The ease of governing

"Mr. Crosbie had his day in government, and he made his decisions in that time - that was a long time ago. Now we are the government and we are going to do what we think is in the best interests of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and that's exactly what we're doing here."

Premier Danny Williams, Telegram, August 1, 2007

Ever wonder why Danny Williams bitches about the difficulty of running Newfoundland and Labrador?

Take a look at the current ruckus over his plan to create a second university in the province and you can see just how easy governing is under Danny Williams' approach.

First, make a decision about something. In this case, it is to give Sir Wilfred Grenfell College something called "more autonomy". At that point, no one knew what more autonomy meant - and frankly they still don't - but the decision was made. You don't need anything other than a goal. There's no need for evidence or a business case. Just make a decision.

Second, hire a pair of consultants for $120,000 to provide the rationale for the decision. If you can make the announcement a few days before Christmas, all the better.

Incidentally, anyone can see that the outcome of the consulting exercise was determined from the outset. Take a look at the terms of the contract between the two consultants and the provincial government's education department:

WHEREAS the Department enters into an agreement with the Consultants to conduct a review of the various degrees of autonomy for Sir Wilfred Grenfell College (SWGC) up to and including full university status, (hereinafter called “the Review”) and report their findings to government so that it [government] can make an informed decision on the future of the College with the aim of increasing Grenfell’s autonomy. [Emphasis added]

Third, receive the report and sit on it until the decision is ready to be announced as part of the government's election year budget. In the process, ignore the political commitment to release reports within 60 days of their being received.

Fourth, when people start to criticise or complain do any or all of the following:

- repeat the statement that the decision is in the best interest of the province, but never explain how it is in the best interests;

- characterize the decision as strengthening rural Newfoundland, but again do not give a concrete example;

- characterize the whole ruckus in terms of the "St. John's campus" - read as "townies" - and the need to let decisions be made outside the overpass;

- deploy supporters to call in support of the decision;

- organize calls to attack critics, including calling newsrooms across St. John's to attack John Crosbie before Crosbie even uttered a single word; and,

- refer to criticism of the decision as efforts to "sabotage" the government's decision.

For good measure, characterize the whole thing - even implicitly as a case of standing for the little guys against the "higher ups".

Now maybe, just maybe creating a second university with a new president, a bunch of vice-presidents, a senate and other expenses is the way to solve problems like delays in issuing tenders for new trucks. But leaving aside the facetious comments, let's just start from the premise that it might be a good thing for the province to have a second university.

What sort of things might you wonder about to determine if a second university in the province was feasible?

Well, you might take a look at the prospective student population to see how many students are out there who might reasonably be expected to come to your new university. Look at the local population and for good measure look at the possible student market outside the province and even outside the country.

You might also look at possible teaching programs to see if there is a niche that needs to be filled or look at how existing programs could be expanded.

In building a case for a new university, you would go through those, look at the cost implications of each and come to a conclusion.

That's what one might expect to get for a consultants' report costing upwards of $120,000.

And if that consultant's report found there wasn't a basis for having a second complete university, it might just turn up enough information to justify expanding the programs at Grenfell College within the existing administrative structure.

After all, if Grenfell has grown successfully in its existing management arrangement, solid evidence supporting further expansion would be hard to refute. A stronger Grenfell College attracting new students and offering new programs would enrich the province as a whole in many ways.

Creating a second university to compete with the first one for the same students wouldn't really make much sense.

Well, if that's the logical approach you'd expect to take, don't expect to find any of those questions answered in the consultants' report the provincial government is using to justify the decisions on Grenfell College and its impending independence.

There is no analysis of the possible student market. This is a critical shortcoming since the report authors recommend doubling the size of the student population in short order, from a current enrolment of about 1,150 (not including 200 nursing students) to about 2,000.

The section on possible academic programs is nothing more than a list without any supporting evidence or analysis. In fact, if you look quickly at the list, you'll see that many of the new programs for Grenfell actually would duplicate programs already at Memorial University in St. John's.

They aren't new or different; most are the same as larger programs offered at MUN St. John's. Like a health sciences program with a possible focus on gerontology. Or a program in geology. And without the detailed analysis of possible student demand, they are essentially useless as the basis for making a decision.

Yet, that really isn't important, is it? Well no, because the decision on Grenfell was made at the beginning before the analysis was even conducted.

Even the version of the decision announced in April - the so-called Option 1(a) - is now morphing into having Grenfell as an entirely separate university. As education minister Joan Burke put it recently, she wants Grenfell to be "independent" by 2008. If you read the consultants' report, you'll appreciate that is the goal they had in mind as well, despite their endorsement of some sort of shared governance.

What the consultants recommended is actually using Memorial University's name, reputation and resources to assist in the growth of a Corner Brook university:

It is believed therefore that the newly named institution should not only remain as part of Memorial University, but it should take its name as the Memorial University (Corner Brook, Western Newfoundland or Grenfell). In the discussion below, Memorial University (St. John’s) is taken to include the Marine Institute, and Memorial University (Corner Brook) is taken to represent the new designation of Grenfell College, possibly including the Western Regional School of Nursing whose status is currently under separate review. This designation would be of vital assistance in the immediate development strategy of the new university at Corner Brook, in all its academic areas, but in particular, in

• national and international student recruitment,
• the attracting of highly qualified academic staff,
• the development of graduate programs, and
• the securing of greater federal research funding and corporate support.

The case too for the retention of the academic and administrative support systems currently provided to Grenfell College from the Memorial in St John’s campus, in particular the library services, is a strong one, and whilst these services may perhaps, but not necessarily, be weaned off one by one in due course as the systems grow in the new status Grenfell, they should certainly be retained for the immediate future. (p. 31, Emphasis added)

However, at no point do the consultants address what are the problems with their own proposal. That's hardly surprising since they really don't give any sound rationale for their conclusions anyway. Nonetheless, take a look at the list of advantages and disadvantages of the so-called Option 1(a):

Advantages:

- increases Grenfell’s academic and administrative autonomy
- remains within Memorial system
- provides status as a university institution

Disadvantages:

- potential fragmentation of academic authority and divergence in academic standards and practice
- limited academic programme range for university status
- substantial additional costs

Look at those last three.

Essentially, those are the points made by Chancellor Crosbie and Memorial University President Axel Meisen.

They are also the points dismissed by the Premier, education minister and the finance minister.

It's easy to dismiss those points though, when the decision is already made and has been made for at least two years.

It's easy to govern when decisions can be made and then justified ex post facto. It's a cinch to govern when critics can be attacked personally and demonised for pointing out - essentially - that the government has a goal but no solid plan on how to get there.

It's a cinch to govern when, as with just about every other administration since Confederation, you view government as being little more than your turn to make the decisions.

After all, isn't that what Danny Williams told John Crosbie?

-srbp-