be tried.

Some research might be needed on what services the members are aware of, and what means of communication they

find more suitable. One venue that should be used more often for direct interaction with members is the social events

where the executive team regularly meets the members in an informal setting.

Health and Wellness:

As outlined by the report of March 2016, the current procedures for accommodations put the responsibility on the

students to communicate their accommodation plan to several people including all instructors of the courses that they

are seeking accommodations for, in addition to the administrators in their departments. While this practice is in place to

protect the confidentiality of the information about the students, a right to confidentiality should not become a burden

of responsibility. It is more appropriate if the students are given the option to ask the administrators or Student

Wellness Center to communicate their plan on behalf of them, when they find that suitable.

There are currently services on campus to offer training to the staff and faculty, as well as the larger student body, with

regard to the needs of students facing special challenges, which can have significant impact on the well-being of these

students. Some of these services are currently under-utilized and can be expanded to offer training to a larger portion of

Queen’s community.

Integration of Students from different Backgrounds:

SGPS has a diverse membership and some of the student groups have different needs based on their cultural and

historical backgrounds.

Indigenous students need to see more representation not just on governance bodies of the university, but also within

the classroom and during their research. True reconciliation might not be possible unless the history of indigenous

people is recognized as part of Canadian history, and this needs to be reflected in the curriculums of relevant programs,

as well as their research focuses in graduate studies. I intend to work closely with relevant bodies in order to start a

consultation process as to what initial steps are needed to be taken to follow this goal.

International students coming from different backgrounds, face numerous challenges to adapt to their life in Canada,

including language and cultural, and sometimes even ideological barriers. Some of these barriers cause students from

different cultures form small clusters with peers from same or similar cultural backgrounds with no real interactions with

other members of SGPS. While the SGPS can try to help these students through diversifying the social events, it cannot

achieve this goal without the help from administration. The process of internationalization should not be limited only to

absorbing new international students, but also helping them to face and overcome these challenges.

ITEM: SGPS Report - S. Farbodkia

Page 154 of 363

Faculty Code of Conduct:

Currently, there is no process in place that holds the faculty members accountable for non-academic misconduct,

comparable to the policies that exist for students, or if such policies exist, the students are not aware of them. This is

even more of an issue for our graduate members who need to maintain relations with one particular faculty member,

namely their supervisor, for a time period of typically between two to six years.

I wish to thank you for giving me the opportunity to outline a brief overview of SGPS main goals and concerns for the

upcoming year. I look forward to collaborating with, and learning from you, as well the rest of the executive team. Most

of us have gone through a sufficiently rich transition period with our predecessors and have familiarized ourselves with

some of the routes we can take to follow these goals. I like to thank you for providing us with the support that we need

for this.

Sincerely,

Saba Farbodkia,

SGPS President 2016/2017

Hello Trustees, My report to the March Board meeting was to be my last, but I have been asked to supply updates on two matters for the Board. These are SGPS Insurance and some information from a recent meeting of the Graduate Executive Council of Ontario (GECO). SGPS Insurance The SGPS has, for the first time ever, Event Coverage Insurance. This allows the SGPS to directly insure the events run by its membership. Previously, some events were covered by the Queen's University insurance coverage, and some events were not covered at all. The lack of insurance was not apparent to the SGPS until late December, and the issues of broader campus-wide insurance were not clear until late March. In March, the SGPS had a number of conversations with groups around campus, including representatives from the School of Graduate Studies, the Office of the Provost, and Risk Management. An SGPS event sanctioning system will start to be implemented over the first few months of summer. We will be requiring registration of departmental and faculty level societies that wish to run events - groups must be registered with us to qualify for insurance. The registration process is currently being developed, and will have started in time for the May Board of Trustees meeting. There is a small number of groups whom we have already spoken to that will be participating in a 'soft launch' of coverage over the summer, and we anticipate having the complete system in place by August. This will allow our member groups to run events, particularly during the Orientation Week period, without concern for liability. Part of receiving insurance coverage will involve appropriate risk management and mitigation strategies, which will vary depending on the type of event. We are working with Risk Management in the office of the Vice-Principal (Financial) to develop this process. We are very thankful for the support we have received so far, and hope to continue to grow this partnership over the coming months. Update from GECO on Graduate Student Support The Graduate Executive Council of Ontario is a non-partisan apolitical group of students who represent graduate students through graduate student societies like the SGPS across Ontario. The purpose of the group is to provide a space for graduate society executive members to discuss initiatives taking place at their university at the implementation level, encouraging cross-pollination of best practices without the political and advocacy focus of other groups. The first official meeting of GECO took place in March, and I feel some of the conversation that took place there is relevant to some discussions that the Board has been having over the last year.


Page 155 of 363

The majority of the conversation focused on various supports available to graduate students at each of the university’s present (which included Waterloo, Western, Laurier, York, McMaster, and others). Two key topics were Mental Health Initiatives and Graduate Student Support. When the other schools were talking about new initiatives they had planned, they frequently referred to initiatives already in place at Queen’s that they were attempting to imitate. Of particular note are the SGPS Student Advisors, the SGS Habitat website, and the embedded counsellor in the School of Graduate Studies. Most other graduate societies expressed envy at this breadth of support, and were very interested in learning how they came to be. The embedded counsellor, which is funded by donor support at Queen’s, was a particularly strongly desired support system. I have said often that the problems facing our graduate population are “industry” problems. They are faced by graduate students across Ontario. One of the other issues raised at the meeting, which speaks to another strength of Queen’s, is access to high level administration. Many schools expressed difficulties with getting contact or meetings with deans at their school. Student representatives at Queen’s have ample opportunity to meet and discuss ideas and solutions with individuals at all levels of the University, from departmental faculty up to deans, the Provost, and the Principal. It is my firm belief that this culture of student input on decision-making is at the root of Queen’s relative advantage in graduate student supports. Thank you all again for your continued dedication to the Queen’s community. Sincerely, Chris Cochrane, SGPS President 2015/2016


Page 156 of 363



From: Vice-Principal Finance and Administration

Date of Approval:

N/A

Subject: Approval of the Policy Statements on Health & Safety, Student Health & Wellness and Environmental Management


Responsible Portfolio: Vice-Principal Finance and Administration


1.0 PURPOSE

☒ For Approval ☐ For Information

2.0 RECOMMENDATION/MOTION

That the Board of Trustees, on the recommendation of the Audit and Risk Committee, approve the Policy Statement on General Health and Safety, the Policy Statement on Environmental Management, and the Policy Statement on Student Health and Wellness.


Under the Ontario Occupational Health & Safety Act, the University is required review and approve a written health and safety policy statement on an annual basis. The Policy Statement on Health and Safety satisfies this requirement.

In support of this policy, the Policy Statement on Student Health and Wellness demonstrates the university’s commitment to a living and learning environment that promotes the health and wellness of students.

The Policy Statement on Environmental Management satisfies the requirement for the university to demonstrate a commitment to environmental protection and compliance with the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act and its associated regulations.

ITEM: Annual Approval of Policy Statements on General Health...

Page 157 of 363

- 2 -

Attached to this submission are the various policy statements outlined above. They were last approved by the Board of Trustees in May 2015.

No changes to the policy statements are being recommended this year.

.



5.0 ANALYSIS

Not Applicable

6.0 STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT / COMPLIANCE

The policy statements are required to comply with the Occupational Health & Safety Act and the Environmental Protection Act.

7.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications.

8.0 ENTERPRISE RISK ASSESSMENT

The policy statements are a part of the overall environmental health and safety and student wellness programs on campus. General health and safety and student health and safety are categories in the enterprise risk register.

The risk of not approving the policy statements is non-compliance with the requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Environmental Protection Act.

This could result in orders or charges in the event of an inspection by the relevant enforcement agency.

9.0 COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY

After the policy statements are approved by the Board of Trustees, they are posted on the University Secretariat’s website.

The policy statements are also distributed to all departments at the university and departments are required to post a copy on their departmental health and safety bulletin boards.


Page 158 of 363

- 3 -

The policy statements on Health and Safety and Environmental Management are also supported by, and implemented through, the EHS Management System and the associated EHS programs, procedures and training sessions in place for the University.

Similarly, the Policy Statement on Student Health and Wellness is implemented through the various student wellness programs available under the Student Affairs portfolio.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Policy Statement on Health & Safety2. Policy Statement on Environmental Management3. Policy Statement on Student Health and Wellness


Page 159 of 363

POLICY STATEMENT ON HEALTH AND SAFETY

Queen's University is committed to the prevention of illness and injury through the provision and maintenance of a healthy and safe campus. The University endeavours to meet its responsibilities for the health and safety of the members of its community by complying with relevant health and safety standards and legislative requirements, and by assigning general and specific responsibilities for workplace health and safety. The University takes all reasonable steps to acquaint its employees with their rights and duties in the workplace and applicable regulations and procedures for protecting their health and safety. Where appropriate, the University establishes policies and programs to assist in maintaining safe conditions and work practices and facilitating employee participation in health and safety activities, including health and safety committees. All individuals shall protect their own health and safety by complying with prevailing regulations and standards and with safe practices and procedures established by the University. Employees must report any health hazards and unsafe conditions or practices to supervisory staff for corrective action. It is a primary duty of all faculty and staff who are supervisors, as defined under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, to ensure that any persons under their direction are made aware of and comply with all applicable health and safety policies and procedures. They are responsible for ensuring that all aspects of the workplace, including teaching and research sites, are safe and that any risks, hazards, and safety violations drawn to their attention are investigated and corrected promptly. This policy statement was approved by the Board of Trustees at its regular meeting held on May 6th, 2016.


Page 160 of 363

POLICY STATEMENT ON ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Queen's University is committed to the protection of the environment through the implementation of an effective environmental management program. At a minimum, the University will comply with all applicable environmental legislation and will make every reasonable effort to exceed its formal obligations for protecting the environment, out of a sense of responsibility for the safety of the environment as a shared resource. Members of the University community shall be aware of the manner in which their activities must be conducted in order to have the least possible impact on the environment. All departments and persons utilizing University premises shall comply with, and if reasonably possible, exceed all environmental statutes and regulations as well as Ministry of Environment policies and guidelines and internal University policies and procedures. Furthermore, it is the duty of all employees or students who are defined as a person responsible under the Environmental Protection Act to ensure that any person under their direction are made aware of and comply with all applicable environmental statutes and legislation. They shall be responsible for ensuring that all aspects of Queen's premises, including teaching and research sites, pose minimal environmental impact and that any environmental risks and/or hazards are investigated and corrected promptly. The University shall take all reasonable steps to acquaint its employees with their duties and obligations to prevent, contain and clean up the release of pollutants generated at Queen's or as the result of Queen’s activities and with the applicable regulations and procedures for protecting the environment. Where appropriate, the University shall establish special procedures and programs to assist in preventing releases of pollutants, the containment of pollutants, cleaning up spills, recycling materials and reusing them. The University shall facilitate and encourage participation in activities to protect and preserve the environment. This policy statement was approved by the Board of Trustees at its regular meeting held on May 6th, 2016.


Page 161 of 363

POLICY STATEMENT ON STUDENT HEALTH AND WELLNESS

In support of the University's Policy Statement on Health and Safety, Queen's University is committed to a living and learning environment that promotes student health and wellness. The Senate, Board of Trustees, faculty, staff, and students collectively share responsibility for fostering an inclusive, supportive, and accessible Queen's community that supports student health and well-being.

The University recognizes the importance of cultivating a campus culture that views seeking help as an important aspect of self-care and endeavors to institute related programs, policies and practices that respect the diverse health and wellness needs of the student population.

This policy statement was approved by the Board of Trustees at its regular meeting held on May 6th, 2016.


Page 162 of 363





Subject: 2016-17 Operating Budget Date of Board Committee Meeting: May 6, 2016



1.0 PURPOSE



That the Board of Trustees, on the recommendation of the Capital Assets and Finance Committee, approve the 2016-17 Operating Budget.


The university is presenting budgets for 2016-17 and the following two years. Thebudget as presented is balanced in all three years. The Capital Assets and FinanceCommittee is being asked to recommend to the Board that it approve the 2016-17budget.

The budget was developed under the direction of the Provost and Vice-Principal(Academic) with considerable support from Planning and Budgeting and advice fromthe Principal and the Provost’s Advisory Committee on the Budget (PACB). Thebudget is the fourth to be developed using the activity-based budget model.

The most significant budgetary challenge the University faces at the moment is thepension plan deficit. This includes a going concern portion, the amount for which ishigher in 2016-17 than previously. Solvency relief has been extended to the nextvaluation (August 2017). Since September 1, 2015, every unit has been budgeting foran additional 4.5 percent pension charge commencing September 1, 2015, to cover theincreased going concern payments. Any funds remaining are being kept as a reservefor future solvency payments, if required.

ITEM: Approval of 2016-17 Operating Budget

Page 163 of 363

- 2 -

In order to mitigate the effect of the pension plan on the operating budget, the University has negotiated a commitment by its unions to participate in a project to design and build a new Ontario University Jointly Sponsored Pension Plan, a necessary condition for which would be that it qualify for permanent solvency exemption.

Important characteristics of the 2016-17 to 2018-19 budget framework include the

following. Provision has been made in unit operating budgets for large legislated pension

deficit special payments; Units are budgeting for compensation and benefit increases as negotiated, or

assumed; Enrolment growth projected for 2016-17 is in line with the recommendations of the

University’s Strategic Enrolment Management Group, with flow through in 2017-18 and 2018-19, in line with Faculties’ enrolment projections;

It is assumed that any planned graduate and undergraduate enrolment growth will be fully funded;

Assumed tuition fee increases are fully compliant with the provincial government’s current tuition framework, including tuition set-aside requirements;

Additional revenue will accrue in 2016-2017 from the two new residences; Structural deficits are not funded from carry-forward balances and cash reserves; Shared service budget allocations are projected to increase by 4 percent in 2017-

18. The budget is balanced after the draw-down of reserves. These reserves include those

held by Faculties and other units as well as central cash reserves. The need to draw down central cash reserves is very modest and is limited to the funding of the Talent Management Initiative and a one-time allocation to undergraduate student aid.

Queen’s reputation for high quality has been maintained throughout this period of fiscal challenges.

4.0 INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES Principal

Associate Vice-Principal, Planning and Budgeting PACB 5.0 ANALYSIS See attached budget report.


Page 164 of 363

- 3 -

6.0 STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT/COMPLIANCE

This budget supports the Academic Plan, the Strategic Research Plan, and the fourdrivers of the Strategic Framework, including financial sustainability.

7.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Balanced budget reflects prudent fiscal management.

Multi-year framework ensures that planning is occurring past the current year and looksat future fiscal challenges and opportunities.

8.0 ENTERPRISE RISK ASSESSMENT

The Operating Budget includes a number of identified risks:

Reliance on government grant support and tuition (both controlled by government)and the effect of further changes in government policy, most notably the outcomesfrom the formula funding review undertaken by the government in 2015-16 and thepending announcement of the new tuition fee framework for 2017-18 and beyond;

Collective agreements will be due for renegotiation in the final year of the three-yearplanning timeframe;

Pension solvency; Significant investment required to support both physical and technology-related

infrastructure renewal; Market volatility risk on income from the PIF.

9.0 COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY

Once approved, the budget will be posted on the Planning and Budget website andboth news of its approval, and a detailed analysis of the budget itself, willcommunicated broadly to all stakeholders.

ATTACHMENTS

2016-17 Budget Report


Page 165 of 363

B U D G E T R E P O R T 2 0 16 -17


Page 166 of 363

Queen’s University 2016-17 Budget Report

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

1. Setting the Context 2. The New Budget Model

3. The 2016-17 to 2018-19 Operating Budget 3.1 Budget Strategy 3.2 Drawdown of Carry-forward Balances/Reserves 3.3 Risks

4. Discussion of Major Revenues and Expenditures 4.1 Revenues 4.1.1 Government Grants 4.1.2 Federal Grant 4.1.3 Tuition 4.1.4 Investment Income- Global Financial Market Conditions 4.2 Expenditures 4.2.1 Allocations 4.2.2 Student Financial Assistance 4.2.3 Compensation 4.2.4 Queen’s Pension Plan (QPP) Deficit

5. Broader Financial Picture 5.1 Capital Budget 5.1.1 Major Capital Projects 5.1.2 Deferred Maintenance 5.2 Ancillary and Consolidated Entity Budgets 5.3 Research Fund 5.4 Trust & Endowment Funds

Tables Table 1: 2016-17 to 2018-19 Operating Revenue Budget Table 2: 2016-17 to 2018-19 Operating Expenditure Budget

Appendices Appendix 1: Enrolment Report (To go to Senate for Approval April 19th)


Page 167 of 363


1 of 33

Executive Summary

The multi-year budget presented in this report includes the 2016-17 operating budget and projections for 2017-18 and 2018-19. The Board is being asked to approve the 2016-17 operating budget. The University is projecting a balanced budget for fiscal 2016-17 and is committed to presenting balancing budgets for all years of the planning timeframe. The operating budget expenditures represent approximately 60% to 65% of total university expenditures depending on annual levels of research funding and donations. In order to provide a broader financial picture of university operations, Ancillary and Capital Budgets are also shown along with additional information on research revenue projections and donations to trust and endowment funds. Fluctuations in revenues in these funds can have impacts on operations. The Operating Budget was developed under the direction of the Provost and Vice-Principal (Academic) with considerable assistance and guidance from Planning and Budget and with advice from the Principal and from the Provost’s Advisory Committee on Budget (PACB). The budget planning process was initiated in April 2015 with Senate’s approval of the enrolment plan for 2016-17and of changes to the previously approved plan for 2015-16. The shared services developed their budgets over the summer while at the same time the budget model was updated with revised revenue projections based on the enrolment plan. Shared Service units presented their budgets to PACB in early fall after which allocation decisions were made. These allocations allowed the faculty and school budgets to be determined. Based on this information, the faculties and schools prepared their staffing and budget plans in late fall and presented them to PACB in December. Shared service allocations were then determined and University Fund allocation decisions were made. A preliminary budget was presented to the Board of Trustees at its March meeting. The most significant budgetary challenge the University faces at the moment is the pension plan deficit, including the impact of increased going concern payments. Solvency relief has been extended to the next valuation of August 2017. All units have been instructed to plan and budget for an additional 4.5 percent pension charge commencing September 1, 2015, to cover the increased going concern payments, with any funds remaining being kept as a reserve for future solvency payments, if required. In order to mitigate the effect of the pension plan on the operating budget, the University has negotiated a commitment by its unions to participate in a project to design and build a new Ontario University Jointly Sponsored Pension Plan, which would have a permanent solvency exemption. Significant characteristics of the 2016-17 to 2018-19 budget framework include:

Large legislated pension deficit special payments;

Compensation and benefit increases as negotiated, or assumed, covered within all unit budgets;

Enrolment growth proposed in 2016-17 in line with the recommendations of the University’s Strategic Enrolment Management Group, with flow through in 2017-18 and 2018-19, in line with Faculties’ enrolment projections;


Page 168 of 363


2 of 33

Enrolment growth assumed to be fully funded at the graduate and undergraduate levels;

Tuition fee increases compliant with the provincial government’s current tuition framework, including tuition set aside requirements;

Additional revenue contributed by new residences;

Limited utilization of carry-forward, and cash reserves to balance and support priorities.

Increase of 4% in shared service budget allocations is planned for 2017-18.

The Operating Budget includes a number of identified risks:

Reliance on government grant support and tuition (both controlled by government) and the effect of further changes in government policy, most notably the outcomes from the formula funding review undertaken by the government in 2015-16 and the pending announcement of the new tuition fee framework for 2017-18 forward;

Collective agreements will be due for renegotiation in the final year of the three-year planning timeframe;

Pension solvency;

Significant investment required to support both physical and technology-related infrastructure renewal;

Market volatility risk on income from the PIF. The 2016-17 budget reflects no deficit after the draw-down of reserves. Of this draw-down, $15.5M is forecast unit spending in excess of budget allocations and additional unit budgeted revenues, with an additional $0.9M draw-down of central cash reserves related to non-recurring expenditures on the talent management initiative and support for student aid. The University will continue to monitor the draw-down of carry-forward reserves to ensure units are using these funds to invest in one-time innovation, capital renovations, and bridging to a sustainable budget. Queen’s reputation for high quality has been maintained throughout this period of financial challenge. The University continues to attract highly qualified students, faculty and staff, while remaining one of the highest ranked universities in terms of research intensity in Canada. Our faculty members consistently receive prestigious national teaching and research awards. Our students have among the highest entering averages and the highest undergraduate and graduate degree completion rates in Canada. The activity-based budget model is intended to be transparent and strongly linked to academic goals and priorities. The overriding goal of the change in the resource allocation methodology was to position Queen’s well to address the current fiscal realities and continue to foster excellence in teaching, learning and research.


Page 169 of 363


3 of 33

1. Setting the Context Almost 94% of revenue in the Operating Budget is derived from student enrolment in the form of operating grants from the government (base operating grant plus many smaller targeted funding envelopes) and student tuition. Much of this revenue stream is directed and regulated by government, with limited flexibility for universities to increase revenue. Recent public policy has limited funding increases to enrolment growth and further substantial enrolment growth is unlikely in the future. In 2015-16, a funding model review was undertaken by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU). The review consultation paper, released in April 2015, stated that the $3.5 billion invested by the provincial government would “remain stable”, which is to say it was not projected to increase in the foreseeable future. The report of this review proposed that, in the future, grant funding should be more strongly linked to outcomes, rather than solely to enrolment, but there are as yet no details on how this might be done. For the three-year planning period to 2018-19, the University is committed to balanced budgets, with flexibility in the form of a contingency fund, increased investment in infrastructure renewal, and continued support for key functions in the shared services, all balanced by ensuring that sufficient incremental revenue remains in the Faculties to support the academic and research missions of the University. The need to diversify revenue remains pressing. The pension solvency issue is also being addressed to ensure long term financial sustainability. The government announced a four-year tuition framework in March 2013. This limited tuition fee growth to an institutional average of 3%, 2% lower than the previous framework. In 2016-17 we have been required to reduce the rate of increase across all programs to accommodate the institution-wide cap. We are no longer able to charge 5% in the professional programs and remain in the institutional cap. This, in addition to other measures introduced in 2013-14 to reduce base operating grants based on, in the government’s parlance, “international student recoveries” and “efficiency targets”, are accounted for in the multi-year budget presented. At the end of fiscal 2013-14, Queen’s received notification of its allocation of graduate spaces for the years 2015-16 to 2016-2017, which has provided certainty around funded graduate growth until 2016-17. Queen’s did very well and secured enough spaces to fully fund the planned growth in graduate programs. Current graduate targets extend into the future and could be linked to the outcomes of the funding model review, which is yet to be determined. The government also indicated that the planned growth at the undergraduate level was in line with its expectations for Queen’s.


Page 170 of 363


4 of 33

The University has adopted a strategic framework that promotes the vision of Queen’s University as the Canadian research-intensive university with a transformative student learning experience. The guiding policies of the framework address the two key features of the quintessential balanced academy, the student learning experience and research prominence, while paying appropriate attention at the same time to the need for increased internationalization and financial sustainability. The framework will guide academic, and thus financial, priorities over the next several years.

2. The New Budget Model The University is almost at the start of the fourth year of the activity-based budget model. The 2016-17 budget year is the second year of the attenuated Hold Harmless gap calculated as a proportion of the final 2013-14 Hold Harmless payments. In 2015-16, the gap was funded at 90%, following which it will be 75% in 2016-17, 60% in 2017-18, 30% in 2018-19, and zero thereafter. Thus 2019-20 will see the end of formulaic hold harmless, although allocations from the University Fund will continue, on a case-by-case basis. The activity based-budget model attributes revenues to the Faculties and Schools, which generate the revenue. The Faculties and Schools in turn bear indirect costs to support shared services (e.g., the library, IT, the Provost’s Office), student support, and a University Fund for institutional priorities. These indirect costs include a charge for space occupancy, highlighting the cost of space as a scarce resource. This change has had a significantly positive impact on space utilization and accountability. The net budgets (gross revenues less all indirect costs) of the Faculties and Schools support the direct costs of these units, including, of course, the provision of their education programming. Increased revenue and cost savings will remain in the academic unit that generates the change, providing a strong incentive to be innovative in programming and enrolment planning. Revenue not directly attributable to Faculties and Schools, such as investment income and unrestricted donations, flows into the University Fund, along with allocations from Faculties and Schools. The Fund (projected to be over $35.0M in 2016-17) is being used to support the cost of transfers from Operating to Capital, payments to Faculties and Schools to avoid disruptions that could otherwise accompany the introduction of a new budget model (i.e., the attenuated Hold Harmless payments), infrastructure renewal, classroom renewal, a central contingency and a number of other Board priorities and compliance initiatives. The new budget model will not, in and of itself, increase net revenue for the University; it is simply a different method of revenue and cost allocation. It is, however, expected to encourage Faculties and Schools to increase revenue and constrain costs, enhancing financial opportunities within their academic units and to the University as a whole.


Page 171 of 363


5 of 33

The budget model is an enabling tool that will facilitate planning and enhance accountability in the budget process, but it is not intended to replace policy or discretionary investment in institutional priorities. A review of the budget model was undertaken in 2015-16, which was consistent with our commitment to review the model after three years. A committee was struck and held a number of meetings working as a cooperative and collaborative group, with all members having equal input. In tandem with the internal review, the University engaged Huron Consulting Group, a firm with considerable experience working with universities that have adopted similar budget models, to conduct an external review. The resulting report, incorporating both the internal and external review, was presented at the May Board meeting. Recommendations stemming from the report will be implemented as appropriate.

3. The 2016-17 to 2018-19 Operating Budget The proposed operating budget for 2016-17 to 2018-19 continues to be based on the new budget model, which provides greater transparency and predictability, and a financial structure that encourages and rewards innovation, revenue growth and efficiency. The proposed 2016-17 budget is balanced. The budget does include a relatively modest planned draw-down of carry-forward reserves to fund one-time expenses over the base-operating budget, and will not, therefore, lead to a structural deficit in future years. The proposed operating budget for 2016-17 to 2018-19 is summarized in Table A below. Detailed summaries of revenue and expenditure forecasts are presented in Tables 1 and 2 at the end of this report. Table B below shows the proposed 2016-17 operating budget with additional revenue and expense lines that represent revenues and expenses that are budgeted by the units over and above their budget allocation and related expenses. These additional revenues are not budgeted centrally and are not reflected in Table A. This table shows how the carry-forward draw-down is arrived at and provides the complete budget picture. Table C below shows the consolidation of the 2016-17 operating budget by revenue and expense type as per the financial statement presentation and includes revenues and expenditures that are budgeted directly by the units and do not form part of their allocation. This table will be compared with the financial statements at the end of the fiscal year.


Page 172 of 363


6 of 33

TABLE A- OPERATING BUDGET

Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget

2015-16 Variance 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

REVENUE

Student Fees 271.7$ 20.2$ 291.9$ 307.6$ 319.9$

Government Grants 204.5$ 3.8$ 208.3$ 211.0$ 213.4$

Unrestricted Donations 1.3$ -$ 1.3$ 1.3$ 1.3$

Other Income 7.5$ (2.0)$ 5.5$ 5.6$ 5.8$

Research Overhead 4.0$ (0.4)$ 3.6$ 3.6$ 3.6$

Investment Income 12.5$ (0.3)$ 12.2$ 12.4$ 12.4$

TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 501.5$ 21.3$ 522.8$ 541.5$ 556.4$

EXPENSE

Faculties and Schools Allocations 295.7$ 15.1$ 310.8$ 321.5$ 326.8$

Shared Services Allocations 127.1$ 3.0$ 130.1$ 134.8$ 137.9$

Undergraduate & Graduate Student Aid 30.9$ 0.7$ 31.6$ 30.9$ 30.9$

Administrative Systems 2.1$ -$ 2.1$ 2.1$ 2.1$

Util ities 16.8$ (0.7)$ 16.1$ 15.8$ 16.4$

Infrastructure Renewal 2.3$ 2.6$ 4.9$ 7.4$ 8.6$

Strategic Priorities & Compliance 1.0$ 1.2$ 2.2$ 0.7$ 0.7$

Contingency 1.8$ -$ 1.8$ 2.8$ 2.8$

Flow Through Expenses, net of recoveries 10.4$ (1.3)$ 9.1$ 9.2$ 9.4$

Indirect Costs of Research to External Entities 1.4$ -$ 1.4$ 1.4$ 1.4$

To Be Allocated -$ 1.3$ 1.3$ 3.2$ 7.9$

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES 489.5$ 21.9$ 511.4$ 529.8$ 544.9$

Net Surplus before Capital Expenditures 12.0$ (0.6)$ 11.4$ 11.7$ 11.5$

Transfer to Capital Budget 12.3$ -$ 12.3$ 11.7$ 11.5$

Unit Expenses greater than Budget Allocation 11.4$ 4.1$ 15.5$ TBD TBD

Net Budget Surplus (Deficit) (11.7)$ (4.7)$ (16.4)$ -$ -$

Draw down of Central Cash Reserves* 0.3$ 0.6$ 0.9$ -$ -$

Draw down of Unit Carryforward balances 11.4$ 4.1$ 15.5$ TBD TBD

Net Surplus (Deficit) -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

*The drawdown of cash reserves is for Talent Management Initiative and support for Student Aid.

Queen's University

2016-17 to 2018-19 Operating Budget ($M)


Page 173 of 363


7 of 33

TABLE B – OPERATING BUDGET INCLUDING NON CENTRALLY BUDGETED REVENUES

AND EXPENDITURES

Budget

2016-17

Centrally budgeted revenues 522.8$

Unit budgeted revenues over and above central allocations 32.0$

TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 554.8$

EXPENSE

Faculties and Schools Allocations* 310.8$

Shared Services Allocations 130.1$

Unit expenses greater than allocation 47.5$

Undergraduate & Graduate Student Aid 31.6$

Administrative Systems 2.1$

Util ities 16.1$

Infrastructure Renewal 4.9$

Strategic Priorities & Compliance 2.2$

Contingency 1.8$

Flow Through Expenses, net of recoveries 9.1$

Indirect Costs of Research to External Entities 1.4$

To Be Allocated 1.3$

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES 558.9$

Net Surplus before Capital Expenditures (4.1)$

Transfer to Capital Budget 12.3$

Net Budget Surplus (Deficit) (16.4)$

Draw down of Central Cash Reserves** 0.9$

Draw down of Unit Carryforward balances 15.5$

Net Surplus (Deficit) -$

Queen's University

2016-17 Operating Budget ($M)

* For the purpose of the financial statements the budget allocation of $3.0M to BISC is

netted against revenues in the operating fund as this revenue is reported by the ISC.

** The drawdown of cash reserves is for Talent Management Initiative and support for

Student Aid.


Page 174 of 363


8 of 33

TABLE C – OPERATING BUDGET BY REVENUE AND EXPENSE

3.1 Budget Strategy As mandated by the Board, Queen’s is projecting a balanced budget throughout the multi-year budget timeframe. The University went through an extensive budget planning process to determine a strategy to achieve a balanced budget. The “to be allocated” line represents unallocated University Fund monies. As part of the New Budget Model Review, a recommendation was made to remove ongoing commitments against the University Fund by charging these base commitments within the budget model to the Faculties within the appropriate cost bin. For 2016-17, as a result of the second year of the attenuated hold harmless gap payments and as an initial step in alleviating the University Fund of ongoing allocations, the amount of the “to be allocated” has grown, and this growth will continue in future years.

REVENUE

Grants and Contracts 215,483

Fees 303,875

Sales and Service 8,972

Other 12,517

Donations 1,582

Investment Income 12,398

554,827

EXPENSES

Salaries and benefits 378,585

Supplies and other expenses* 83,661

Student Assistance 37,217

Externally Contracted Services 9,849

Travel 8,636

Utilities and Insurance 18,787

Renovations and Alterations 8,812

Contingency 7,572

Interfund Transfers out / (in) 18,047

571,165

Surplus / (deficit) (16,338)

2016-17 Queen's University Operating Budget (000's)

*For the purpose of the financial statements the budget allocation of $3.0M to

BISC (included in Supplies & other expenses above) is netted against revenues in

the operating fund as this revenue is reported by the ISC.


Page 175 of 363


9 of 33

Items that continue to be supported by the University Fund include:

Contingency

The attenuated Hold Harmless Gap from 2013-14

Deferred maintenance

Board priorities and compliance requirements New Allocations identified as priorities for support in 2016-17 and onward include:

Health, Wellness and Innovation Centre

QSuccess and Embedded Counsellors in Student Support Services

Classroom Renewal

Research support for Canada First Research Excellence Fund submission

The continued allocations that began in 2015-16 along with the additional new allocations in 2016-17 are being made to address risks that were identified in the budget planning process. A contingency budget of $1.8M was kept flat from 2015-16. As a step towards implementing the recommendations from the New Budget Model Review Report to reduce the ongoing commitments from the University Fund, the $2.13M related to Administrative Systems was removed from the $4.43M allocation for infrastructure renewal and is now attributed as a cost to the Faculties in the Budget Model. In addition, the amount set aside for infrastructure renewal increased as a result of the new allocations shown above along with an increase of $0.3M for ITS infrastructure renewal. In addition, to new allocations identified above, the Strategic Priorities and Compliance increased by $0.75M for Library Acquisitions to address, at least partially, the impact of the adverse exchange rate fluctuations. In this multi-year budget starting in 2016-17 an additional 1% levy has been incorporated into the new budget model to recognize the cost of research. The 1% levy is applied to the revenues of Faculties/Schools as 1% of revenues and then distributed to the Faculties/Schools in proportion to their Tri-council grant revenue shares.

3.2 Draw-down of Carry-forward Balances/Reserves The 2016-17 budget reflects a deficit of $0.9M reduced to $0M through the draw-down of reserves. The budget relies on a modest draw-down of central reserves in the first years of the planning timeframe to fund the talent management initiative and one-time funding for student assistance. The final two years have no draw-down of central cash reserves planned. A draw-down of $15.5M from unit carry-forward balances is projected for 2016-17 based on the units’ budget submissions. This draw-down of carry-forwards represents 2.7% of total unit expenditures and the accumulated departmental carryforward balance as per the 2014-15 audited financial statements is $134.1M. The projected in-year draw-down has typically been a very conservative estimate of unit draw-downs. In past years, actual draw-downs have routinely been considerably less than those projected because of in-year savings on salaries due to turnover, or lower than expected expenses against contingency lines; our expectation is that the actual draw-down will be much lower in 2016-17 as well. The unit draw-downs in 2017-18 and 2018-19 are still to be determined. The preliminary projections based on the multi-year budget submissions that were submitted during the 2016-17 budget planning cycle indicate


Page 176 of 363


10 of 33

a continued draw down of reserves relating to one-time only expenditures. The preliminary projections are based on strong revenue growth that is now tempered by the incorporation of the pension solvency expense of 4.5% of salaries which started on September 1, 2015. The reliance on “soft-funding” (e.g., cash from carry-forward reserves) was added to the budget projections in 2011-12 and provides greater clarity on total expenses over the operating base-funding. This is now supported by Table B. The projected carry-forward draw-downs have been included in the operating budget projections as Unit Expenses Greater than Budget Allocation, and then offset by the carry-forward draw-down. The draw-down is the result of some units using cash reserves to transition to the planned shared service budget allocation increase of 4% in 2017-18. In addition, units are funding transition measures to move towards balanced budgets and funding one-time expenses such as capital renovations. It is not unreasonable that units will build and reduce carry forward reserves to meet operational and strategic opportunities and challenges. We will nonetheless continue to ensure that ongoing base commitments are not made against these cash reserves. Those portfolios with structural deficits will be expected to continue to reduce expenditures or increase revenues to bring their operations into balance with their annual budget envelope. The University will continue to monitor the draw-down of carry-forward reserves to ensure units are using these funds to transition to a sustainable budget.

3.3 Risks The 2016-17 to 2018-19 Operating Budget includes a number of identified risks:

Reliance on government grant support and tuition (both controlled by government) and the effect of further changes in government policy, most notably the outcome of the formula funding review that the government will continue to undertake in 2016-17

Expirations of collective agreements in the last year of the three-year planning timeframe

Pension solvency

Significant investment in physical and technological infrastructure renewal

Continued volatility in capital markets


Page 177 of 363


11 of 33

4. Discussion of Major Revenues and Expenditures 4.1 Revenues Enrolment The recommendations from the Strategic Enrolment Management Group for enrolment in 2016-17 and 2017-18 are included as Appendix A of this report, together with the initial proposals from Faculties and Schools for 2018-19. The recommended enrolment plan for 2017-18 and the recommended changes to the previously approved enrolment plan for 2016-17 have been endorsed by the Senate Committee on Academic Development and forwarded to Queen’s Senate for its approval. Senate will consider the recommendations at its meeting on April 19, 2015. The majority of the operating revenue is enrolment driven and made up of tuition fees and provincial grants. Therefore, enrolment projections have a significant effect on Queen’s financial projections. The 2016-17 to 2018-19 operating budget incorporates the recommendations for 2016-17 and 2017-18 and the initial proposals for 2018-19. The Strategic Enrolment Management Group, which is chaired by the Provost, has developed a long-term strategic enrolment management framework that was approved at senate. The framework is being used to guide the development of medium and long-term enrolment strategies and planning processes that will allow Queen’s to thrive in response to institutional and faculty priorities, student demand, government direction, and continued community input.

