Push back on Grenfell

Things are not good in Corner Brook if the local daily the Western Star is making this strong a statement about the Premier’s recent  - and just the latest -  public attack on someone within the province:

The premier’s comments are unprofessional, misleading and irresponsible. He owes the residents of Western Newfoundland and Labrador, Sir Wilfred Grenfell College and especially Holly Pike an apology.

You’d have to be living here for the past seven years to realise just exactly how strong these words really are.

The fact they come from the newspaper serving the Premier’s district makes them stand out even more.

And the fact that they are in public, in print, just makes the old chin hit the old floor all the harder.

Alex Marland take note.

-srbp-

Of Cukes and Unis

Truly, things are very strange when the guy who backed a second university for the province  - despite evidence at the time of declining enrolment – laces into critics who don’t like the much less ambitious version of “Grenfell autonomy” announced by the provincial government before Christmas.

For Former Williams administration employee Alex Marland, Premier Danny Williams attack on people inside the province must come as a complete shock. Anger isn’t always for reform, Alex. 

But the most bizarre part of the Premier’s speech in Corner Brook on Thursday was the comparison between Grenfell College and the Sprung greenhouse fiasco over two decades ago.

“With the situation of declining enrolment, we want to make sure we don’t launch this initiative and it fails and Grenfell becomes the Sprung (Greenhouse) of the west coast,” said Williams.

For those who don’t know, Sprung was the disastrous decision that spelled the end of Brian Peckford’s third administration.

Now Sprung didn’t fail because its proponents failed to support the government decision and prove the idea could work.

Sprung failed because it was doomed from the start.  Senior provincial government officials warned against the magnificent claims of the proponents, claims like growing more cucumbers in a hydroponic greenhouse in Newfoundland than could be grown with the near perpetual sunlight of a city near the Equator.

Unfortunately for the provincial treasury, that is for taxpayers, the politicians involved ignored the sound advice they got from people who warned of problems with the whole scheme and instead poured cash into the project.

In the Grenfell case, there is no sign any government officials voiced objections.  Others, like your humble e-scribbler and a bunch of people at Memorial University did point out that – among other things – the whole scheme the provincial government endorsed (the Premier included) was built on a model that needed Grenfell enrolment to double in 10 years.

One of those people – one Eddie Campbell – paid a price for speaking his mind.  That mess over finding a new president for the university led to a second major crisis for the university on top of the Grenfell one, both of which were driven entirely by politicians around the cabinet table.

And as for enrolment at Grenfell, it hasn’t been working its way to double in a decade.  Far from it.  Enrolment has been sliding steadily downward but not from lack of effort by the good people at Grenfell.  Rather, there just aren’t the students or prospective students to fill the seats.

They also endorsed the whole idea based on little more, apparently, than a rather lightweight assessment of the whole idea of Uni Two concept. That study was bought and paid for by the politicians, not by the proponents of the project.  And the study would also have figured out the enrolment problem since the signs were there at the time. 

The consultants would have figured that out if they had actually bothered to look at the issue.  Odd that they didn’t give it a thought, given that enrolment – students – is one of the big things that would drive a university’s success in the first place. 

All in all, it seems to have been a very odd first speech in the New Year for the Premier in his district.  It’s not odd that he chose the occasion to pick a fight with people or react negatively to anything less than an outpouring of unending support and devotion.  What’s odd is that the Premier linked his own decision with one of the singularly worst decisions taken by any administration in recent times, bar none.

This speech and all its implications might wind up having some not so pleasant consequences.

Meanwhile, for those who are interested in the Sprung fiasco, just scan down the right side and check out the series of posts linked there on Great Gambols with Public Money.  If that doesn’t work, just type that phrase into the search box up there on the top right.

-30-

The die is cast aside

“The die is cast!”

That’s what then-education minister Joan Burke said back in 2007 when the current provincial administration unveiled its plan to give Sir Wilfred Grenfell College something called “autonomy” from Memorial University. 

She was arrogantly dismissing concerns raised about the feasibility of creating a second university in the province.

Burke even used the word “independent” in a news release in 2007 - “Grenfell College is about to gain independence…” – something she predicted would happen in 2008. 

Well, in 2009, none of the promises came true.

And you can tell none of the promises came true because the announcement was made by Darrin King, the education minister, and not Danny Williams, the premier behind the whole drive.

You can also tell there’s nothing to get excited about because the release is gigantic – 13 paragraphs – and there are no fewer than five media contacts.  The way these things usually go, the less positive news there is, the more names are listed as media contacts.

Under the proposed approach, Grenfell will lose its separate and proud identity, becoming instead something to be called Memorial University  - Corner Brook.

It also won’t get a separate president or senate, as recommended by two consultants hired in 2005 to look at the whole idea of Grenfell “autonomy”.  Their Option 1A was the one supposedly on the books to be implemented.

Instead, the current senior official – named the Principal – will continue to be called the Principal and will report directly to the President of Memorial.  And there will be a separate budget presented to government through Memorial University in St. John’s.

Whoopee ding.

The whole thing looks suspiciously like the consultant’s Option 2A  but without the administrative clout of having a separate president for the new university at Corner Brook.

And what were the disadvantages noted for that by the consultants, you may ask?

• common Senate reduces Grenfell’s academic autonomy and
  development potential;
• little change from current unsatisfactory situation.

That’s right.  The consultant’s considered that the approach government ultimately  would actually reduce Grenfell’s autonomy and offer little change from the status quo.

Looks like the die for Grenfell autonomy Joan Burke talked about wound up getting cast alright, cast aside.

Expect lots of negative reaction to this as the magnitude of the broken promise starts to sink in for people in Corner Brook.

