Last year U of T began a review into its ancillary fees after the Graduate Students’ Union (GSU), along with other student groups, brought forward complaints over a number of these fees. The first set of fees that we considered cost over a thousand dollars to clinical students at the Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering. The larger concern raised by their plight was that the ancillary fees process seemed so flawed that students could be charged an unlimited amount of money, with little notice, to cover budget shortfalls. We hoped that the review would put an end to that concern. However, from the beginning we have met with bad faith from the administration.
The first thing we asked for was that students be represented on the review team, despite the extra demands which that put on us. We wanted to be a part of the review process to ensure that we understood exactly what was covered by the fees and the rationale for why those fees could be charged. Under Ministry policy, we should have a right to that knowledge for each fee. Instead, to get that information — for hundreds of fees — we received a couple of very general documents and about an hour to ask questions to members of the review. During that hour, on multiple occasions, they provided wrong information about fees and they were unable to give any explanation for one of the IBBME fees, one which we have been asking about for over a year.
Two of our other requests have been only partially fulfilled. Considering that the concerns were brought last year, we asked that fees be refunded to both last year’s students and this year’s. To its credit, the university is now providing the opportunity to get refunds on some of the fees charged in the winter term that they have admitted were in violation of Ministry policy. However, they are not returning fees for the fall term or last year. Nor are they offering refunds for every fee that was charged in violation of policy.
The other partially filled request was that that Ministry policy be followed in the introduction of fees. The review team agreed with us that more information should be provided on what fees cover, but it does not appear that other parts of the Ministry policy will be followed with respect to the introduction of fees. This creates the hazard for more abuse in the future.
Finally, we asked that the interpretation of “protocol-exempt” categories be reasonably narrow. Rather than interpreting fee categories in a narrow manner, the university is almost breathtakingly broad in its interpretations. For example, fly food and the ROSI student registration system appear to be categorized as either “material used in the production of items which become the property of the student” or as “learning material and clothing retained by the student” we aren’t sure which. Internships where students are not paid are classified as “jobs for work terms” and paying employers to take the students is considered a “cost of placement.” With such broad interpretations of what is acceptable, the ancillary fee policy is providing students will little protection from thousand dollar increases in fees from one year to the next.
When the Ministry introduced its policy on ancillary fees in 1994, it was in an attempt to prevent universities from using ancillary fees as back-door attempts to increase tuition. However, with universities disregarding the policy and with such little assistance being provided by ministry officials, it is unclear that the policy provides much protection at all.
Jason Dumelie is Academics and Funding Division 3&4 Commissioner at the GSU