4.1.1 Government Grants Government grants represent 39.9% of budgeted operating revenues in 2016-17 down from 40.8% in 2015-16. The Government fully funded actual undergraduate growth for fiscal year 2015-16. Queen’s 2016-17 to 2018-19 Operating Budget incorporates enrolment growth at the undergraduate level with the flow through of this enrolment growth into 2017-18 and 2018-19. Steady state will be reached in 2018-19. This growth was contingent upon our ability to accommodate first year growth in the new residences, as well as, of course, government support for the growth. The provincial government’s Strategic Mandate Agreement for Queen’s indicates that the level of growth that Queen’s was planning at the undergraduate level is in line with the government’s expectations. This does not, however, eliminate the risk that growth will be less than fully funded during the three year planning timeframe. This is currently viewed as a low risk because many other universities in Ontario are failing to meet their enrolment targets and therefore those funds are available for redistribution to those universities that are meeting or in some cases exceeding their targets. The impact of the funding formula review undertaken by the Government is still unclear. As part of the Strategic Mandate Agreement the government has provided guaranteed graduate growth funded spaces for all three years of the planning timeframe. These spaces will provide full


Page 178 of 363


12 of 33

funding for all growth that is planned under the three-year enrolment plan. The government has allocated less than half of the 4,350 spaces that were previously announced, and indications are that the remaining spaces will be used to support growth in years after 2017-18.

TABLE D – PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT GRANT REVENUE

4.1.2. Federal Grant The Federal Indirect Costs of Research Program (FICP) is the only source of federal funding Queen’s receives in its operating budget. The FICP provides a significant grant that supports the University’s operating costs associated with sponsored research. Queen’s research prominence benefits from our success in securing external research grants and contracts, but supporting this research imposes significant costs on the institution. It is widely accepted that a dollar of direct research support on average creates indirect costs of at least 40 cents, and some estimates are greater than 50 cents. For 2016-17, the total FICP grant has been projected to be $9.5M. The federal funding received by

Budget Actuals Budget

Y/Y

Budget Budget Budget

2015-16 2015-16 2016-17 Change 2017-18 2018-19

Operating Grants

Basic Operating Grant (BOG) 143.4$ 143.8$ 143.7$ 0.3$ 143.7$ 143.7$

Teacher Education 4.5$ 4.7$ 4.6$ 0.1$ 4.6$ 4.6$

Performance Fund Grant 2.0$ 2.2$ 1.8$ (0.2)$ 1.8$ 1.8$

U/G Accessibility Funding 13.9$ 14.8$ 16.9$ 3.0$ 17.9$ 19.2$

Graduate Accessibility Funding 11.1$ 9.1$ 11.3$ 0.2$ 13.0$ 14.0$

Quality Improvement Fund 6.9$ 6.9$ 6.9$ -$ 6.9$ 6.9$

Research Infrastructure 1.8$ 1.7$ 1.7$ (0.1)$ 1.7$ 1.7$

Ontario Operating Grants 183.6$ 183.2$ 186.9$ 3.3$ 189.6$ 191.9$

Earmarked Grants

Tax Grant 1.4$ 1.6$ 1.6$ 0.2$ 1.6$ 1.7$

Special Accessibility 0.4$ 0.8$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 0.7$ 0.7$

Regional Assessment Resource Centre -$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Targetted programs* 9.0$ 9.2$ 9.0$ -$ 9.0$ 9.0$

Clinical Education Funding 0.6$ 0.6$ 0.6$ -$ 0.6$ 0.6$

Total Earmarked Grants 11.5$ 13.4$ 11.9$ 0.5$ 11.9$ 12.0$

Total Provincial Grants 195.1$ 196.6$ 198.8$ 3.8$ 201.5$ 203.9$

* includes funding for Enhanced Medicine, Enhanced Medical Post Grad Interns and Residents,

and Second Entry Nursing

Provincial Government Grant Revenue (000,000's)


Page 179 of 363


13 of 33

Queen’s faculty members that this grant supports is approximately $53.5M. This has increased from last year’s number of $47.5M due to a slight net increase in our share of the tri-council sponsored research funding envelopes. The FICP grant is based on a three-year average of sponsored research funding. Any changes in this funding year over year will result in a resultant change in our FICP grant in future years and will need to be adjusted during the next budget planning cycle.

4.1.3 Tuition In March 2013 the Province announced a four-year tuition policy framework. Universities are permitted to increase tuition for students who are not in professional or graduate programs by up to 3%, and by up to 5% in the professional and graduate programs. Overall, aggregate tuition fee revenue increases across the institution must not exceed 3%. Fee increases are tied to both the Student Access Guarantee and a continued requirement that 10% of all revenue increases from tuition be set aside for student assistance. For the 2016-17 budget, we have been required to reduce the typical rate of increase across all programs to accommodate the institution-wide cap. These budget projections use tuition fee increases as approved at the March Board of Trustees meeting (see Appendix B). Based on the framework contained within the policy, it is not possible to continue to increase tuition in all programs by the maximum allowable and still remain within the cap. The student-weighted average of the proposed increases in the domestic tuition fees across all programs is being maximized to ensure we remain below the cap for all three years in the planning timeframe whilst still maximizing revenues. The tuition fee framework expires at the end of 2016-17. For 2017-18 and 2018-19 an overall cap of 3% has been maintained and we believe this is a reasonable planning assumption. Budgets for those years will be adjusted during the next planning cycle when the new tuition fee framework is announced if it varies from the current framework.

4.1.4 Investment Income: Global Financial Market Conditions Market volatility can have a significant impact on investment holdings and financial planning. Although the University has largely recovered from the 2008 decline in the financial markets, its investment holdings remain susceptible to further volatility. The University has two investment portfolios, the Pooled Endowment Fund and the Pooled Investment Fund, which now total over $1 billion. The Pooled Endowment Fund ("PEF") is an investment pool composed of funds that have been designated for University Endowment accounts. Donations received by the University are invested in the PEF and each year certain amounts are withdrawn according to the spending policy. These annual withdrawals (“payouts”) fund scholarships, academic chairs, book funds, lectureships, as well as a diverse range of university programs, guided by donors’ wishes.


Page 180 of 363


14 of 33

The Pooled Investment Fund (“PIF”) is made up of reserve funds and unspent balances. As the PIF’s primary objective is to preserve the nominal capital of the fund, the decision was made to reduce the operating budget reliance on income from the PIF, commencing in 2012-13. As a result, the budgeted income from the PIF was set at $4.2 million. For the coming year, and in light of a recent increase in capital held in the PIF, the budgeted income has been increased to $5.2 million in 2016-17 and the two subsequent years. This change is reflected in the three-year budget. Investment Fund balances are shown in the table below:

As shown in the graph below, the Endowment market value has recovered strongly since fiscal 2008-09. The market value of the PEF for the end of the 2014-15 fiscal year was $896 million. The estimated market value for the end of the 2015-16 fiscal year is roughly $900 million.

The PEF income payout is approved annually by the Investment Committee of the Board of Trustees and is based on a hybrid formula, which is meant to preserve capital for inflationary increases while producing a substantial level of income to support current operations. Because the hybrid formula is

Investment Portfolios (000's)

Market Value Market Value Market Value Proj. Market Value

April 30, 2013 April 30, 2014 April 30, 2015 April 30, 2016

Pooled Investment Fund (PIF) 156,463 177,054 192,423 210,000

Pooled Endowment Fund (PEF) 694,010 787,474 896,352 900,000

Total 850,473 964,528 1,088,775 1,110,000

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

-150,000

-100,000

-50,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015

End

ing

Mar

ket

Val

ue

($

00

0s)

Do

nat

ion

s/P

ayo

uts

/In

vest

me

nt

Inco

me

($

00

0s)

PEF Asset Changes Fiscal Years 2007-08 to 2014-15

Donations Income Paid Out Net Investment Income Market Value - April 30


Page 181 of 363


15 of 33

weighted 70% on the previous year’s payout adjusted for inflation, and 30% on the most recent calendar year’s ending market value, there is a significant smoothing effect and the full impact of market movements is not felt immediately. The University recently completed a thorough review of its spending policy, and in March 2016 the Board approved a three-year adjustment to the PEF payout for 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 that maintains the hybrid formula and implements a long-term payout target of 4.0%. The formula results in a payout of 11.25 cents per unit for 2016-17, which represents an 8.6% increase from the 2015-16 payout of 10.36 cents per unit. The table below shows the actual and projected income from the PEF based on the Board approved payout, as well as additional annual withdrawals to support the operating budget. The income from the PEF supports the operating budget by providing funding for student assistance, chairs, and the general operating budget (via the University Fund).

4.2 Expenditures

4.2.1 Allocations Figure 1 below shows a breakdown of budget allocations in the 2016-17 Operating Budget. Two-thirds of the operating budget is allocated directly to support the academic enterprise through allocations to the Faculties and Schools and student assistance. A transfer to capital from operating is required to support previous internal loan decisions as well as to cover the cost of debt repayment on large capital and information technology projects.


Page 182 of 363


16 of 33

Figure 1 Budget Allocations to Major Expenditure Areas

Figure 2 shows a further breakdown of the Shared Service allocations. Many expenses included in Shared Services directly support academic programs and other initiatives in the Faculties, Schools. The Library and Student Services together represent 25.2% of Shared Service allocations with Information Technology Services and Occupancy costs representing 11.3% and 20.7% of allocations respectively.

Figure 2 Detailed Shared Service Budget Allocations


Page 183 of 363


17 of 33

The following table shows the expenditures that are included in occupancy costs and the relative size of the expenditure. The two most notable expenditures are the cost of utilities and the cost to operate and maintain our buildings and grounds.

As mentioned above, starting in 2016-17, the University Fund will provide an attenuated hold harmless to those Faculties and Schools who ended 2013-14 with a budget allocation that was lower than their 2012-13 final budget allocation. This hold harmless allocation in 2016-17 will be 75% of the gap calculated using 2013-14 actuals against 2012-13 actuals. The percentage will attenuate downward in each of the subsequent two fiscal years as follows, 2017-18: 60%; 2018-19: 30%; and zero thereafter. The University Fund is also being used to support transfers from the operating budget to the capital budget to support internal loans for capital and technology projects. Other allocations support strategic priorities, including infrastructure renewal to support deferred maintenance and technology infrastructure, Board priorities and compliance, and the creation of a university contingency fund. The contingency fund is needed to provide flexibility and to mitigate any in-year risks or capitalize on any opportunities that may arise. In 2017-18 and 2018-19 the amount of the contingency was increased to $2.8M. In part, this increase was made to provide protection against capital volatility in the projected revenue increase from the Pooled Investment Fund, which was, as noted above, a result of a transfer of additional cash into the Pooled Investment Fund. The additional $1M of contingency will be held to mitigate the risk that the additional investment income is not realized. Approximately $9.1M in expense is shown as flow-through expenses. These occur in units that receive direct revenues related to their services. An example of this is net expenses in Athletics or Student Health, which are offset by the revenues from membership fees, Ontario Heath Insurance billings, and Student Activity Fees. Approximately $4.6M in overhead revenue recovered from the University ancillary units (at this time predominately from Residences) is netted against flow-through expenses in the budget presented. As part of the review of ancillary units the university undertook, these units will now contribute a flat 5% of revenue as overhead to the University, which will result in an increase in the overhead recovery. The dividend contributions grouped in Other Income have been rationalized with the change in overhead resulting in Other Income showing a decline. This change resulted in there being no net effect on the budget for 2016-17.

Occupancy Costs $M %

Utilities 16.1 42.2%

Operations/Maintenance 15.9 42.0%

Deferred Maintenance 4.2 11.1%

Solid Waste 0.5 1.4%

Insurance (Net of recoveries) 1.1 2.8%

Taxes(Net of Grant Received) 0.2 0.6%


Page 184 of 363


18 of 33

4.2.2 Student Financial Assistance As part of the Tuition Policy Framework, all universities must commit to the Student Access Guarantee (SAG), which guarantees that all Ontario students in need will have access to resources to cover tuition, books and mandatory fees. The Framework also stipulates that universities must continue to invest in need-based financial assistance by ensuring a portion of additional revenue resulting from tuition fee increases is set aside for this purpose; the current set-aside requirement is 10% of tuition fee increases.

Queen’s has had a long-standing commitment of addressing both quality and accessibility at the undergraduate and graduate level through a well-funded student assistance strategy. The student assistance operating budget allocation has increased from $17M in 2000-01 to $31.6M in 2016-17. The 2016-17 Operating Budget provides for a one-time $0.7M incremental allocation to undergraduate student aid over the 2015-16 level. A student aid task force was convened during 2015-16 to undertake a review of student financial assistance at the University in an effort to ensure it has remained competitive amongst our peer institutions, and the additional one-time funding will be used, if required, to help implement any potential changes coming out of the review. In addition, the March 2016 Ontario Budget announced a significant re-packaging of financial aid for Ontario post-secondary students that will come into effect in 2017-18. It is not yet clear what the impact will be for universities. As we learn the details, we shall implement any changes that become necessary at the same time we also implement any recommendations from the task force that are accepted. Through the generosity of donors, income from the University’s endowment funds is available to enhance the support to Queen’s students by providing an additional $13.6M annually in student assistance. Student financial support is a priority for the Initiative Campaign.

4.2.3 Compensation The new budget model continues to hold all units responsible for covering salary and benefit increases. Most employees’ compensation increases are driven by collective agreements and all known and assumed agreements have been factored into the budgets of the Faculties and Schools and shared service units. Where agreements are not known 2% increases have been assumed.


Page 185 of 363


19 of 33

The contract expiry dates for employee groups with agreements are as follows:

4.2.4 Queen’s Pension Plan (QPP) Deficit The pension plan’s unfunded liability has been the most significant financial issue facing Queen’s for several years, and the University’s efforts to find a solution continue. The most recent triennial QPP actuarial valuation was effective August 31, 2014, and established the liability shown below: Going-Concern Deficit:

- Market basis: $53.5M ($151.6M Aug. 31, 2011) - Smoothed basis: $175.6M ($126.4M Aug. 31, 2011)

Solvency Shortfall: $285.4M ($332.3M Aug. 31, 2011) The 2011 and 2014 valuations were filed on a smoothed basis. The annual special payments to fund the going concern deficit amount to $20.7M effective September 1, 2015, an increase of $6.3M over the previous special payments of $14.4M annually. At the time of the 2011 valuation, the University qualified for Stage 1 temporary solvency relief under provincial pension regulations and was thus exempt from solvency payments for three years. On the basis of the changes that were made to the pension plan in 2011, Queen’s received Stage 2 solvency relief which allowed the solvency payments to be amortized over 10 years as opposed to five. These additional payments would have commenced in September 2015, but changes to the Pension Benefits Act provided the University with the option to take advantage of an additional three-year extension to pension solvency relief and amortize the solvency deficit over the remaining seven years of Stage 2 relief. Queen’s has taken advantage of the extended period of solvency relief. Based on current projections, the solvency payments that Queen’s will be required to make commencing September 1, 2018 amount to approximately $19M annually.

Employee Group Unit / Assoc Contract Effective until

Kingston Heating & Maintenance Workers CUPE 229 June 30, 2018

Kingston Technicians CUPE 254 June 30, 2018

Library Technicians CUPE 1302 June 30, 2018

Academic Assistants USW 2010-01 Aug 31,2016

General Support Staff USW 2010 December 31, 2018

Queen's University Faculty Association QUFA April 30, 2019

Registered Nurses & Nurse Practioners ONA 67 March 21, 2017

Graduate TA's / TF's PSAC 901-1 April 30,2017

Allied Health Care Professional FHT OPSEU 452 In collective bargaining

Post Doctoral Fellows PSAC 901-2 June 30, 2016


Page 186 of 363


20 of 33

Commencing in fiscal 2015-16, Faculties and Departments were asked to plan and budget for an additional 4.5% pension charge commencing September 1, 2015. This provides for the increased going concern payments, and any balance remaining is being set aside as a reserve to cover future solvency payments, should these be necessary. The Revised Pension Plan of Queen’s University is not financially sustainable, and the University is committed to examining all options to rectify this. During the round of collective bargaining that was completed in the summer of 2015, the University and all its unions committed to participating in the project to design and build a new jointly sponsored pension plan (JSPP) for Ontario universities. The project is being jointly sponsored by the Council of Ontario Universities (for the employers) and the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (for the employees). If the project is successful, the Revised Pension Plan of Queen’s University would be merged with the new JSPP. One condition for this to occur would be agreement from the Government of Ontario that the new JSPP will have a permanent exemption from solvency payments. If the project to establish a JSPP is not successful, Queen’s and its unions are committed to exploring merging with another JSPP that will provide a solvency exemption, and failing that, to discussing and negotiating such changes as may be needed to support the financial sustainability of the pension plan. Any change to the QPP will be collectively bargained, and merging it with a JSPP will be done in full compliance with the legislative framework for members to express consent. Any pension currently under payment is guaranteed never to reduce.

5.0 Broader Financial Picture The operating expenditures represent approximately 60% to 65% of total university expenditures depending on annual levels of research funding and donations. As is the case at most other universities, the Queen’s Board of Trustees approves the Operating Budget. Total university revenues and expenses are captured in several funds: Operating; Ancillary; Research; Consolidated Entities; Trust and Endowment; and Capital. The expenditures accounted for in Research, and Trust and Endowment Funds are substantially dictated by the grantors and donors. Therefore, the flexibility that Queen’s has in supporting the academic enterprise and managing its operations is within the Operating Budget.


Page 187 of 363


21 of 33

The following chart is for illustrative purposes only and shows the approximate percentage of university expenditures in each fund. The percentages are based on the 2014-15 expenditures. Consolidated Expenditures by Fund

Although the flexibility that Queen’s has in supporting the academic enterprise and managing its operations is within the Operating Budget, looking beyond the operating budget is important as revenues and activities in other funds can impact the Operating Fund. Two examples would be the change in the level of indirect costs of research grants or research overhead revenue that would support operations depending on the level of research revenues, and the required level of support in student aid from the operating fund due to increases or decreases in donations to support student aid. In order to provide a more consolidated picture of university finances, and in addition to presenting information on the Capital and Ancillary Budgets, information on donations to trust and endowment funds and research is also presented.

5.1 Capital Budget Capital expenditures funded from the Operating Budget are shown as Transfer to Capital Budget and are itemized in Table B below. The Capital Projects Financing section provides detail on repayments from the operating fund of internal loans made to fund capital projects. Internal loans reflect the use of committed cash reserves for payment of capital projects that are repaid over a number of years. A policy on internal loans was approved by the Board of Trustees in 2013-2014, which requires Capital Assets and Finance Committee approval of any new internal loans.


Page 188 of 363


22 of 33

More detail about the University`s capital planning and deferred maintenance is summarized later in this report.

TABLE E: CAPITAL BUDGET ALLOCATION

With the exception of the TRAQ project, all of the capital projects shown in the table above have been completed. Not included in the table above is $4.2M in deferred maintenance funding which is included in occupancy costs, and $4.9M in infrastructure renewal funding from the University Fund. The transfer to capital will fall from $12.3M to $11.5M in 2018-19 when the loans for Tools for Research Administration at Queen’s (TRAQ) and the Bioscience Complex are retired.

Budget Budget Budget Budget

2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Grant Revenue

MTCU Facilities Renewal Fund 1,086$ 3,457$ 2,462$ 3,282$

MTCU Graduate Capital 1,700$ 1,700$ 1,700$ 1,700$

Total Revenue 2,786$ 5,157$ 4,162$ 4,982$

Capital Projects Financing

School of Kinesiology & Queen's Centre 6,900$ 6,900$ 6,900$ 6,900$

QUASR 3,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$

BISC 250$ 250$ 250$ 250$

Biosciences Complex 223$ 223$ 223$ -$

Chernoff Hall 900$ 900$ 900$ 900$

Electrical Substation 900$ 900$ 900$ 900$

CoGeneration Facility 1,064$ 1,064$ 1,064$ 1,064$

Tools for Research Administration at Queen's (TRAQ) 640$ 640$ -$ -$

Boiler #8 167$ 167$ 167$ 167$


MTCU Facilities Renewal Fund 1,086$ 3,457$ 2,462$ 3,282$

Total Expenses 15,129$ 17,500$ 15,865$ 16,463$

-$ -$ -$ -$

Budget Surplus (Deficit) (12,343)$ (12,343)$ (11,703)$ (11,481)$

Transfer from Operating Budget 12,343$ 12,343$ 11,703$ 11,481$

Net Budget Surplus (Deficit) -$ -$ -$ -$

Queen's University Capital Budget Allocations from Operating


Page 189 of 363


23 of 33

5.1.1 Major Capital Projects Queen’s has embarked on a number of significant capital projects over the last few years.

TABLE F: CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR APPROVED PROJECTS

The major capital project approval process was revised in May 2014 to reflect changes in governance committees, to provide clarity in the approval process, and to amend the threshold for projects requiring Board of Trustees approval.

PROJECT NAME

Actuals at

Feb '16

Total

Projected

Costs Budget

IN PROCESS:

John Orr Tower - Window / Door Replacement 1,109 1,300 2,800

Richardson Stadium 4,784 20,270 20,270

Victoria Hall - Building Envelope Repairs 3,278 6,100 6,100

Energy Service Company (ESCo) Partnership 2,391 12,004 12,004

SUBTOTAL - PROJECTS IN PROCESS 11,562 39,674 41,174

COMPLETED:

David C. Smith House and Brant House 55,588 58,500 70,000

Goodes Hall Expansion 39,842 39,880 40,000

Isabel Bader Centre for the Performing Arts 78,481 80,500 80,500

Jean Royce - Food Services 1,579 1,579 2,204

School of Kinesiology and Queen's Centre 180,471 180,498 181,235

Reactor Materials Testing Laboratory 14,869 18,355 18,355

School of Medicine 75,010 76,846 76,846

SUBTOTAL - PROJECTS COMPLETED 445,840 456,158 469,140

IN PLANNING:

Health, Wellness and Innovation Centre 0 TBD TBD

SUBTOTAL - PROJECTS IN PLANNING 0 0 0

GRAND TOTAL 457,402 495,832 510,314

90% 100%

PROJECT COSTS


Page 190 of 363


24 of 33

5.1.2 Deferred Maintenance MTCU funded a Facilities Condition Audit for all Ontario universities in 2010-11 and the data is stored in a common software system. The audit reported $213M of deferred maintenance for Queen’s University. By the end of 2016, this number will be updated as a result of a more comprehensive audit of the campus buildings that VFA has been contracted to undertake. In addition, there is an estimated $30M of campus infrastructure (underground systems) deferred maintenance. In 2016, Physical Plant Services (PPS) will refresh this underground infrastructure audit. It is expected that the new estimate will be higher. Each year the deferred maintenance backlog is reduced by funds allocated from the operating budget and the province. This is offset by further deterioration of buildings and infrastructure and the impact of inflation. As a result, the current Facilities Condition report is broken down as follows, excluding campus infrastructure:

The base allocation from the operating budget is $4.2M. An additional $2.1M is budgeted from the University Fund for 2016-17. In addition, for 2015-16 and 2016-17 the University was allocated $1.6M of annual provincial funding for deferred maintenance under the Facilities Renewal Program, which is primarily based on Queen’s system share across all Ontario universities and colleges. This amount was increased from $1.1M (2014-15) as a result of the provincial government announcing a plan to increase renewal funding from $26M in 2014-15 to $40M in 2015-16 and 2016-17 and then to $100M by 2019-20. The Ministry plans to announce a consultation process to discuss approaches to allocating amounts over the $40M. For 2016-17 only, there was an additional $1.8M one-time top-up from MTCU over and above the $1.6M annual amount.

$000's

Campus 165,900

Residences 57,700

223,600

Facilities Condition Audit



Page 191 of 363


25 of 33

5.2. Ancillary and Consolidated Entity Budgets These units provide goods and services to the University in support of our core educational and research mission. Ancillaries are not supported by central university revenues and are expected to run as break-even operations after contributing overhead and any net revenue to the operating budget. A full review of Ancillary Operations was undertaken in 2014-15. The resulting recommendations were implemented in 2015-16: the Computer Store is closing effective May 1, 2016, and Creative Design services has been removed as an ancillary and incorporated into University Relations. In addition, all ancillary units will contribute a flat 5% of revenue as overhead, dividend contributions have been rationalized with the change in overhead, and discussions are ongoing to determine a formula for the sharing of actual surplus. Carry forward reserve balances have been identified and transferred into a capital reserve, where required, to mitigate future deferred maintenance expenditures. The table below summarizes the 2016-17 aggregate budgets of the Ancillary and Consolidated Entities.

Budget Budget Budget

REVENUE 85,698 3,055 88,753

EXPENDITURE

Salaries & Benefits 11,336 1,462 12,798

External Contracts 31,597 718 32,315

Util ities 6,577 - 6,577

Repairs & Alter. 4,070 - 4,070

Interest & Bank Charges 8,764 90 8,854

Supplies & Misc. 5,281 1,823 7,104

Overhead 4,084 - 4,084

Total Expenditures 71,709 4,093 75,802

Net Surplus (Deficit) before

Capital and Contributions

to University Operations 13,989 (1,038) 12,951

Deferred Maintenance 4,661 - 4,661

Debt Servicing - Principal 8,419 - 8,419


Operations 5,000 - 5,000

SURPLUS (DEFICIT) (4,091) (1,038) (5,129)

2016-17 ANCILLARY & CONSOLIDATED BUDGET (000's)

TOTAL

ANCILLARY

TOTAL

CONSOLIDATED

ENTITIES

TOTAL ANCILLARY

& CONSOLIDATED

ENTITIES


Page 192 of 363


26 of 33

The following table shows the 2016-17 Budgets for each Ancillary Operation.

Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget

REVENUE 65,170 6,052 5,820 3,027 4,548 1,081

EXPENDITURE

Salaries & Benefits 8,403 1,318 1,300 238 - 77

External Contracts 24,059 3,914 117 469 2,991 47

Util ities 4,429 181 1,278 313 323 53

Repairs & Alter. 2,907 24 947 37 127 28

Interest & Bank Charges 5,438 20 59 2,469 594 184

Supplies & Misc. 4,208 147 760 61 62 43

Overhead 3,259 303 291 151 80 -

Total Expenditures 52,703 5,907 4,752 3,738 4,177 432

Net Surplus (Deficit) before Capital

and Contributions to University

Operations 12,467 145 1,068 (711) 371 649

Contribution to Capital Reserve 3,091 - 900 525 85 60

Debt Servicing - Principal 7,126 - 57 850 247 139


Operations 4,502 19 29 - - 450

SURPLUS (DEFICIT) (2,252) 126 82 (2,086) 39 -

OPENING RESERVE 5,261 479 4,940 (8,306) - -

SURPLUS (DEFICIT) (2,252) 126 82 (2,086) 39 -

CLOSING RESERVE 3,009 605 5,022 (10,392) 39 -

Stuart St.

Underground

Parking

2016-17 ANCILLARY BUDGET (000's)

Residence Event Services

Community

Housing Parking

Donald

Gordon

Centre

2016-17 ANCILLARY BUDGET (000's) RESERVES


Page 193 of 363


27 of 33

Residences and Parking are projecting deficits while Event Services, Community Housing and Donald Gordon Centre are projecting modest surpluses. Residences, Community Housing and Events Services are providing overhead contributions and dividends that help support the University operating budget and the Student Affairs portfolio. The ancillary review recommended that the overhead rate be consistently applied across all ancillary units at 5% of total revenue. This has been implemented. In addition to these contributions, planned transfers of a portion of ancillaries’ reserves to a capital fund reserve will ensure funds are available to address deferred maintenance. The capital fund reserves will continue to address repairs and alterations required as part of the deferred maintenance of properties. The budgets for these areas will continue to contribute each year towards the capital fund reserve while maintaining a small operating reserve to mitigate against occupancy shortfalls and operating cost overages. The construction of the two new residences was completed in 2015-16. The debt servicing payments is a contributing factor to the deficit in 2016-17. The debt servicing payments will be completed by 2030-2031. The surplus in Community Housing relates to the recent success in obtaining a property tax exemption on the Community Housing properties. Revenues in Event Services are increasing by 4% due to additional summer accommodation offerings made possible by the two new residences. The figures shown for the Underground Parking structure (shared 50/50 with Kingston General Hospital) represent only Queen’s share. The parking deficit is due to the debt financing of the underground parking garages as planned in the capital business case. The parking garage business case was based on a 40-year return on investment and allowed for deficits over 30 years while the debt was being repaid, after which a further 10 years is required to eliminate the cumulative deficit. The Parking budget is tracking to the business plan and will be profitable once the debt and deficit are paid. The deficit includes a $525K allocation to reserves for future deferred maintenance.


Page 194 of 363


28 of 33

The Consolidated Entities are composed of PARTEQ Innovations and Queen’s Centre for Enterprise Development (QCED). The table below shows the 2016-17 Consolidated Entities budget.

Note: The Bader International Study Centre is a consolidated entity but under the New Budget model its academic operations are now included as a faculty in the operating budget.

PARTEQ is projecting a deficit of $963K. The deficit is largely attributable to the expiry in the fiscal year of a patent that generates the majority of PARTEQ’s royalty revenue. PARTEQ has sufficient cash reserves to fund this projected shortfall. The Vice-Principal (Research) is currently reviewing options to enable a sustainable operation beyond 2016-17. The Queen’s Centre for Enterprise Development (QCED) budget provides for a deficit in 2016-17. At the beginning of 2015-16 QCED found itself in a period of uncertainty, but it is now entering into a new partnership agreement resulting in renewed revenues beginning in May 2016. This agreement would see a return to a profitable position by 2018-19.

PARTEQ QCED Inc.

Budget Budget

REVENUE 2,728 327

EXPENDITURE

Salaries & Benefits 1,306 156

External Contracts 490 228

Util ities - -

Repairs & Alter. - -

Interest & Bank Charges 90 -

Supplies & Misc. 1,785 38

Deferred Maintenance - -

Total Expenditures 3,671 422

SURPLUS (DEFICIT) (943) (95)

2016-17 Consolidated Entities BUDGET (000's)


Page 195 of 363


29 of 33

5.3 Research Fund

The table below provides a summary of research funding received since 2011-12, together with cash flow projections for future year funding. Totals exclude funding received for the indirect costs of research and scholarships as these are reported in separate funds in the University’s financial statements. These totals also differ from the University’s audited financial statements in that research revenue is only recognized as expended in the financial statements.

Research funding covers the direct cost of research, but only a portion of indirect costs such as financial management, contract administration, health and safety, physical infrastructure requirements, etc. A 2013 report issued by the Canadian Association of Business Officers and the Canadian Association of University Administrators reported that the indirect cost of research was between 40% and 60% nationally. Although Queen’s general policy is to recover 40% of externally funded research projects, funding policies of many government and not-for-profit agencies prohibit or limit the reimbursement of indirect costs. Consequently, Queen’s recovers indirect costs in the amount of 10% and 15% of direct costs annually. Research activity impacts operating and capital budgets through the physical and human capital resources that support research. For these reasons, estimating future research activity is important and better enables the University to improve forecasting of funding for indirect costs of research, supports integrated cash flow management, and helps to highlight financial opportunities or financial risks. Research funding can fluctuate from year to year depending on overall Queen’s grant funding success rates, economic conditions, award cycles, and the number of funding applications submitted. Research-intensive universities seek a balance across challenging and complementary areas of emphasis including research intensity, reputation, size and scale, excellence in both graduate and undergraduate education, foundational research, applied research, leadership and support for major


Page 196 of 363


30 of 33

research programs and facilities, international presence, and local social advancement and economic growth. While Queen’s has many distinctive opportunities, we face challenges and risks common to other U15 universities. It is important to note that the 2016 Federal Budget included significant additional investments in research, including an annual increase of $95 million for the Tri-Council agencies, starting in 2016-17. Additionally, the budget committed $2 billion over three years to infrastructure at universities and colleges to support the modernization environmental sustainability of research and innovation facilities.


Page 197 of 363


31 of 33

5.4 Trust and Endowment Funds

Trust and Endowment funds capture funds received within the University that are restricted for specific purposes. The University has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure trust fund and endowment expenditures are in accordance with the related terms, typically a directed donation. External donations received for specific purposes are usually supported by an agreement between the University and the donor, recorded in their own funds, and managed according to the terms and conditions of the donation. The chart below provides an overview of donations received in past years, as well as projected cash receipts in the future. Donations to endowment funds in the chart represent non-expendable donations that are maintained in perpetuity. Endowed donations were unusually high in 2015. This increase over previous years is due in part to the receipt of significant pledge payments from prior commitments and continued giving in support of endowed priorities, most notably student financial assistance and endowed faculty support. Donations to trust funds in the chart represent expendable donations. These totals differ from the University’s audited financial statements as donation revenue is only recognized as expended in the financial statements. Actual donation revenue may vary because of changing economic conditions or other factors.