-srbp-

Missing in Action: The Great Corner Brook University

The short history of a curious idea.

2007:  Promise to grant Sir Wilfred Grenfell College “more autonomy” regardless of cost implications among other things.

2008:   Promise legislation by fall;  fail to deliver.  Make (up) excuses.

2009:  Still no legislation.  Dodge hard questions.

Maybe a problem with finding students – something your humble e-scribbler noted as a major deficiency in the original consultants’ report – is another reason for the inexplicable delay in the whole Grenfell autonomy “piece.”

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.

In any event, just add Grenfell “autonomy’ as another government initiative on the MIA list.

-srbp-

The bonfire of the vapidities

It's called a strawman. [Right: The ultimate strawman, Guy Fawkes, is set alight in one of the annual celebrations of the defeat of The Gunpowder Plot. Photo: Daily Mail.]

A strawman is a caricature of a position taken by one's opponent in a debate or discussion. In order to defeat the argument, one builds a strawman - a convenient caricature - and then sets it alight by explaining how foolish or ridiculous or misguided the opposing argument is.

Except you aren't really dealing with the argument at all. You are dealing with a fiction, a fantasy, a fabrication. It's an illusion.

The Telegram's editorial page editor, Peter Jackson, does a fine job of building strawmen in his column this week on the decision by the provincial government to establish Sir Wilfred Grenfell College as a second university in the province.

He starts out with some generalities about the evil news media assuming politicians have bad motives. Then he praises Brian Tobin for "decisively" ending denominational education and for building The Rooms. With that armature built, Jackson then adds the straw:

It has become de rigueur among many political observers of late to characterize absolutely everything Premier Danny Williams does as a Machiavellian attempt to manipulate polls. While it’s true certain spending initiatives and photo ops are tailored for maximum impact, one can hardly assume that a continued hold on the reins of power is the sole motivation behind every government decision.

Let's set that vapid statement alight before it goes any farther.

"A continued hold on the reins of power" is most decidedly not "the sole motivation behind every government decision" and Jackson constructs a rather flimsy strawman in this paragraph. Nor is it a townie versus baymen thing, as much as the provincial government has tried to paint it that way. Jackson picks up that thread at one point, although using the more politically correct phrasing of Grenfell as an issue affecting a "rural" constituency.

Rather, the point often made at Bond Papers and elsewhere is that the communications part of a government decision is less about providing information to foster discussion or promote understanding as it is more about creating an illusion of some kind or of simply justifying a decision already taken. It's the media blitz that is designed to help goose polls inf avour of the government crowd.

For good measure, Jackson then attempts to caricature those who have raised questions about the Grenfell decisions, labelling then as either "the same administrators on whose deaf ears Grenfell’s pleas for more consideration fell for so long,"...or "those who have nothing but contempt for anything remotely associated with Danny Williams."

Again with the strawmen and, in effect another vapid statement. Jackson ignores the way the government bunch decided about Grenfell, just as he ignores the detailed arguments involved in the debate. In fact,  Jackson conveniently ignores anything of substance in the debate so that he can skip on to his own simplistic view: Those who oppose the provincial government on this issue are either the evil oppressors of the noble people of Corner Brook or those who, to borrow a phrase, believe that Premier Danny Williams can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Or was it tie his own shoe laces correctly?

Jackson then praises the existence of a discussion on Grenfell's future, ignoring entirely that he just finished identifying those who question the provincial government's decisions as not warranting attention. After all, they are either The Man or The Cynics on the "Bad" side and Jackson's friends on the Good, as Jackson has so conveniently populated the world of straw in which the "discussion" takes place. Why pay any attention to the baddies at all?

It is a debate that has simmered for some time, but has exploded since the government announced its plan to forge ahead with restructuring.

It is a debate that will likely go on for some time.

This can only be a good thing. It is important that the pros and cons of autonomy be thoroughly discussed in the public arena.

Jackson's world exists almost entirely in his own head. He manufactured the various positions and just as simplistically manufactured the good of a "debate" which in fact does not exist.

The deal on Grenfell is done and has been done since before the consultants were hired. It would have been important to discuss the Grenfell issue publicly before the decision was made. It would have been important to hear all sides, rather than cavalierly dismiss valid criticisms, as Jackson does here. The debate Jackson praises is as much an illusion as the straw men he vanquishes.

And as for the accusations of politicking, one would be naive in the extreme to simply leave them unexamined in any major decision taken by any government anywhere at any time. Politicking, it should be noted is not synonymous with partisanship, the main element of Jackson's armature. In the case of Grenfell, one suspects that another politician of another party in the same situation might well make the same decision: and without any of the niceties of debate, discussion or even a plan to hinder the drive to make a particular constituency happy irrespective of the viable alternatives or the cost.

It's not like we haven't seen that before, say, in the case of The Rooms.

Just as it isn't like we haven't seen the straw men and the bon fire before.

-srbp-

Most expensive uni in Canada

So much for finance minister Tom Marshall's insistance that making a Grenfell College a university will have only marginal cost implications.

So much too, for his claim that those outside Corner Brook won't notice the difference. Who does Marshall think will be subsidizing his decision on grenfell, done for entirely political reasons and without a comprehensive plan?

Every taxpayer in the province that's who.

Oh yes, and for those who don't think the objective for Grenfell was established before the consultants were hired to provided a smokescreen to cover cover a decision already taken - without any plan or evidence to back it up - there's this great quote from Premier Danny Williams:

"At the end of the day, Grenfell will have autonomy," Williams told CBC News recently. "Now, whether that means complete, separate independence from Memorial, if that's not the right way to go, then we'll do a hybrid that works for everybody."

-srbp-

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-