Things were going well for Andres Sehr. The fourth-year Commerce student was 11 months into a 15 month PEY (Professional Education Year)co-op term at Celestica when in March, nonchalantly browsing the Commerce Web site, he was floored to find an unexpected $2,000 hike in tuition.
“I was completely shocked,” recalls Sehr.
He was especially surprised since he was assured by both the Commerce and PEY offices a five per cent cap in tuition when he returned. “Before I’d even done PEY I asked the Commerce department if my tuition would be going up and the people there said, ‘No, our promise is five per cent per year.'”
In an oversight of tuition fee policy, 46 returning PEY students were accidentally hit with tuition hikes as much as $2,000.
But the hike was discovered only after an ombudsperson complaint, filed by Sehr, reached high-ranking Simcoe Hall officials– – a hike originally deemed justified in a July decision that faculty registrar members claim was made by Simcoe Hall, but which Simcoe Hall officials deny was ever made by them.
After the discovery, Sehr voiced his concerns in early April to Richard Chow, associate faculty registrar, Faculty of Arts and Science, who was the primary person dealing with the case on the faculty side.
The point of confusion concerned a 2003 fee policy. That policy requires all students in deregulated programs to pay “program fees” in 2003, but nowhere is a fee schedule detailed for students whose programs were prolonged a year because of a PEY work term, as Sehr had done.
Recognizing the ambiguity, Chow approached other offices for consultation, including the Fees Office and Student Accounts.
On July 27, Sehr received a letter from Chow stating “there will be no adjustment to the fees” and the hike would hold. Chow asserts the decision was made by Simcoe Hall.
“The decisions that were communicated, they’re from Simcoe Hall,” said Chow.
Safwat Zaky, vice-provost, Budget & Planning, denies the July decision was ever made by his office. “Simcoe Hall didn’t make that decision…Simcoe Hall was not aware even of the situation,” he said.
Marny Scully, director, Enrolment Planning & Statistics, also claims not to have heard of the decision.
“That potential case was not brought forth to our attention,” said Scully.
According to Chow, however, Scully was aware that a decision was being made, since Chow forwarded Sehr’s original email of complaint to Scully and received back from her a request for more information. Chow also said he received from her the original July decision, and that she is is the person at Simcoe Hall he deals with regarding fees.
The July 27 letter makes clear that because students were forewarned of the 2003 program fees on Web sites and published documents as early as 2001, Sehr could not claim merit. “Information was published in the registration handbook, and in terms of the information provided to the students, they had an option: for the PEY or the fees,” said Chow.
Disappointed but undeterred, Sehr approached Mary Ward, the university’s ombudsperson, to further his case.
It was only after Ward questioned Simcoe Hall officials on their July decision that it was deemed in error and overturned.
Simcoe Hall eventually decided in August that because PEY is a university sanctioned program, it considers the normal length of study to be five years for PEY students and therefore subject to the university’s overall policy of a 5 per cent guarantee for continuing students.
All 46 students will now follow a per course fee registration and refund schedule for the coming academic year.
It is still unclear why the program fees were originally upheld, given that the five per cent cap for continuing students is a university commitment.
Zaky attributes the oversight to another office’s misinterpretation. “In this case it so happened that because of the ambiguity, there was some room for interpretation, and they interpreted it the wrong way,” he said.