Page 198 of 363


32 of 33

TABLE 1

Budget Budget Budget Budget

2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Tuition Credit 241,660,552$ 263,659,897$ 278,810,661$ 290,629,881$

Tuition Non-Credit 20,996,830$ 18,734,454$ 19,162,649$ 19,550,771$

Student Assistance Levy 2,309,020$ 2,382,120$ 2,418,120$ 2,438,520$

Other fees 6,706,347$ 7,101,941$ 7,202,810$ 7,325,189$

Total Fees 271,672,749$ 291,878,412$ 307,594,240$ 319,944,361$

Operating Grants

Basic Operating Grant 147,858,635$ 143,742,340$ 143,724,470$ 143,722,400$

Performance Fund Grant 2,038,467$ 1,819,525$ 1,819,525$ 1,819,525$

U/G Accessibility Funding 13,907,570$ 16,895,577$ 17,915,486$ 19,183,297$

Graduate Accessibility Funding 11,114,516$ 11,280,067$ 12,972,391$ 14,040,711$

Quality Improvement Fund 6,908,774$ 6,906,681$ 6,906,681$ 6,906,681$

Research Infrastructure 1,800,000$ 1,682,363$ 1,682,363$ 1,682,363$

Ontario Operating Grants 183,627,961$ 182,326,553$ 185,020,917$ 187,354,976$

Earmarked Grants

Tax Grant 1,443,211$ 1,600,875$ 1,621,865$ 1,666,715$

Special Accessibility 357,657$ 640,257$ 640,257$ 640,257$

Regional Assessment Resource Centre -$ -$ -$ -$

Targetted programs 9,041,261$ 13,660,130$ 13,626,712$ 13,643,636$

Clinical Education Funding 623,751$ 623,751$ 623,751$ 623,751$

Total Earmarked Grants 11,465,879$ 16,525,013$ 16,512,585$ 16,574,359$

Total Provincial Grants 195,093,841$ 198,851,566$ 201,533,501$ 203,929,335$

Federal Grant 9,376,768$ 9,460,175$ 9,460,175$ 9,460,175$

Other Revenue

Unrestricted Donations and Bequests 1,340,000$ 1,300,000$ 1,300,000$ 1,300,000$

Other Income 7,479,948$ 5,509,429$ 5,648,322$ 5,772,732$

Research Overhead 3,950,000$ 3,600,000$ 3,600,000$ 3,600,000$

Investment Income 12,500,779$ 12,177,121$ 12,367,283$ 12,402,293$

Total Other Revenue 25,270,726$ 22,586,550$ 22,915,605$ 23,075,025$

Total Revenues: 501,414,084 522,776,703 541,503,521 556,408,896


2015-16 to 2018-19 Revenue Budget


Page 199 of 363


33 of 33

TABLE 2

Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget

2015-16 2016-17 Variance 2017-18 2018-19

Faculties and Schools

Arts and Science 110,807,280$ 121,050,847$ 10,243,567$ 129,177,172$ 133,618,422$

Business 79,672,114$ 79,437,875$ (234,239)$ 80,870,420$ 82,282,731$

Health Sciences 41,779,672$ 40,710,678$ (1,068,994)$ 41,153,849$ 40,457,721$

Applied Science 31,899,863$ 36,438,467$ 4,538,604$ 36,540,835$ 37,228,884$

Law 10,109,579$ 11,469,889$ 1,360,310$ 11,878,492$ 12,374,144$

Education 15,551,267$ 16,175,389$ 624,121$ 15,590,177$ 14,618,457$

School of Policy Studies 1,703,088$ 2,479,125$ 776,037$ 3,096,798$ 3,062,316$

School of Urban & Regional Planning 1,048,312$ 0$ (1,048,312)$ 0$ (0)$

Bader International Study Centre 3,079,800$ 2,975,966$ (103,835)$ 3,137,504$ 3,226,311$

Total Faculties and Schools 295,650,975$ 310,738,235$ 15,087,259$ 321,445,248$ 326,868,987$

Shared Services

Principal's Office 1,362,249$ 1,431,740$ 69,491$ 1,482,834$ 1,506,658$

Secretariat 1,316,926$ 1,542,618$ 225,692$ 1,595,023$ 1,621,362$

University Relations 3,334,734$ 3,641,643$ 306,908$ 3,772,328$ 3,828,854$

Vice-Principal (Research) 5,999,411$ 6,034,203$ 34,793$ 6,241,305$ 6,346,124$

Vice-Principal (Advancement) 11,596,995$ 10,177,522$ (1,419,473)$ 10,559,579$ 10,778,396$

Vice-Principal (Finance & Admin ) 7,065,366$ 8,562,487$ 1,497,121$ 8,878,770$ 9,129,035$

Provost & Vice-Principal (Academic) 3,812,787$ 3,865,578$ 52,791$ 4,015,234$ 4,092,343$

Student Affairs 8,904,009$ 8,812,196$ (91,812)$ 9,116,976$ 9,563,991$

Library(operations & acquisitions) 26,415,874$ 26,654,834$ 238,960$ 27,699,273$ 28,540,553$

Occupancy Costs(net of Shared Service Space Costs) 30,986,634$ 30,650,910$ (335,724)$ 30,964,577$ 31,743,319$

Environmental Health & Safety 1,452,148$ 1,482,410$ 30,262$ 1,534,875$ 1,556,322$

ITS 16,140,252$ 16,703,946$ 563,694$ 17,318,913$ 17,580,911$

Human Resources 5,707,211$ 5,122,131$ (585,080)$ 5,292,422$ 5,409,539$

Graduate Studies 1,865,094$ 1,872,531$ 7,438$ 1,933,776$ 1,971,164$

University Wide Benefits & Pension Special Payments 8,215,995$ 8,421,190$ 205,195$ 8,548,548$ 8,682,273$

Need Based & UG Merit Student Assistance 17,514,294$ 18,214,294$ 700,000$ 17,514,294$ 17,514,294$

Graduate Students Assistance 13,367,706$ 13,367,706$ -$ 13,367,706$ 13,367,706$

University Wide - Faculty 3,441,276$ 3,475,515$ 34,238$ 3,575,907$ 3,627,634$

University Wide - Student 1,196,507$ 1,193,562$ (2,945)$ 1,242,480$ 1,277,325$

University Wide - Administration 3,739,559$ 4,859,186$ 1,119,627$ 4,871,450$ 4,877,039$

University Wide - Community 2,839,074$ 2,965,603$ 126,529$ 3,057,039$ 3,104,151$

Queen's National Scholars 600,000$ 800,000$ 200,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,200,000$

Queen's Research Chairs -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Total Shared Services 176,874,102$ 179,851,806$ 2,977,704$ 183,583,308$ 187,318,991$

Infrastructure Renewal 2,300,000$ 4,859,085$ 2,559,085$ 7,400,000$ 8,550,000$

Strategic Priorities & Compliance 964,000$ 2,245,500$ 1,281,500$ 734,000$ 734,000$

Contingency 1,773,796$ 1,800,000$ 26,204$ 2,800,000$ 2,800,000$

To Be Allocated -$ 1,303,854$ 1,303,854$ 3,193,875$ 7,850,809$

Flow Through Expenses, net of Recoveries

Municipal Tax Grant** 1,443,211$ 1,600,875$ 157,664$ 1,621,865$ 1,666,715$

University Council on Athletics* 5,225,149$ 5,297,899$ 72,750$ 5,364,122$ 5,431,174$

Miscellaneous Athletics & Enrichment Studies* 4,213,018$ 3,381,417$ (831,601)$ 3,497,991$ 3,608,392$

Student Health Service* 2,326,598$ 2,693,042$ 366,444$ 2,703,688$ 2,734,055$

Special Disability Services* 357,657$ 640,257$ 282,600$ 640,257$ 640,257$

Daycare Grant* 100,233$ (100,233)$

Women's Campus Safety 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$

Overhead Recovery (3,216,763)$ (4,563,633)$ (1,346,870)$ (4,652,700)$ (4,743,849)$

Total Flow Through Expenses, net of Recoveries 10,449,103$ 9,099,857$ (1,349,246)$ 9,225,223$ 9,386,744$

Indirect Costs of Research to External Entities 1,391,781$ 1,418,840$ 27,059$ 1,418,840$ 1,418,840$

Total Operating Expenditures 489,403,757$ 511,317,177$ 21,913,420$ 529,800,495$ 544,928,370$

Transfer to Capital Budget 12,343,026$ 12,343,026$ -$ 11,703,026$ 11,480,526$

Total Expenditures 501,746,783$ 523,660,203$ 21,913,420$ 541,503,521$ 556,408,896$

*Expenses covered by Fees under Other Fees or Earmarked Grants

**Municipal Tax expense reflects on the portion that is equal to the grant. The remainder is shown in occupancy costs


2015-16 to 2018-19 Expense Budget


Page 200 of 363

Appendix 1

Recommendations to the Senate Committee on Academic Development

Short Term Enrolment Projections 2016-2019 March 2016

This report contains enrolment targets for 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 and enrolment projections for 2018-2019, which have been developed by the Strategic Enrolment Management Group (SEMG) within the context of the university’s long-term strategic enrolment management framework. More specifically, this report includes:

Revisions to 2016-2017 targets: 2016-2017 targets were previously approved by Senate in April 2015, and the revisions are now submitted for Senate approval;

Revisions to 2017-2018 targets: initial 2017-2018 targets were provided for information to Senate in April 2015 as enrolment projections, and the revised targets are now submitted for Senate approval;

Enrolment projections for 2018-2019: these are submitted to Senate for information. The development of enrolment targets The SEMG includes Deans, faculty members, staff and AMS and SGPS representatives. This group annually considers enrolment targets and projections for the following three years. Each spring, Senate will review:

Any revisions to previously-approved targets for the upcoming year and are resubmitted for approval;

Any revisions to previously-submitted (for information) targets for the first of the two following years that are resubmitted for approval; and

Projections for the second of the two following years that are submitted for information.

This practice of submitting overlapping enrolment targets enables annual budget planning, which begins 12 months prior to the year of budget that is being planned. The enrolment targets are derived through the following process:

Meetings are held with each Dean to review enrolment priorities, applicant demand and program capacity;

The SEMG reviews data on Queen’s applications, province-wide applications, sector trends, provincial policy issues and initiatives, and annual faculty and school enrolment information reports;

Preliminary targets for the upcoming three years are presented to SEMG and assessed against the data, and the priorities and goals outlined in the long-term enrolment framework;


Page 201 of 363

http://www.queensu.ca/provost/enrolmentplanning/resources/SEMGlongtermframeworkFeb28forSCAD.pdf

http://www.queensu.ca/provost/enrolmentplanning/resources/SEMGlongtermframeworkFeb28forSCAD.pdf

2

SEMG recommends rolling three-year enrolment targets and projections to SCAD. The first two years’ projections are presented as targets for approval, and the third year’s projections are presented for information;

SCAD reviews and recommends the two upcoming years’ enrolment targets to Senate for approval, and provides the third year’s projections for information.

Undergraduate Enrolment Context First-year direct-entry applications for 2016-17 to Ontario universities had increased by 3.5% as of March 3, 2016 compared to the same time last year, while applications to Queen’s programs had risen by 9.7% as of March 4, 2016. The Canadian university-aged population is projected to decline by 10% between 2011 and 2020, and then return to 2010 levels by 2030. This means increased PSE participation across the sector over the next few decades will predominantly need to occur through differentiated enrolment, including previously underrepresented populations like international students, Aboriginal students, first-generation students, part-time students, and mature students. With regard to international enrolment, targeted efforts resulted in a 36.5% increase of undergraduate first-year international students at Queen’s in 2015-16 over 2014-15. With regard to upper-year transfer students, Queen’s saw a 14% increase in 2015-16 over 2014-15.

Graduate Enrolment Context Queen’s continues to focus graduate growth in professional programs and through the delivery of new credentials, including diploma and degree programs. To sustain our research intensity, doctoral-stream and PhD enrolment numbers will be increased modestly, where there exists capacity and strong demand by qualified candidates. Providing interdisciplinary opportunities through new program development and interdepartmental collaborations remains a priority. Despite strong competition among Ontario institutions, total applications, both domestic and international, to Queen’s graduate programs increased by 6.3% for 2015-16 over 2014-15. Enrolment Tables Three tables are included in this report:

Table 1: Student Headcount Intake; Table 2: Enrolment Summary (Total Enrolment); and Table 3: Details for Selected Student Subgroups

These tables provide information on direct-entry first year and upper year intake, second-entry program intake, off-campus enrolment (Distance Studies, Bader International Study Centre) and exchange, and information on specific student populations, including incoming and outgoing exchange students.


Page 202 of 363

3

Table 1: Student Headcount Intake University-wide Intake: For 2016-17 and beyond, the first-year direct-entry target has not changed from the target previously approved by Senate (4,422), although there has been movement within some programs and faculties in response to applicant demand, program capacity, and faculty/school priorities. The first-year second-entry target for 2016-17 and beyond, which is 300, remains the same as what was previously approved. Intake by Faculty and Program: The table shows both first year and upper year intake by Faculty, School and Program. A brief summary for each Faculty/School is set out below. Arts and Science: Total on-campus enrolment targets for the faculty have not changed and will be maintained at 3,100 between 2016-17 and 2018-119; there have been some slight changes in distribution from what was previously approved. The table indicates a subtotal for Arts and Science of 3,125, as this includes an annual intake target of 25 distance studies students. Upper-year Arts and Science transfer student targets for 2016-17 and beyond have been adjusted downward, from previously approved and planned numbers. The faculty continues to focus on increasing this population. Bader International Study Centre first-year targets and projections have not changed; they remain at 120 for 2016-17 through 2018-19. Engineering and Applied Science: The first-year target remains constant at 730 through to 2018-19. This includes 50 places for the direct-entry program in Electrical and Computer Engineering, which was successfully implemented in 2015-16. Commerce: The first-year targets remains constant at 475 through to 2018-19. Nursing: There are no changes in the first-year intake target of 92 through to 2018-19 due to government restrictions on nursing enrolment. In the Nursing-Advanced Standing (upper-year entry) track, the target has been increased from 40 to 47 for 2016-17 and beyond, due to demand and capacity in the program. Law: The intake target remains at 200 through 2018-19. School of Medicine: There are no changes in enrolment projections. Faculty of Health Sciences: Planning is underway to introduce an online Bachelor of Health Sciences degree, beginning Fall 2016. Faculty of Education: The Faculty has implemented a provincially-mandated change to the Bachelor of Education program, extending it over four terms from two terms starting in 2015-16. This has resulted in a decrease in the number of program spaces. Intake targets through to 2018-19 have been adjusted to reflect this change as well as the flow-through of Concurrent Education students who were already enrolled prior to the change.


Page 203 of 363

4

Graduate Studies: Increases in intake are largely attributable to both recent and anticipated launch of new professional graduate credentials (diplomas, master’s and doctorate), and expansion of existing programs where capacity exists (e.g. Master of Engineering). Table 2: Enrolment Summary The second table shows total enrolment by Faculty, School and Program and includes all enrolment data that inform faculty budgets. Also included is a full-time-equivalent column to reflect the various course loads and weighting per student and the associated budget implications for each Faculty. This table reflects the university’s strong undergraduate and graduate retention rates (among the highest in the country) and tracks the flow-through of any enrolment changes included on Table 1. Please note that total enrolment for the Faculty of Law will be targeted at 600 for 2016-19. The targets of 616, 616 and 619 for these years reflect current flow-through modelling based on actual total enrolment on November 1, 2015. Table 3: Details for Selected Student Subgroups This table includes details on selected student subgroups, such as exchange students and part- time students. These numbers are not in addition to, but already included in, the totals in Table 2, with the exception of students at Queen’s on exchange (referred to as “here on exchange”), as these students pay tuition and fees to their home institutions. In addition, the percentage of international undergraduate and graduate students listed in Table 3 includes only visa students – those paying international tuition and fees. It does not include exchange students or Canadian citizens and permanent residents applying from overseas (who pay domestic tuition and fees). This notwithstanding, all of these students coming to Queen’s and Canada enrich the campus environment and reflect the university’s commitment to increasing the number, proportion and diversity of international students on campus. This commitment is a key component of the Internationalization pillar of the university’s strategic framework (2014) and the Comprehensive Internationalization Plan (2015). Total international enrolment in 2015-16 increased by 14% over 2014-15 and 41% over 2012-13. As of March 4, 2016, first-year visa student applications were up 32.2% over the same time last year. Aboriginal Enrolment: The university will also continue to implement targeted and sustained recruitment and outreach strategies in an effort to maintain growth in the number of self-identified Aboriginal learners at Queen’s, both at the undergraduate and graduate level. Between 2011-12 and 2015-16, applications from self-identified Aboriginal undergraduate applicants increased by 58%, offers increased by 123% and acceptances increased by 133%. New community-based outreach programs for elementary and secondary school students, as well as new events aimed at attracting Aboriginal graduate students to Queen’s were initiated in 2014. Queen’s alumni are featured in the Council of Ontario Universities’ Future Further initiative that raises awareness about PSE and the achievements of Aboriginal learners.


Page 204 of 363

http://www.queensu.ca/gazette/stories/queen-s-releases-comprehensive-international-plan

http://futurefurther.ca/

5

As of March 4, 2016, applications to first-year direct-entry programs from self-identified Aboriginal students have increased by 1.8% over the same time last year. The SEMG has worked collaboratively to enhance enrolment planning information for SCAD and Senate. Feedback is welcome, as the SEMG continues to enhance enrolment-related data reporting.


Page 205 of 363

6

Enrolment Report to the Senate Committee 19-Feb-16

on Academic Development

Queen's University Queen's University

Table 1: Student Headcount Intake Office of Planning and Budgeting

First Upper First Upper First Upper First Upper First Upper First Upper

Program Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year

Undergraduate (Full-Time)

Arts & Science

BA/BAH 1,410 29 1,510 100 1,505 75 1,510 125 1,505 85 1,505 100

BSC/BSCH 984 20 1,005 35 990 40 1,005 70 990 50 990 55

BFAH 34 1 30 30 0 30 30 0 30 0

BMUS 20 1 20 20 0 20 20 0 20 0

BCMP/BCMPH 153 6 130 5 150 5 130 5 150 5 150 5

BPHEH 56 0 55 55 0 55 55 0 55 0

BSCH KINE 116 0 125 125 0 125 125 0 125 0

Con-Ed Arts/Science/Music 221 0 225 225 0 225 225 0 225 0

Distance Studies (BA1) 15 2 25 25 0 25 25 0 25 0

Non-Degree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal Arts & Science 3,009 59 3,125 140 3,125 120 3,125 200 3,125 140 3,125 160

Commerce 482 0 475 10 475 5 475 10 475 5 475 5

Engineering 729 28 730 13 730 15 730 13 730 15 730 15

Nursing 84 0 92 92 0 92 92 0 92 0

Subtotal Direct Entry 4,304 87 4,422 163 4,422 140 4,422 223 4,422 160 4,422 180

Education (Yr 5 & Consec) 523 491 422 542 500 473

Law 194 0 200 200 0 200 200 0 200

Medicine 100 0 100 100 0 100 100 0 100

Nursing-Advanced Standing 45 40 47 40 47 47

Subtotal Second Entry 294 568 300 531 300 469 300 582 300 547 300 520

Subtotal Undergraduate (Fac/School) 4,598 655 4,722 694 4,722 609 4,722 805 4,722 707 4,722 700

Bader ISC 101 25 120 20 120 20 120 20 120 20 120 20

Post-Graduate Medicine 184 183 184 184 184 184

Graduate (Full-Time)

School of Grad Studies

Research Masters 589 592 624 567 620 654

Professional Masters 406 436 487 462 544 556

Doctoral 250 276 274 291 294 308

Diploma 13 43 36 43 61 56

Subtotal SGS 1,258 1,347 1,421 1,363 1,519 1,574


Masters 660 695 693 721 707 717

Diploma 133 156 156 156 156 156

Subtotal SSB 793 851 849 877 863 873

Subtotal Graduate 2,051 2,198 2,270 2,240 2,382 2,447

6,934 680 7,223 714 7,296 629 7,266 825 7,408 727 7,473 720

2017 Updated Plan 2018 Planned

Budgeted Total Enrolment

2015 Actual 2016 Prev Approved 2016 Planned 2017 Prev Planned

Note: For Graduate programs with multiple intake points in the year, this report incorporates intakes for each term in a fiscal year.


Page 206 of 363

7



Queen's University

Table 2: Enrolment Summary Office of Planning and Budgeting

Actual Actual

Program Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017 Fall 2018 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Undergraduate

Arts & Science

BA/BAH 5,554 5,617 5,778 5,896 5,688.8 5,718.3 5,869.8 5,991.3

BSC/BSCH 3,382 3,532 3,690 3,791 3,405.3 3,537.8 3,692.1 3,790.9

BFAH 84 92 88 88 82.9 83.4 79.9 79.8

BMUS 81 78 78 79 88.3 85.5 85.5 86.4

BCMP/BCMPH 491 507 514 513 486.5 506.1 512.8 511.6

BPHEH 206 200 202 201 198.7 193.7 195.7 194.7

BSCH KINE 389 416 446 470 390.8 409.3 438.3 461.5

Con-Ed Arts/Science/Music 686 669 632 629 676.0 660.1 623.1 617.0

Distance Studies (BA1) 59 56 61 60 93.9 84.8 88.1 87.5

Non-Degree 48 48 48 48 191.5 179.8 179.8 179.8

Subtotal Arts & Science 10,980 11,215 11,537 11,775 11,302.7 11,458.8 11,765.1 12,000.5

Commerce 1,919 1,913 1,929 1,863 1,938.1 1,918.4 1,934.8 1,871.0

Engineering 2,947 3,054 3,044 3,028 3,069.7 3,135.7 3,114.8 3,099.0

Nursing 339 329 332 330 339.1 328.0 331.2 328.9

Subtotal Direct Entry 16,185 16,511 16,842 16,996 16,649.6 16,840.9 17,145.9 17,299.4

Education (Yr 5 & Consec) 544 440 367 396 815.3 867.7 903.8 890.7

Law 592 616 616 619 589.5 615.4 616.0 618.7

Medicine 401 399 396 396 401.0 399.5 396.5 396.5

Nursing-Advanced Standing 102 92 93 92 147.4 129.9 131.0 129.9

Subtotal Second Entry 1,639 1,547 1,472 1,503 1,953.2 2,012.5 2,047.3 2,035.8

Subtotal Undergraduate (Fac/School) 17,824 18,058 18,314 18,499 18,602.8 18,853.4 19,193.2 19,335.2

Bader ISC 126 140 140 140 167.3 167.3 167.3 167.3

Post-Graduate Medicine 531 522 526 526 534.5 516.2 519.6 519.6

Graduate

School of Grad Studies

Research Masters 1,118 1,085 1,075 1,099 1,054.8 1,097.2 1,082.3 1,106.0

Professional Masters 674 715 804 815 685.7 803.6 894.5 925.4

Doctoral 1,245 1,111 1,237 1,204 1,184.5 1,101.0 1,216.8 1,193.5

Diploma 14 36 65 65 25.4 46.2 83.1 84.1

Subtotal SGS 3,051 2,947 3,181 3,183 2,950.4 3,048.0 3,276.7 3,309.0


Masters 796 860 870 884 797.7 860.0 870.0 884.0

Diploma 133 156 156 156 81.5 108.0 108.0 108.0

Subtotal QSB 929 1,016 1,026 1,040 879.2 968.0 978.0 992.0

Subtotal Graduate 3,980 3,963 4,207 4,223 3,829.6 4,016.0 4,254.7 4,301.0

22,461 22,683 23,187 23,388 23,134.2 23,552.9 24,134.8 24,323.1

Planned Planned

Budgeted Total Enrolment

Fall Full-Time Headcount Annualized FFTE


Page 207 of 363

8



Queen's University

Table 3: Details for Selected Student Subgroups Office of Planning and Budgeting

Fall Headcount Annualized FFTE Fall Headcount Annualized FFTE

Actual Actual Actual Actual

Student Subgroup Fall 2014 2014-15 Fall 2015 2015-16

Part-Time Undergraduate 1,161 889.9 1,193 926.9

Summer Undergraduate -- 623.3 -- 793.7

Undergraduate Exchange

Away on Exchange 233 353.6 234 354.5

Here on Exchange 447 364.9 492 371.4

Net Exchange -214 -11.3 -258 -16.9

Undergraduate Distance Career 32 34.7 59 93.9

Part-Time Graduate 412 122.9 459 137.4

International Undergrad (as % of Total) 3.0 2.9 3.8 3.8

International Graduate (as % of Total) 15.3 16.1 15.1 16.8


Page 208 of 363

The 2016-17 Budget

Capital Assets and Finance CommitteeBoard of Trustees

Friday, May 6, 2016

ITE

M: A

pproval of 2016-17 Operating B

udget

Page 209 of 363

Total Operating Revenue

$524.0M, up $22.5M over 2015-16

$20.2M, comes from student tuition and other fees

$3.8M, from government

ITE

M: A


udget

Page 210 of 363

Total Operating Revenue

$522.8M, up $21.3M over 2015-16

$20.2M, over 90 percent of the increases, comes from student tuition and other fees

$3.8M, from government

ITE

M: A


udget

Page 211 of 363

Shared Service Budgets

Total cost: $130.1M Increase of $3.0M over 2015-16 $1.5M of this is non-discretionary and

includes allocations for: Central benefit costs Software licensing Collective agreement commitments Library acquisitions

ITE

M: A


udget

Page 212 of 363

Shared Service Budgets (cont’d)

Remaining $1.5M allocated to: Pension special payment funding ($0.8M) Strategic commitments ($0.5M) Queen’s National Scholars ($0.2M)

ITE

M: A


udget

Page 213 of 363

Other Indirect Cost Increases

Student Assistance allocation up by $0.7M

Projected Utility costs down by $0.7M

ITE

M: A


udget

Page 214 of 363

University Fund

$35M, of which $25M allocated to Transfers from operating to capital: $12.3M Hold harmless payments: $12.7M IT

EM

: Approval of 2016-17 O

perating Budget

Page 215 of 363

University Fund

Hold harmless payments Health Sciences: $6.6M Engineering & Applied Science: $0.6M Education: $3.5M QPS: $0.6M A&S (SURP & MIR): $1.0M BISC: $0.4M

ITE

M: A


udget

Page 216 of 363

University Fund

Other major commitments Deferred maintenance: $2.1M Library acquisitions: $0.75M Contingency: $1.8M Classroom renewal: $1M ITS Infrastructure renewal: $0.5M Health, Wellness & Innovation Centre: $1.2M

$1.3M remains unallocated

ITE

M: A


udget

Page 217 of 363

Units’ Use of Cash Balances

Unit expenses greater than revenues including budget allocations Health Sciences: $8.7M Smith School of Business: $3.0M Information Technology Services: $1M

ITE

M: A


udget

Page 218 of 363

Enrolment for 2016-17

Arts and Science, Engineering and Applied Science, and Commerce first-year targets unchanged from 2015-16

Concurrent Education first-year target stable Consecutive Education target down by 69

ITE

M: A


udget

Page 219 of 363

Enrolment for 2016-17

Arts and Science upper-year target down by 20 Arts: −25 Science: +5

Commerce upper-year target down by 5 Nursing upper-year target up by 7

ITE

M: A


udget

Page 220 of 363

Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget 2015-16 Variance 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

REVENUEStudent Fees 271.7$ 20.2$ 291.9$ 307.6$ 319.9$ Government Grants 204.5$ 3.8$ 208.3$ 211.0$ 213.4$ Unrestricted Donations 1.3$ -$ 1.3$ 1.3$ 1.3$ Other Income 7.5$ (2.0)$ 5.5$ 5.6$ 5.8$ Research Overhead 4.0$ (0.4)$ 3.6$ 3.6$ 3.6$ Investment Income 12.5$ (0.3)$ 12.2$ 12.4$ 12.4$ TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 501.5$ 21.3$ 522.8$ 541.5$ 556.4$

EXPENSE

Faculties and Schools Allocations 295.7$ 15.1$ 310.8$ 321.5$ 326.8$ Shared Services Allocations 127.1$ 3.0$ 130.1$ 134.8$ 137.9$ Undergraduate & Graduate Student Aid 30.9$ 0.7$ 31.6$ 30.9$ 30.9$ Administrative Systems 2.1$ -$ 2.1$ 2.1$ 2.1$ Util ities 16.8$ (0.7)$ 16.1$ 15.8$ 16.4$ Infrastructure Renewal 2.3$ 2.6$ 4.9$ 7.4$ 8.6$ Strategic Priorities & Compliance 1.0$ 1.2$ 2.2$ 0.7$ 0.7$ Contingency 1.8$ -$ 1.8$ 2.8$ 2.8$

Flow Through Expenses, net of recoveries 10.4$ (1.3)$ 9.1$ 9.2$ 9.4$ Indirect Costs of Research to External Entities 1.4$ -$ 1.4$ 1.4$ 1.4$

To Be Allocated -$ 1.3$ 1.3$ 3.2$ 7.9$

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES 489.5$ 21.9$ 511.4$ 529.8$ 544.9$

Net Surplus before Capital Expenditures 12.0$ (0.6)$ 11.4$ 11.7$ 11.5$ Transfer to Capital Budget 12.3$ -$ 12.3$ 11.7$ 11.5$ Unit Expenses greater than Budget Allocation 11.4$ 4.1$ 15.5$ TBD TBDNet Budget Surplus (Deficit) (11.7)$ (4.7)$ (16.4)$ -$ -$

Draw down of Central Cash Reserves* 0.3$ 0.6$ 0.9$ -$ -$ Draw down of Unit Carryforward balances 11.4$ 4.1$ 15.5$ TBD TBDNet Surplus (Deficit) -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ *The drawdown of cash reserves is for Talent Management Initiative and support for Student Aid.

Queen's University

2016-17 to 2018-19 Operating Budget ($M)

ITE

M: A


udget

Page 221 of 363


To: Board of Trustees Date of Report: Mar 30, 2016


Date of VPOC Approval:

Apr 4, 2016

Subject: 2017-18 Residence Fees Date of Board Committee Meeting: May 6, 2016



1.0 PURPOSE



That the Board of Trustees, on the recommendation of the Capital Assets and Finance Committee, approve the 2017-2018 Residences fees as outlined in the attached table.


The Housing and Ancillary Services portfolio in the Division of Student Affairs provides residential accommodation to more than 4,500 students in 17 buildings across the Queen’s campus. Living in residence in first-year is a defining aspect of the Queen’s experience for most undergraduate students. The Residences system also provides space for upper-year students and international exchange students.

As an ancillary unit, Residence Services is required to be self-sustaining. The Residences budget supports the operations of the Residences system and is reviewed annually by the budget sub-committee of the Senate Residence Committee (SRC). This committee includes student representation from the AMS, the SGPS and the Residence Society.

The budget supports the Residence Life program consisting of live-in professional staff, dons, in-residence counsellors, dedicated campus security officers and a wide variety of educational programming. Other support services such as 24-hour front desk and custodial staff are also included in the budget and funds are directed to support facility repair and renewal. In addition, careful budgeting has ensured $40M is available from within the Residences budget to address substantive residence building needs over the next decade.

To better align with the university's budget process and timing, residence fees are set two years in advance. After considering all factors, the SRC recommends a base residence fee

ITEM: Approval of 2017-18 Residence Fees, 2016-17 Student Ac...

Page 222 of 363

- 2 -

increase of 3.5% to single 1st year rate for 2017-2018 and has approved the associated rate schedule as set out in Appendix 1. 4.0 INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES Budget Sub-Committee of the Senate Residence Committee The Senate Residence Committee 5.0 ANALYSIS Queen's University’s residences foster community and provide students with the support, services and amenities necessary for a safe and comfortable learning and living environment. Students living in the Queen’s University residence community:

• Thrive in safe, affordable, and well-maintained residences that are aligned with current student expectations and needs;

• Are supported both personally and academically by student leaders, high-quality residence life professional staff and university student services;

• Learn valuable skills through participation in residence programs, student committees, community initiatives and leadership positions; and

• Have employment opportunities, where appropriate, within the Residences system. The university’s 2015 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) results show that students living in residence are more engaged in campus life than those living off-campus. As an ancillary unit, Residences is required to be self-sustaining. This means covering all operating costs, as well as providing a return (or "dividend") to the university. In addition to having responsibility for housing (budget, admissions, capital planning, custodial services, maintenance, technology support and overall administrative oversight), Housing and Ancillary Services also administers external contracts (the combined value of which is $23M) with Sodexo, Brown’s Dining Solutions and Coca-Cola to provide dining services, retail outlets (such as Tim Horton’s, Starbucks, KHAO and The Lazy Scholar) and vending to the campus.

The residences budget supports the operations of the Residences system and is reviewed annually by the budget sub-committee of the Senate Residence Committee (SRC). This committee includes student representation from the AMS, the SGPS and the Residence Society. The role of the budget sub-committee is to gain an understanding of the factors impacting the budget (inflation, changes to cost structure) and to review larger items (major capital projects, new service initiatives) that will have an impact on any proposed rate increase. This level of consultation allows our residences to maintain an exemption for its operations from the Landlord Tenant Act. With this knowledge, the sub-committee develops a budget and makes a recommendation to the SRC for any residence fee increases. The sub-committee must consider the following in its deliberations:


Page 223 of 363

- 3 -

The principles of the Queen’s University ancillary review (2011); Rates for similar accommodation at other institutions; Deferred maintenance planning; The provision for inflationary factors affecting the budget; Revenue generation, cost efficiencies and service rationalizations; Plan based on a minimum 10-year horizon to predict and adjust for future needs; Availability of resources to deliver quality programs, student services, and well-

maintained facilities; and Amount and availability of common space in every building to enhance student life.

The budget supports the Residence Life program consisting of live-in professional staff, dons, in-residence counsellors, dedicated campus security officers and a wide variety of educational programming. Other support services, such as 24-hour front desks and custodial staff, are also included in the budget and funds are directed to support facility repair and renewal. Through careful budgeting over the past several years, $40M will be available over the next decade to address more substantive residence building needs through a detailed 10-year maintenance plan. The Residences budget has provided dividends to the university and to the Division of Student Affairs over the last three years in accordance with the SRC-approved long-term budget plan. Beginning with the 2012-2013 budget, Residences contributed $875K. This increased to $1.1M with the 2013-2014 budget and $2.6M for 2014-2015. For the 2015-2016 budget year, the dividend from the Residences budget is $3.2M. The dividends ensure continued support to students for a range of services including Student Wellness Services, the Four Directions Aboriginal Centre for increased advising and counselling support for Aboriginal students and Student Academic Success Services (SASS) for increased support for The Writing Centre and Learning Strategies. Providing funding for these services from the annual dividend allows the university to reduce the Student Services draw on the operating budget, thereby benefiting the overall university operating budget, and allowing for more operating dollars to remain in faculties for academic needs. To better align with the university's budget process and timing, residence fees are set two years in advance. After considering all factors, the SRC recommends a base residence fee increase of 3.5% to single 1st year rate for 2017-2018 and has approved the associated rate schedule, as set out in Appendix 1. In considering the fee increases for 2017-2018, both inflationary factors and other improvements stated below have been considered. Inflationary Factors:

o General inflation rate: 2%; o Utilities: 5%; o Maintenance: 6%; o Wages: 2%;


Page 224 of 363

- 4 -

o Food: 3%; o Insurance: 5%.

Planned improvements for summer 2016 include:

o Completion of the structural repair to Victoria Hall masonry; o Replacement of the Waldron Tower Roof; o Renovations related to fire safety, including an upgrade to the Victoria Hall

fire alarm system and improvements in Morris, Leonard and Gordon/Brockington;

o Participation in Queen’s Energy Savings Conservation (ESCO) initiative; and o Improvements to flooring and furniture at targeted locations.

6.0 STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT / COMPLIANCE The proposed fees for Residences accommodation and dining/meal plans support the student learning experience, internationalization and financial sustainability, three of the four drivers of the university’s Strategic Framework. 7.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The budget and proposed fee increase will: Respond to increasing operating costs, including staffing and utility/repair costs; Address both deferred maintenance and aesthetic considerations within the buildings; Reduce planned fee increases later in this decade and into the next; Help mitigate financial risks through a minimum reserve balance; Ensure that the mortgage for the two new residence buildings opened in 2015 is retired

within 15 years; Maintain all existing services to students to ensure the continued high quality residence

experience will support student well-being and success; and Continue to support health and wellness programs across the Division of Student

Affairs. 8.0 ENTERPRISE RISK ASSESSMENT The Residence budget and fee increase address programing to enhance the student

experience, which addresses the Undergraduate Student Recruitment, Retention and Graduation risk.

It also allocates funding to address deferred maintenance issues for residences, which is a mitigation identified for the Capital Asset Management risk.

The Residence budget and fee increase is set at an amount that supports financial sustainability.

9.0 COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY Residence rates are communicated to all incoming residents through the admission

process and through the Housing and Ancillary portfolio’s websites.


Page 225 of 363

- 5 -

Key messages and talking points on the amount of the fees, including the factors taken into consideration when setting rates, will be developed with University Communications.

ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended Fee Schedule 2017-2018 2. Comparative Fee Increases from Other Institutions


Page 226 of 363

- 6 -

Appendix #1 - Recommended Fee Schedule 2017-2018 Queen's University

Housing & Ancillary Services Residences Fee Schedule

Room Type

Room (RO) /

Room & Board (RB)

2015-2016 actual

2016-2017 actual Increase 2017-2018

proposed Increase

Incoming First Years Standard single - first year RB $12,976 $13,430 3.50% $13,900 3.50%

Single Plus-first year RB $13,755 $14,236 3.50% $14,734 3.50% Double-first year RB $12,676 $13,107 3.40% $13,566 3.50% Triples / Quad RB $12,176 $12,569 3.23% $13,009 3.50% Loft / Bunk Double RB $6,338 $6,554 3.41% $6,783 3.49%

Upper Years / Exchange

Single Plus Upper RB $13,255 $13,736 3.63% $14,234 3.63% Single Exchange RO $7,108 $7,357 3.50% $7,614 3.49%

Executives

Standard single - upper year RB $12,476 $12,913 3.50% $13,365 3.50%


Page 227 of 363

- 7 -

Appendix #2 - Comparative Fee Increases from Other Institutions

Institution Proposed 16/17 Increase Brock 2.6% Carleton 3.75% - 4% University of Toronto (Scarborough) 5.0% Laurier 3.0% University of Alberta 3.2% Western 3.0% McMaster 3.7% Waterloo 3.5% - 3.75% UBC 3.0% York 2.0% - 4.0% University of Calgary 0.25% - 5.75%

Each institution’s room types, amenities and meal plans are very different thus making rate comparisons difficult. Therefore, the table above outlines the proposed percentage increases for the 2016/17 year for a number of similar institutions. Not all other institutions plan on the same cycle as Queen’s and as such, 2017/18 rates are not available for comparison.


Page 228 of 363


To: Board of Trustees & Capital Assets and Finance Committee Date of Report: Mar 28, 2016



Subject: 2016-17 Student Activity Fees Date of Board Committee Meeting: May 6, 2016



1.0 PURPOSE ☒ For Approval ☐ For Information 2.0 RECOMMENDATION/MOTION That the Capital Assets and Finance Committee recommend to the Board of Trustees approval of the 2016-2017 Student Activity Fees as outlined in the schedules provided by the Alma Mater Society, the Society of Graduate and Professional Students, and the Residence Society. 3.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Board of Trustees is required to approve all student activity fees prior to their being levied. Approval for fees to be levied in the upcoming academic year usually occurs at the May Board of Trustees meeting upon receipt of the fee schedules from the student societies. Student activity fees are established by referenda as managed by the relevant student society. 4.0 INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES In accordance with their by-laws, the student societies have sought appropriate approvals. 5.0 ANALYSIS Fee schedules for 2016-2017 have been received from the Alma Mater Society, the

Society of Professional and Graduate Students and the Residence Society. The Board of Trustees is required to approve all student activity fees.


