You are here
Andrew Petter - 2015-04-29 - SFU Burnaby
Primary tabs
Andrew Petter - 2015-04-29 - SFU Burnaby
Simon Fraser University Library
Holly Hendrigan, Interviewer |
SFU Library Oral Histories |
Tech BC Memory Project
Holly Hendrigan, Interviewer |
SFU Library Oral Histories | Tech BC Memory Project
Holly Hendrigan: This is Holly Hendrigan of the TechBC Memory Project. Today is
April 29th, 2015, and I am interviewing Andrew Petter, President of Simon Fraser University. We are having a face to face conversation in the board room in Strand Hall at SFU Burnaby. Hi!Andrew Petter: Hello!
Hendrigan: I’m here to ask you some questions about your experience as a
cabinet minister in the NDP government that created the Technical University of British Columbia. I looked at your government CV and noted that, like many TechBC employees, you wore a lot of different hats during that time.Andrew Petter: I did, I couldn’t hold a job. I was moved through various
portfolios: Finance from 96 to 98 and then into the portfolio--a recombined portfolio involving Advanced Education and Science and Technology from 1998 to 2000. And I guess it was in that window or period that I came most involved, as 1:00my scant memory serves in issues around TechBC. I also had responsibility, and I can’t give you the exact period, but throughout much of that period, for the crown corporation secretariat. And to the extent that ICBC became a player in all this, and it did, that also gave me another window on the development of TechBC.Hendrigan: Right. So we’ll go to 1995, where Mike Harcourt and Dan Miller
announced in February of that year, that a freestanding technical university would be built in Cloverdale. We’ll talk about the eventual site location later but first of all, I’d like to ask: why freestanding, and second of all, why technical?Andrew Petter: I can’t tell you because I was worried about forestry matters
at that time, and heading to Health. So, to be frank, I really--I’m sure, at the time, I was there for some of the cabinet discussion, but there was cabinet discussion on so many issues, I can’t tell you. I can hypothesize; I’ve read a little bit that would suggest why that might be. Certainly Dan Miller and Mike 2:00Harcourt were both of the view, I think we all were in government, that is as important as the academic side of university education was, there had perhaps been an undervaluing of trades and technical skills. This was also a period in which the tech bubble was starting to build before it burst somewhat later on. And I think there was a belief that the future of the BC economy could be well served by creating more capacity to turn out people who had technical and or trades capabilities. And there may be a bit of a tension between those two, which you may wish to talk about. So I imagine that that was very much an influence. I know there was also a strong demand at the time for a larger university presence south of the Fraser in the Fraser Valley, and a site 3:00available over in Cloverdale at the time. So I can hypothesize at the time that those were the considerations but I don’t directly recall.Hendrigan: Sure, that’s fine. My second question is about the Technical
University of BC Act. There was a big brouhaha over its lack of a Senate and tenure for faculty and we’ll get back to this as well. But what I find very interesting about the Act is the University’s purpose. One of the clauses reads, “To create strong links with Business and Labour and develop programs that are relevant to, and at the forefront of industrial and professional initiative. Can you comment on this mandate?Andrew Petter: Well I can comment in that Dan Miller is somebody who believed
very strongly in education and its application to the economy and to business; that was his perspective, his background. So I think this reflects that. I also think it also reflects the government at the time was very focused on trying to 4:00build a stronger economy. In 1997, you’ve got to remember that there was a big Asian meltdown in 1996. So I’m not surprised that the focus would have been on the development of a university that was very focused as being an engine for economic development. I notice here that the actual minister of Education, Skills and Training in 1997 had become Paul Ramsey. Again, Paul Ramsey is someone who was actually an English teacher by profession, but also someone who--his background was in a community college, and probably felt fairly comfortable with the idea of an educational institution that was more directly related to business and economic development than might have been the case with a more traditional university.Hendrigan: Right. But let’s get back to the brouhahah
5:00Andrew Petter: But this is mostly hypothesis on my part because my mind was not
on this so much at the time.Hendrigan: That’s totally fine.
