Released on September 26, 1996
Post-Secondary Education and Skills Training Minister Bob Mitchelltoday released the report on Saskatchewan universities prepared by the
minister's special representative Harold MacKay, Q.C. Mitchell also
released the provincial government's response to the report.
"All my cabinet colleagues and I believe that this is an excellent
report," Mitchell said. "It provides a solid basis for continuing to
build effective alliances between the two universities and partnerships
with government."
Mitchell congratulated MacKay and the universities on their
accomplishment, and for participating in a unique process that has
already resulted in substantial progress.
MacKay was appointed in March of this year to work with the
universities to develop a process for university revitalization. He
worked with the universities over the last five months to develop
specific proposals and processes aimed at achieving administrative
efficiencies, program rationalization and innovative approaches to
student services and program delivery. Seventeen joint proposals
discussed in his report were developed by the two universities.
Mitchell said MacKay placed the onus on the universities to take the
lead by repositioning themselves to meet the fiscal, economic,
demographic and technological changes that are occurring globally and
locally.
Copies of MacKay's report are available at the main libraries of the
universities, the public libraries, and are also available on the
Internet at: http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/mackay, and directly from the
Department of Post-Secondary Education and Skills Training at either of
the following addresses:
2220 College Avenue, Room 206 15 Innovation Boulevard
Regina, SK Saskatoon, SK
S4P 3V7 S7N 2X8
-30-
For more information, contact:
Dr. Brij Mathur
Associate Deputy Minister
Post-Secondary Education and Skills Training
Regina
Phone: (306) 787-6056
RESPONSE OF THE MINISTER OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
AND SKILLS TRAINING
TO THE
REPORT OF THE MINISTER'S SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE
ON UNIVERSITY REVITALIZATION, MR. HAROLD MACKAY, Q.C.
September 26, 1996
CONTEXT FOR THE REVITALIZATION PROCESS
Universities' Tradition of Service
Saskatchewan's two universities have a proud history, and have served the province and
nation well. For nearly ninety years, they have responded successfully to evolving social,
cultural and economic needs and technological change. These contributions are
particularly noteworthy in light of the difficult fiscal environment which has confronted
the universities for a number of years.
Fiscal Pressures
By and large, the universities have addressed their financial challenges through across-
the-board reductions and selective budget cuts which enabled them to maintain their
respective arrays of programs and services. Recently, however, the universities have
signalled to the government that they would be unable to maintain all of their current
programs without an increase in provincial funding. Because of unprecedented drops in
federal transfer payments, the Province could not increase its grants. While the Province
was able to backfill the federal cuts to some considerable degree, university operating
grants will be reduced by $10 million over the next two fiscal years.
Government's Responsibility
A reduction or reconfiguration of university programs, in an era of significant economic,
social and technological change, raises some serious concerns for the government, as a
guardian of the public interest. Government has a responsibility to ensure that any
significant changes made by the two universities to their arrays of programs and services
reflect the public interest. In particular, government has a role in ensuring that
universities have mandates and programs which generally complement one another so
that unwarranted duplication is minimized and the two universities together provide an
array of programs and services appropriate to the needs of the province. Similarly, in the
interest of making the most effective use of scarce resources, government has a
responsibility to be assured that the universities are collaborating and communicating as
they redefine themselves, even though the universities' own governance structures have
an internal, rather than an inter-university, focus. Beyond this, government does not
wish to become directly involved in the internal academic or business affairs of the two
universities; those are matters best left where they belong -- with the universities' own
decision-making bodies.
To respond to the universities' concerns and to fulfil its own responsibilities, the
government decided to launch a new and unique initiative to promote university
revitalization. Mr. Harold H. MacKay, Q.C., was appointed in March 1996 as the
Minister's Special Representative to work with the universities in order to help to define
the parameters of renewal.
Mr. MacKay's Terms of Reference and
Respect for University Autonomy
Mr. MacKay's terms of reference foresaw a two-phase process of university
revitalization. With the submission of Mr. MacKay's report, Phase One has been
completed successfully through the universities' joint proposals and Mr. MacKay's own
assessments of the common issues which now form an agenda for future action. In
Phase Two, the universities will take the lead in translating that agenda into reality.
The government respects and values the autonomy of the universities, and the decision
to appoint Mr. MacKay directly reflected the government's reluctance to encroach on the
universities' traditional freedoms and responsibilities. Mr. MacKay's terms of reference
made it clear that his task was not to determine the directions of university revitalization
on his own but, rather, was to work with the universities as they themselves formulated
proposals for change. Mr. MacKay's charge was to receive and evaluate these proposals,
to work with the universities to determine which programs and services should be
examined, and to formulate a framework and timetable for revitalization.
The terms of reference encouraged Mr. MacKay to work with the universities to develop
a long-term process that would be directed toward achieving administrative efficiencies,
program rationalization, and innovative approaches to student services and program
delivery. Mr. MacKay was also urged to offer his own thoughts on any matter which he
considered pertinent to the future well-being of our universities, including any obstacles
or constraints that could impede the revitalization process.
It is apparent from his report that Mr. MacKay has fully respected his terms of reference
and has exceeded the government's high expectations, both in terms of the process he
oversaw and his role within it.
GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO MAJOR ISSUES
IN THE MACKAY REPORT
Main Themes
The government believes that Mr. MacKay's report will serve as a excellent guide for the
universities as they re-position themselves to become sustainable institutions of
excellence in the 21st Century. The report documents the considerable contributions
both universities have made to this province through their teaching, research and
community service. It sets out, as well, the primary issues and opportunities currently
faced by the universities. All in all, the report provides a solid basis upon which to build
effective alliances between the two universities and partnerships with government.