Page 229 of 363

- 2 -

6.0 STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT / COMPLIANCE The submitted fee schedules are in compliance with Queen’s University and the

Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities’ student activity fee protocols and policies.

These fees are used to promote a vibrant student experience and living and learning environment and support student success and wellness.

7.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Student activity fees provide critical financial support to a variety of university and student society initiatives. 8.0 ENTERPRISE RISK ASSESSMENT Student activity fees allow for initiatives and programs that promote a high-quality student living and learning environment and support student success and wellness. These programs help to mitigate the Undergraduate and Graduate Student Recruitment risk and the Student Health and Safety Risk. 9.0 COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY The fees are communicated to incoming and returning students on-line on the student government sites and in the university’s annual Guide to Registration and Fees. ATTACHMENTS

1. Residence Society fees 2. Alma Mater Society student activity fees 3. Society of Graduate and Professional Students student activity fees


Page 230 of 363

TO: Members of the Vice-Principal’s Operation Committee and Board of Trustees

Date: April 4, 2016

Subject: The Residence Society Inc. Student Fees 2016-2017

In accordance with section 4.08(x) of The Residence Society Constitution and as approved at the March 20th, 2016 Residence Society General Assembly and presented to the March 28th, 2016 Senate Residence Committee Meeting, the student fee for the 2016-2017 year will be $113.00.

This fee is increasing 6.6% from the 2015-2016 year.

Warmest regards, Gregory Georg Radisic President & CEO of The Residence Society Inc. 106C Victoria Hall 75 Bader Lane Kingston, ON K7L 3N8 Phone: 613-533-6216 [email protected]

Gregory Georg Radisic President & CEO The Residence Society Inc. 106C Victoria Hall 613-533-6216 [email protected]


Page 231 of 363



Page 232 of 363


Page 233 of 363


Page 234 of 363

Student Fee Slate 2016-2017

Total mandatory fees increased by $9.07 from $609.66 in 2015-2016 to $618.73 in 2016-2017. No fees have been removed or added. See Notes 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Mandatory Fees 2016-2017 % Change AMS Accessibility Fund $ 3.00 -

AMS Specific $ 83.37 1.6% Athletics $ 280.40 1.6% Ban Righ Centre Mature Student Bursary $ 1.00 -

Bus-it $ 67.31 1.6% Campus Observation Room $ 0.85 -

CFRC 101.9 FM $ 7.79 1.6% Golden Words $ 2.00 -

Legal Aid $ 5.00 - Queen's Bands $ 4.00 - Queen’s First Aid Unit $ 3.75 - Queen’s International Affairs Association $ 0.80 - Queen’s Student Constables $ 10.70 1.6%

Queen’s Student Health Evening Clinic $ 3.75 - Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance $ 2.99 1.6%

ReUnion Street Festival $ 12.50 -

Sexual Assault Crisis Centre $ 1.00 -

Sexual Health Resource Centre $ 1.00 - Student Wellness Services $ 58.93 1.6%

Telephone Aid Line Kingston $ 1.00 - The Queen’s Journal $ 8.49 1.6%

Student Life Centre $ 31.89 1.6% Walkhome $ 19.86 1.6% Work Bursary Program $ 5.40 1.6% World University Services of Canada $ 1.95 -

Total $ 618.73 1.4%


Page 235 of 363


Optional Fees AMS Food Bank $ 1.00 Camp Outlook $ 1.00 Canadian Undergraduate Conference on Healthcare $ 0.25 Centre for Teaching and Learning $ 2.00 Dawn House Women’s Shelter $ 0.85 DECA Queen’s $ 0.50 Four Directions Aboriginal Student Centre $ 1.00 Friday Friends $ 0.20 Friends of MSF Queen’s $ 0.25 Good Times Diner $ 0.50 Helen Tufts Child Outreach Program $ 0.60 HIV and AIDS Regional Services $ 0.75 Inquire Publication $ 0.30 Jack.org Queen’s Chapter $ 0.30 Kingston Canadian Film Festival $ 0.25 Kingston Loving Spoonful Charity $ 0.95 Kingston Youth Shelter Project $ 0.85 Levana Gender Advocacy Centre $ 1.00 Making Waves $ 0.10 Medical Review $ 0.65 MEDLIFE Queen’s $ 0.30 MUSE Magazine $ 0.50 MyVision Queen's $ 0.35 Nyantende Foundation $ 0.75 Ontario Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG) $ 3.00 Oxfam Queen's $ 0.75 Positive Space Program $ 0.25 Project on International Development Queen’s (QPID) $ 2.00 Project Red $ 1.00 Queen's Aero Design Team $ 0.25 Queen's AIESEC $ 0.30 Queen's Backing Action on Climate Change (QBACC) $ 0.50


Page 236 of 363


Queen’s Baja SAE Design Team $ 0.40 Queen's Best Buddies $ 0.50 Queen’s Bridge Building Team $ 0.25 Queen's Blood Team $ 0.25 Queen's Chapter West Africa AIDS Foundation $ 0.30 Queen's Concrete Canoe Team $ 0.40 Queen's Concrete Toboggan Team $ 0.45 Queen's Conference on Education $ 0.75 Queen's Conference on Philanthropy $ 0.30 Queen's Debating Union $ 1.40 Queen’s Diabetic Society $ 0.08 Queen's Engineers Without Borders $ 1.25 Queen's Events Project $ 0.50 Queen’s Experimental Sustainability Team $ 0.35 Queen’s Female Leadership in Politics Conference

$ 0.25 Queen's For OOCH $ 0.25 Queen's Free the Children $ 1.89 Queen's Half the Sky $ 0.25 Queen's Health Outreach $ 3.75 Queen’s Healthcare and Business Conference $ 0.50 Queen's Helping Haiti $ 0.50 Queen's InvisAbilities $ 0.10 Queen's Mostly Autonomous Sailboat Team $ 0.30 Queen's Musical Theatre $ 0.50 Queen's Pride Project $ 0.55 Queen’s Right to Play $ 0.20 Queen’s Robogals $ 0.25 Queen's SAE Formula Race Team $ 0.69 Queen's Social Investment Initiative $ 0.70 Queen's Solar Design Team $ 0.50 Queen's Soul Food $ 0.10 Queen's Space Engineering Team $ 0.69


Page 237 of 363


Total optional fees increased by $6.57 from $77.74 in 2015-2016 to $84.31. The number of optional fees increased from 75 to 82 – 12 fees approved and 5 fees removed.

See Notes 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.

Queen's Students for Literacy $ 0.75 Queen's Students For Wishes $ 1.00 Queen’s Sustainability Conference $ 0.59 Queen’s Undergraduate Ontario Science Case Competition $ 0.15 Queen's UNICEF $ 0.75 Reelout Arts Project $ 1.50 Room to Read Queen's University Chapter $ 0.25 Shinerama Campaign for Cystic Fibrosis $ 0.75 Sustainability Action Fund $ 2.00 Talking About Mental Illness $ 0.35 Tea Room $ 1.00 TedxQueensU $ 1.00 Tricolour Yearbook and Studio Q $ 24.82 United Way $ 2.00 Union Gallery $ 4.00 Vogue Charity Fashion Show $ 0.50 War Child at Queen's $ 0.25 World Wildlife Fund at Queen’s University $ 0.25 Total $ 84.31


Page 238 of 363


Health and Dental Fees 2016-2017 2015-2016 %Change AMS Health Plan $ 135.06 $ 129.56 4.2% Mandatory, unless covered by a comparable plan AMS Dental Plan $ 154.50 $ 154.50 - Mandatory, unless covered by a comparable plan Total $ 289.56 $ 284.06 1.9% Overall, the AMS Health and Dental Plans increased by $5.50 from $284.06 in 2015-2016 to $289.56. See Note 10.

Faculty Specific Fees Applied Science $ 120.56 Engineering Society $ 60.56 Optional Better Equipment Donation Fund (BED) $ 60.00 Arts and Science Undergraduate Society $ 25.90 Concurrent Education Student Association $ 25.00 Commerce $ 197.50 Commerce Society $ 60.00 Optional Commerce Renewal (CORE) $ 30.00 Optional Commerce Building Growth and Improvement $ 97.50 Optional Outreach Fund $ 10.00 Computing Students Association $ 15.00 MBA (Full-time)

$ 140.00


Page 239 of 363


Medicine

1st Year $ 223.00

2nd , 3rd , and 4th Year $ 143.00

Aesculapian Society $ 23.00 Optional Grad Club $ 20.00 First Year Canadian Federation of Medical Students $ 80.00 Optional fee in support of the new medical building $ 100.00 Nursing $ 55.50 Nursing students enrolled in Advanced Standing Track $ 75.50 Physical and Health Education and Kinesiology $ 27.00

See Note 11.


Page 240 of 363


Notes:

1. A CPI rate of 1.6% was utilized for all applicable student activity fees.

2. No fees were eliminated or added to the mandatory fee slate.

3. The following mandatory fees are annually adjusted by CPI: • AMS Specific • Athletics • Bus-It • CFRC 101.9FM • Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance (OUSA) • The Queen’s Journal • Queen’s Student Constables • Student Wellness Services • Student Life Centre • Walkhome • Work Bursary Program

4. The following represent name changes in the mandatory fee slate:

• Student Health and Counselling Services becomes Student Wellness Services 5. The following have been eliminated from the optional fee slate:

• Earth Centre $0.50 o Removal by Vice-President (Operations) upon request

• Queen’s Helping Hands Association $0.50 o Removal by Vice-President (Operations) after failing to submit information for

triennial review • Queen’s Power Unit Youth Organization $0.25

o Removal by Vice-President (Operations) after failing to submit information for triennial review

• Queen’s Students Interested in Medical Sciences $0.50 o Removal by Vice-President (Operations) after failing to submit information for

triennial review • Queen’s Synthetic Biology Organization $0.25

o Removal by Vice-President (Operations) after failing to submit information for triennial review


Page 241 of 363


6. The following have been added to the optional fee slate through a Winter Referendum of

the student body: • Jack.org Queen’s Chapter $0.30 • Levana Gender Advocacy Centre $1.00 • Making Waves Kingston $0.10 • MEDLIFE Queen’s $0.30 • MUSE Magazine $0.50 • Ontario Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG) $3.00 • Queen’s Bridge Building Team $0.25 • Queen’s Female Leadership in Politics Conference $0.25 • Queen’s Healthcare and Business Conference $0.50 • Queen’s Right to Play $0.20 • Queen’s Robogals $0.25 • Queen’s Undergraduate Ontario Science Case Competition $0.15 7. The following optional fees are annually adjusted by CPI: • Tricolour Yearbook and Studio Q

8. The following represent changes to optional fees from 2015-2016 to 2016-2017: • Camp Outlook increased by $0.15 from $0.85 to $1.00 • Nyantende Foundation increased by $0.50 from $0.25 to $0.75 • Queen’s Free the Children increased by $0.39 from $1.50 to $1.89 • Queen’s Space Engineering Team increased by $0.19 from $0.50 to $0.69 • Queen’s Experimental Sustainability Team increased by $0.15 from $0.20 to $0.35 • TedxQueensU increased by $0.25 from $0.75 to $1.00 • World Wildlife Fund at Queen’s university decreased by $0.25 from $0.50 to $0.25 9. The following represent name changes in the optional fee slate: • Living Energy Lab becomes Queen’s Experimental Sustainability Team

10. The AMS Dental Plan did not change. The AMS Health Plan increased by $5.50 from

$129.56 to $135.06.


Page 242 of 363


11. The following mandatory faculty specific fees are annually adjusted by CPI: • Arts and Science Undergraduate Society • Engineering Society

12. The following represent changes to the mandatory faculty specific fees: • Removal of the optional $21.60 membership fee for the Registered Nurses Association of

Ontario for both Nursing and Nursing Advanced Standing Track


Page 243 of 363


Mandatory Fees

2016-2017 %Change

Athletics $ 168.41 1.60% Bus-It $ 66.25 - Campus Observation Room $ 0.50 - Canadian Federation of Students $ 16.24 1.11% CFRC 101.9 FM $ 7.50 - Legal Aid $ 5.00 - Oxfam Queen’s $ 0.87 1.60% Sexual Assault Crisis Centre $ 1.25 - SGPS Accessibility $ 3.00 - SGPS Society Fee $ 91.44 1.60% SGPS Student Advisors $ 7.62 1.60% Student Health and Counselling Services $ 58.93 1.60% Student Life Centre $ 21.50 -30.23% Telephone Aid Line Kingston $ 0.75 - The Queen’s Journal $ 3.50 - Walkhome $ 19.86 2.40% Work Bursary Program $ 5.38 1.60%

Total $ 478.00 -0.13% Total mandatory fees decreased by $0.62 from $478.62 in 2015-2016 to $478.00. No fees have been removed or added. See Notes 1, 2, 3 and 4.


Page 244 of 363


Optional Fees 2016-2017 %Change Ban Righ Centre $ 3.00 - Centre for Teaching and Learning $ 1.35 1.60% Dawn House Women’s Shelter $ 1.07 1.60% Four Directions Aboriginal Student Centre $ 1.00 - HIV and AIDS Regional Services $ 1.00 - Kingston Loving Spoonful Charity $ 2.00 - Kingston Youth Shelter Project $ 1.00 1.60% Levana Gender Advocacy Centre $ 0.81 1.60% Positive Space Program $ 0.34 1.60% Queen’s Daycare $ 1.00 - Queen’s Food Centre $ 1.25 - Queen’s International Affairs Association $ 1.00 - Queen’s International Student Society Bursary Program $ 0.71 1.60% Reelout Arts Project $ 1.80 1.60% Sexual Health Resource Centre $ 0.92 1.60% SGPS Sports Fund $ 2.00 - SGPS Sustainability Action Fund $ 1.50 - Student Refugee Support $ 3.37 1.60% The Grad Club $ 20.00 - Union Gallery $ 3.00 - Yellow Bike Action Group $ 0.60 1.60% Total $ 48.72 0.30%

Total optional fees increased by $ 0.19 from $ 48.53 in 2015-2016 to $ 48.72. The number of optional fees decreased from 23 to 21 – 2 fees removed.

See Notes 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.


Page 245 of 363


Health and Dental Fees

2016-2017 2015-2016 %Change

SGPS Health Plan $ 280.00 $ 260.00 7.69%

Mandatory, unless covered by a comparable plan

SGPS Dental Plan $ 220.00 $ 200.00 10.00%

Mandatory, unless covered by a comparable plan

Total $ 500.00 $ 460.00 8.70% Overall, the SGPS Health and Dental Plans increased by $40.00 from $460 in 2015-2016 to $500. See Note 10.

Faculty Specific Fees

2016-2017 %Change Computing (Graduate Society) $ 10.00 - Education Education Students Society $ 10.00 - Education Graduate Student Society $ 25.00 - Part-Time Education Graduate Students Society $ 12.50 - Law $ 75.35 - Public Health Sciences (Association) $ 10.00 - Rehabilitation Therapy $ 28.00 - Urban and Regional Planning $ 20.00 -


Page 246 of 363


Notes: 1. A CPI rate of 1.6% was utilized for all applicable student activity fees.

2. No fees were eliminated or added to the mandatory fee slate. 3. The following mandatory fees can be annually adjusted by CPI:

x Athletics x Bus-It x Canadian Federation of Students x Oxfam Queen’s x SGPS Society Fee x SGPS Student Advisors x Student Health and Counselling Services x Walkhome x Work Bursary Program

x The Canadian Federation of Students student activity fee was adjusted by less than CPI as

that was what they requested. x The Student Life Centre student activity fee was decreased due to a decrease in space

under SGPS control. 4. The following represent name changes in the mandatory fee slate:

x Health Counselling Disability becomes Student Wellness Services x Queen’s Legal Aid becomes Legal Aid x AMS Walkhome becomes Walkhome x Athletics and Recreation becomes Athletics x Queen’s Oxfam becomes Oxfam Queen’s x CFRC Radio becomes CFRC x University Centre becomes Student Life Centre x Queen’s Journal becomes The Queen’s Journal

5. The following have been eliminated from the optional fee slate: x OPRIG $4.66

o Failed to pass the vote requirements in the Winter Referendum x Kingston Coalition Against Poverty $2.50

o Removed by the VP Finance & Services


Page 247 of 363


6. The following have been added to the optional fee slate:

x None

7. The following optional fees can be annually adjusted by CPI: x Centre for Teaching and Learning x Dawn House Women’s Shelter x Kingston Youth Shelter x Levana Gender Advocacy Centre x Positive Space Program x Queen’s International Student Society Bursary Program x Sexual Health Resource Centre x Student Refugee Support x Reelout Arts Project x Yellow Bike Action Group

8. The following represent changes to optional fees from 2015-2016 to 2016-2017:

x None 9. The following represent name changes in the optional fee slate:

x QISS Bursary Program becomes Queen’s International Student Society Bursary Program x Reelout becomes Reelout Art Project x International Affairs Association becomes Queen’s International Affairs Association x Grad Club becomes The Grad Club x Aboriginal Student Centre becomes Four Directions Aboriginal Student Centre x Loving Spoonful becomes Kingston Loving Spoonful Charity x Kingston Youth Shelter becomes Kingston Youth Shelter Project

10. The SGPS Dental Plan increased by $ 20.00 from $ 200.00 to $ 220.00. The SGPS Health

Plan increased by $ 20.00 from $ 260.00 to $ 280.00. This is pending approval by Council on April 12, 2016.


Page 248 of 363



Apr 4, 2016


Date of VPOC Approval:

Apr 11, 2016

Subject: 2016-17 Course Related Fees Date of Board Committee Meeting: May 6, 2016



1.0 PURPOSE



That the Board of Trustees, on the recommendation of the Capital Assets and Finance Committee, approve the 2016-17 course related fees as outlined in the fee schedules provided by Queen’s faculties and schools.


The proposed course related fees for the 2016-17 academic year have been reviewed by the Provost’s Advisory Group on Course Related Fees, in consultation with the Alma Mater Society (AMS) and the Society for Graduate and Professional Students (SGPS). The fees are deemed to be in compliance with the Ministry of Training, Colleges and University’s (MTCU) Tuition Fee Framework and Ancillary Fee Guidelines for Publicly-Assisted Universities 2013-14 to 2016-17, and the university’s Guidelines to Queen’s Compulsory Course Related Fees.


Associate Vice-Principal (Planning and Budgeting) Deputy Provost University Registrar

5.0 ANALYSIS

MTCU’s Tuition Fee Framework and Ancillary Fee Guidelines for Publicly-AssistedUniversities (2013-14 to 2016-17), hereinafter referred to as “MTCU’s guidelines”,


Page 249 of 363

- 2 -

outlines the rules regarding the university’s right to levy compulsory ancillary fees, i.e., fees that are charged in addition to regular tuition fees that a student is required to pay in order to enroll in, or successfully complete, any credit course. The MTCU guidelines do not impose restrictions on non-compulsory ancillary fees.

The MTCU guidelines define a compulsory non-tuition-related ancillary fee as a fee that

is “levied to cover the costs of items … not normally paid for out of operating or capital revenue”. In compliance with MTCU guidelines, the establishment or modification of these fees, which Queen’s calls “student activity fees”, are subject to the terms of the Queen’s Protocol for Introducing or Changing Student Activity Fees (approved by the Board of Trustees in March 2013).

MTCU guidelines include a number of compulsory non-tuition-related ancillary fees

categories that are exempt from the need to be included in an ancillary fee protocol; Queen’s calls these fees “compulsory course related fees”.

The types of fees that are exempt from requiring a protocol include such items as:

fees for learning materials and clothing retained by the student, or materials

used in the production of items that become the property of the student, fees for digital learning materials that are the property of the student and which

can include test/assessment tools, fees for field trips, vendor fees for material or services where the institution acts as a broker with a

vendor for the student, work placement fees to cover the costs of placing students in jobs for work

terms.

In spring 2013, the Alma Mater Society communicated a number of concerns regarding Queen’s compulsory course related fees to the Office of the Provost. In particular, concerns were raised around the lack of a consistent governance process for establishing and modifying course related fees, a lack of transparency and accountability with respect to mechanisms for collection of permitted course related fees, and concerns that the university was charging students for compulsory course related fees that were not permitted under MTCU guidelines

In response, the Office of the Provost asked each faculty and school to prepare an inventory of all course related fees collected, both compulsory and non-compulsory, and conducted a review of the fees, in consultation with the AMS, the SGPS, and the University Registrar, to determine their eligibility under MTCU guidelines. The assessment of these fees was informed by MTCU guidelines as well as by related information from peer institutions such as McMaster University, University of Waterloo, and Western University.

It was determined that many of the course related fees being charged to students were

permitted under MTCU guidelines. The Office of the Provost requested that compulsory


Page 250 of 363

- 3 -

course related fees determined to be not in compliance with MTCU guidelines be removed from all fee schedules going forward.

Throughout the review process, it was determined that the procedures to approve,

communicate, and collect course related fees varied significantly across the university. These findings demonstrated the need to further clarify and communicate MTCU’s guidelines, and to develop consistent processes related to the establishment and modification of all compulsory and non-compulsory course related fees. As such, Interim Guidelines to Queen’s Compulsory Course Related Fees were developed and distributed to all faculties and schools in September 2014.

The Office of the Provost also committed to developing a consistent process for

approving and communicating such fees, and to exploring the possibility of developing mechanisms for centrally collecting acceptable fees to make it easier for students to pay these fees and increase transparency and tracking.

While the course related fee approval process was being developed, the Office of the

Provost and the Office of the University Registrar assessed the faculty and school’s proposed course related fees for the 2015-16 academic year, with feedback solicited from the AMS and SGPS. All approved course related fees were subsequently announced prior to collection through academic calendars and published fee schedules.

The Provost’s Advisory Group on Course Related Fees was established in fall 2015

and the following review and approval process was proposed: Faculty/School Curriculum Committee Faculty Board Provost’s Advisory Group on Course Related Fees, with feedback solicited

from both the AMS and SGPS Capital Assets and Finance Committee Board of Trustees

The Provost’s Advisory Group on Course Related Fees, in consultation with

representatives from the AMS and SPGS, reviewed the proposed compulsory and non-compulsory course related fees for the 2016-17 academic year in March 2016. It was determined that all proposed fees are in compliance with MTCU’s guidelines and the university’s Guidelines to Queen’s Compulsory Course Related Fees.

6.0 STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT / COMPLIANCE The proposed course related fees for the 2016-17 academic year are in compliance

with the university’s Guidelines to Queen’s Compulsory Course Related Fees. The 2016-17 course related fees are levied to pay for services, learning materials, and

activities which are used to promote student engagement and skill development, ultimately supporting a high-quality student learning experience.


Page 251 of 363

- 4 -

7.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The 2016-17 compulsory course related fees are comprised of:

fees for materials which students are directed to purchase directly from a third party vendor,

fees for materials or services whereby the institution acts as a broker with a vendor through an agreement that does not produce net revenue for the institution, and

fees for cost recovery purposes for services, learning materials and activities that are not supported by operating grants, capital grants, or tuition fees. The ability for the university to recover the costs of these learning materials and experiential learning activities is critical to the continued provision of a high-quality student learning experience.

8.0 ENTERPRISE RISK ASSESSMENT The collection of course related fees allow for the use of engaging learning materials and experiential learning activities which promote a high-quality student learning experience and which support student success. These programs help to mitigate the Undergraduate and Graduate Student Recruitment, Retention and Graduation risk 9.0 COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY In compliance with MTCU guidelines, the university will announce all course related fees prior to collection through academic calendars and published fee schedules. ATTACHMENTS 1. Faculty and School Fee Schedules


Page 252 of 363


Page 253 of 363


Page 254 of 363


Page 255 of 363


Page 256 of 363


CourseDept./ School Course fee description

How are revenues from these fees expended?

Is this fee optional or compulsory? 2015/16 fee 2016/17 fee

COMM 103: Business Management

Business CAPSIM : The CAPSIM simulation can be categorized as digital learning materials. The simulation can be thought of as a learning lab environment associated with the practical application of business concepts and models. The simulation originally was sold through the bookstore, but is now predominantly purchased online by students, as this eliminates the mark-up on this product, thereby keeping the overall price point down. The simulation, at the time of purchase, becomes the property of the student. Students who do not activate their simulation may transfer ownership to another student.

School of Business does not receive revenue from this fee. Student purchases online, directly from CAPSIM

Compulsory US $53.99 US $56.69

COMM 200: Introduction to Business




COMM 401: Business and Corporate Strategy




ITE

M: A

pproval of 2017-18 Residence Fees, 2016-17 Student A

c...

Page 257 of 363





COMM 111: Introduction to Financial Accounting

Business My Accounting Lab : My Accounting Lab is an online tool/resource used to assign students homework, additional problems, tests and quizzes. It includes all of the problems in the textbook as well as a host of other questions similar to the textbook questions. Students are able to do additional problems and quizzes in an effort to better understand the material.

One instructor uses it to administer online quizzes to the students over the course of the term. In his case, the online quizzes are in response to requests from students in their USAT evaluations over the years. Two other instructors use the website to set up homework assignments. Students do the homework online. Additional practice questions are also assigned if students identify that they want extra help.

School of Business does not receive revenue from this fee. Student purchases either from Campus Bookstore or online from the publisher

Compulsory The Accounting Lab charge represents an increased cost to the textbook to access the online learning component. The students can either (A) purchase a new textbook that comes with the software and access code ($135.05), (B) purchase the access code separately from the bookstore or online ($40), (C) purchase the e-text which includes the access code ($90).

The Accounting Lab charge represents an increased cost to the textbook to access the online learning component. The students can either (A) purchase a new textbook that comes with the software and access code ($141.80), (B) purchase the access code separately from the bookstore or online ($42), (C) purchase the e-text which includes the access code ($95).

COMM 324: Investment and Portfolio Management

Business Stocktrak : Stocktrak is a simulation of portfolio management, and it works as if the student were managing a real portfolio. The student can trade stocks, bonds, and derivatives, among other instruments through different exchanges in the world.

The simulation is used for an individual project. Each student is required to manage a portfolio of $1,000,000, with maximum of 200 trades during the term. The purpose of this project is to let students get familiar with how to manage a real portfolio, and apply the knowledge that has been accumulated through the finance courses they have taken. In the beginning of this course, students set up their portfolios and make trades any way they like. However, as the class progresses, students set up the portfolio from a fund manager’s perspective. The final grade on the project will not depend on the student’s actual portfolio performance, but on the trading activities and the justifications in the final written report submitted for this project.

School of Business does not receive revenue from this fee. Student purchases online, directly from Stocktrak

Compulsory Students set up individual accounts online. The fee for the registration is US $30.95.

Students set up individual accounts online. The fee for the registration is US $32.50.

ITE

M: A


c...

Page 258 of 363





COMM 333: Marketing Strategy

Business Markstrat : Markstrat is an experiential learning component of the COMM 333 curriculum. It is a web-based (cloud) marketing simulation that places students in a senior marketing management role. Students experience hands-on management of a portfolio of brands through product adoption and market life cycles (introduction, growth, maturity and decline). Decisions are made regarding all key elements of marketing strategy – from target market segmentation, to positioning of brands; from product design and pricing, through to distribution and promotion. The simulation complements and builds on the theoretical curriculum of the course and has become one of the distinguishing benefits of the COMM 333 program.

School of Business does not receive revenue from this fee

Compulsory Students purchase individual software licenses from the Markstrat on-line facility. The cost is US $59.99. They have access to the simulation for the length of the course.

Students purchase individual software licenses from the Markstrat on-line facility. The cost is US $62.99. They have access to the simulation for the length of the course.

COMM 495: Project Management

Business SimProj: This project management simulation can be categorized as digital learning material. The company that makes this is called Fissure (http://www.simulationpoweredlearning.com)


Compulsory Approx $12 US each (students share the cost of the licence within their team - cost per licence is about $45 US)

Approx $12.60 US each (students share the cost of the licence within their team - cost per licence is about $47.25 US)

COMM 104: Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility

Business Nomadic Learning: Innovative interactive online content offered through Nomadic Learning, on the topic of "Giving Voice to Values" as developed by Mary Gentile of Babson College. There are several "Field Guides" based on Gentile's material offered in the Nomadic Learning series. These modules include: reading background material; taking short tests to ensure understanding; reading and responding to business cases; conducting research and writing short pieces which can be shared with others; online student-to-student discussion; social aspects such as "liking" other students comments; a competitive aspect/leaderboard based on tests of understanding; etc.



ITE

M: A


c...

Page 259 of 363





COMM 153: Managing Work and Teams

Business

SimProject : In this award winning simulation students learn the fundamental tools and techniques of planning and managing a project from beginning to end. Good project managers understand how to use a Project Charter, Work Breakdown Structure, Network Diagram and Gantt (Bar) Chart in both planning and managing a project from beginning to end. You will manage a simulated real-life project, learning what managing a project is like as you make real decisions and get real feedback. The simulation powered learning is practical, engaging, intense and challenging. It's designed to give you the practice and confidence you need to apply your new skills on the job. This simulation consists of 7 tasks spread over 11 weeks (iterations) with 10 potential team members to staff your project. SimProject, the Alliance Prototype project, is a simulated project used by many academic institutions around the world as part of their project management curriculum. SimProject can be used as standalone home work for students (individual or teams), or utilized as a classroom activity with teams of three or four students sharing the role of project manager.

School of Business does not receive revenue from this fee. Cost is bundled into a reading package that the students purchase through Materials Management at the Business School.

Compulsory US $44.99/6 team members = US $7.50/student

US $47.24/6 team members = US $7.88/student

ITE

M: A


c...

Page 260 of 363

Faculty of Law

CourseDepartment/ School

Course fee description (Please include locations of field trips)



Law 321 Faculty of Law Textbook Collected by bookstore Compulsory 101.39 101.39

LAW 34* (Alternative Dispute Resolution)

Faculty of Law

Possibly, the actual cost of 1-3 role-play exercises as charged by providers. In the past, cases from the Harvard Program on Negotiation and Dispute Resolution Research Centre at Kellog School, Northwestern U., have been used. Students keep their (copyrighted) copy of each role-play exercise/case, which is used in class.

To cover the actual costs of the exercises (purchased in advance by the instructor).

Compulsory, if cases/exercises ordered.

N/A. Approx. $9-10 in prior years. Est. $10/student.

criminal law Faculty of Law Books Collected by bookstore Compulsory $170

ITE

M: A


c...

Page 261 of 363

Faculty of Law

CourseDepartment/ School

Course fee description (Please include locations of field trips)



All Law Courses Faculty of Law User fee for ExamSoft to write exams

This is a license fee for use of ExamSoft. Students pay online once per academic year for use of ExamSoft for all exams

Students can hand write exams and choose not to use ExamSoft. A computer exam fee is charged for students choosing to use ExamSoft to type computer exams. Students writing accommodated exams adminstered by the Exams Office do not have the option to use ExamSoft. Fee waivers are provided on the basis of demonstrated financial need as confirmed by Student Awards. Fee waivers are provided for take-home exams if computer exam option not elected by student.

$35 USD $35 USD

Queen's Law Clinics Faculty of Law All Law Clinics - refundable

deposit for fobThey are not expended but held for later refunding optional $20.00 $20.00

Macdonald Hall Faculty of Law Refundable deposit for fob They are not expended but held for later refunding optional $10 $10

ITE

M: A


c...

Page 262 of 363

Faculty of Education

Course Dept./ SchoolCourse fee description (Please include locations of field trips) How are revenues from these fees expended?


All BEd/DEd Teacher Candidates

Education BEd/DipEd Professional Learning Days

Opening and closing day celebration (includes food), Queen's bags with required program documents for Opening Day, printing of course materials beyond the per teacher candidate per course allotment assigned out of the operating budget.

Compulsory $25 $15

Artist in Community Education Program (FOCI 222AB, EDST 425AB)

Education ACE field trip (Ottawa) and supplies.

Field trip admission and travel fees, supplies for course projects, printing of course materials beyond the per teacher candidate per course allotment assigned out of the operating budget.

Compulsory $300 $300

CURR 303 Education Biology curriculum field trip fees (in Kingston), supplies and course materials.

Field trip for entrance fee, CD, course supplies, printing of course materials beyond the per teacher candidate per course allotment assigned out of the operating budget.

Compulsory $10 $10

CURR 305 Education Chemistry curriculum course materials and supplies.

Printing of course materials beyond the per teacher candidate per course allotment assigned out of the operating budget, and supplies for course projects.

Compulsory $10 $10

CURR 311 Education Course materials. Supplies, printing of course materials beyond the per teacher candidate per course allotment assigned out of the operating budget.

Compulsory $20 $20

Note: All supplies and learning materials paid for by the student are retained by the student. Fees charged for field trips are used to cover the cost of course materials and direct cost of travel and accommodation of students only.

ITE

M: A


c...

Page 263 of 363




CURR 312 Education Course materials. Supplies, printing of course materials beyond the per teacher candidate per course allotment assigned out of the operating budget.

Compulsory $25 $25

CURR 317 Education Course materials and supplies. Learning materials and supplies. Compulsory $10 $10

CURR 323 Education Geography curriculum resource CD.

Purchase of Geography resource CD for each teacher candidate.

Compulsory $30 $30

CURR 335 Education History curriculum field trip expenses (in Kingston).

Entrance fees for field trip. Compulsory $5 $10

CURR 379 Education Visual art curriculum supplies. Various Supplies: Paper, Ink, Dry Drawing Media, Printmaking Supplies, Photographic Supplies, Ceramic Supplies, Paint.

Compulsory $15 $15

CURR 385 Education Social studies curriculum course materials.

Printing of course materials beyond the per teacher candidate per course allotment assigned out of the operating budget.

Compulsory $6 $6

CURR 387AB Education Science and technology curriculum field trip fees (in Kingston), supplies and course materials.

Field trip entrance fee and hands-on kit for outdoor education trip, project materials, printing of course materials beyond the per teacher candidate per course allotment assigned out of the operating budget, food.

Compulsory $10 $10

ITE

M: A


c...

Page 264 of 363




CURR 389 Education Visual art curriculum supplies. Various supplies: specialty paper, marking media (wet and dry), adhesives, non-paper substrate, miscellaneous building supplies used in assembly and construction of projects/artificats

Compulsory $7 $7

CURR 391 Education Drama curriculum course materials and supplies.

Course supplies, props, costumes, equipment, printing of course materials beyond the per teacher candidate per course allotment assigned out of the operating budget.

Compulsory $10 $10

EDST 215AB Education Course materials and supplies. Materials fees for studio activities completed at Agnes Etherington Art Centre.

Compulsory $5

EDST 476 Education Course materials and supplies. Copies of prep notes and course agendas, copies of in-course activities, copies of articles and other resource materials used in course, food, supplies (e.g., paper, markers, etc.)

Compulsory $10 $10

FOCI 215AB Education Visual art supplies. Various supplies: specialty paper, marking media (wet and dry), adhesives, non-paper substrate, miscellaneous building supplies used in assembly and construction of projects/artificats

Compulsory $5 $5

FOCI 255AB Education Course materials and supplies. Learning materials and supplies. Compulsory $10 $10

FOCI 285AB Education Various field trips (in Ontario). Fees associated with field trips. Compulsory $25

ITE

M: A


c...

Page 265 of 363




FOCI 295AB Education Course materials and supplies. Copies of prep notes and course agendas, copies of in-course activities, copies of articles and other resource materials used in course, food, supplies (e.g., paper, markers, etc.)

Compulsory $10 $10

PROF 503 Education Course materials and supplies. Various supplies: kerchiefs for identification, sustainable food samples, paper for curriculum projects.

Compulsory N/A $6

Outdoor and Experiential Education (FOCI 260AB, EDST 417AB, EDST 442AB)

Education Field camp expenses (in Ontario) and course materials.

Field camp (cost covers transportation and food) and course materials.

Compulsory $450 $450

Technological Education (CURR 360, CURR 361, CURR 368, CURR 369)

Education Technological Education lab materials.

Technological Education lab materials.This includes shop materials used for presentations and in-class mock ups and prototypes relating to peer teaching. Lab materials are retained by the student.

Compulsory $60 $60

ITE

M: A


c...

Page 266 of 363


Course Dept./School Course fee description Is this a compulsory course?

Location of field trip for compulsory courses

How are revenues from these fees expended? Is this fee optional or compulsory?

2015/16 fee 2016/17 fee

LEGEND: compulsory course with fee

ARTF 127/6.0 BFA Art supplies and materials YES N/A These fees are used to recoup the expense of purchasing the Art supplies the students will use during the course of instruction & keep when the course is completed. (includes technical skills fee of $25).

Compulsory estimated at 600 (actual $213.98)

Estimated at $600.00. The 4 modules taught in ARTF 127 are interchangeable and the art supply fees may vary from year to year.

