The closed doors that separate students from the decision-making process of post-secondary institutions don’t appear to be opening any time soon.
Ontario universities have successfully lobbied to exempt themselves from a bill that would have ensured that their deliberations and meetings become more open and accessible to the public.
Universities have continuously and quietly lobbied against Bill 123, called The Transparency in Public Matters Act, since its introduction in October, 2004 by Liberal M.P.P Caroline Di Cocco. The bill, which has largely escaped notice, would remove barriers that still exist between the public and public institutions, requiring that the minutes of meetings and the times they are to take place be made available to anyone who wants them.
On September 29, Di Cocco brought forward a motion to amend the bill, now in its second reading, that will exclude certain public bodies, including universities. The amendments are expected to be passed in the next month.
According to the current Ontario laws, it is left up to individual universities to ensure that transparency requirements are followed.
“Each university has its own bylaws, which means it depends on the individual running the show [to ensure transparency],” said Di Cocco. According to her, her bill will eliminate such “self-policing” by enforcing standards on accountability.
The opposition of post-secondary institutions to the measure has raised eyebrows among university watchdog groups, who say this proves universities will fight to keep their decision-making process secret, and that students and parents would have benefited from Di Cocco’s legislation.
But not so, says Qaid Silk of the Council of Ontario Universities, who defends his organization’s opposition to the bill.
“[Universities] fully support openness and access to all information,” he said, adding that their opposition stemmed from the fact that “provincial legislation already regulates how meetings [of universities] will be held, and Di Cocco’s bill was similar to this.”
Silk insists that current legislation under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA) already covers the principles outlined in Di Cocco’s bill and that being included would have simply created “redundant legislation.”
According to the current legislation, FOIPPA does allow access to the minutes of public-body meetings if requested; however, it does not ensure that the public is notified of meetings. And according to Liberal MPP Kim Craitor, there is a wealth of loopholes public bodies can use to get around the current legislation.
Craitor, who is on the committee reviewing the bill, says that currently, it is difficult to make the closed meeting of a public body such as a university public.
“There is no mechanism to challenge [a lack of transparency], whereas the bill [proposed by Di Cocco] gives the opportunity to do this.”
U of T president David Naylor could not be reached for comment, despite requests.
Despite the lobbying from universities, Di Cocco insists her choice to limit her bill’s mandate to three public institutions-city halls, public schools, and hospitals-was a practical decision, because narrowing down the scope will give it a better chance of succeeding.
Craitor, however, said the opposition to the bill from public institutions has been overwhelming, and hinted that the new amendments have more to do with pressure from universities.
“I am not in favour of the amendments, despite the huge opposition to [the bill],” he said.
He recognizes the fact that aside from closed-door meetings dangerously allowing universities to make decisions that affect the public without having public input, these meetings also run the risk of putting their employees in a compromising position.
“[When I was a] city councillor, I would challenge why we were having closed-door meetings, and [the response] would be that it fits in to an exemption. Now, I had two options. [Although] I didn’t feel that what we were discussing belonged in there but out in public, I could stay to hear what was being discussed because I needed to be aware of the issues, or leave because I didn’t agree. If I walked out there was no recourse; there was no way for me to challenge it.
“I had no another body to go to challenge it, and that’s what Caroline’s bill will do.”
Although universities have been dropped from Bill 123, which has existed in some form since 2001, Di Cocco said she is still hopeful that universities will become more open. If her bill is passed she will have established “standard legislation for the transparency of public bodies.”
“Once you have standard legislation it becomes easier to apply to [other] institutions,” she said.
