U of T’s University Affairs Board voted last Tuesday to revise its stance on controversial investments. The revised policy controls how the university handles politically-driven stock divestment decisions.
At the meeting where the UAB approved the change, the Responsible Investment Committee alongside representatives from various unions presented an alternative policy, which was not considered.
The move comes as a part of a larger-scale revision of the university’s investment policies and procedure, as promised by the administration. “The current amendment […] deals specifically with the request for divestment,” said U of T president David Naylor. He recommended that the “broader issue” of screening investments for environmental and political concerns should be discussed in informal meetings.
The last official investment policy went into effect in 1978, before the University of Toronto Asset Management Corporation was given control over the university’s investments in 2000. UTAM currently controls $5.4 billion in university assets, which include the university’s $2-billion endowment fund and $2.9- billion pension funds.
Previously, divestment decisions were made by an advisory committee composed of elected members of the GC from each of its five constituencies (student, faculty, staff, grad students and alumni). The divestment procedure had only been invoked three times. Most recently, the university decided not to divest itself of stocks in three companies indirectly linked to profiteering in Darfur. The policy was successfully invoked in 1988 to divest stocks in Apartheid South Africa, and in 2007 for tobacco company shares.
The new policy put decisions in the hands of an ad hoc committee chosen by the president and approved by Governing Council.
Michal Hay, UTSU’s VP university affairs, spoke to the board at the meeting to describe the new policy as a step in the wrong direction. She urged the council to consider the alternative proposal by RIC.
“There is little opportunity for members of the U of T community to participate in this mechanism,” said Hay.
“[RIC’s proposal], the way I read it, is about how we make investments. The is sue before the UAB today is about how we deal with social and political issues with respect to investments that we already have,” said Catherine Riggall, U of T’s VP business affairs
“We were looking at putting it on the agenda,” said UAB and RIC member Alexandru Rascanu. “The proposed investment policy was coming as an alternative to what senior members of the university’s administration had put forward.”
Rascanu said he was “cautiously optimistic” about offline meetings with administrators. “I hope that we can look past the petty discrepancies and look at the bigger picture to create an effective mechanism to address responsible investment issues,” he said.