ARTF 128/6.0 BFA Art supplies and materials YES N/A These fees are used to recoup the expense of purchasing the Art supplies the students will use during the course of instruction & keep when the course is completed.

Compulsory estimated at 600 (actual $362.93)

Estimated at $600.00. The 4 modules taught in ARTF 128 are interchangeable and the art supply fees fees may vary from year to year.

ARTF 227/6.0 BFA Art supplies and materials. The field trip to New York is highly recommended.

YES N/A These fees are used to recoup the expense of purchasing the Art supplies the students will use during the course of instruction & keep when the course is completed.

Compulsory estimated at 250 Estimated at $250.00 Art Supplies. Voluntary field trip $700


Compulsory n/a Estimated at $250.00


Compulsory estimated at 250 (actual $357.0 Estimated at $300.00


Compulsory estimated at 250 (actual $336.7 Estimated at $300.00

ITE

M: A


c...

Page 267 of 363





2015/16 fee 2016/17 fee

ARTF 447/9.0 BFA Art supplies and mateirals YES N/A These fees are used to recoup the expense of purchasing the Art supplies the students will use during the course of instruction & keep when the course is completed.

Compulsory not offered in 2015/16 Estimated $50 to $150.00

ARTF 448/9.0 BFA Art suppliesand materials YES N/A These fees are used to recoup the expense of purchasing the Art supplies the students will use during the course of instruction & keep when the course is completed.

Compulsory not offered in 2015/16 Estimated $50 to $150.00

ARTH 245 ARTH Field Trip NO Venice Costs of travel and accommodation abroad must be paid by the student. Estimated cost: Room and board $4,500.00, Travel $1,500.0. Paid directly to vendors (hotel, restaurant, tour companies, etc. in Venice)

Compulsory $4,500 $4,500

ARTH 380 ARTH Field Trip NO Venice Costs of travel and accommodation abroad must be paid by the student. Consult the Department of Art for the costs involved. Estimated cost: Room and board $4,500.00, Travel $1,200.00. Paid directly to vendors (hotel, restaurant, tour companies, etc. in Venice)

Compulsory $4,500 Not Offered

BIOL 302/3.0 BIOL Field Trip YES Lemoine Point Conservation Area and QUBS

Field trip to Lemoine Point - Fee covers Conservation area user fees and bus rental. Field trip to QUBS - Fee covers student room and board, bench/user fees at QUBS and bus transportation.Fees are used to cover only the direct costs of student.

Compulsory $85 $85

ITE

M: A


c...

Page 268 of 363





2015/16 fee 2016/17 fee

BIOL 303/3.0 BIOL Field Trip YES Little Cataraqui Creek and Lemoine Point Conservation Area

Field trip to Little Cataraqui Creek - Fee covers Conservation area user fees and bus rental. Field trip to Lemoine Point - Fee covers Conservation area user fees and bus rental. Fees are used to cover only the direct costs of student.

Compulsory $20 $20

BIOL 335/3.0 BIOL Field Trip NO N/A Expended booking Field trip activities through the department

Compulsory $35 $35

BIOL 403/3.0 BIOL Lab manual NO N/A Photocopyng and binding into a booklet. The workbooks will be kept by the student and will be a resource for their molecular biology experiments in the future.

Compulsory $25

BIOL 404/3.0 BIOL Lab manual NO N/A Photocopyng and binding into a booklet. The workbooks will be kept by the student and will be a resource for their molecular biology experiments in the future.

Compulsory $25

BIOL 416/3.0 BIOL Field Trip. NO N/A Expended covering field trip costs by course coordinator

Compulsory not offered in 2015/16 $50

CLST 409/809 CLST Field Trip. NO N/A Fee includes: housing, lunch and dinner from Mondays to Fridays, trips to sites and museums, museum tickets, transportation to and from the dig.

The fee for the course is compulsory, but the course itself is not a compulsory course for Classics degree programs.

Estimate $2300 Eestimate $2300 ITE

M: A


c...

Page 269 of 363





2015/16 fee 2016/17 fee

CLS 412 CLST Field Trip. NO N/A Fee includes: housing, breakfast, lunch and dinner from Mondays to Sundays, trips to sites and museums, museum tickets, transportation to and from the dig. (discounts available for early registration or if both IIIa and IIIb are taken).


N/A $1997(discounts available for early registration or if both IIIa and IIIb are taken)

CLS 413 CLST Field Trip. NO N/A Fee includes: housing, breakfast, lunch and dinner from Mondays to Sundays, trips to sites and museums, museum tickets, transportation to and from the dig. $1997(discounts available for early registration or if both IIIa and IIIb are taken)


N/A $1997(discounts available for early registration or if both IIIa and IIIb are taken)

DEVS 305/6.0 DEVS Field Trip. NO N/A Students are expected to pay an ancillary fee for travel and accommodation while in Havana. $2500.00* (may increase when exchange rates and flights costs are more apparent - decided in Sept/Oct). Invoices are submitted to DEVS, and payment is made through Queen's Financial Services.

Compulsory. Two bursaries are offered for students in need to cover a portion of the cost.

$2450.00* (may increase when exchange rates and flights costs are more apparent - decided in Sept/Oct)

$2500.00* (may increase when exchange rates and flights costs are more apparent - decided in Sept/Oct)

DEVS 392/3.0 DEVS Field Trip. NO N/A Students are expected to pay an ancillary fee for travel and food costs while in the field. Invoices are submitted to DEVS, and payment is made through Queen's Financial Services.

Compulsory, although there is accomodations made for financial need.

$150.00 $150-$200 depending on canoe rental and food prices.

ENSC 425/3.0 ENVS Field Trip. NO N/A TRANSPORTATION - BUS COMPULSORY NOT OFFERRED $50

ITE

M: A


c...

Page 270 of 363





2015/16 fee 2016/17 fee

ENSC 430/6.0 ENVS Field Trip. YES Province of Ontario (Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve)

TRANSPORTATION - BUS Fee is used to cover only direct costs of studen.

COMPULSORY $20 $30

FILM 250/6.0 FILM Production supplies N/A N/A The student keeps the CF card. They can sell it back to other students but it is their property and can be used throughout their degree. We use the fee collected to pay for the CF cards at a bulk rate. The balance for the department is zero or negative 1.00 per student. New to 2016-17 students will receive CF Card (100) for video camera and one protable hard drive (150) for video editing. New fee total is 250.

No, insofar as the student can purchase it elsewhere.

$100 $250

FILM 304/3.0 FILM Field Trip. NO N/A Transportation, event admission plus food. Students may be required to participate in Field trip(s) in certain years.

Compulsory N/A Estimated cost for bus and event admission is $70

FILM 450/3.0 FILM Field Trip. NO N/A This course uses an experiential learning model instead of a lab. The mandatory $70 ancillary fee in FILM450 is to help cover the cost of a field trip to Toronto Ontario, to visit with various film related organizations (festivals, production companies, studios, distributors, etc.) and to participate in a networking workshop with alumni and industry professionals. In this capstone course, the field trip is an essential component of the course activities and overall learning experience. The fee will be used to help cover transportation, lunch, insurance, and event admission to the networking workshop, which includes light food/beverage for each student.

Compulsory N/A estimated $70

ITE

M: A


c...

Page 271 of 363





2015/16 fee 2016/17 fee

STSC 381/3.0 FILM Field Trip. Students are required to attend several Kingston-based art and cultural events and may be required to attend a Toronto and/or Ottawa art and cultural event.

NO N/A To introduce an experiential learning component. Instructor has planned to take students on field trips to Toronto and/or Ottawa. The estimated $100 ancillary fee covers transportation, insurance, food, and event admissions costs. This fee will be collected from the student by the Office of Film and Media.

Compulsory N/A estimated $100

APSC 151/4.0 GEOE Lab Manual N/A N/A cost of manual Compulsory estimated $20 estimated $20

GEOL 221/3.0 GEOE 221/4.0

GEOL/GEOE Field Trip. 8 field labs over the term and one full day field trip.

YES Local field trips within Province of Ontario

Transportation ~ 2 buses per lab week $30x8 = $240 Geology Hammer $43. Safety Glasses $2 Hand Lens $42 Douglas Protractor $12.50 Pencil Magnet $5.50 Hard Hat $29 Field Notebook $22 Fees are used to cover only the direct costs for students.

Compulsory estimated $240 (actual $80) for transportation plus $156.50 one time only cost for supplies

estimated $100 for transportation plus $156.50 one time only cost for supplies

GEOE 281 GEOE Field Trip. YES Local field trips within Province of Ontario

Transportation fee ~ school bus Fees are used to cover only the direct costs of travel and accomodation for students.

Compulsory estimated $35 estimated $35

GEOL 300/3.0 GEOE 300/5.0

GEOL/GEOE Field Trip. YES Sutton, Quebec (Gov't dispensation to hold core course o/s of Ontario granted)

Transportation (School bus and Van) plus accommodation . Fees are used to cover only the direct costs for students. Fee increase reflects the increase charge for accommodation.


ITE

M: A


c...

Page 272 of 363





2015/16 fee 2016/17 fee

GEOL 301/1.5 GEOE 301

GEOL/GEOE Field Trip. NO (students have choice between GEOL 301/1.5 (field trip) or GEOL 302/1.5 (Independent Study) new for 2015/16)

NY State/Adirondacks.

Accommodation & food plus transportation (coach bus) $200 + $250


GEOL 321/3.0 GEOE 321/4.0

GEOL/GEOE Field Trip. YES Kaladar/loyne Ontario TRANSPORTATION ~ 1 school bus each day ~ Sept 21st and 22nd. Fees are used to cover only the direct costs of travel and accomodation for students.


GEOL 337/3.0 GEOE 337/4.0

GEOL/GEOE Field Trip. NO Prince Edward County TRANSPORTATION ~ 1 school bus October 4th Compulsory estimated $35 estimated $35

GEOL 343/3.0 GEOE 343/3.75

GEOL/GEOE Field Trip. CORE TO FEAS only

Local field trips within Province of Ontario

Transportation fee for school bus. Fees are used to cover only the direct costs of travel and accomodation for students


GEOL 368/3.0 GEOE 368/4.5

GEOL/GEOE Field Trip. NO Prince Edward County TRANSPORTATION ~ 1 school bus October 4th Compulsory estimated $35 estimated $35

GEOL 401/1.5 GEOE 401

GEOL/GEOE Field Trip. NO (students have choice between GEOL 401/1.5 (field trip) or GEOL 402/1.5 (Self-directed Study)new for 2015/16)

N/A Accommodation & food plus transportation (coach bus) $200 + $250


ITE

M: A


c...

Page 273 of 363





2015/16 fee 2016/17 fee

GEOE 410 GEOE Field Trip. CORE TO FEAS only

Sudbury, Ontario Accommodation (6 days, 5 nights) plus transportation Fees are used to cover only the direct costs of student

Compulsory estimated $270 accommodation plus $260 transportation

estimated $270 accommodation plus $260 transportation

GEOL 419/3.0 GEOE 419/4.0

GEOL/GEOE Field Trip. NO Province of Ontario Accommodation (9days) plus transportation Compulsory estimated $750 $750. This cost is used to cover the direct costs of travel and accomodation.

GPHY 101/3.0 GPHY Field Trip. YES Local field trip within Province of Ontario

bus rental Fees are used to cover only the direct costs of student

Compulsory estimated cost $30. estimated cost $30.


bus rental Fees are used to cover only the direct costs of student


GPHY 103/3.0 GPHY Field Trip. NO N/A bus rental Compulsory estimated cost $30. estimated cost $30.



bus rental. Fees are used to cover only the direct costs of student


ITE

M: A


c...

Page 274 of 363





2015/16 fee 2016/17 fee

GPHY 307/3.0 GPHY Field Trip. NO N/A bus rental Compulsory Field trips: estimated cost $400, depending on the location.(actual $100)

Field trips: estimated cost $400, depending on the location.


GPHY 310/3.0 * formerly GPHY 418/3.0

GPHY Field Trip. NO N/A transportation Compulsory NOTE Field trip fees may apply in certain years. See departmental webpage for more information.

NOTE Field trip fees may apply in certain years; estimated cost $30



GPHY 318/3.0 GPHY Field Trip. NO N/A bus rental Compulsory estimated cost $25.(actual $20) estimated cost $25.

GPHY 332 GPHY Case Materials and pptional field trip NO Major U.S. City Optional field trip may be undertaken in some years. Field trip costs directly related to student. Case Materials: Approximately $30.

Optional n/a Estimated cost $330

ITE

M: A


c...

Page 275 of 363





2015/16 fee 2016/17 fee


bus rental. Fees are used to cover only the direct costs of student.

Compulsory actual $50 Field trip fees may apply in certain years. Cost will vary depending on location, but not likely to exceed $300/yr.



Compulsory actual $25 Field trip fees may apply in certain years. Cost will vary depending on location, but not likely to exceed $300/yr.



Compulsory N/A Field trip fees may apply in certain years. Cost will vary depending on location, but not likely to exceed $300/yr.

GPHY 411/3.0 GPHY Field Trip. NO N/A bus rental Compulsory N/A Field trip fees may apply in certain years. Cost will vary depending on location, but not likely to exceed $175/yr.

GPHY 413/3.0 GPHY Field Trip. NO N/A bus rental Compulsory N/A Field trip fees may apply in certain years. Cost will vary depending on location, but not likely to exceed $175/yr.

GPHY 415/6.0 GPHY Field Trip. NO Ontario bus rental Compulsory N/A Field trips within Province of Ontario during the year. Costs will vary depending on location, but not likely to exceed $175/yr.

ITE

M: A


c...

Page 276 of 363





2015/16 fee 2016/17 fee

GPHY 417/3.0 GPHY Field Trip. NO N/A bus rental Compulsory NOTE Field trip fees may apply in certain years. See departmental webpage for more information.

NOTE Field trip fees may apply in certain years. Cost will vary depending on location, but not likely to exceed $175/yr.

LLCU 432/6.0 LLCU Field Trip. NO N/A This course is part of a Study Abroad program in Shanghai, which will require students to pay a program fee to cover costs over and above tuition, accommodation and subsistence. Further details of the estimated costs can be obtained from the International Programs Office. Program fees cover the costs of study materials, local field trips, travel and meals while working on research related field trips and other administrative services provided by Fudan and Queen’s in connection with the program. Accommodation, international travel costs, vaccinations, health and travel insurance, and travel documents are not included in the program fee.

Compulsory $500 $500 program costs plus subsistence, accommodation, international travel related costs and administration costs.

MUSC 181, 183,185, 281, 283, 285 (Instrumental Techniques courses)

MUSC Instrumental rental fee NO N/A Funds go ino the instrument repair and maintenance budget.

Optional - if the student is able to provide their own instrument (through personal ownership or borrowing) they may do so.

$75 plus HST per term or $15 plus HST per term


MUSC x21/24/25 MUSC Accompanist fee - wind, brass, string, and voice students

YES MUSC 121 and 221 NO for remaining courses

N/A Accompanist is paid directly The student has a choice of paying an accompanist suggested by the School, or finding their own pianist. If they are able to find a pianist willing to play for free, they are welcome to use that individual.

Estimated $180 Estimated $180 ITE

M: A


c...

Page 277 of 363





2015/16 fee 2016/17 fee

MUSC 270 MUSC Instrumental rental fee NO N/A Funds go ino the instrument repair and maintenance budOptional - if the student is able to provide their own instrument (through personal ownership or borrowing) they may do so



PHYS 117 PHYS Lab Manual. NO N/A cost of lab or course manual containing material(s) specific to the lab/course content.

Compulsory estimated $15 to $25 per manual

PHYS 344 PHYS Lab Manual. YES N/A cost of lab or course manual containing material(s) specific to the lab/course content.


PHYS 491 PHYS Lab Manual. NO N/A cost of lab or course manual containing material(s) specific to the lab/course content.


RELS 322 RELS Yoga Practicum: estimated cost $85 NO N/A Fee for lessons compulsory $85 $85

KNPE 330/4.5 SKHS First Aid/CPR certification NO N/A Students must hold valid First Aid/CPR certification and proof of completion of Athletic Therapy experience (36 hours) in second year.

Certification is compulsory

N/A N/A

KNPE 331/3.0 SKHS Lab materials NO N/A course fees are used to support costs for a lab manual and tensor bandages, which are re-usable

compulsory $15 $30

ITE

M: A


c...

Page 278 of 363





2015/16 fee 2016/17 fee

KNPE 336/3.0 SKHS First Aid/CPR certification NO N/A N/A Certification is compulsory

N/A N/A


N/A N/A


N/A N/A


N/A N/A


N/A N/A

PACT 237/3.0 SKHS Practicum costs NO N/A Transportation and other costs (e.g. required Criminal Checks) are the responsibility of the student.

CPIC is compulsory N/A N/A



ITE

M: A


c...

Page 279 of 363





2015/16 fee 2016/17 fee



PACT 338/3.0 SKHS Fee to defray the costs of transportation, accommodation, food, and general equipment for the outdoor education camp school.

NO N/A Fees are used to partially off-set costs of transportation, food and accommodation at Camp Oconto - the site of this outdoor education course. The Camp School Aquatic Test is also required to register in this course.

compulsory $400 $400

PHIL 493/3.0 PHIL Bus fare NO Frontenac Park, Ontario

transportation No, students may opt out of the trip

not offered in 2015/16 estimated $10

PHIL 293/3.0 PHIL Bus fare NO Toronto Zoo Cost of bus fare and entrance fee No, students may opt out of the trip.

not offered in 2015/16 estimated $20

ITE

M: A


c...

Page 280 of 363


Course Dept./ School Course fee description Location of field trips for compulsory courses


Is this fee optional or compulsory 2015/16 fee 2016/17 fee

APSC 100 ENG lab notebook A5 The bookstore collects the fee. Compulsory $5.95 $5.95

APSC 100 ENG goggles The bookstore collects the fee. Compulsory $12.95 $12.95

APSC 100 ENG MATLAB computer programme The bookstore collects the fee. Optional $100.00 $100.00

APSC 100 ENG Zybooks computer learning The fee is paid online to Zybooks Optional $20.00 $20.00

APSC 100 ENG white lab coat The bookstore collects the fee. Compulsory 19.95 $19.95

APSC151 GEOLOGY Lab manual cost recovery Compulsory estimated $20 estimated $20

ITE

M: A


c...

Page 281 of 363





GEOE 221 GEOL/GEOE 8 field labs over the term and one full day field trip in

Local field trips within Province of Ontario

Transportation ~ 2 buses per lab week $30x8 = $240Geology Hammer $43. Safety Glasses $2Hand Lens $42 Douglas Protractor $12.50 Pencil Magnet $5.50 Hard Hat $29Field Notebook $22

Compulsory

estimated $240 for transportation plus $156.50 one time only cost for supplies

estimated $100 for transportation plus $156.50 one-time only cost for supplies

GEOE 281 GEOE Field Trip. Local field trips within Province of Ontario Transportation fee ~ school bus Compulsory estimated $35 estimated $35

GEOE 300 GEOL/GEOE Field Trip.Sutton, Quebec (Gov't dispensation to hold core course o/s of Ontario granted)

Transportation (School bus and Van) plus accommodation Compulsory estimated $775

estimated $900. The fee increase reflects the increased charge in accommodation costs.

GEOE 301 GEOL/GEOE Field Trip. NY State/Adirondacks. Accommodation & food plus transportation (coach bus) $200 + $250

NO (students have choice between GEOL 301/1.5 (field trip) or GEOL 302/1.5 (Independent Study) new for 2015/16)

estimated $450 estimated $450

ITE

M: A


c...

Page 282 of 363





GEOE 321 GEOL/GEOE Field trip. Kaladar/Cloyne Ontario

TRANSPORTATION ~ 1 school bus each day ~ Sept 21st and 22nd. Compulsory estimated $50 estimated $50

GEOE 337 GEOL/GEOE Field Trip. Prince Edward County TRANSPORTATION ~ 1 school bus October 4th estimated $35 estimated $35

GEOE 343 GEOL/GEOE Field Trip. Local field trips within Province of Ontario Transportation fee ~ school bus Compulsory estimated $30 estimated $30

GEOE 368 GEOL/GEOE Field Trip. Prince Edward County TRANSPORTATION ~ 1 school bus October 4th Compulsory estimated $35 estimated $35

GEOE 401 GEOL/GEOE Field Trip. N/AAccommodation & food plus transportation (coach bus) $200 + $250

NO (students have choice between GEOL 401/1.5 (field trip) or GEOL 402/1.5 (Self-directed Study)new for 2015/16)

estimated $450 estimated $450

GEOE 410 GEOE Field Trip. Sudbury, Ontario Accommodation plus transportation for 6 day field trip. Compulsory



ITE

M: A


c...

Page 283 of 363





GEOE 419 GEOL/GEOE Field Trip. Province of Ontario Accommodation plus transportation for 9 day field trip. Compulsory estimated $750

$750. This cost is used to cover direct costs of travel and accommodation.

MECH 216 MME Arduino KitsFees collected are used to offset the cost of the kits pre-purchased by the department, cost recovery only

Optional (students work in groups and can share)

$50 $65

MECH 370 MME Field Trip.

Fees collected are used to offset the cost of the coach bus and some snacks on the trip purchases by the department, cost recovery only

Optional $75 $75

MINE 201 MINE Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) - safety boots and possible a hard hat.

Students can purchase the safety equipment from the vendor of their choice.

Compulsory est. $200 est. $200

ITE

M: A


c...

Page 284 of 363


To: Board of Trustees & Capital Assets and Finance Committee Date of Report: Apr 11, 2016



Subject: Queen’s Protocol for Introducing or Changing Student Activity Fees (revised 2016)




1.0 PURPOSE ☒ For Approval ☐ For Information 2.0 RECOMMENDATION That the Board of Trustees, on the recommendation of the Capital Assets and Finance Committee, approve the revised Queen’s Protocol for Introducing or Changing Student Activity Fees. 3.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Queen’s Protocol for Introducing or Changing Student Activity Fees was approved by the Board of Trustees in March 2013. At the request of the Alma Mater Society (AMS) and the Society of Graduate and Professional Students (SGPS), the Board is being asked to approve a revision to the protocol to require that all non-tuition-related activity fees that fall under the purview of the protocol be introduced or changed only through a referendum of the members of the appropriate university student society. 4.0 INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES Approved by AMS Assembly Approved by SGPS Council 5.0 ANALYSIS The Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU) requires each Ontario post-

secondary institution to have a fee protocol, agreed upon by the university’s administration and student government representatives, that sets out the means by

ITEM: Queen’s Protocol for Introducing or Changing Student A...

Page 285 of 363

- 2 -

which students will be involved in decisions to introduce or change certain compulsory non-tuition-related ancillary fees.

A compulsory non-tuition-related ancillary fee is defined within MTCU’s Tuition Fee Framework and Ancillary Fee Guidelines for Publicly-Assisted Universities as a fee levied “to cover the costs of items … not normally paid for out of operating or capital revenue.” Such fees would support a range of non-academic services and programs devoted to such matters as student health and counselling, student athletic programs, student non-academic activities, transportation, or parking and housing placement.

MTCU’s Tuition Fee Framework and Ancillary Fee Guidelines for Publicly-Assisted Universities notes that some compulsory non-tuition-related ancillary fees are exempt from inclusion in a protocol.

The process for adjusting all other compulsory non-tuition-related ancillary fees is governed by Queen’s Protocol for Introducing or Changing Student Activity Fees, which was signed by the Provost and Vice-Principal (Academic) and representatives of the AMS and SGPS, and approved by the Board of Trustees in March 2013.

Queen’s University has ensured the direct participation of students in the approval of non-tuition-related ancillary fees through the use of student-run processes governed by the by-laws of the AMS and SGPS.

These processes have been amended to remove the option to introduce or change a non-tuition related ancillary through a vote at a student society annual meeting or society special general meeting. At the request of the AMS and SGPS, a referendum will henceforth be required to introduce or change compulsory non-tuition-related student activity fees that fall within the purview of Queen’s protocol. The protocol has been revised in to reflect the modification requested.

MTCU guidelines stipulate that once the institution’s administration and student government representatives reach an agreement on the text of a protocol, approval from the institution's governing body is required.

Revisions to the protocol, once approved, must be submitted to the Postsecondary

Finance and Information Management Branch of MTCU. 6.0 STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT / COMPLIANCE The revision to the Queen’s Protocol for Introducing or Changing Activity Fees is being

made in accordance with MTCU’s Tuition Fee Framework and Ancillary Fee Guidelines for Publicly-Assisted Universities.



Page 286 of 363

- 3 -

8.0 ENTERPRISE RISK ASSESSMENT Student activity fees allow for initiatives and programs that promote a high-quality

student living and learning environment and support student success and wellness. These programs help to mitigate the Undergraduate and Graduate Student Recruitment, Retention and Graduation risk and the Student Health, Wellness and Safety Risk.

9.0 COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY Once approved by the Board of Trustees, the revised protocol will be distributed to the

AMS, SGPS, University Registrar, Student Affairs and posted on the University Secretariat’s policies webpage.

ATTACHMENTS 1. Queen’s Protocol for Introducing or Changing Student Activity Fees (revised 2016)


Page 287 of 363

Queen’s Protocol for Introducing or Changing Compulsory Ancillary Fees 1. Background Since 1994, the process for adjusting student fees for non-academic or non-tuition related items, programs or services has been guided by the Ministry of Education and Training’s (MTCU) Compulsory Ancillary Fee Policy Guidelines. These Guidelines offer a general framework for introducing, raising, lowering or discontinuing such fees. In response, each Ontario post-secondary educational institution has developed a specific protocol governing the introduction of, or changes to, any student association fee or “non-tuition-related compulsory ancillary” fees. A “non-tuition-related compulsory ancillary fee” is defined by the Compulsory Ancillary Fee Policy Guidelines as “a fee which is levied in order to cover the costs of items which are not normally paid for out of operating or capital revenue.” These fees could support a range of services and programs devoted to such matters as student health and counselling, learning materials, student athletics, student non-academic activities, field trips, transportation or parking and housing placement. For purposes of this protocol, compulsory non-tuition related ancillary fees may include student association fees. The latter are defined as “those fees, the revenue from which is not applied to the cost of instruction in any course or program normally offered for credit toward an eligible degree, diploma, or certificate, but is applied to the cost of services which enhance the cultural, social, and recreational environment of students or provide other non-academic services to students.” This latter fee classification shall be deemed to also include those fees constituting student contributions in support of major University capital/ construction projects. The University may assess fees for existing and future compulsory ancillary fees for exempted materials and services as defined within and in compliance with MTCU Compulsory Ancillary Fee Policy Guidelines. Queen’s has ensured the direct participation of students in the approval of compulsory ancillary fees through the use of student-run processes. These processes are governed through the by-laws of the two University Student Societies: the Alma Mater Society (AMS) and the Society of Graduate and Professional Students (SGPS). Recently, the matter of the realignment of Faculty-based Student Societies, and the effect of this realignment on student association fees, has been the subject of some misunderstanding. This document is intended to clarify the nature of student association fees and the effect of a movement of a Faculty Student Society from one University Student Society to another.


Page 288 of 363

2. Principles Governing the Queen’s Protocol

2.1. The protocol for introducing or changing compulsory ancillary fees shall be consistent with the Compulsory Ancillary Fee Policy Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Education and Training (now the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities) in 1994 (and revised in 2009 and 2013).

2.2. Student association fees may be established only for non-academic services and programs designed to enhance student life and living on the Queen`s campus or in support of student contributions to major University capital/construction projects.

2.3. Establishment of new fees or changes in existing non-exempt compulsory ancillary fees or student association fees may not occur without direct involvement of student government and the larger student populace (through referenda) and approval of the Board of Trustees

2.4. All student association fees, unless exempted by one of the University Student Societies as funding an essential service, shall normally be subject to a regular review in accordance with applicable student society policies on student association fees.

2.5. Student association fees may be subject to automatic annual adjustments in accordance with the Canadian Consumer Price Index where such a condition is specified in the referendum.

2.6. Student association fees may be established for a designated number of years or until an identified monetary target has been reached where such a condition is specified in the referendum. Any such designation does not remove the requirement for regular review.

2.7. Student association fees shall be assessed as a slate, i.e. on an “all pay” rather than a “user pay” system.

3. Assessment

3.1. All students will be assessed mandatory and optional student association fees and, where applicable, faculty society fees. A limited number of exemptions apply for students registered in certain programs, registered off-campus, or 65 years of age or older. A complete list of exemptions is included in Appendix A.

4. Types of Student Association Fees

4.1. Mandatory student association fees are compulsory fees which normally all students must pay.

4.1.1. Reviewable mandatory fees are compulsory fees that are subject to review, in accordance with the policy defined by the relevant Society.

4.1.2. Non-reviewable mandatory fees are compulsory fees that are not subject to review, in accordance with the policy defined by the relevant Society. This designation is only to be made if the fee has extensive oversight from elected student


Page 289 of 363

representatives, or if the fee represents a contribution to an essential University-run service or capital project that requires a designated commitment from the student body to fulfill its mandate.

4.2. Optional student association fees are fees which students may opt out of in accordance with the opt-out policy defined by the relevant Society.

5. Queen’s Protocol Governing Compulsory Ancillary Fees and Student Association Fees

5.1. Such fees may only be introduced by referendum of one or more of the University Student Societies, as appropriate.

5.1.1. The referendum shall be held in accordance with the relevant constitution/by-laws/policies of the relevant University Student Society.

5.1.2. Where a referendum is held, approval shall require no less than a simple majority of students voting in support.

5.1.3. Changes to a University Student Society’s by-laws, policies, or constitution which may affect the process for voting for the introduction of or change to such fees shall be communicated in writing to Student Affairs in a timely fashion.

5.2. Any individual or group of individuals who wish to place a question on a referendum

ballot asking for the creation of a student association fee or compulsory ancillary fee funded by undergraduate, graduate, or professional students must be affiliated with, or sanctioned by, a University Student Society, a Faculty Society, the Administration of Queen's University or a Faculty or Service of the University.

5.3. Any question proposed for the establishment or change of such fees shall provide a description of the fee, the purpose(s) for which the revenue shall be used, whether the fee is mandatory or optional, whether the fee is to be collected for a designated period or until a monetary value is reached, and whether the fee is subject to annual increases (as outlined in 2.6 above).

5.4. Where it is determined that a student association fee recipient is not expending its fee revenue in manner consistent with the stated purpose(s) of its fee, this shall be considered grounds for withholding fee revenue and/or removal of that fee from the student fee slate. Any such decision may be appealed by the processes outlined by the relevant University Student Society policy.

5.5. All student association fees shall be subject to approval by the Queen’s University Board of Trustees at its annual May meeting.

6. Refund of Fees

6.1. Refunds of student association fees for students withdrawing from the University after registration shall be made in accordance with the University policy on refunds of academic fees.

7. Effect on Fees of Realignment of a Faculty Student Society


Page 290 of 363

7.1. Each Faculty Student Society on the Queen’s campus shall be formally affiliated with one of the two University Student Societies, and each Faculty Student Society shall have the right to align as it sees fit.

7.2. In principle, the rationale for realignment of a Faculty Student Society should be based on the attempt to fit with a University Student Society which would provide for a better alignment of academic, representational, and social interests, more appropriate services and programming, or other such relevant matters. It is assumed that Faculty Student Societies would not seek realignment for the sole or primary purpose of acquiring a more advantageous student association fee slate.

7.3. The University shall only recognize two distinct fee schedules, one for AMS and one for SGPS. Any intent by a Faculty Student Society to hold a vote to shift alignment from one University Student Society to another shall require advance notice, normally not less than three months, to all affected parties and an advance discussion/negotiation on the potential impact such realignment may have on student association fees.

7.4. Where a vote results in a change in alignment from one University Student Society to another, the Faculty Student Society making the transition shall be bound by the fees of the former University Student Society for no less than one year.

7.5. Where a Faculty Student Society has changed its formal affiliation with one of the two University Student Societies that results in a different student association fee assessment; the University shall only recognize and assess such student association assessment changes where it has determined that the changes in affiliation transpired with full adherence to applicable student society constitutional and policy requirements.

8. Revisions to Protocol 8.1. This agreement shall be reviewed every three years, commencing in 2019, or at any time

as a result of changes made to MTCU Compulsory Ancillary Fee Policy Guidelines or other relevant University policies.

Signature _______________________________________________ Provost and Vice-Principal Academic Signature_______________________________________________ President Alma Mater Society Inc. Signature_______________________________________________


Page 291 of 363

President Society of Graduate and Professional Students Dated xx April, 2016.


Page 292 of 363


To: Board of Trustees Date of Report: 11 April 2016

From: Vice-Principal (Finance and Administration) Date of VPOC Approval: 11 April 2016

Subject:

Richardson Stadium Revitalization Project Scope and Budget Increase Date of Committee Meeting: 6 May 2016

Responsible Portfolio: Vice-Principal (Finance and Administration) Date of Board Meeting: 6 May 2016

Confidentiality: Open Session Closed Session

1.0 PURPOSE

For Approval For Information

2.0 RECOMMENDATION/MOTION That the Board of Trustees, on the recommendation of the Capital Assets and Finance Committee, approve the budget increase of $300k to the original $20.27M Richardson Stadium project budget to fund the construction of VIP boxes that were not part of the original project scope of design.


During the design process of the Richardson Stadium redevelopment project the main project donor Stu Lang offered an additional budget contribution of $300k for the provision of four VIP boxes to be included within the new press box on the west side of the stadium. The VIP boxes were not part of the original project scope of design. To accommodate the new boxes, the press box configuration will be adjusted to allow for two new VIP box additions on either end.

Both the Campus Planning and Advisory Committee (CPAC) and the Queen’s University Planning Committee (QUPC) were made aware of the pending budget change during recent committee meetings. This motion formalizes the request to adjust the project budget as required within the Major Capital Project Approvals Policy.

ITEM: Richardson Stadium Revitalization Project Scope and Bu...

Page 293 of 363

- 2 -

4.0 INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES Physical Plant Service VPOC, CPAC, QUPC 5.0 ANALYSIS The estimated cost of the additional VIP boxes was determined collaboratively by the

project architect and the project construction management contractor and agreed to by Physical Plant Services

Two VIP boxes will be located on either end of the press box

6.0 STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT / COMPLIANCE N/A 7.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The total project budget will be increased by $300k from $20.27M to $20.57M The additional $300k has been provided by the project’s main donor Stu Lang.

Funding has been received and is being held within the project account. The four VIP boxes will generate revenue through seasonal box rentals and thus

contribute to the financial sustainability of the stadium as defined within the original project business case. Athletics and Recreation will coordinate the sale and use of the four boxes. One box will be supported by the office of the Vice Provost and Dean of Student Affairs office (who will coordinate University access/use) and one by the Football Management Committee (who will coordinate football alumni access/use). The final two boxes will be linked to sponsorship opportunities tied to stadium revenues targets.

8.0 ENTERPRISE RISK ASSESSMENT There is minimal risk given the changes primarily involve adjusting the original space

configuration of the press box

9.0 COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY Continue to consult and work with University Relations to develop specific

communications plans and or products for the duration of the Richardson Stadium project.

ATTACHMENTS none

ITEM: Richardson Stadium Revitalization Project Scope and Bu...

Page 294 of 363

U N I V E R S I T Y S E C R E T A R I A T

Mackintosh-Corry Hall, Suite F300


Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6

Tel 613 533-6095

Fax 613 533-2793

www.queensu.ca/secretariat

Memo T O

F R O M

D A T E

S U B J E C T

Board of Trustees

Governance and Nominating Committee

April 20, 2016

Amendments to the Audit and Risk Committee and Human

Resources Committee Terms of Reference

At a meeting on April 20, 2016, the Governance and Nominating Committee agreed on amendments to

the terms of reference for the Audit and Risk Committee and the Human Resources Committee. These

amendments are summarized below.

Audit and Risk Committee (Appendix A)

Formalization of oversight responsibility for the health and safety of volunteers and students

(Section 1, bullet 6)

Amendments regarding the Committee’s oversight responsibility for the University’s Internal

Audit Functions (section II, subsection C)

Formalization of the Committee’s relationship with the Office of the Ombudsman (section II, new

subsection E)

Human Resources Committee (Appendix B)

Changes to the Committee membership to allow external Trustees who do not also hold an

employment relationship with the University to participate in meetings from time to time as non-

voting advisors when it is felt that expertise would benefit the Committee in the fulfillment of its

duties and responsibilities

Respectfully submitted,

Innes van Nostrand, Chair

Motion:

1. That the Board of Trustees, on the recommendation of the Governance and Nominating

Committee, approve the revised terms of reference for the Audit and Risk Committee and

the Human Resources Committee, effective May 6, 2016.

ITEM: Amendments to the Audit and Risk Committee Terms of Re...