A number of themes emerge in the report. Mr. MacKay stresses the universities' role as
building blocks for the future growth and development of the province. He notes that the
universities, as autonomous institutions, must themselves take the initiative and the
decisive steps necessary for their own revitalization, including a determined effort to
implement the joint proposals they presented to him. Mr. MacKay encourages
government to support the universities in their action plans and, where there is clear
evidence that those plans will lead to effective revitalization, to provide one-time funding
necessary for their implementation. He also reminds us that it will take considerable time
for the universities to effect these changes.
Most importantly, Mr. MacKay is cautiously optimistic that the universities will achieve
meaningful restructuring on their own. The government accepts Mr. MacKay's view.
Administrative Collaboration
With the assistance of an administrative task group appointed by Mr. MacKay, the
universities have made a number of joint proposals regarding potential administrative
collaboration, including joint management initiatives, shared services and common
purchasing procedures. If successfully implemented, these initiatives would save money
and improve service. Mr. MacKay endorsed all of these proposals. The government
commends the universities on these initiatives and encourages them to pursue these
proposals aggressively.
Program Co-ordination
The universities have made proposals intended to improve communication between the
universities themselves and with government. The government welcomes the proposed
Inter-University Council and University Co-ordination Committee, and agrees to
participate on these bodies. In the weeks and months ahead, the universities' internal
decision-making processes will address the challenges which face them. The government
believes that the proposed Council and Co-ordination Committee could provide an
effective means of ensuring consultation and collaboration between the two universities
and between them and the government, and of formulating of more distinctive university
mandates. The government encourages the universities to take all necessary steps to
make these proposed bodies operational as soon as possible.
Government-University Consultation
The government agrees to participate in the proposed Cabinet-Universities Consultation
Committee, and will take immediate steps to activate this process.
Innovative Approaches to Service Delivery
The universities have made several innovative proposals in such areas as library services,
workforce adjustment, information technology and a fibre-optic telecommunication link
between the universities. Mr. MacKay supports these initiatives strongly. However, he
notes that these initiatives may require some one-time financial support. Within the
context of the government's commitment to its four-year fiscal plan and within the
context of competing priorities, the government will give consideration to requests for
one-time funding if they are accompanied by a detailed proposal clearly showing the
ultimate benefits of the initiatives for university revitalization. As it reviews any such
requests for funding, the government will be looking for longer-term benefits to the
university sector, rather than short-term solutions to current problems.
In his report, Mr. MacKay sets out a number of suggested criteria for government to
consider when evaluating requests for funding to support university initiatives. Mr.
MacKay suggests that: the proposals should involve decisive action by the universities;
the universities should, in most cases, bear a share of infrastructure renewal costs; and
the universities should have successfully implemented a number of the joint proposals
presented in the report.
Accountability
Mr. MacKay addresses the issue of university accountability to the public -- a topic of
considerable interest in recent years across the nation -- and offers some ideas to enable
the universities to enhance their public accountability without sacrificing their autonomy.
The government sees great merit in Mr. MacKay's suggestion of a new, more detailed
format for the universities' annual reports to the Legislature, and encourages the
universities to take special note of this recommendation. Mr. MacKay also suggests that
university representatives should meet annually with a committee of the Legislative
Assembly. The government will discuss this suggestion more fully with the universities
before taking a firm position on the proposal.
Mr. MacKay also makes the point that, if government is to hold the universities
accountable in some way, then the universities have a right to know the criteria for
accountability. The government agrees with his suggestion that government should
make its views on the public interest known to the universities and the citizens of the
province, and intends to prepare a document on the public interest in the near future.
Operating and Capital Funding
As part of the review, Mr. MacKay established a second task group with a mandate to
focus on funding issues. This task group developed some joint proposals regarding
university operating and capital grants, and the government has agreed to consider these
as part of the 1997-98 budget process, within available resources. The government will
discuss the scope of these reviews with the universities.
Barriers to Revitalization
Mr. MacKay also describes some potential obstacles to change, including entrenched
attitudes within the university communities, the likely need for transitional funding,
certain provisions of collective agreements, and other labour relations issues. The
government is optimistic that the university community will rise above any barriers to
revitalization. The government will consider transitional funding where justified and
where resources permit. The government prefers to leave the responsibility for collective
bargaining issues with the universities and their unions.
Other Topics
Finally, Mr. MacKay offers his own comments and suggestions on a number of related
topics, including Aboriginal education, governance, tuition fees and student assistance,
distance education and international initiatives. The government will examine these
issues further.
THE CONTINUING REVITALIZATION PROCESS
Mr. MacKay emphasizes the universities' responsibility to carry on with the revitalization
process in order to ensure that they enter the new millennium as high-quality,
complementary institutions. Mr. MacKay's involvement has provided the universities and
government with a springboard toward this goal. The government will do what it can to
assist the process, keeping in mind its own limited resources and its respect for
university autonomy. As a partner in the revitalization process, the government will want
to review with the universities, on an ongoing basis, progress toward establishing the
necessary processes for renewal.
The government recognizes that the task of renewal will take time, and that the
universities have many constituencies to consult.
CONCLUSION
The government is pleased with the quality, scope and thoughtfulness of Mr. MacKay's
report, and commends the universities for their diligent involvement in the process. The
government looks forward to the next phase of the process, as the universities continue
the revitalization process within the framework provided by the MacKay report.