Page 295 of 363

AUDIT and RISK (As approved by the Board of Trustees in May 2005 and amended in May 2013 and May 2014)

I. Purpose and Authority The Audit and Risk Committee assists the Board of Trustees in its oversight of:

The financial reporting process to ensure the transparency and integrity of financial reports;

The effectiveness of the University’s internal control and risk management environment;

The Enterprise Risk Management Framework;

The independent audit process, including recommending the appointment and assessing the

performance of the external auditor;

The effectiveness of the internal audit function;

The University’s compliance with legal, statutory and regulatory requirements, including

requirements regarding the health and safety of employees, students, and volunteers. The Committee has the authority to request any investigation appropriate to fulfilling its responsibilities. The Committee has the authority, with consent of the Chair of the Board of Trustees, to retain professional advisors

as the Committee deems necessary to carry out its duties. II. Duties and Responsibilities

With regard to its oversight responsibilities for each of the topics below, the Committee shall:

A. Financial Reporting and Internal Control and Risk Management Systems

1. Review the University’s annual consolidated audited financial statements and recommend approval of

these financial statements to the Board of Trustees. The review should include discussion with the

administration and the external auditors of significant issues regarding accounting principles,

practices, adequacy of disclosure, and significant administration estimates and judgements.

2. Review and discuss significant findings and recommendations of the external auditors set out in the

Management Letter, together with administration’s responses.

3. Review the Annual Financial Report and other related reports with financial disclosures as

appropriate.

4. Review significant accounting and reporting developments, including recent and contemplated

professional and regulatory proposals, and understand their impact on financial reports.

5. Review with the administration and the external and internal auditors the overall effectiveness of the

internal control framework, including the efficiency and effectiveness of operations, safeguarding of

assets and integrity of financial transactions, and steps taken by administration to minimize significant

exposures.

6. Discuss with the administration significant financial risk exposures and the steps administration has

taken to monitor and manage these financial risks.

7. Evaluate the effectiveness of the University-wide risk management framework. Receive and consider

reports on significant risks or exposures to the University and the management of these.

8. In addition to the general responsibility for oversight of the University-wide risk management

framework, utilize a proactive approach to monitor trends, initiatives and developments in the specific

risk categories as assigned by the Board of Trustees from time to time and approve strategies and

directions to mitigate the likelihood or severity of events or conditions that could contribute to the

potential occurrence of the situations described in the Risk Definitions for those assigned risk

categories.

9. Review, at every meeting, issues that have the potential to impact student health, safety and wellness.


Page 296 of 363

B. External Audit Process

1. Annually recommend to the Board of Trustees the appointment of the external auditors, and, in

consultation with the administration, their compensation.

2. Review the proposed audit scope and approach for the upcoming consolidated financial statement

audit and other mandated audits.

3. Annually review and assess the independence and performance of the external auditors, including a

review of all non-audit services provided by the external auditors.

4. Review the external auditors’ findings and administration’s response, the external auditors’ evaluation

of the quality and appropriateness of accounting principles applied in financial reporting and any

unresolved material differences of opinion.

5. Meet privately with the external auditors to discuss any matters that the Committee or the external

auditors believe should be discussed privately.

6. Agree on a process for pre-approving and reporting of non-audit services provided by the external

auditor.

C. Internal Audit Function

1. Oversee the Internal Audit function, in recognition of the fact that the Internal Audit function reports

and is accountable to the Committee. The Chair of the Committee is responsible for liaising with the

Director, Internal Audit regarding execution of the internal audit plan. 1.2. Periodically review and approve the mandate and objectives of the internal audit function. 2.3. Review the proposed internal audit plan for the coming year, along with the criteria upon which it

is based (the risk assessment process), amend it if necessary, and approve it. 3.4. Review and discuss significant findings and recommendations resulting from internal audits,

special investigations and other reviews of internal controls along with administration’s responses and

follow-up actions. 4.5. Review the organization, structure and resources of the internal audit function and the

qualifications of internal audit personnel. 5.6. Through the Committee Chair, in consultation with the Vice-Principal (Finance and

Administration), review and concur with the appointment, re-assignment or dismissal of the Director

of the internal audit function, and his or her annual performance assessments. The Director of the

internal audit function reports administratively, for budgetary and human resources purposes, to the

Vice-Principal (Finance and Administration) but has a primary reporting relationship to the

Committee, which relationship is managed by the Committee Chair. 6.7. On an annual quarterly basis, meet privately with the Director of the internal audit function.

D. Legal Compliance

On an annual basis, review with the University’s legal counsel:

a) any legal matters that could have a significant impact on the financial statements, b) compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and c) inquiries received from regulators or government agencies.

E. Office of the Ombudsman

1. Facilitate the Office of the Ombudsman’s accountability relationship with the Board through such

tools as the Committee deems necessary and in accordance with the Office’s terms of reference and,

more particularly, through the review and approval of the Terms of Reference for the Office of the

University Ombudsman. 2. Review the proposed work plan of the University Ombudsman for the coming year, amend it if

necessary, and approve it. 3. Meet with the University Ombudsman, quarterly, to receive a report on Safe Disclosure. 4. Through the Committee Chair, in consultation with the University Secretary, review and concur with

the appointment, re-assignment or dismissal of the University Ombudsman, and his or her annual

performance assessments. The Ombudsman reports administratively, for budgetary and human


Page 297 of 363

resources purposes, to the University Secretary but has an accountability relationship to the

Committee and the Board, which relationship is managed by the Committee Chair.

E.F. Other Duties

1. Review and ensure that procedures are in place for the receipt, retention and treatment of

complaints or disclosures regarding accounting, internal accounting controls and auditing matters

as well as harassment, discrimination, workplace violence and other behavioural issues arising in

the workplace and on campus (Safe Disclosure). 2. Complete periodic self-assessments of the effectiveness of the Committee against its mandate and

report these results to the Board.

3. Ensure that Committee members receive appropriate orientation regarding the work of the

Committee, and that training to enhance financial literacy and best practices in risk management

is made available.

4. Periodically review the Committee’s mandate and update as required.

5. Perform any other activities consistent with the Committee’s mandate, other rules and

regulations, and governing laws, as the Committee or the Board deems necessary or appropriate.

III. Membership The majority of members shall be financially literate (defined as having the ability to read and understand financial

statements of the breadth and complexity comparable to those of the University). At least two members of the Committee shall be "financial experts" with extensive accounting and/or related financial management expertise,

such that they understand fund accounting and generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and in the case of

GAAP, have the ability to assess the application of these principles in connection with accounting estimates,

accruals and reserves. The Committee shall include no more than two external (non-trustee) members. IV. Meetings The Committee shall meet four times annually, or more frequently as required. A majority of the Committee shall constitute a quorum. The Committee shall maintain written minutes of its meetings, which shall be the responsibility of the recording

secretary. The Secretary of the Board of Trustees shall ensure that a recording secretary is available to support the

Committee.


Page 298 of 363

HUMAN RESOURCES (As approved by the Board of Trustees in December 2008 and amended May 2013 and May 2014)

I. Purpose and Authority

The Human Resources Committee shall establish the terms and conditions of employment of the Principal on behalf of the Board of Trustees. The Chair of the Board is hereby authorized to enter into such instruments in this regard as may be required.

The Human Resources Committee is responsible for approving mandates, including parameters with respect to language and costs, within which the administration is to negotiate collective agreements as well as monitoring administrative strategies in negotiations and the progress of negotiations. The Committee is empowered to ratify collective agreements on behalf of the Board of Trustees.

II. Duties and Responsibilities

The Human Resources Committee will:

Annually solicit, review and evaluate the comments of the members of the Board, key stakeholders across the university and external constituencies with respect to the performance of the Principal and consider such other data, reports and information as the Committee considers useful and thereafter provide advice to the Chair of the Board on the performance of the Principal. Annual Performance Assessment Process.

Review the overall compensation of the Principal.

Establish the key performance goals and objectives for the Principal and advise the Board accordingly.

Monitor executive and university trends for compensation and benefits for senior institutional administrators.

Provide counsel and support to the Principal and/or the Associate Vice- Principal (Human Resources) on organizational issues/changes that involve senior management and have significant internal and/or external implications for the University.

Recommend policies for the approval of the Board of Trustees, from time to time, concerning search for, and reviews of, the Principal.

Utilize a proactive approach to monitor trends, initiatives and developments in the specific risk categories as assigned by the Board of Trustees from time to time and approve strategies and directions to mitigate the likelihood or severity of events or conditions that could contribute to the potential occurrence of the situations described in the respective Risk Definitions for those assigned risk categories.

III. Membership

Membership is entirely ex officio and restricted to:

The Chair of the Board of Trustees, who shall be the Committee Chair

The Chancellor

The Vice-Chairs of the Board The Committee shall have the ability to invite Trustees elected by the Board and/or the University Council, who do not hold an employment relationship with the University, to participate in meetings from time to time as non-voting advisors when it is felt that their expertise would benefit the Committee in the fulfillment of its duties and responsibilities as listed above.

IV. Meetings

Minimum of two times per year and as required by the Chair


Page 299 of 363

U N I V E R S I T Y S E C R E T A R I A T

Mackintosh-Corry Hall, Suite F300


Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6

Tel 613 533-6095

Fax 613 533-2793

www.queensu.ca/secretariat

Memo T O

F R O M

D A T E

S U B J E C T

Board of Trustees

Governance and Nominating Committee

April 20, 2016

Amendments to the Trustees' Code of Conduct

At a meeting on April 20, 2016, the Governance and Nominating Committee agreed on amendments to

the Trustees’ Code of Conduct.

Trustees will recall that at a meeting on September 11, 2015, the Board adopted recommendations of the

Audit and Risk Committee regarding student non-academic misconduct, arising from the external review

by Harriet Lewis. As part of the recommendations, the External Relations and Development Committee

was tasked with leading the Board’s efforts to set the “tone from the top” regarding the standard of

behaviour expected of members of the Queen’s community.

The External Relations and Development Committee agreed that the amendments to the Trustees’ Code

of Conduct would be a first step towards establishing tone from the top and asked the Governance and

Nominating Committee to consider this. The Committee agreed to add a preamble to the Code that states

the Board’s commitment to upholding the University’s core values using language that aligns with that

used in the preamble of the proposed Student Code of Conduct that the Principal will bring forward for

Board approval on May 6, 2016.

The proposed amendments are attached as Appendix A.

Respectfully submitted,

Innes van Nostrand, Chair

Motion:

1. That the Board of Trustees, on the recommendation of the Governance and Nominating Committee, approve the revisions to the Trustees' Code of Conduct, effective May 6, 2016.

ITEM: Revisions to Trustee Code of Conduct

Page 300 of 363

QUEEN’S UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES

CODE OF CONDUCT

(approved by the Board of Trustees March 6, 2009; amended May 6, 2016)

I Preamble

Queen’s University (the “University” or “Queen’s”) is dedicated to learning, intellectual inquiry, the dissemination and advancement of knowledge, personal and professional development, and good citizenship. Trustees are expected to adhere to and promote Queen’s core values of honesty, trust, fairness, respect and personal responsibility. It is these core values that are intended to inform and guide trustee conduct. In turn, these core values require mutual respect for the dignity, property, rights and well-being of others in the community.

II Responsibility to the University

Trustees of Queen’s University are directors with fiduciary responsibilities towards the University and

the University community, which means they have:

1. A duty of loyalty towards the University.

2. A duty to act honestly and in good faith in the best interests of the University.

3. A responsibility when carrying out their responsibilities as Trustees, to exercise the care, diligence and

skill that a reasonable prudent person would exercise.

4. A duty to declare conflicts of interest.

Additionally, trustees shall, in the execution of all of their responsibilities as a trustee, conduct

themselves with honesty, trust, fairness, respect and personal responsibility.

III Application of Code of Conduct

These following standards of conduct apply to members of the Board of Trustees, members of Board

Committees, including non-trustees, Senate appointees, external experts and others appointed by the

Board of Trustees, and officers of the University and other persons authorized to attend meetings of the

Board or its Committees. Members of the Pension Committee are exempt from this Code of Conduct;

they are governed by the Pension Committee Statement of Investment Policies and Procedures as

amended from time to time.

With the approval of the Board, a committee may adopt more specific standards and procedures.

IV Confidentiality

1. Proceedings at closed and in camera sessions of the Board are confidential. Meetings of committees

of the Board are closed and the proceedings are confidential, unless otherwise directed by the Chair of

the committee.


Page 301 of 363

2. Briefing documents, minutes, reports and other documents identified as confidential and received by

a Trustee or anyone else for purposes of a meeting or other deliberations of the Board or its

committees, are confidential.

3. Confidential material received by a Trustee or anyone else for purposes of a confidential proceeding

of the Board or its committees shall not be divulged to any other person without the express prior

authorization of the Board.

4. Trustees shall not comment publicly on confidential Board or committee deliberations.

V Collegiality

1. Trustees shall foster a collegial working environment.

2. Trustees shall conduct themselves in a manner that demonstrates respect for different perspectives,

builds on the contribution of others and constructively puts forward alternative considerations.

3. When a Board decision is made, the Trustees shall respect that decision.

4. All communications to or from the media about a confidential proceeding of the Board or its

committees or about confidential decisions of the Board shall be directed to the Chair or other

designated person.

VI Personal Conflicts

Definition

Trustees are in a position of trust and are accountable for fulfilling their duties to the University with

integrity. A conflict arises when the interest, direct or indirect, of a Trustee, his or her spouse, partner,

parent, sibling or child (personal interest), conflicts or appears to conflict with the duty owed by the

Trustee to the University.

Members of the Investment Committee shall, in addition, be governed by the Conflict of Interest

provisions in the Statement of Investment Policies and Procedures (SIP&P) adopted by the Investment

Committee, as amended from time to time.

The following rules will assist Trustees to address conflicts.

1. Each Trustee shall complete and deliver, at least annually, to the Secretary of the Board a Disclosure

of Interest form listing personal interests which could give rise to a possible conflict, direct or indirect,

with the Trustee’s duties to the University. Each Trustee shall notify the Secretary in writing of any

changes to that list in a timely fashion.

2. A conflict of interest shall be disclosed by the Trustee to the Secretary of the Board at the earliest

possible opportunity, and no later than the beginning of the meeting at which the matter which may

give rise to the conflict is the subject of consideration. The disclosure of interest shall be included in the

minutes of the meeting in question.

3. The Trustee who has disclosed a conflict shall not take part in the discussion about nor vote on the

matter and shall absent her or himself from the meeting when the matter is being discussed.


Page 302 of 363

4. A Trustee who is an employee or former employee of the University, a spouse or partner of an

employee or former employee of the University, may take part in discussions about matters relating to

remuneration, benefits, terms of employment and rights or privileges related to employment which

affect the Trustee or his or her spouse or partner but may not vote on such matters.

5. A Trustee who is a student may take part in discussions and vote on matters relating to tuition.

6. When the Chair of the Board considers that a conflict exists, but the Trustee considered to have the

conflict does not disclose the conflict, the Chair of the Board may declare that a conflict exists and rule

that the Trustee shall absent her or himself from the meeting while the matter that is the subject of the

conflict is discussed and a vote taken. The Trustee may challenge the Chair by asking that a resolution be

carried by the majority of the Trustees present and voting. The Trustee considered to have the conflict

shall absent her or himself from the meeting while the conflict is discussed and a vote taken.

7. Where the number of Trustees who by reason of the provisions of these rules, are disabled from

participating in a meeting is such that at the meeting there are not sufficient members to constitute a

quorum, then the remaining members shall be deemed to constitute a quorum, provided the number is

not less than seven.

VII Breaches

A breach of this Code of Conduct may result in removal from the Board. Such removal shall be decided

by majority vote of the Board.

VIII Acknowledgement and Undertaking

I confirm that I have read, understand and agree to abide by the above Queen’s University Board of

Trustees Code of Conduct.


Page 303 of 363



Apr 14, 2016

From: Investment Committee

Date of Investment Committee Approval:

Apr 11, 2016

Subject: Approval of Statement of Investment Policies and Procedures (SIP&P)


Feb 16, 2016




May 6, 2016

1.0 PURPOSE ☒ For Approval ☐ For Information

2.0 RECOMMENDATION/MOTION Motion: That the Board of Trustees, on the recommendation of the Investment Committee, approve the Statement of Investment Policies and Procedures (SIP&P) for The Queen’s Investment Funds, as amended effective May 6, 2016.

3.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Investment Committee recently conducted a thorough review of the SIP&P, with a particular emphasis on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues. As a result of this review, the committee is recommending changes to numerous sections, the most significant of which are as follows:

Appendices are removed. Where applicable, appendices have been incorporated into the SIP&P.

Section 1.03: To clarify investment objectives (these changes are also reflected in other parts of the document)

Section 1.05: To update Investment Beliefs (formerly an Appendix) Section 3.06: To update Responsible Investing language

o Changes clarify that the fiduciary responsibilities of the Board of Trustees necessitate that, to the extent that ESG issues affect long-term returns and risks, these must be considered along with other factors.

o New language articulates that the Investment Committee believes engagement is the best practice when dealing with ESG issues, and that

ITEM: Approval of Statement of Investment Policies and Proce...

Page 304 of 363

- 2 -

divestment and/or the application of investment screens are generally not effective tools.

Section 4.03: To update Short Term Fund policy (formerly an Appendix) Section 5.07: To update Spending Policy for the Pooled Endowment Fund, as

approved by the Board of Trustees at its March 2016 meeting.

4.0 INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES Though not identical, the ESG-related changes are consistent with those made to the SIP&P for the pension fund, which was updated effective January 1, 2016 to meet regulatory requirements.

5.0 ANALYSIS New Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) requirements specify that a pension plan’s SIP&P must state whether ESG factors are incorporated into the plan’s investment policies and procedures, and if so, a description of how those factors are incorporated must be included. While the requirements do not extend to non-pension funds, the Investment Committee felt it was appropriate to update the Responsible Investing language for the Investment Funds’ SIP&P to meet the same standard, and also to be consistent with the Pension Committee. The most substantive changes pertain to the Board of Trustees’ fiduciary responsibilities with respect to the prudent investment of fund assets. Queen’s University’s Statement on Responsible Investing Please note that, separate from the SIP&Ps for the Pension Plan and the Investment Funds, the University has a Statement on Responsible Investing that was approved by the Board of Trustees on March 6, 2009. This Statement sets down the principles which govern investments at Queen’s and provides details on the process under which non-financial factors will be considered in investment decisions. An ad hoc committee has been assembled to review this Statement.

6.0 STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT / COMPLIANCE The SIP&P is a governing document that supports the university’s strategic driver of financial sustainability.

7.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Long-term financial sustainability of the Queen’s Investment Funds is a critical aspect of the financial health and sustainability of the University.



Page 305 of 363

- 3 -

9.0 COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY The SIP&P is posted on the University’s website. ATTACHMENTS / LINKS

1. Statement of Investment Policies and Procedures_Blacklined.


Page 306 of 363

http://www.queensu.ca/secretariat/policies/board-policies

Queen’s Investment Funds

Statement of Investment Policies and Procedures

October, 2015May 2016


Page 307 of 363

Contents Section 1 – Introduction 1.01 Fiduciary Responsibilities 1 1.02 Purpose of Statement 1 1.03 Overall Objectives 1 1.04 Investment Philosophy – Queen’s Pooled Funds 2 1.05 Investment Beliefs – Queen’s Pooled Funds 2 1.06 Policy Review 34 Section 2 – Monitoring and Control 2.01 Delegation of Responsibilities 45 2.02 Performance Measurement 67 2.03 Compliance Reporting by Investment Manager 67 2.04 Standard of Professional Conduct 78 2.05 Monitoring of Investment Managers 78 2.06 Selecting Investment Managers 78 2.07 Dismissal of an Investment Manager 78 2.08 Monitoring of Asset Mix 89 Section 3 – Investment Guidelines and Restrictions 3.01 Permitted Investments 910 3.02 Minimum Quality Requirements 101 3.03 Maximum Quantity Restrictions 123 3.04 Prior Permission Required 123 3.05 Securities Lending 134 3.06 Responsible Investing 134 Section 4 – Short-Term Fund 4.01 Description 146 4.02 Investment Objectives 146 4.03 Investment Policy Established by the Investment CommitteeGuidelines and

Restrictions 146

4.04 Income Distribution Policy 1420 Section 5 – Pooled Endowment Fund 5.01 Description 1521 5.02 Investment Objectives 1521 5.03 Policy Asset Mix 1521 5.04 Rebalancing Policy 1622 5.05 Management Structure 1622 5.06 Currency Hedging Strategy 1622 5.07 Spending Policy 1723 Section 6 – Pooled Investment Fund 6.01 Description 1824 6.02 Investment Objectives 1824


Page 308 of 363

6.03 Policy Asset Mix 1824 6.04 Rebalancing Policy 1925 6.05 Management Structure 1925 6.06 Currency Hedging Strategy 1925 6.07 Spending Policy 2026 Section 7 – Sinking Fund 7.01 Description 217 7.02 Investment Objectives 217 7.03 Investment Guidelines 217 Section 8 – Delegation of Voting Rights 228

Section 9 – Conflict of Interest Guidelines 9.01 Queen’s University Guidelines 239 9.02 Duty of Care – to Act Honestly and in Good Faith 239 9.03 Conflicts of Interest 2430 9.04 Contracts and Transactions 2430 9.05 Personal Investments 2531 9.06 Outside Employment, Directorships or Other Relationships 2632 9.07 Related Party Transactions 2632 Section 10 – Valuation of Investments Not Regularly Traded 2733

Appendices A Investment Committee Constitution B Statement of Investment Beliefs C Statement of Investment Policies and Procedures for the Queen’s University Short-Term Fund D Responsible Investing Process E Debt Management Policy


Page 309 of 363

1

Section 1 - Introduction 1.01 Fiduciary Responsibilities

The University, acting through its Board of Trustees has overall fiduciary responsibility for the management of the investment funds of Queen's University. The Board of Trustees has appointed an Investment Committee to help ensure that its investment responsibilities are met, and this committee also has a fiduciary responsibility.

1.02 Purpose of Statement

The Investment Committee has prepared this Statement of Investment Policies and Procedures, (hereinafter called the “Statement”) with the objective of ensuring continued prudent and effective management of the investment funds described below:

Queen's Short-Term Fund: consists of day-to-day net cash balances which arise from

current operations, including student fee revenues and government grants.

Queen's Pooled Endowment Fund: consists of funds donated to the university for endowment purposes; normally the capital is not expendable. Payouts from this fund are used to support scholarships, student aid programs, academic chairs and research.

Queen's Pooled Investment Fund: consists of University equity, restricted expendable

funds (research), general reserves, plant and building funds, and working capital. Queen’s Sinking Fund: consists of cash inflows generated from capital projects,

operating funds, and proceeds from the repayment of internal loans provided to University departments and units. These are used for the repayment of the principal of external debt obligations.

In this Statement, “Queen’s Investment Funds” shall mean the four funds described above and “Queen’s Pooled Funds” shall mean the Queen’s Pooled Endowment Fund and the Queen’s Pooled Investment Fund. In special cases of an operational and/or immaterial nature, the Investment Committee Chair or Vice-Chair may authorize the administration to deviate from the Statement if he or she feels it is in the best interests of the Queen’s Investment Funds. Any such action will be reported in a timely fashion in between meetings to the Investment Committee.

1.03 Overall Objectives (a) Queen’s Short-Term Fund

The primary objective of the Short-Term Fund is to preserve capital and minimize liquidity and investment risk in order to meet the liquidity cash needs of the University.

A secondary objective is to obtain a reasonable level of return commensurate with a low-risk, terms and highly liquidity portfolio.


Page 310 of 363

2

(b) Queen’s Pooled Endowment Fund

The primary objective of the Pooled Endowment Fund is to maximize long-term real risk adjusted returns subject to the risk tolerance determined by the Board of Trustees (as specified through the Strategic Policy Asset Mix). in furtherance of two competing goals: the goal of releasing substantial income to support current operations and the goal of preserving the purchasing power of assets for future generations.

(c) Queen’s Pooled Investment Fund

The primary objective of the Pooled Investment Fund is to maximize risk adjustedmedium-term nominal returns subject to the risk tolerance determined by the Board of Trustees (as specified through the Strategic Policy Asset Mix)in order to make the desired annual payouts to the University which are required to support operations.

A secondary objective is to protect the nominal capital of the assets. (d) Queen’s Sinking Fund

The primary objective of the Queen’s Sinking Fund is to maximize investment returns over the time horizon of the fund, subject to the two goals of matching cash flows and preserving capital for the purpose of accumulateing sufficient funds to repay the full principal amounts of its external debt at maturity, while abiding by the guidelines specified in the University’s Debt Management Policy.

1.04 Investment Philosophy – Queen’s Pooled Funds

In order to achieve their long-term and short-term investment goals, the Queen’s Pooled Funds must invest in assets that have uncertain returns, such as Canadian equities, foreign equities, Canadian government and corporate bonds, and alternative investments. However, the Investment Committee attempts to reduce the overall level of risk by diversifying geographically, across asset classes, and further diversifying within each asset class.

The long-term asset mix policies for the Queen’s Pooled Funds (see Sections 5.03 and 6.03) have been established in an attempt to achieve long-term investment returns which are consistent with their objectivespayout obligations of the Queen’s Pooled Funds, but at a risk level which the Investment Committee deems to be acceptable. In developing the long-term asset mix policies for the Queen’s Pooled Funds, the Investment Committee has considered factors such as the following: The nature of the University’s liabilities; The University’s requirements for spending; The investment horizon, environment, and outlook; and Historical and expected capital market returns and risk.


Page 311 of 363

3

1.05 Investment Beliefs – Queen’s Pooled Funds The Investment Committee has developed a Statement of Investment Beliefs to serve as a guide for the management of the Queen’s Pooled Funds. This Statement is attached as Appendix B to this document. The Investment Committee’sStatement of Investment Beliefs comprise what we know, or what we think we know, about the way in which returns are generated. forms the basis for the development of return generating investment policies, and serves as a guide for the management of the Pooled Endowment Fund and the Pooled Investment Fund (collective, the “Funds”). The Investment Committee will review and confirm this Statement of Investment Beliefs every three years or as needed. The following outlines the Investment Committee’s current investment beliefs.

(a) Management of Assets

(i) The Pooled Endowment Fund should be managed with a long-term time horizon, with long-term defined as normally not less than 10 years. The Pooled Investment Fund should be managed with a medium-term horizon of between 5 and 10 years.

(ii) Liability mismatch is the key risk facing the Funds. Liability mismatch risk comprises market risk, credit risk, and liquidity risk. The minimum risk portfolio for the Pooled Endowment Fund is a portfolio comprised of long-term Government of Canada Real Return Bonds which would minimize the mark-to-market mismatch risk between the assets and liabilities of the Pooled Endowment Fund. The minimum risk portfolio for the Pooled Investment Fund is a portfolio comprised of short-term bonds with maturities between 1 and 5 years.

(iii) The primary determinant of risk and return of the Funds is the asset mix. (iv) As related to risk tolerance, the performance of the portfolio will be considered in

the context of the ultimate impact on the operations of the university and on the intended users of capital or proceeds.

(v)(iv) Equity investments should outperform government bonds over the long-term. The

Investment Committee believes that this equity risk premium is between 2% - 4%. (vi)(v) Diversification across and within asset classes is prudent and decreases portfolio

risk. (vii)(vi) The Investment Committee believes that it should not be making tactical

(short-term) changes to the asset mix of the Funds. (viii)(vii) Market inefficiencies exist in certain asset classes which provide the

opportunity to add value through active management.

Comment [BO1]: The rest of Section 1.05 was previously attached as an Appendix. The text has been pasted and re-formatted prior to tracking changes.


Page 312 of 363

4

(ix)(viii) Passive management should be used in asset classes where the prospect of adding value is low due to market efficiency, limited opportunities, or for an interim mandate.

(x)(ix) Investment managers should have “specialist” mandates whereby the manager is

allowed to invest only in a specific asset class, rather than “balanced” mandates where managers are allowed to invest in a number of different asset classes.

(xi)(x) The Investment Committee believes Aalternative investments (i.e. non-public

equity and debt) provide value added net of costs as we believe that they can providederived from both earning a liquidity premium and arefrom less efficient markets.

(xii)(xi) Investment costs are more predictable than investment risks and returns.

Cost optimization is important for the management of the Funds as costs erode returns and have a compounding effect over time. Keeping management fees and transaction costs low will contribute to the achievement of higher returns, all things being equal.

(xiii)(xii) The Investment Committee believes that there is a value premium and

given the long-term nature of the Pooled Endowment Fund, the assets of the fund should be managed with a value bias.

(xiv)(xiii) The Investment Committee believes that due to the underlying nature of the

liabilities of the Pooled Investment Fund, the assets of the fund should be comprised of liquid assets (i.e. public equity and public debt).

(b) Governance

(i) Fund performance shall be measured against an internal benchmark comprised of the sum of the weighting of each asset class multiplied by their respective asset class benchmarks.

(ii) The Investment Committee, through Investment Services, will maintain compliance standards consistent with industry practice.

(iii) The awareness and the effective management of environmental, social, and

governance related risks to business activities can improve the long-term financial performance of the companies concerned.

1.06 Policy Review

The Statement is reviewed annually by the Investment Committee and revised as necessary. Any material changes to this Statement require the approval of the Board of Trustees.


Page 313 of 363

5

Section 2 – Monitoring and Control 2.01 Delegation of Responsibilities

The Board of Trustees is responsible for the appointment of investment managers, custodians, auditors, investment consultants and performance measurement organizations, but may in some instances delegate authority to the Investment Committee as set out in this Statement. Recommendations on, or advice of, these appointments, as may be required pursuant to this Statement, are prepared periodically by the Investment Committee for review and approval, or review, as appropriate, by the Board of Trustees. Investment managers and custodians also have fiduciary responsibilities.

(a) Investment Committee

The current constitution of the Investment Committee is shown in Appendix A of this document. The Investment Committee reports quarterly to the Board of Trustees. In meeting its responsibilities, the Board of Trustees relies on the Investment Committee to deal with the various investment managers and the custodian to ensure that the appropriate investment policies are implemented. The Investment Committee also deals with performance measurement organizations. Two departments of the university, Investment Services and Financial Services, are also involved in the investment process. The Investment Committee recommends the policy asset mix to the Board of Trustees and develops ancillary policies as necessary.

The Investment Committee, through Investment Services, establishes investment mandates (hereinafter called “Mandates”) pursuant to this Statement for each investment manager. These Mandates will be reviewed at least annually by Investment Services and any substantial changes deemed to be appropriate must be approved by the Investment Committee.

(b) Investment Managers Each investment manager shall:

participate in reviews of its Mandate, preferably annually; make presentations to the Investment Committee, as requested, to review its investment

philosophy, strategies in the context of its expected capital markets outlook and performance – both return and risk profile, for the Queen’s Pooled Funds;

select securities within its asset class so as to meet the objectives set out in its Mandate

and this Statement; advise Investment Services of any significant changes in the management groupfirm or

of policies or procedures within the firm; and


Page 314 of 363

6

submit a compliance report quarterly, provide details on proxy voting and confirm there were no conflict of interest situations.

(c) Custodian The custodian shall:

fulfill the regular duties required by law of a custodian including maintaining safe custody over the assets of the Queen’s Pooled Funds;

provide the University with monthly financial statements for the Queen’s Pooled

Funds;

fulfill contractual duties which have been agreed to by the Investment Committee (such as Global Securities Lending and foreign exchange forward contracts); and

monitor aggregate limits which have been placed on the Queen’s Pooled Funds and

which are set out in this Statement. (d) Performance Measurement Organization The performance measurement organization, if any, shall:

measure the performance and risk of the Queen’s Pooled Funds;

provide full quarterly reports on total performance and risk of the Queen’s Pooled Funds and for each investment manager; and

make presentations to the Investment Committee as requested.

Note: Comparisons against peer groups may be provided by an external performance measurement organization, or by the custodian of the Queen’s Pooled Funds.

(e) University’s Administration The University’s administration shall:

act as the University’s main contact with the investment managers, the custodian, investment consultants and other providers of investment consulting and administrative services;

execute legal agreements with the investment managers; provide information on investment returns (actual and benchmark) and risk at the

manager level and the total fund level for the Queen’s Pooled Funds; reconcile performance reported by the investment managers with performance

reported by the custodian;


Page 315 of 363

7

compare the actual asset mix with the policy asset mix each month and rebalance

among asset classes according to the policy established by the Investment Committee; monitor private equity investments, ensuring that capital calls are met through

appropriate transfers from other assets and that distributions are allocated properly;

assist the Investment Committee in its review of investment managers and coordinate and lead searches for new managers when required;

work with the Chair of the Investment Committee to prepare agendas for quarterly

meetings, assist in preparing reports for the Board of Trustees and provide such other services as may be required;

perform annual reviews and due diligence on third-party providers of contractual

services; deal with the investments in the Queen’s Short-Term Fund in accordance with its

Statement of Investment Policies and Proceduresthis Statement;

deal with the investments in the Queen’s Sinking Fund in accordance with the University’s Debt Management Policy; and

maintain the unitized system for the Queen’s Pooled Funds.

2.02 Performance Measurement

For purposes of evaluating the performance of the Queen’s Pooled Funds, and the investment managers, all rates of returns are measured over a four-year period and the cumulative period since the manager was hired. Return objectives will be reported on a gross of fees and net of fees basis including realized and unrealized capital gains or losses plus income from all sources. Returns from all asset classes are to be expressed in Canadian dollars.

2.03 Compliance Reporting by Investment Manager Each investment manager is required to complete and deliver a compliance report to Investment Services each quarter. The compliance report will indicate whether or not the investment manager was in compliance with its Mandate during the quarter. Additionally, Investment Services will monitor investment management activities to ensure compliance. In the event that an investment manager is not in compliance with its Mandate, the investment manager is required to advise Investment Services immediately, detail the nature of the non-compliance, specify whether any losses arose from non-compliance, and recommend an appropriate course of action to remedy the situation. Investment Services will report any such non-compliance to the Investment Committee.


Page 316 of 363

8

2.04 Standard of Professional Conduct The Investment Committee has a preference for investment managers who comply with the CFA Asset Manager Code of Professional Conduct.

Each investment manager will manage the assets with the care, diligence and skill that an investment manager of expert prudence would use in dealing with assets for an endowment or foundation. Each investment manager will also use all relevant knowledge and skill that it possesses or ought to possess as an expert prudent investment manager.

2.05 Monitoring of Investment Managers

Investment Services will monitor and review: (a) the assets and net cash flow of the Queen’s Pooled Funds;

(b) Each investment manager’s financial stability, staff turnover, consistency of style

and record of service;

(c) Each investment manager’s current economic outlook, investment philosophy, and strategies;

(d) Each investment manager’s compliance with its Mandate; (e) The investment performance of the assets of the Queen’s Pooled Funds in relation

to the rate of return and risk expectations outlined in this Statement.

2.06 Selecting Investment Managers The Investment Committee has the delegated authority from the Board of Trustees to hire new investment managers to manage investment funds. In the event that a new investment manager must be selected or additional investment manager(s) added to the existing roster of investment managers, the Investment Committee may undertake an investment manager search and may use the assistance of a third-party investment consultant. The criteria used for selecting an investment manager will be consistent with the investment philosophy set out in Section 1.04 (Investment Philosophy – Queen’s Pooled Funds). ShouldDecisions to hire a new investment manager be hired to manage investment funds, such decision shall be communicated to the Board of Trustees at the next meeting of the Board.

2.07 Dismissal of an Investment Manager

The Investment Committee has the delegated authority from the Board of Trustees to terminate any investment manager. Termination of the services of an investment manager is at the discretion of the Investment Committee and the reasons may include, but are not limited to, the following:


Page 317 of 363

9

(a) Changes in personnel, firm structure, investment philosophy, or strategy at the investment manager which might adversely affect the potential return and/or risk level of the portfolio; Performance results which are below the stated performance benchmarks;

(b) Performance results which are below the stated performance benchmarks;Changes

in the overall structure of the Queen’s Pooled Funds’ assets such that the investment manager’s services are no longer required;

(c) Changes in personnel, firm structure, investment philosophy, or strategy at the

investment manager which might adversely affect the potential return and/or risk level of the portfolio; Changes in the overall structure of the Queen’s Pooled Funds’ assets such that the investment manager’s services are no longer required and/or

(d) Failure to adhere to its Mandate.

Should Decisions to terminate an investment manager be terminated for any reason, such decision shall be communicated to the Board of Trustees at the next meeting of the Board.

2.08 Monitoring of Asset Mix In order to ensure that the Queen’s Pooled Funds operate within the guidelines stated in the Statement, Investment Services shall monitor the asset mix monthly. Rebalancing activities, if any, will occur in accordance with Sections 5.04 and 6.04. Rebalancing will be effected by redirecting the net cash flows to and from the Queen’s Pooled Funds and, if necessary, by transfers from one investment manager to another within the Queen’s Pooled Funds.

Rebalancing should normally occur if any investment manager and/or asset class exposure breaches a limit set out in this Statement.

Comment [BO2]: Order of this section has been changed. No other changes.


Page 318 of 363

10

Section 3 – Investment Guidelines and Restrictions The Investment Managers have been informed by the Investment Committee that investments should be made following "prudent portfolio guidelines". 3.01 Permitted Investments

In general, and subject to the restrictions in this Section 3, the investment manager, subject to its Mandate, may invest only in the following asset categories (and their corresponding derivatives):

(a) Canadian and Foreign Equities

(i) common and convertible preferred stock; (ii) debentures convertible into common or convertible preferred stock; (iii) rights, warrants and special warrants for common or convertible preferred stock; (iv) installment receipts, American Depository Receipts and Global Depository

Receipts; (v) exchange traded index participation units or Exchange Traded Funds; and (vi) income/royalty trusts/REITs; (vii) private placements of equities (subject to Section 3.04 below).

(b) Bonds

(i) bonds, debentures, notes, non-convertible preferred stock and other evidence of indebtedness of Canadian or supranational issuers whether denominated and payable in Canadian dollars or a foreign currency;

(ii) mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities;

(iii) term deposits and guaranteed investment certificates; (iv) private placements of bonds (subject to Sections 3.02 and 3.04 below); and

(v) exchange traded index participation units or Exchange Traded Funds. (c) Cash and Short Term Investments (i) cash on hand and demand deposits; (ii) Treasury bills issued by the Government of Canada and provincial governments

and their agencies;


Page 319 of 363

11

(iii) Treasury bills issued by the U.S. government and/or its agencies; (iv) Commercial paper having a minimum rating of “R-1” low or equivalent as rated by

a Recognized Bond Rating Agency; (v) Asset-backed commercial paper having liquidity support arrangements that are

compliant with the Global Liquidity Standard criteria and as updated by Dominion Bond Rating Service from time-to-time; and

(vi) unitized funds holding only investments described in Section 3.01 (c) (i) to (v)

above.

(d) Other Investments (i) investments in open-ended or closed-ended pooled funds provided that the assets

of such funds are permissible investments under this Statement;

(ii) deposit accounts of the custodian for the purposes of investing surplus cash holdings;

(iii) limited partnerships;

(iv) investments in private equity;

(v) investments in hedge funds;

(vi) investments in high-yield bonds; (vii) investments in real assets, such as infrastructure and real estate;

(viii) currency forward and future contracts; and (ix) other investments which the Investment Committee expressly permits the

investment manager to employ in fulfilling its Mandate. (e) Pooled Funds Investments in pooled funds isare permissible subject to the prior approval of the

Investment Committee. Should a conflict arise between the provisions of the Statement, and the provisions of a pooled fund’s investment policy, the investment manager will notify the Investment Committee in writing, detailing the nature of the conflict and the investment manager’s recommended course of action.

3.02 Minimum Quality Requirements (a) Quality Standards

Within the investment restrictions for individual portfolios, all portfolios should hold a prudently diversified exposure to the intended market.


Page 320 of 363

12

(i) the minimum quality standard for individual bonds and debentures is “BBB” or equivalent as rated by two Recognized Bond Rating Agencies, at the time of purchase. Notwithstanding the foregoing, up to 10% of the bond portfolio (measured in aggregate, not for each bond mandate) may be invested in bonds and debentures rated lower than BBB as defined by two ratings agencies.

(ii) the minimum quality standard for individual short term investments is “R-1 low”

or equivalent as rated by two Recognized Bond Rating Agencies. (iii) the minimum quality standard for individual preferred shares is “P-1” or equivalent

as rated by two Recognized Bond Rating Agencies. (iv) for minimum quality standard purposes in (i), (ii) and (iii) above, the lowest rating

shall govern in the case of split-rated bonds. (v) generally, all public market investments shall be reasonably liquid (i.e. in normal

circumstances they should be capable of liquidation within one month). (b) Rating Agencies

For the purposes of this PolicyStatement, the following rating agencies shall each be considered to be a “Recognized Bond Rating Agency”:

(i) Dominion Bond Rating Service; (ii) Standard and Poor’s; (iii) Moody’s Investors Services; (iv) A.M. Best; and (v) Fitch Ratings, Ltd.

In order for a credit ratings organization to be considered a “Recognized Bond Rating Agency”, it must be designated as a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (or “NRSRO”). A NRSRO issues credit ratings that the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) permits other financial firms to use for certain regulatory purposes.

(c) Private Placement Bonds

Private Placement bonds are permitted subject to all of the following conditions: (i) the issues acquired must be “BBB” or equivalent rated; (ii) the total investment in such issues must not exceed 12% of the market value of the

investment manager’s bond portfolio;


Page 321 of 363

13

(iii) no one bond private placement shall represent more that 3% of a manager’s bond portfolio;

(iv) the investment manager’s portfolio may not hold more than 5% of the market

value of any one private placement; and, (v) the investment manager must be satisfied that there is sufficient liquidity to ensure

sale at a reasonable price.

3.03 Maximum Quantity Restrictions (a) Total Fund Level

No aggregate exposure in any corporate entity shall represent more than 5% of the total market value of the assets in each of the Queen’s Pooled Funds.

(b) Individual Investment Manager Level Restrictions are set out in the relevant Mandates. Other

The use of derivative securities shall be supported at all times by the explicit allocation of sufficient assets to back the intended derivative strategy. For greater certainty, investment managers are not permitted to leverage the assets of the Queen’s Pooled Funds unless prior consent has been obtained from the Investment Committee. The use of derivative securities is only permitted for the uses described in this Statement.

3.04 Prior Permission Required

The following investments are permitted provided that prior permission for such investments has been obtained from the Investment Committee.

(a) direct investments in resource properties. In any event, an investment in a resource

property shall not have a market value greater than or equal to 2% of the market value of the assets of the Queen’s Pooled Funds. The aggregate market value of all investments in resource properties shall not exceed 10% of the market value of the assets of the Queen’s Pooled Funds;

(b) direct investments in mortgages; (c) direct investments in real estate; (d) investments in private placement equities and debt; (e) direct investments in venture capital financing; (f) investments in a pooled fund that conflicts with this Statement; (g) investments in bonds of foreign issuers; and


Page 322 of 363

14

(h) derivatives other than those otherwise permitted in Section 3.03 above.

3.05 Securities Lending The investments of the Queen’s Pooled Funds and the Queen’s Sinking Fund may be loaned, for the purpose of generating revenue for these funds.

Collateral for such loans must be secured by marketable securities including: government bonds, treasury bills and/or letters of credit, discount notes, and bankers acceptances of major Canadian chartered banks. The amount of collateral taken for securities lending should reflect market practices in local markets, but should be at least 102% of the market value of the securities lent. This market value relationship must be calculated at least daily. The terms and conditions of any securities lending program will be set out in a contract with the securities lending agent. The securities lending agent shall, at all times, ensure that Investment Services has a current list of those institutions that are approved to borrow the securities in the Queen’s Pooled Funds and the Queen’s Sinking Fund. If the securities are in a pooled fund, securities lending will be governed by the terms and conditions set out in the pooled fund contract. As the University does not wish to assume any counterparty risk, such risk will be assumed by the securities lending agent and the revenue sharing will be adjusted accordingly.

3.06 Responsible Investing

(a) General Statement

The Investment Committee believes that awareness and the effective management of environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) related risks and opportunities may improve the long-term financial performance of the companies concerned. Consequently, the Investment Committee will, where appropriate, encourage its Investment Managers to take due regard of ESG issues in making investment decisions. Decisions pertaining to Responsible Investing must be guided by the fiduciary responsibilities of the Board of Trustees to ensure the prudent investment of the University’s assets. Generally speaking, the Investment Committee believes engagement is the best practice when dealing with ESG issues. The external investment managers that have been hired to manage assets on behalf of Queen’s University will be asked to engage where appropriate and report on their corporate engagement activities on an annual basis.

(b) Special Requests


Page 323 of 363

15

In accordance with approved policy or procedures, any special requests pertaining to Responsible Investing will be considered based on merit, significance to the portfolio, and the amount of resources required. The Investment Committee believes that divestment and/or the application of investment screens are generally not effective tools because, among other reasons, the ability to influence corporate behaviour through engagement practices is lost. In all cases, the fiduciary responsibilities of the Board of Trustees necessitate that, to the extent that ESG issues affect long-term returns and risks, these must be considered along with all other factors.

(c) Prohibited Investments

If applicable, Investment Services will maintain a list of prohibited investments which is consistent with this Statement. This list of prohibited investments will be reviewed annually in conjunction with the review of this Statement.

(a) General Statement

The Investment Committee believes that awareness and the effective management of environmental, social, and governance related risks to business activities can improve the long-term financial performance of the companies concerned. From time to time, the University may be asked to address an issue dealing with the environmental, social, or governance related issues associated with a specific investment or investments in the Queen’s Investment Funds. Should such issues arise, they will be addressed under the procedures outlined in Appendix D.

(b) Prohibited Investments

Investment Services maintains a list of prohibited investments and informs the Investment Committee of all pertinent matters relating to these investments.


Page 324 of 363

16

Section 4 – Short-Term Fund 4.01 Description

The Short-Term Fund of Queen’s University consists of money market and fixed income investments with average terms to maturity of 36 months or less. In pursuing its mission, the University accumulates excess cash balances that are not required for short-term operating or capital purposes. In addition, the University raises funds on capital markets for capital projects and other purposes. The cash surpluses are invested in securities approved under this policy to earn interest income above the amount that would be earned if left in corporate bank accounts.

These excess cash balances consist of the day-to-day receipts of the University, which arise from all sources, including student fee revenue, government grants, research contracts, donations and receipts from capital markets. Some of these cash balances are required within a three year time period and are not suitable for long-term investment. Such funds are invested under the terms of this policy, and are collectively referred to as the Queen’s University Short-Term Fund. The remaining balance may be invested in the Pooled Investment Fund.

4.02 Investment Objectives

1) The primary objective of the Short-Term Fund is to preserve capital and minimize liquidity and investment risk in order to meet the liquiditycash needs of the University.

2) A secondary objective is to obtain a reasonable level of return commensurate with a

low-risk, terms andhighly liquidity portfolio. 4.03 Investment Policy Established by the Investment CommitteeGuidelines and

Restrictions The Statement of Investment Policies and Procedures for the Queen’s University Short-Term Fund is appended to this Statement as Appendix C.

(a) Introduction The Short-Term Fund of Queen’s University consists of money market and fixed income investments with average terms to maturity of 36 months or less. In pursuing its mission, the University accumulates excess cash balances that are not required for immediate operating or capital purposes. In addition, the University raises funds on capital markets for capital projects and other purposes. These excess cash balances are invested in products approved under this policy to earn interest income generally above the amount that would be earned if left in corporate bank accounts.

These excess cash balances consist of the day-to-day cash receipts of the University, which arise from all sources, including student fee revenue, government grants, research contracts, donations and receipts from capital markets. Some of these cash balances (as

Comment [BO3]: The remainder of Section 4.03 was previously attached as an Appendix. That text was copied into this section and re-formatted prior to tracking changes. The changes are proposed to reduce redundancy and to align with the rest of the SIP&P.


Page 325 of 363

17

established in section 4.1 Cash Flows) are required within a three year time period and are not suitable for long-term investment. Such funds are invested under the terms of this policy. Cash balances not required within the three year time period may be invested in the Pooled Investment Fund. (i) Purpose

This policy describes strategies and controls for managing the University’s investment of short-term cash balances.

(ii) Approval The Investment Committee of the Board of Trustees oversees the implementation of this policy on behalf of the Board. Investing activities of the University must be approved, executed and reported on as outlined in this policy.

(b) Policy Objective

The University will invest surplus cash holdings in a prudent manner as authorized by the Board of Trustees. Specifically:

The primary objective of the Short-Term Fund is to preserve capital and minimize risk in order to meet the liquidity needs of the University;

A secondary objective is to obtain a reasonable level of return commensurate with risk, terms and liquidity

(c) Responsibilities and Approvals

Identification and investment of the excess funds, in accordance with the rules established in this policy, is the responsibility of the Associate Vice-Principal (Finance).

All investing activities are to be approved according to the guidelines and signing authorities contained in By-Law No. 4 of the Board of Trustees of Queen’s University at Kingston, and are incorporated by reference into this document.

(d) Procedure Cash Flows

Based on the approved annual operating and capital budgets, the University administration will prepare a cash flow forecast, using reasonable and prudent assumptions regarding the cycle of cash inflows and outflows for operating and capital expenditures. The resulting cash flows will be used to determine the amount and timing of investment products to be purchased and may include transfers to the Pooled Investment Fund.

The cash flow forecast prepared in this manner will be updated no less frequently than on a quarterly basis and will take into account updated operating and capital plans and forecasts.


Page 326 of 363

18

(i) Timing and Maturity Dates

Investing activities should be reviewed on a regular basis as actual, revised and forecasted operating and capital plans are completed. Investment maturity dates should be staggered so that related cash inflows and outflows are matched to forecasted cash requirements. Investment maturity dates should not exceed 36 months, unless authorized in writing by the Vice-Principal (Finance and Administration) or the Associate Vice-Principal (Finance).

(ii) Investment Products

Only investment products approved by the Investment Committee of the Board of Trustees can be purchased. Schedule ASection 4.03 (a) of this policy outlines the approved investment products and limits. These investment products must be purchased from financial institutions as detailed in Section 4.4.03 (a)4. Any one-time exceptions to the list of eligible investments may be approved by the Chair of the Investment Committee of the Board of Trustees. If the Chair is unavailable to grant such approval, the Vice-Chair is permitted to grant authority to these one-time exceptions.

(iii) Approved Financial Institutions Approved investment products may only be purchased through financial institutions approved by the Investment Committee of the Board of Trustees as listed in Schedule B. Any one-time exceptions to the list of approved financial institutions may be approved by the Chair of the Investment Committee of the Board of Trustees. If the Chair is unavailable to grant such approval, the Vice-Chair is permitted to grant authority to these one-time exceptions.

(iv) Approved Ratings Agencies For the purposes of this Policy, the following rating agencies shall each be considered to be a “Recognized Bond Rating Agency”:

Dominion Bond Rating Service;

Standard and Poor’s;

Moody’s Investors Services;

A.M. Best; and

Fitch Ratings, Ltd.

Comment [BO4]: Already covered in Section 3.02 (b)


Page 327 of 363

19

In order for a credit ratings organization to be considered a “Recognized Bond Rating Agency”, it must be designated as a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (or “NRSRO”). A NRSRO issues credit ratings that the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) permits other financial firms to use for certain regulatory purposes.

(v) Records & Accounting The University administration is responsible for holding and maintaining records of investing activities, including matured and outstanding investments. The University administration is also responsible for ensuring that the investing transactions are accounted for and disclosed in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and the University's accounting policies and practices.

(vi) Reporting At least oOn a quarterly basis, a report will be prepared and submitted for review to the Investment CommitteeVice-Principal (Finance and Administration). The report will provide details of investment balances and month-to-date and year-to-date investment income. A brief narrative of results to date will also be provided. On a basis consistent with meetings of the Investment Committee, a Treasury Update will be prepared and submitted for review to the Vice-Principal (Finance and Administration). Once approved, it will be submitted to the Investment Committee of the Board of Trustees. The Treasury Update will provide details of investment balances and returns against budget and a benchmark rate. The Treasury Update will also include a report stating whether investments are in compliance with this policy.

(vii) Evaluation of Performance & Strategies The primary objective of the investing strategy outlined in this policy is to minimize the University's exposure to loss of capital. For this reason, tThe results of investing activities will be measured in terms of the net investment income recorded in the consolidated results of operations compared to budget and average returns available for similar investment products.

SCHEDULE A (a) Approved Short-Term Fund Investments Approved Investment Products (for terms of less than one year)

(i) Fiera Cash in Action Fund – unlimited;

(ii) TD Emerald Canadian Treasury Management Fund – unlimited; (iii) TD Emerald Canadian Short Term Investment Fund – unlimited;


Page 328 of 363

20

(iv) Demand Deposit accounts or term deposits / Guaranteed Investment Certificates

issued or guaranteed by any of the five major Schedule I Canadian banks including Bank of Montreal, Bank of Nova Scotia, CIBC, Royal Bank of Canada, or TD Canada Trust – limited to C$60 million per institution. Provided that deposits may, from time to time, exceed this limit with the University’s principal bank of record (currently BMO Bank of Montreal), in which cases the University administration will take prudent and reasonable steps to return deposits to or below this level as soon as reasonably possible. All events where this limit is exceeded will be reported quarterly to the Investment Committee; and

(v) Any other accounts or funds that the Investment Committee may approve from

time to time.

Approved Investment Products (for terms between one and three years) (i) Fiera Short Term Bond Fund – unlimited;

SCHEDULE B

Approved Financial Institutions / Investment Managers

(i) TD Asset Management;

(ii) Fiera Capital Corporation;

(iii) Bank of Montreal;

(iv) Bank of Nova Scotia;

(v) CIBC;

(vi) Royal Bank of Canada;

(vii) TD Canada Trust; and

(viii) Any other financial institutions or investment managers that the Investment Committee may approve from time to time.

4.04 Income Distribution Policy

All income is available to the University to supplement current operating and capital requirements.


Page 329 of 363

21

Section 5 – Pooled Endowment Fund 5.01 Description

This fund consists of endowment funds donated to the University and held for specific purposes. Normally, the capital of these funds is not expendable. Payouts from the Pooled Endowment Fund (see Section 5.07) are used to support scholarships, student aid programs, chairs and research.


The primary objective of the Pooled Endowment Fund is to maximize long-term realrisk adjusted returns subject to the risk tolerance determined by the Board of Trustees (as specified through the Strategic Policy Asset Mix). in furtherance of two competing goals; the goal of releasing substantial income to support current operations and the goal of preserving the purchasing power of assets for future generations. To meet this objective, the Pooled Endowment Fund will aim to:

1) Achieve an annualized real return for the fund of at least 4.0% over a rolling ten year

period, after payment of investment manager fees and other expenses;

2) Achieve overall investment performance on a 4-year rolling annualized basis which exceeds the policy benchmark as set out in Section 5.03 below. (The individual investment managers’ benchmarks and investment objectives are contained in the relevant Mandates for those accounts managed on a segregated account basis).

5.03 Policy Asset Mix In order to meet the objectives outlined in Section 5.02 above, the following Strategic

Policy Asset Mix has been approved:

Asset Class

Strategic Policy Asset

Mix


Mix Ranges Equities (including Private Equity) 70.0% 50.0% to 80.0% Fixed Income and Absolute Return Strategies

20.0% 10.0% to 45.0%

Real Assets 10.0% 5.0% to 15.0% The Strategic Policy Asset Mix represents the long-term policy asset mix and is a reflection of the average, long-term (i.e. 10+ years) risk appetite of the Board of Trustees. However, based on its medium-term outlook (i.e. under 10 years), the committee will employ a Target Asset Mix that falls within the Strategic Asset Mix Ranges. The Target Asset Mix must be formally approved by the Investment Committee.


Page 330 of 363

22

For rebalancing purposes, as outlined in Section 5.04, Allowable Ranges for each individual asset class are defined as the Target Asset Mix weight plus-or-minus 5% of the Pooled Endowment Fund’s total asset value. Performance for the Pooled Endowment Fund will be compared against a blended benchmark that reflects the Strategic Policy Asset Mix and currency hedging strategy. Performance will be further compared against a benchmark calculated as the weighted average of each investment manager’s respective benchmark, weighted by each investment manager’s target weight within the overall fund.

5.04 Rebalancing Policy

In addition to routine rebalancing as a result of cash flow activity, rebalancing of the portfolio will occur when the actual weight of Equities or Fixed Income and Absolute Return Strategies is outside of its Allowable Range, as defined in Section 5.03. Assets shall be rebalanced to the midpoint of the minimum or maximum allowable threshold, as the case may be, and the target weight for that asset class. That is, rebalancing will not be done all the way back to the target weight. As well as rebalancing at the asset class level, rebalancing will be done at the manager level within the asset class. Investment Services will execute the rebalancing policy and will report on any material rebalancing allocations undertaken at the regular quarterly meetings of the Investment Committee.

5.05 Management Structure

The Pooled Endowment Fund may employ a mix of active and passive styles. Currently, active management has been adopted for a majority portion of the assets as it provides the opportunity to outperform market indices over the long term. Passive management has also been adopted for a portion of the assets, as it minimizes the risk of underperformance relative to a benchmark index and is less expensive than active management. Specialist managers are typically used in each asset class.

5.06 Currency Hedging Strategy The Investment Committee may implement a foreign exchange hedge policy in order to mitigate return volatility relative to its liabilities and associated with the currency mix of assets in the Pooled Endowment Fund. For equities and real assets, the policy benchmark is to hedge 50% of all U.S. dollar, Euro, British Pound Sterling, and Japanese Yen denominated assets back to Canadian dollars. For foreign bonds, the policy benchmark is to hedge 100% of all U.S. dollar, Euro, British Pound Sterling, and Japanese Yen denominated assets back to Canadian dollars. The actual hedge policy in place at any time may deviate from the policy benchmark as a result of a decision made by the Investment Committee.


Page 331 of 363

23

Between meetings, Investment Services is authorized to rebalance the foreign exchange exposure in the Pooled Endowment Fund, subject to the guidelines of the Investment Committee. Investment Services will execute the currency hedging strategy and will report on any currency hedging transactions undertaken at the regular quarterly meetings of the Investment Committee. At least annually, Investment Services will report on the overall performance of the currency hedging strategy.

5.07 Spending Policy

The current policy has been approved by the Board of Trustees. The objective of the spending policy is to release substantial income while preserving the purchasing power of assets for future generations. This policy is designed to meet two competing objectives: to release substantial current income to the operating budget in a stable stream to meet the obligations of the fund; to protect the value of endowment assets against inflation.

The spending rule for Queen’s attempts to achieve these objectives by using a long-term spending rate of 3.74.0% per annum combined with a smoothing rule that adjusts spending gradually to changes in endowment market value. The amount released under the spending rule is based on a 70% weight applied to the prior year’s spending adjusted for inflation (subject to a maximum cap on inflation of 2.0%) and a 30% weight applied to the amount that would have been spent using 3.74.0% per annum of current endowment market value. The spending formula includes a spending cap at 4.24.5% and a spending floor at 3.23.5%. As a consequence of the smoothing rule, the spending payout has a lower volatility than that of the overall fund. The Spending Policy will be reviewed annually by the Investment Committee.


Page 332 of 363

24

Section 6 – Pooled Investment Fund 6.01 Description

This is the investment vehicle which primarily contains restricted and unrestricted fund balances from research projects, trust accounts and operating carry-forwards. The capital of this fund is expendable (with some exceptions). Payouts from the Pooled Investment Fund (see Section 6.07) are normally used by the University to support current operations.


The primary objective of the Pooled Investment Fund is to maximize risk adjustedmedium-term nominal returns subject to the risk tolerance determined by the Board of Trustees (as specified through the Strategic Policy Asset Mix). in order to make the desired annual payouts to the University which are required to support operations. A secondary objective is to protect the nominal capital of the assets. To meet thisese two objectives, the Pooled Investment Fund will aim to:

1) Achieve an annualized nominal return for the fund of at least 6.0% over a rolling

ten year period, after payment of investment manager fees and other expenses;

2) Meet the liquidity needs of the University as determined from time to time, subject to any restrictions on the capital;

3) Achieve overall investment performances on a 4-year rolling annualized basis

which exceeds the policy benchmark as discussed in Section 6.03 below. (The individual investment managers’ benchmarks and investment objectives are contained in the relevant Mandates).

6.03 Policy Asset Mix

In order to meet the objectives outlined in Section 6.02 above, the following Strategic Policy Asset Mix has been approved: Asset Class


Mix


Mix Ranges Equities 65.0% 40.0% to 70.0% Fixed Income 35.0% 30.0% to 60.0% The Strategic Policy Asset Mix represents the long-term policy asset mix and is a reflection of the average, long-term (i.e. 10+ years) risk appetite of the Board of Trustees. However, based on its medium-term outlook (i.e. under 10 years), the committee will employ a Target Asset Mix that falls within the Strategic Asset Mix Ranges. The Target Asset Mix must be formally approved by the Investment Committee.


Page 333 of 363

25

For rebalancing purposes, as outlined in Section 6.04, Allowable Ranges for each individual asset class are defined as the Target Asset Mix weight plus-or-minus 5% of the Pooled Investment Fund’s total asset value. Performance for the Pooled Investment Fund will be compared against a blended benchmark that reflects the Strategic Policy Asset Mix and currency hedging strategy. Performance will be further compared against a benchmark calculated as the weighted average of each investment manager’s respective benchmark, weighted by each investment manager’s target weight within the overall fund.

6.04 Rebalancing Policy

In addition to routine rebalancing as a result of cash flow activity, rebalancing of the portfolio will occur when the actual weight of Equities or Fixed Income is outside of its Allowable Range, as defined in Section 6.03. Assets shall be rebalanced to the midpoint of the minimum or maximum allowable threshold, as the case may be, and the target weight for that asset class. That is, rebalancing will not be done all the way back to the target weight. As well as rebalancing at the asset class level, rebalancing will be done at the manager level within the asset class.

Investment Services will execute the rebalancing policy and will report on any material rebalancing activities undertaken at the regular quarterly meetings of the Investment Committee.

6.05 Management Structure The Pooled Investment Fund may employ a mix of active and passive styles. Currently, active management has been adopted for a majorityportion of the assets as it provides the opportunity to outperform market indices over the long term. Passive management has also been adopted for a portion of the assets as it minimizes the risk of underperformance relative to a benchmark index and is less expensive than active management. Specialist managers are typically used in each asset class.

6.06 Currency Hedging Policy

The Investment Committee may implement a foreign exchange hedge policy in order to mitigate return volatility relative to its liabilities and associated with the currency mix of assets in the Pooled Investment Fund. For equities and real assets, the policy benchmark is to hedge 50% of all U.S. dollar, Euro, British Pound Sterling, and Japanese Yen denominated assets back to Canadian dollars. For foreign bonds, the policy benchmark is to hedge 100% of all U.S. dollar, Euro, British Pound Sterling, and Japanese Yen denominated assets back to Canadian dollars. The actual hedge policy in place at any time may deviate from the policy benchmark as a result of a decision made by the Investment Committee. Between meetings, Investment Services is authorized to rebalance foreign exchange exposure in the Pooled Investment Fund, subject to the guidelines of the Investment Committee.


Page 334 of 363

26

Investment Services will execute the currency hedging strategy and will report on any currency hedging transactions undertaken at the regular quarterly meetings of the Investment Committee. At least annually, Investment Services will report on the overall performance of the currency hedging strategy.

6.07 Spending Policy

Annually, the University administration informs the Investment Committee of the dollar amount which the University wishes to spend from the Pooled Investment Fund.


Page 335 of 363

27

Section 7 – Queen’s Sinking Fund 7.01 Description

The Queen’s Sinking Fund is a voluntary, internally-administered investment fund established to accumulate sufficient funds over time in order to fully repay the principal amount outstanding on its external debt at maturity. Cash inflows for the Queen’s Sinking Fund are generated from capital projects, operating funds, and proceeds from the repayment of internal loans provided to University departments and units.

7.02 Investment Objective

The primary objective of the Queen’s Sinking Fund is to maximize investment returns over the time horizon of the fund, subject to the two goals of matching cash flows and preserving capitalaccumulate sufficient funds to repay the principal amounts of its external debt at maturity, while abiding by the guidelines specified in the University’s Debt Management Policy.

7.03 Investment Guidelines

Investment guidelines are contained in Section 5 of the University’s Debt Management Policy and is appended to this Statement as Appendix Eas approved by the Board of Trustees.


Page 336 of 363

28

Section 8 – Delegation of Voting Rights The investment managers vote the proxies, and each manager’s proxy voting policy is attached to its Mandate. The general guideline from the Investment Committee is that non-routine voting should be done in such a way as to enhance shareholder value while being supportive of the University’s views on Responsible Investing as set out in Section 3.06 of this Statement. Each investment manager will provide an annual report which details its proxy voting record, and also sets out any changes in its proxy voting policy.


Page 337 of 363

29

Section 9 – Conflict of Interest Guidelines 9.01 Queen’s University Guidelines

The Queen’s University Board of Trustees Code of Conduct was approved by the Board of Trustees on March 6, 2009. Members of the Investment Committee are required to confirm in writing that they have read, understood, and agree to abide by this the Queen’s University Board of Trustees Code of Conduct. Committees of the Board of Trustees, with approval of the Board of Trustees, may adopt more specific standards and procedures as to conflicts as may be pertinent to their activities provided that such standards and procedures are consistent with the Board of Trustees’ policies cited above.

The following additional standards and procedures are applicable to members of the Investment Committee as well as to agents of the Committee who assist the Committee in the execution of its responsibilities. An “agent” is defined to mean an employee of the University who provides support to the Investment Committee in the performance of its duties. The inclusion of agents in this policy recognizes their role in giving advice and recommendations to the Investment Committee.

9.02 Duty of Care - to Act Honestly and in Good Faith

Members of the Investment Committee and its agents, in exercising their powers and discharging their duties, must act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of Queen’s Investment Funds, and must exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances. It follows that the Investment Committee is entitled to full disclosure from its members and its agents of all facts which might affect Investment Committee decisions or the impartiality of a member or agent participating in the discussion or decision. Personal interests must not be brought into conflict with duties as an Investment Committee member or agent. Further, it is expected that no Investment Committee member or agent shall make any personal financial gain (direct or indirect) because of his or her position. This does not apply to compensation paid to University employees or reimbursement of duly authorized expenses to members of the Investment Committee. No Investment Committee member or agent shall accept a gift or gratuity or other personal favour, other than one of nominal value (i.e. no greater than a value of $100 and not consisting of cash or securities), from a person with whom that Investment Committee member or agent deals in the course of performing his or her duties with respect to Queen’s Investment Funds. Business entertainment for the purpose of networking, education, or relationship development is acceptable if good judgement is exercised, the business contact is present, and full disclosure is provided to the committee Chair in the event that the value of the entertainment is greater than $100.


Page 338 of 363

30

Investment Committee members and agents shall keep Investment Committee matters confidential and disclose information regarding its affairs only in the necessary course of business or as authorized.

9.03 Conflicts of Interest As between its members or agents and the Investment Committee, (i) in the context of the member’s and agent’s fiduciary duty and ensuring impartial consideration of a transaction or contract and (ii) pursuant to this Statement, matters affecting the management of Queen’s Investment Funds may embody or be viewed as embodying a conflict of interest requiring disclosure and, in some instances, non-participation in discussion and/or voting.

Investment Committee members and agents should be guided by the general rule which is as follows:

If a member or agent finds himself or herself in a conflict of interest or a situation where he or she believes that others might think that he or she has one, he or she must immediately advise the Investment Committee, so that action can be taken to resolve the situation.

More specifically: 9.04 Contracts and Transactions

1) An Investment Committee member or agent or his or her spouse or minor child who

(a) is a party to a material contract or material transaction (Note 1) or a

proposed material contract or material transaction with respect to Queen’s Investment Funds,

(b) is a director or an officer of any entity that is a party to a material contract

or material transaction or proposed material contract or material transaction with Queen’s Investment Funds, or

(c) has a material interest (Note 2) in any person (Note 3) who is a party to a

material contract or material transaction or proposed material contract or material transaction with the Queen’s Investment Funds,

must disclose in writing to the Investment Committee or request to have entered in the minutes of a meeting of the Investment Committee the nature and extent of that interest.

2) A member of the Investment Committee or agent must make any required

personal, or spousal or minor child disclosure:

(a) forthwith after the member becomes aware that the proposed contract or transaction is to be considered, or a contract or transaction has been


Page 339 of 363

31

considered, whether at a meeting of the Investment Committee or otherwise;

(b) if the member or his or her spouse or minor child becomes interested after a

contract is made or a transaction is undertaken, forthwith after the member or his or her spouse or minor child becomes so interested; or

(c) if a person who is interested in a contract or transaction or whose spouse or

minor child is interested in a contract or transaction later becomes a member, forthwith after the person becomes a member.

3) A general notice to the Investment Committee by a member or agent declaring that

the member or agent or his or her spouse or minor child is a director or officer of any entity or has a material interest in a person, and is to be regarded as interested in any contract made or transaction undertaken with that entity or person, is a sufficient declaration of interest in relation to any contract so made or transaction undertaken.

Note 1: “Material contract” is undefined but will include any contract in respect of investment counselling, custody, performance measurement, audit or any other services provided in respect to the supervision, management, safekeeping, accounting, reporting, investment or trading of the Queen’s Investment Funds. “Material transaction” means any specific transaction or series of transactions, including asset sales or purchases (other than sales or purchases of publicly traded securities), brought before the Investment Committee in order for the Investment Committee to make a recommendation or take a decision.

Note 2: “Material interest” is also not defined, but would include ownership (directly and indirectly) of 10 % or more of the voting shares or 25% or more of the equity of an entity. Any lesser ownership or other circumstances which actually constitute a controlling role (alone or jointly with others) would also be a material interest in an entity. Other circumstances may be viewed as appropriate to disclose such as family and personal relationships with a party to a material contract with Queen’s Investment Funds or a material transaction.

Note 3: A “person” is a natural person, personal representative, a corporation, unincorporated body or organization, a trust, partnership, fund, or governmental body.

4) Where a member or agent holds such position/interest, the member or agent may not participate in any consideration or decision making with respect to such material contracts or material transactions.

9.05 Personal Investments

1) It is recognized that Investment Committee members and agents may personally, from time to time, have a beneficial interest in investments. In light of the Investment Committee’s role as described in paragraph 2, this should not, in itself, present any conflict of interest.


Page 340 of 363

32

2) The selection of specific investments for purchase or sale with respect to Queen’s Investment Funds is not the role of the Investment Committee which delegates such specific decisions to its Investment Managers.

3) In the event that the Investment Committee decides to give specific direction with

respect to the purchase or sale of a specific non-publicly traded security or specific publicly but thinly traded security, a member or agent must declare a conflict if they have a direct or indirect beneficial (including a spouse’s or minor child’s) interest in the same investment.

4) Where a member declares such a conflict, the individual may participate in the

discussion and vote on the matter, only with the unanimous approval of all other members with voting rights.

9.06 Outside Employment, Directorships or Other Relationships

1) It is recognized that by virtue of his or her outside employment, outside directorships or other relationships, Investment Committee members or agents may from time to time be in possession of confidential or inside information with respect to third parties and/or issuers.

2) In the event that the Investment Committee decides to discuss, review or give

specific direction with respect to the purchase or sale of a specific investment, a member or agent who possesses Confidential or Inside Information, may elect not to discuss, review or vote on the matter, without giving reasons.

9.07 Related Party Transactions

1) With respect to Queen’s Investment Funds, a related party is:

(a) a member or agent of the Investment Committee; (b) a member of the Board of Trustees; (c) an employee of the University; (d) a spouse or minor child of any of the persons identified in (a), (b) or (c); (e) a corporation or business organization controlled by any of the persons

identified in (a), (b) or (c); 2) Queen’s University, on behalf of the Queen’s Investment Funds, may not enter

into a contract or transaction with a related party unless the contract or transaction is both required for the operation and/or administration of the Queen’s Investment Funds and the terms of the transaction are not less favourable to Queen’s than market terms and conditions.


Page 341 of 363

33

Section 10 – Valuation of Investments Not Regularly Traded With the exception of private placements, real estate, resource, and venture capital investments and derivative securities, it is expected that all the securities held by the Queen’s Pooled Funds will have an active market and therefore valuation of the securities held by the funds will be based on their market values, or best practices. The following principles will apply for the valuation of investments that are not traded regularly: (a) For private placements and real estate and resource investments, if a security held by a

fund does not have an active market, then it will be valued by the custodian using a discount rate composed of an estimate of the risk-free rate of return, an estimate of expected inflation and a risk premium commensurate with the uncertainty of the investment's future income stream. With respect to real estate investments, such valuations will be adjusted as appropriate when valuations are obtained from real estate appraisers.

(b) For private equity, generally accepted accounting principles require that fair market value

be used to value investments. (c) For non-exchange traded derivative securities and other investments not regularly traded,

the custodian will use a value which it deems to be reasonable in light of current market conditions.

(d) If the Investment Committee decides that a security has no value, then the custodian shall

be instructed to write the market value of the asset down to zero.


Page 342 of 363

MEMORANDUM Qj~een’sUNIVERSITY

Principal and Vice-Chancellor

To: Board ofTrustees

From: Daniel Woolf 9Date: April 13, 201.

Subject: Background information — Peter MacKinnon’s presentation on academic freedom

In addition to the articles provided as background reading for Peter MacKinnon’s presentation, titled‘Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech in Canadian Universities,’ on Saturday, May 7, 2016, thismemo provides further information.

This session is a continuing education session for Trustees in response to the desire to have moreknowledge about the intersection between governance responsibilities and academic freedom. In additionto Mr. MacKinnon’s accomplishments, outlined below, he was lead drafter on the committee of universityexecutive heads that drafted a national statement on academic freedom in 2011.

Currently the Interim President at Athabasca University, Peter MacKinnon is president emeritus of theUniversity of Saskatchewan and the inaugural Prime Ministers of Canada Fellow at the Public PolicyForum. He was educated at Saskatchewan, Queen’s and Dalhousie Universities; he completed the BarAdmission Course at Osgoode Hall in 1975 and was called to the Bar in Saskatchewan in 1979.

Mr. MacKinnon taught law for 23 years, with occasional engagement in appellate cases in theSaskatchewan Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada. He wrote articles, commentaries andreviews in legal periodicals in Canada and beyond, and co-edited three books entitled After Meech Lake(Fifth House), Electoral Boundaries: Legislatures, Courts and Electoral Values (Fifth House) andCitizenship, Diversity and Pluralism (McGill-Queen’s). His sole-authored book, University Leadersh4pand Public Policy in the 21st Century, (UofT Press) was recently published.

Mr. MacKinnon was the University of Saskatchewan’s eighth dean of law for 10 years and its eighthpresident for 13 years. He was chair of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC)from 2003-2005. He served for five years on the Science, Technology and Innovation Council of Canada(STIC), and he continues to serve on the Prime Minister’s Advisory Committee on the Public Service; theChief Justice of Canada’s Advisory Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council; the Board of the Councilof Canadian Academies; the Board of the Canadian Stem Cell Foundation; the Board of the GlobalInstitute for Food Security; the Board of Confederation Centre of the Arts in Charlottetown, PEI; and asChair of the Honours Advisory Council in Saskatchewan.

Mr. MacKinnon is an Officer of the Order of Canada, a Queen’s Counsel, and a recipient of a Canadian BarAssociation Distinguished Service Award in Saskatchewan. He holds honorary degrees from Queen’s, Victoria,UOIT, Dathousie, Memorial and Regina universities.

Office of the PrincipalSuite 351 Richardson Hall, Queen’s University

Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6Telephone: 613-533-2200 Fax: 613-533-6838

ITEM: Academic Freedom Background Information - D. Woolf

Page 343 of 363

What do we mean when we talk about academic freedom?

If I were to ask members of any university audience, “Do you believe in the importance ofacademic freedom? Do you believe we should all be vigilant and vigorous in its defence?”, theanswers undoubtedly would be yes and yes.

By PETER MACKINNON | September 12, 2011

Those decisive responses might typically be followed by some “buts.” But what about responsibilitiesas well as freedoms? But what are the limits to the freedom, because all freedoms do have limits? Butwhat is the real meaning of academic freedom in today’s university environment?

Answers and questions like these are to be expected. And they’re not limited to core values just for ourown professional lives. As a lawyer, I’ve had occasion to reflect on a different core value, that ofjudicial independence. Like academic freedom, it is a defining idea and its core parameters are easilyunderstood, though its broader sweep might be more controversial. My involvement in the issue lay inasking whether judicial independence was compromised by including judges in public-sector wageguidelines. I didn’t think it was compromised, but some judges were sufficiently committed to thealternate view that they were prepared to go to court to say, in effect, that their capacity to dispenseimpartial justice might be compromised if they were included, along with other public-sectoremployees, in public-sector salary guidelines during a time of fiscal constraint.

The point is that with all values, there’s a core meaning to which we can all ascribe and there is apotentially broader meaning for which general support breaks down. Let’s agree on our acceptance ofthe value, so that we can examine some of the things that challenge it. I can think of four:

1. Definitional issues;

2. Failure to recognize that academic freedom exists for a purpose and that it must be seengenerally to advance that purpose;

3. Extravagant claims made in the name of academic freedom;

4. Structural features of modern universities that undermine institutional solidarity in defence ofacademic freedom.

Consider, first, issues about the definition. Each of us needs to set out our own definition of academicfreedom, so let me offer mine: Academic freedom means the freedom to teach and conduct researchconstrained only by two things – the professional standards of the relevant discipline and thelegitimate and non-discriminatory institutional re-qui-rements for organizing the academic mission.

The first constraint provides an implicit distinction between academic freedom and freedom of speech;

http://www.universityaffairs.ca/opinion/in-my-opinion/what-do-we-mean-when-we-talk-about-academic-freedom/ 3/9/16, 12:44 PMPage 1 of 4

ITEM: Reference Articles: What do we mean when we talk about...

Page 344 of 363

the former is a narrower concept. For example, exponents of holocaust denial and members of the FlatEarth Society are free to speak their minds on these subjects on the street – they have freedom ofspeech – but they are not entitled to claim academic freedom in defence of doing so in an academicsetting. The reason is that the claims would fall below the professional standards of history andastronomy.

There are two common rebuttals to a constraint on academic freedom that is based on a distinctionbetween it and freedom of speech. One is that critics argue that today’s heresy may be tomorrow’struth, and the truth might be suppressed by insisting upon an adherence to professional standards thatprevail today. Secondly, critics also argue that all ideas are open to question including the shape of theearth and the historical record of the holocaust. My simple response is that I agree, but that neithercriticism undermines the argument.

An insistence on professional standards speaks to the rigour of the enquiry and not to its outcome. Andwhile it’s true that all ideas are open to question in the university, they must be questionedsystematically, and answers must be defensible in reason. The claim that “I’m entitled to my opinion”has limited currency in an environment whose raison d’etre is reason and rationality. You may indeedbe entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is of no interest and garners no credit if it cannotwithstand scrutiny based on reason and relevant professional standards.

The second constraint on academic freedom – legitimate and non-discriminatory institutionalrequirements – recognizes simply that the academic mission, like other work, has to be organized, andit does not violate academic freedom to insist upon compliance with organizational needs: teachingaccording to a schedule and adhering to collegial and administrative expectations for getting workdone.

So, there is my definition. Academic freedom is a lot of freedom, but it has its limitations, and respectfor the core value of academic freedom requires respect for its limitations.Academic freedom needs to be distinguished from a third concept, that of institutional autonomy. Atmy university, I’ve heard it suggested that some of our scientific establishments undermine academicfreedom because of their connection to industry and industry users. Other university activity may beconnected to governments, philanthropists, ecclesiastical interests or other domains of civil society.Such connections do not ipso facto threaten academic freedom; it is only when they compromise thefreedom to teach and conduct research that they do so. Some, however, believe that academic freedomis protected only when institutional behaviours align with their own values. The sometimes conflictingvalues of others in the community presumably do not matter.

Academic freedom exists for a reason

The failure to recognize that this core value exists for a purpose and must be seen generally to advancethat purpose is the second challenge.



Page 345 of 363

The point is simple: academic freedom does not exist for its own sake any more than does judicialindependence. Both exist for important social purposes. In the case of academic freedom, the purposeis to advance scholarly enquiry in the interests of seeking truth. There is a reciprocal and mutuallyreinforcing relationship between academic freedom and scholarly enquiry. In very good academicsettings – say, excellent university departments and other units – the importance of academic freedomwill be understood by those within and outside the academy because the re-sults are apparent to all. Inweak units, the benefits of academic freedom are less readily apparent. In such situations, thelegitimacy of academic freedom will be more tenuous. As a consequence, preserving academicfreedom requires an insistence on high academic standards.

The third challenge concerns extravagant claims made in the name of academic freedom; this relatesto the definition of academic freedom. If definitions are too broad or too loose, so too will be theclaims made in its name. We owe it to our universities and publics to confront overly broad and looseclaims clearly and sometimes publicly, so that the campus and broader community understand thatuniversities will not timidly close ranks in defence of nonsense clothed in the rhetoric of academicfreedom.

That brings me to my fourth and perhaps most controversial point – that the structure of modern-dayuniversities undermines solidarity in defending academic freedom.

There are thousands upon thousands of faculty members in Canadian universities. What do wesuppose would be their answers to these two questions: Do you see yourselves as members of a self-governing profession? Do you believe that the professoriate should be a self-governing profession?

I believe that most would answer “yes” to both questions, but the reality is that the professoriate is nota self-governing profession. Perhaps it has never been one, except by serving as a gatekeeper to itsranks. But self-governance is about more than gate-keeping and peer evaluation on the road to tenureand promotion. Self-governance means regulation by one’s peers in accordance with known andaccepted standards.

In pursuing and acquiring trade union status, university faculty associations have precluded self-governance in this sense. Job performance and sanctions for non-performance are negotiated with an“employer” and their enforcement depends on “management,” whose initiatives in this area are often,if not typically, resisted by unions as overreach or even malevolence. It may not matter that realacademic freedom is not an issue at all. Many of the claims made about academic freedom are aboutother things, but the damage is done by the rhetoric.

This has two negative consequences. The first is that it contributes to confusion about the acceptedunderstandings of academic freedom; the second is that it pits university administrators as supposedassailants upon academic freedom and unions as its supposed defenders. In other words, it underminesinstitutional solidarity in support of the value and scope of academic freedom. A self-governingprofessoriate would not countenance such vulnerability in a value that is essential to its mission.



Page 346 of 363

Peter MacKinnon is president and professor of law at the University of Saskatchewan.



Page 347 of 363

WANT TO ADVERTISE? CLICK HERE (HTTPS://WWW.INSIDEHIGHERED.COM/ADVERTISE)

RELATED

Canadian professors spar over limits of academic freedom (/news/2015/01/09/canadian-professors-spar-over-limits-academic-freedom)

Defining Academic Freedom for 2007 (/news/2007/10/29/aft)

Unusual Ruling for Academic Freedom (/news/2011/03/31/judge_rejects_suit_against_u_of_minnesota_over_website_on_genocide)

Save Academic Freedom (/views/2011/02/28/save-academic-freedom)

AAUP President Speaks (/news/2007/06/07/nelson)

CUNY Adopts Student Complaint Policy (/news/2007/01/31/cuny)

Quick Takes: Pro-Israel Group's Academic Freedom Plan, Not So Distant Distance Education, Anxiety Disorders on the Rise, Sierra Nevada's ReorganizationPlan, CollegeNet vs. XAP (/news/2007/03/28/qt)

8SHARES

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/11/02/canadian-universities-adopt-new-statement-academic-freedom 3/9/16, 12:45 PMPage 1 of 8


Page 348 of 363

U. of Saskatchewan Ends Presidential Veto on Tenure (/quicktakes/2014/08/25/u-saskatchewan-ends-presidential-veto-tenure)

Academic Freedom, Revised

By Scott Jaschik

Canada's university presidents adopt new statement -- without mention of tenure -- and with language that concerns somefaculty leaders.

November 2, 2011

Canada's university presidents have jointly adopted a new statement on academic freedom, (http://www.aucc.ca/media-room/news-and-commentary/canadas-universities-adopt-new-statement-on-academic-freedom) pledging support for theright of faculty members to follow their ideas in teaching and research, without inappropriate interference.

But while parts of the statement are being received well by faculty members, other portions are not. The statement containssome qualifiers about academic freedom that the drafters say will strengthen public support for academic freedom, but thatsome professors question. Further, the statement was prepared by a committee of university presidents only, and it removessupportive references to tenure that appeared in the universities' previous statement on academic freedom.

The new statement was released last week to mark the 100th anniversary of the Association of Universities and Colleges ofCanada. Much of the statement contains broad language of the sort found in many campus policies affirming the importanceof academic freedom. "Academic freedom is the freedom to teach and conduct research in an academic environment.Academic freedom is fundamental to the mandate of universities to pursue truth, educate students and disseminateknowledge and understanding," the statement says. "In teaching, academic freedom is fundamental to the protection of therights of the teacher to teach and of the student to learn. In research and scholarship, it is critical to advancing knowledge.Academic freedom includes the right to freely communicate knowledge and the results of research and scholarship."

That part of the statement largely echoes the 1988 position. But other phrases strike faculty leaders as carving out too manyexceptions to academic freedom.

For instance, the statement says that "[t]he university must also defend academic freedom against interpretations that areexcessive or too loose, and the claims that may spring from such definitions." And the statement says that academic freedomshould be "exercised in a reasonable and responsible manner."

James L. Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, said that these statements raisequestions about who defines what is "too loose" or "reasonable."

Turk also said he was bothered by language about the role of peer review. The statement says: "Faculty have an equalresponsibility to submit their knowledge and claims to rigorous and public review by peers who are experts in the subjectmatter under consideration and to ground their arguments in the best available evidence."

While academics strongly support peer review, Turk said of this language: "Do they mean that if peers view one’s worknegatively, one no longer has the academic freedom to pursue the idea? Some ideas are beyond the bound of any seriousscientific basis – that the world is flat or that humans were created 6,000 years ago. But many other scientific ideas werebroadly panned but proven right."

Peter MacKinnon, president of the University of Saskatchewan and one of the presidents who led the effort to draft the newstatement, said that he absolutely did not think the universities were suggesting that a faculty member had to agree toanyone's orthodoxy to be protected by academic freedom. "Those kinds of comments go more to the rigor of inquiry thananything else," he said. "Competence matters too. In the academic environment, some of the guarantees of quality happento reside in peer review."

MacKinnon also argued that colleges and universities will be better off if they don't try to justify every action by pointing toacademic freedom. "Academic freedom doesn't give people the right to conduct themselves pretty much as they wish to.There are limitations," he said. "There is a robust community interest, a university interest in defining and defendingacademic freedom as it is broadly and widely understood," he said, not as any sort of free pass for academics.

No Mention of Tenure

The 1988 statement of the Canadian universities on academic freedom said that tenure "is one important means of meeting"



Page 349 of 363

(/print/news/2011/11/02/canadian-universities-adopt-new-statement-academic-freedom?width=775&height=500&iframe=true)

Get the Daily News Update by email every weekday » (/newsletter/signup)

the "obligation" of assuring academic freedom. The new statement does not contain the word "tenure."

MacKinnon said that the omission was intentional, but did not reflect a lack of commitment to tenure, which is as common atCanadian universities as it is at those in the United States.

Rather, MacKinnon said that the presidents do not believe that one should have tenure or be tenure-track to have academicfreedom. "It's important for all of us to say that the possession of tenure is not the critical defining element of academicfreedom," he said.

While many faculty advocates link tenure to academic freedom, MacKinnon questioned whether this truly advances the rightsof all professors. "If I was an assistant professor without tenure, I should have every bit as much academic freedom as a fullprofessor with tenure," he said. "Did we see tenure as the critical element of defending academic freedom? No."

JOB CATEGORIES

WANT TO ADVERTISE? CLICK HERE

(HTTPS://WWW.INSIDEHIGHERED.COM/ADVERTISE)

WE HAVE 13,972 JOBS TO BROWSE(HTTPS://CAREERS.INSIDEHIGHERED.COM/?UTM_SOURCE=IHE&UTM_MEDIUM=EDITORIAL-SITE&UTM_CONTENT=SIDEBAR-LINK&UTM_CAMPAIGN=JOBS)

Faculty Jobs (5,759)

(https://careers.insidehighered.com/search/category/faculty-

jobs-710?

utm_source=ihe&utm_medium=editorial-

site&utm_content=sidebar-

link&utm_campaign=jobs)Humanities (643)(https://careers.insidehighered.com/search/category/humanities-712?utm_source=ihe&utm_medium=editorial-site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_campaign=jobs)Fine And Performing Arts (349)(https://careers.insidehighered.com/search/category/fine-and-performing-arts-711?



Page 350 of 363

BROWSE ALL(HTTPS://CAREERS.INSIDEHIGHERED.COM/SEARCH?

RELATED JOBS

utm_source=ihe&utm_medium=editorial-site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_campaign=jobs)Professions (2,246)(https://careers.insidehighered.com/search/category/professions-720?utm_source=ihe&utm_medium=editorial-site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_campaign=jobs)Science / Engineering / Mathematics (1,393)(https://careers.insidehighered.com/search/category/science-engineering-mathematics-728?utm_source=ihe&utm_medium=editorial-site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_campaign=jobs)Social Sciences / Education (1,172)(https://careers.insidehighered.com/search/category/social-sciences-education-735?utm_source=ihe&utm_medium=editorial-site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_campaign=jobs)

Administrative Jobs (8,374)

(https://careers.insidehighered.com/search/category/administrative-

jobs-744?



link&utm_campaign=jobs)

Executive Positions (578)

(https://careers.insidehighered.com/search/category/executive-

positions-770?




Alt-Ac Careers (3,575)

(https://careers.insidehighered.com/search/special/altac?




Community Colleges (2,405)

(https://careers.insidehighered.com/search/special/commColl?




Outside US (119)

(https://careers.insidehighered.com/search/special/global?






Page 351 of 363

Assistant Vice President ofEnrollment Management(https://careers.insidehighered.com/northeastern-university/assistant-vice-president-enrollment-management/jobs/1068971?utm_source=ihe&utm_medium=editorial-site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_campaign=jobs)

Assistant Director, Tufts Fund -University Advancement, AnnualGiving-16001048(https://careers.insidehighered.com/tufts-university/assistant-director-tufts-fund-university-advancement-annual-giving-16001048/jobs/1068891?utm_source=ihe&utm_medium=editorial-site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_campaign=jobs)

Executive Director CSSA(https://careers.insidehighered.com/california-state-university/executive-director-cssa/jobs/1068781?utm_source=ihe&utm_medium=editorial-site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_campaign=jobs)

Fine Arts Chief Operations Mgr#58190 (UBA)(https://careers.insidehighered.com/florida-state-university/fine-arts-chief-operations-mgr-58190-uba/jobs/1068381?utm_source=ihe&utm_medium=editorial-site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_campaign=jobs)

F[0]=FIELD_JOB_CATEGORY%3A770?UTM_SOURCE=IHE&UTM_MEDIUM=EDITORIAL-

SITE&UTM_CONTENT=SIDEBAR-LINK&UTM_CAMPAIGN=JOBS)

Northeastern University(https://careers.insidehighered.com/search/institution/northeastern-university-3684?utm_source=ihe&utm_medium=editorial-site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_campaign=jobs)• Boston, MA

Tufts University(https://careers.insidehighered.com/search/institution/tufts-university-4851?utm_source=ihe&utm_medium=editorial-site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_campaign=jobs)• Medford/Somerville, MA

California State University(https://careers.insidehighered.com/search/institution/california-state-university-1631?utm_source=ihe&utm_medium=editorial-site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_campaign=jobs)• Long Beach, CA

Florida State University(https://careers.insidehighered.com/search/institution/florida-state-university-2374?utm_source=ihe&utm_medium=editorial-site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_campaign=jobs)• Tallahassee, FL



Page 352 of 363

ASSOCIATE REGISTRAR(https://careers.insidehighered.com/central-michigan-university/associate-registrar/jobs/1068246?utm_source=ihe&utm_medium=editorial-site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_campaign=jobs)

Senior Associate Dean forAdministration and Operations(https://careers.insidehighered.com/george-washington-university/senior-associate-dean-administration-and-operations/jobs/1068141?utm_source=ihe&utm_medium=editorial-site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_campaign=jobs)

Dean - School of Arts & Sciences(https://careers.insidehighered.com/new-york-city-college-technology-city-university-new-york/dean-school-arts-sciences/jobs/1067846?utm_source=ihe&utm_medium=editorial-site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_campaign=jobs)

President/CEO(https://careers.insidehighered.com/kentucky-community-technical-college-system/presidentceo/jobs/1068466?utm_source=ihe&utm_medium=editorial-site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_campaign=jobs)

VIEW ALL(HTTPS://CAREERS.INSIDEHIGHERED.COM/INSTITUTIONS?

Central Michigan University(https://careers.insidehighered.com/search/institution/central-michigan-university-1746?utm_source=ihe&utm_medium=editorial-site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_campaign=jobs)• Mount Pleasant, MI, MI

The George Washington University(https://careers.insidehighered.com/search/institution/george-washington-university-4719?utm_source=ihe&utm_medium=editorial-site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_campaign=jobs)• Washington, DC

New York City College of Technology of the City Universityof New York(https://careers.insidehighered.com/search/institution/new-york-city-college-technology-city-university-new-york-3608?utm_source=ihe&utm_medium=editorial-site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_campaign=jobs)• Brooklyn, NY

Kentucky Community & Technical College System(https://careers.insidehighered.com/search/institution/kentucky-community-technical-college-system-2924?utm_source=ihe&utm_medium=editorial-site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_campaign=jobs)• Florence, KY

FEATURED EMPLOYERS



Page 353 of 363

UTM_SOURCE=IHE&UTM_MEDIUM=EDITORIAL-SITE&UTM_CONTENT=SIDEBAR-

LINK&UTM_CAMPAIGN=JOBS)

(https://careers.insidehighered.com/suffolk-county-community-college?utm_source=ihe&utm_medium=editorial-site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_campaign=jobs)

Suffolk County CommunityCollege was founded in 1959and officially opened in 1960.Located on Long Island inNew York State, SuffolkCounty...

(https://careers.insidehighered.com/drexel-university?utm_source=ihe&utm_medium=editorial-site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_campaign=jobs)

About Drexel Drexel isdefining what it means to bethe modern, urban universityof the future. A world-classcomprehensive researchinstitution...

MOST:

WANT TO POST A JOB? CLICK HERE

(HTTPS://CAREERS.INSIDEHIGHERED.COM/CONTENT/RECRUIT-

INSIDE-HIGHER-ED)

Viewed (#)

Commented (#)

PAST: Day (#) Week (#)

Month (#) Year (#)

Melissa Click Breaks Silence, Backs AAUPInquiry(https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2016/03/09/melissa-click-breaks-silence-backs-aaup-inquiry)

Race on Campus, Nontraditional Leaders,Rising Confidence: A Survey of Presidents(https://www.insidehighered.com/news/survey/race-campus-nontraditional-leaders-rising-confidence-survey-presidents)

Appeals court upholds finding: WayneState failed to respond to pregnancy biasagainst student(https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/09/appeals-court-upholds-finding-wayne-state-failed-respond-pregnancy-bias-against)



Page 354 of 363

Back to Top

Trump rallies raise safety concerns oncollege campuses(https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/09/trump-rallies-raise-safety-concerns-college-campuses)

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders sparover historically black colleges as Obamalegacy looms(https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/09/hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-spar-over-historically-black-colleges-obama)

Study suggests graduate studentinstructors influence undergraduates tomajor in the discipline, and graduatestudents also benefit from teaching(https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/08/study-suggests-graduate-student-instructors-influence-undergraduates-major)

President of N.Y.'s Mount Saint MaryCollege Steps Down(https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2016/03/09/president-nys-mount-saint-mary-college-steps-down)

Time management is the key to happiness(essay)(https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2016/03/09/time-management-key-happiness-essay)



Page 355 of 363

CAUT/ACPPU Bulletin Online

CANADA'S VOICE FORACADEMICSVol 50 | No 6 | June 2003

Exploring the Limits of Academic Freedom

Pursuing Academic Freedom: "Free and Fearless"?

Len M. Findlay & Paul M. Bidwell, eds. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: Purich Publishing Ltd., 2001; 245 pp; paper$28.50 CA.Patrick O'Neill

People seem to agree that Academic Freedom is a Good Thing, leaving the impression they also agree on what itmeans, who should be entitled to it and in what context, and whether or not it has limits or what they should be. Infact, however, its meaning, limits and relationship to concepts such as tenure and intellectual property are all open todebate. And not everyone even agrees that it is a Good Thing.

Stanley Fish, for instance, says "Academic freedom is a bad idea, a dubious principle that confuses eccentricity withgenius and elevates pettiness, boorishness, and irresponsibility to the status of virtue. (It) evacuates morality bymaking all assertions equivalent and, because equivalent, inconsequential."

He then further complicates matters by saying that while he scorns academic freedom as a concept he supports it inpractice and would do anything in his power to protect it. There must be aspects of this Good Thing that would repayserious exploration.

Such exploration took place at the University of Saskatchewan in 1996 in a conference entitled "Academic Freedom:The History and Future of a Defining Idea." The essays in Pursuing Academic Freedom are based on presentations atthat conference.

The book covers a wide range of ideas about academic freedom including its link with tenure (Len Findlay, VictorDwyer), its status in light of unionization (Peter MacKinnon), whether students have a right to academic freedom andwhat form it should take (Susan Vincent, Jackie Heslop), censorship in the academic library (Linda Fritz), academicfreedom in public schools (Paul Clarke, Lyle Vinish), and academic freedom as a Eurocentric concept (Marie Battiste,Shelley Wright).

I propose to focus on some key themes and to offer a flavour of the arguments about those issues by chapter authorsor by other academics cited in the book. These issues include the threats to academic freedom, whether there are anylegitimate limits to its exercise, and the compatibility of academic freedom and the inclusive university.

What Threatens Academic Freedom?

https://www.cautbulletin.ca/en_article.asp?ArticleID=646 3/9/16, 12:47 PMPage 1 of 4


Page 356 of 363

Michiel Horne, who has written the definitive Canadian account of this topic (Academic Freedom in Canada: AHistory), was the keynote speaker at the conference. In his chapter "Academic Freedom in Canada, Past, Present, andFuture," Horne says the threats to freedom of expression, teaching, and inquiry have shifted over time. In the first halfof the 20th century ideas were censored because they challenged the powerful. Horne refers to the Crowe case whichwas foundational in CAUT's role as defender of freedom of expression in the academy.

This early threat from the right is fiercely documented in Jerry Zaslove's chapter, "The Lost Utopia of AcademicFreedom." Zaslove was a founding faculty member at Simon Fraser University, and a witness to "The history ofblacklisting, firings, smearing, bullying, lying, gossiping, red-baiting, fear-mongering, stereotyping and scapegoating..."

But later, the source of threat shifted from right to left. Horne refers to political correctness that seemed to demandthat ideas and their expression be toned down for fear of offending newcomers to the academy. In the JeanneCannizzo case at Scarborough, for example, a professor was hounded from the classroom because some of herstudents (and their supporters) disliked the content of a show she had earlier curated at the Royal Ontario Museum.

Horne's censure of political correctness is unequivocal: "It has traditionally been deemed essential to academicfreedom that teachers determine the content of their courses. Suggestions that these be changed to match changes inthe composition of the student body, for example, offend against this principle ... To require change on demographicor political grounds ... threatens academic freedom at the core." (pp. 30-31)

Moving to the current state of affairs and predicting the near future, Horne suggests the main threat to academicfreedom is increasingly the demand that universities become more businesslike. Scholarship must serve a financialagenda. Much current research "is seen ... as frivolous self-indulgence that the economy cannot, and the universityshould not, sustain in an era where public financial support is declining." (p. 32)

The problem is not restricted to the intrusion of corporations as research sponsor. Horne notes the benefit of facultyresearch to student teaching is not clear, and some argue such research, since it competes for time, is actuallyconducted at the expense of teaching.

The problem of commercialization is also considered by several other authors in this book. Howard Woodhouse, in"Are Closer Ties with Business Undermining Academic Freedom?" argues that "if knowledge is reduced to aninstrument for accumulating private wealth, its ability to be shared among a community of scholars simply will notsurvive." (p. 144)

Having established that academic freedom is not safe in the academy, we might now ask how safe it should be.Perhaps, in its traditional form, it is not only threatened but is also a source of threat. Various chapter authors take upaspects of this question in debating the limits of academic freedom, and in particular its relationship to the emergingideal of inclusivity.

Can We Say Anything?

Does academic freedom mean professors in the academy are free to say anything? Yes, says Marvin Brown, amember of the psychology department at the University of Saskatchewan. In a chapter entitled "Academic Freedom -The Troubling Present and Questionable Future," Brown says: "In the university, there is no thought that cannot beentertained, and no topic or question that cannot or should not be investigated ... No topic is 'inappropriate!' Indeed, it



Page 357 of 363

is inevitable (in fact, desirable) that some of our views and subjects of inquiry will be offensive to someone." (p. 45)

A historian is allowed to question whether the holocaust occurred, a biologist can advance the creationist position, apsychologist can investigate psychic phenomena. The fact that some opinions are considered too outlandish for theacademy leads Brown to conclude that "academic freedom is barely alive, and certainly not well in the academytoday." (p. 46)

Some faculty members are much more qualified in their support for academic freedom as traditionally conceived.Janice Drakich, Marilyn Taylor, and Jennifer Bankier, quoted by Horne, put the case this way: "Should all 'verbalbehaviour,' such as words in a classroom, be automatically protected by the concept of academic freedom? We wouldargue that the answer is no. Words cease to be an expression of academic freedom when they have an effect thatinterferes with the academic freedom of other people ... Adoption of a style of presentation that abuses ormarginalizes others is a behavioural choice, and not a matter of intellectual right."

Susan Vincent, in her chapter "At the Margins of Academic Freedom," suggests the concept currently protects thoseleast in need of protection and is unavailable to those who need protection the most. She identifies variousmarginalized groups which seem not to benefit from the academic freedom, and may even suffer because of it.

She points out that it is difficult for faculty on limited-term contracts to make much use of their freedom ofexpression. While academic freedom is often thought to protect controversial research, it fails to protect victims ofharassment in the work place.

In fact, she argues, both academic freedom and the tenure to which it is usually linked may protect the harassersrather than the harassed. If tenure supports academic freedom, it also protects the privileges of those who create chillyclimates for women, marginal groups, and other non-traditional newcomers to the academy.

Is Academic Freedom Exclusive or Inclusive?

A debate that runs through many chapters in this book is the question of whether academic freedom is friend or foe toan inclusive university. If these ideals conflict, which should take precedence? Or should the notion of academicfreedom be broadened so that it takes into account the need for inclusiveness?

Jackie Heslop takes up this matter in her chapter "Towards Positive (Academic) Freedom." She rebuts the idea that aninclusive academy simply waters down controversy so that various groups are not offended. She argues that the newgroups and new ideas in the academy represent new ways of knowing.

"It seems to me deeply ironic that while one of the uncontested purposes of academic freedom is to foster thedevelopment of new knowledges, those knowledges that would challenge academic freedom from the inside are sovehemently resisted by its custodians." (p. 204)

Heslop takes on Horne on a number of counts. He faulted CAUT for suggesting academic freedom should beexercised responsibly. But Heslop endorses the notion of responsibility, and advocates a "positive" academic freedomthat should be seen less as a bastion of authority and autonomy and more as a network of obligations. Many of theseobligations relate to the rights of students in the academy - the right to have knowledge made relevant to their lives, torepresent their own interests at all administrative levels, and the right to be allowed to think critically.

She also takes on Brown, who regretted that in the current climate professors are forced to choose their words very



Page 358 of 363

carefully. Heslop asks, "As academics, shouldn't we choose our words carefully? ... We need to choose our wordscarefully not only for the sake of those who take offence to sexism, racism, homophobia, and so on, but for the sakeof those who do not take offence."

I have highlighted a few of the many themes in this volume; there is a host of others. This is a stimulating book, andmust reflect the intellectual excitement of the conference on which it was based. Among its contributions is the factthat its perspectives grow out of the Canadian context, and are relevant to education in this country.

Its various debates contrast with the complacency of Dalhousie President Carleton Stanley who is quoted by Horne assaying, in 1937, "Academic freedom is not, to the best of my knowledge, a burning issue in Canadian universities."

Pat O'Neill is president of the Canadian Psychological Association, former chair of CAUT's Academic Freedom andTenure Committee, and a retired professor of psychology at Acadia University.

Work consulted: Stanley Fish, Academic Freedom: When sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander. TheChronicle of Higher Education, Nov. 26, 1999, pp. B4-B6.

© 2007 - 2016 CAUT. All rights reserved. Legal disclaimer.Web development and Web design by Envision Online Media Inc.



Page 359 of 363



From: Vice-Principal Research


Subject: Trustees Continuing Education Session: Translational Biomedical Research


Click here to enter Committee date.


Vice-Principal Research


May 7, 2016




Translational biomedical research at Queen’s supports the discovery of the fundamental mechanisms of cancer cell growth, brain function and heart-lung interactions. This research leads to knowledge critical to the emergence of novel therapies and surgical interventions for chronic disease. Proposed renovations to Botterell Hall will have a transformational impact at Queen’s through new and renovated facilities that provide capacity for the use of leading-edge molecular tools, to develop methods to assess chronic disease and to yield new surgical research procedures and discoveries.

Queen’s international leadership in biomedical research is demonstrated through programs in the Centre for Neuroscience Studies (CNS) and the Queen’s CardioPulmonary Unit (Q-CPU). To illustrate the valuable research that is undertaken in these areas, Drs. Doug Munoz and Stephen Archer will offer highlights of the research and its impact on society.

ITEM: Translational Biomedical Research

Page 360 of 363

- 2 -

4.0 INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES None

5.0 ANALYSIS Dr. Doug Munoz, Centre for Neuroscience Studies Dr. Munoz received his Ph.D. from McGill University in 1988 in Neurology and Neurosurgery followed by a Post-doctoral Fellow at McGill and subsequently at the National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health. He came to Queen’s in 1991 as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Physiology. He currently holds a position of Professor in the Departments of Biomedical and Molecular Sciences and Medicine, Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology and is the Director of the Centre for Neuroscience Studies. Dr. Munoz is currently the President of the Canadian Association for Neuroscience and the Vice President of the Neural Control of Movement. The main goals of his research are devoted to: 1) understanding the neural circuitry controlling visual fixation and the generation of saccadic eye movements, and 2) using our knowledge of this circuitry to probe a variety of neurological and psychiatric disorders such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Parkinson’s Disease, Alzheimers, Tourette’s Syndrome and ALS. He currently holds a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair and was awarded the Premier’s Research Excellence Award in 1999, the Basmajian Award in 1997 and the Aesculapian Society Teaching Award in 2001. He is currently funded with multiple grants by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canada Foundation for Innovation and the Ontario Brain Institute. Dr. Munoz is also involved in many joint funding initiatives which includes an NSERC Create Program, Ontario Institute for Regenerative Medicine and the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging. He is an active collaborator with internationally recognized scientists from the United States, Netherlands, Brazil, France and Japan. Dr. Munoz is currently supervising 6 postdoctoral fellows, 5 Ph.D. students, 3 MSc students and numerous trainees at the undergraduate level, medical school students and residents. Of his students who have completed Ph.Ds in his laboratory, two were awarded the Governor General’s Gold Medal and one was awarded the Lindsley Prize by the Society for Neuroscience for the most outstanding thesis in behavioural neuroscience. These individuals have already been recruited to faculty positions in Canada. Two former postdocs also have faculty appointments in Canada. Many undergraduate research project students and graduate students have moved into professional programs (e.g. Medicine, Optometry) with at least some research training.


Page 361 of 363

- 3 -

Dr. Stephen Archer, Queen’s CardioPulmonary Unit Dr. Stephen Archer is a Professor and Head of the Department of Medicine. Dr. Archer is a native of Canada and a graduate of Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. After interning at the Royal Columbian Hospital in New Westminster, British Columbia, he completed training in Medicine and Cardiology at the University of Minnesota. He worked at the

Minneapolis VA Medical Center from 1988‑97, attaining the rank of Professor of Medicine.

From 1998‑2007, he served as Professor of Medicine and Physiology and Director of the

Cardiology Division at the University of Alberta. In April 2007, he became Chief of the Cardiology Section of the University of Chicago and Harold Hines Jr. Professor of Medicine. He is currently Professor and Head of Medicine at Queen’s University. Dr. Archer’s current research, funded by National Institutes of Heath (United States) and Canadian Institutes of Health Research, focuses on defining the role of mitochondrial

fission/fusion and metabolism in oxygen‑sensing/cell proliferation and translating this into

pulmonary hypertension and cancer therapies. He is currently a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Mitochondrial Dynamics and Translational Medicine. He has published over 230 publications with 23,000 citations. His research is published in journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, Circulation, Cancer Cell, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and Circulation Research. Dr. Archer has delivered numerous named lectureships in North America, Europe and Asia, including plenary session lectures at the American Heart Association (AHA) meeting. He has also been an author of several key guideline documents, including the AHA 2009 guidelines on pulmonary hypertension and the 2010 guidelines on management of submassive venothromboembolism.

6.0 STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT / COMPLIANCE In support of Trustees continuing education, this session relates to the Strategic Research Plan and Strategic Framework (Research Prominence and Student Learning Experience).

7.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This report is for information; there are no financial implications.


9.0 COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY A communications strategy is not required.


Page 362 of 363

- 4 -

ATTACHMENTS None


Page 363 of 363

Documents

Board of Trustees - 06 May 2016