Andrew Petter: The other thing you should, you might know, is the same time I
think, very much in the same time frame, Royal Roads was an issue. And what to do about Royal Roads? And whether that federal institution would be simply shut down when the federal government withdrew its funding or whether it would be continued. And ultimately it was decided to continue it, but continue it on a very different model than a traditional university. Without the attributes of tenure, without the attributes of collegial governance that one would see in a university like Simon Fraser. So, there may well have been some relationship in the thinking between trying to create an alternative structure for TechBC that was to some degree influenced or at least resonated with some of the thinking around Royal Roads. But again, that’s hypothesis on my part.Hendrigan: Right. And about the brouhaha, and I’m referring to the CAUT/CUFA
6:00BC censure and boycott campaign against TechBC: I’ve heard a thing or two about that that was actually kind of a reaction to what Royal Roads had done. Did you want to say anything about TechBC’s lack of a senate or tenure?Andrew Petter: [laughs] Well, I guess what I would say is, all these issues
and controversies blew up before I became Minister of Advanced education. So, when I became minister of Advanced Education, those battles had--I wouldn’t say, they weren’t over, but they had been joined. The government had staked out its position on them, rightly or wrongly, and so my focus was very much on issues of where we were going to locate this institution and to some extent on what its mandate would be, within the mix of potential trades and technical competencies that it would try to cultivate among its students. And much less on some of these earlier issues which were continuing--I understand that CAUT 7:00hadn’t, didn’t roll over and become happy but to some extent they had, from a government’s point of view, had already been addressed. And therefore, were not the issues that came to me for resolution.Hendrigan: Right. So we’ll move on to the site location now. Can you talk
about the factors involved in moving the campus from Cloverdale to Whalley?Andrew Petter: Yeah, I can talk, and I think there’s a relationship between
the mandate of the institution and the site location that needs to be understood. Again, I wasn’t there at the time but my strong impression was that Dan Miller’s orientation was more towards a trades type orientation. That certainly was--would be consistent with his own background in the forest industry and the feeling that we all shared that trades were undervalued. Having said that, BCIT and and many of the community colleges in the province were 8:00doing trades training and perhaps in the intervening couple of years since Dan had been minister there was this emerging sense of the importance of technology. And so I think there has been a shift in thinking generally and certainly a shift that I embraced that this institution should probably have a stronger technical focus and be looking at the new economy and the technical requirements of that new economy in terms of digital knowledge and computer knowledge and those kinds of attributes and less of a trades focus. So it may well have made sense to have a trades university or a trades academy out in a place like Cloverdale but it certainly didn't seem to make sense to have a technical university that hopefully was going to be connected to the tech sector to be 9:00disconnected in terms of transportation from Greater Vancouver. And so I think the issue of where to locate this was to some extent influenced by the decision that it was going to look more at digital economy at technology, at some of those needs. And those industries tended to be more within the Greater Vancouver area and the idea of connectivity I think, therefore, became more important. But for me the pivotal--and there was pressure from Surrey MLAs and and the Surrey council to have this located in Surrey. It’s no secret that Whalley was an area at the time that was really struggling socioeconomically. On the other hand it was on the SkyTrain routes. But I think where the penny dropped for me--and I think there are slightly different recollections of this, so you will have to take this recollection as a recollection. I think Bing Thom has a slightly 10:00different recollection of this, and Bob Williams may have a different recollection of this. So I will give you my recollection. But I understand recollections are subjective and I hope you and others will understand it too. My recollection is, I was also Minister responsible for the Provincial Capital Commission. It’s actually the one portfolio that I kept for my entire ten years in cabinet. And that commission had a responsibility for the lands in and around the capital in Victoria. And ICBC had some lands in and around the capital, and they had some aspirations and so Bob Williams, and he brought along Bing Thom came along to meet with me in my capacity as minister responsible for Provincial Capital Commission to talk about some of the development issues that ICBC saw and what Bob Williams, who was the Chair of ICBC at the time, believed could be helpful to me in thinking through some of the development associated with provincial capital commission. At the end of this meeting, as I recall it, someone--it might have been Bob, it might have 11:00been Bing--said to me, “By the way we know you are also, in your capacity of Advanced Education minister, considering decisions around the final siting for TechBC. We have something we’d like to show you. Can we do that?” and I said, “Sure.” And Bing Thom pulled out this map of Whalley and showed me the area there and said, “Here’s an area, it’s connected to Vancouver through transportation with the SkyTrain and here’s a shopping area that is hugely undervalued in the sense that it’s declining. The land is not expensive. And yet there’s huge potential here. If we were to not do away with that shopping area, or that shopping mall, but if we were to co-locate a university with it 12:00and Bob Williams at the time was talking about if ICBC were to move its head offices into it, we could create a mixed use facility that would combine a retail, educational, and office complex that would not serve well the needs of TechBC and be much more connected to the rest of the lower mainland, but it could be a catalyst for the whole redevelopment of this declining area and be an instrument for social revitalization of that area. And that--if Bing Thom, if you ever met him--Bing Thom is a--I mean, he exudes as sense of not only optimism, but of vision. And he was a very captivating person. And so I went away and thought and thought about this and really--as a Cabinet minister, really got me thinking more seriously about the Surrey possibility and the potential. And, to get my deputy minister and people in Crown Corporations 13:00secretariat to start scoping out and looking at this possibility and was there a chance, in fact, to take advantage of this vision and create something different than a freestanding university that would have a larger social impact, a bigger footprint. Not just physically but in terms of its socioeconomic benefit. And would still serve the needs of a technical university--in fact, better serve the needs of a technical university and be more connected than certainly the Cloverdale site would have been to the airport, to downtown Vancouver, and to industry.Hendrigan: so yeah, my next question was about Bob Williams and Bing Thom, and I
think you answered it.Andrew: Bob Williams and Bing Thom!
Hendrigan: so the Act passed and as you know, staff and faculty began to be
hired in 1998 and the first class of TechBC students entered the temporary 14:00classrooms in the Surrey Place Mall in 1999. So what was it like to see that happening?Andrew Petter: Well, it was encouraging to see things happening. There was a lot
of concern about and again Holly, I’m afraid I’m just too fuzzy in my memory but others; maybe I...one thing I did do-- I appointed Don Wright to the Board because I was concerned about governance issues. There was this question about mandate. There was questions about costs, for sure. Bernie Sheehan was the President at the time; he would come over and meet with me and bring me up to date. It was encouraging to know that classes were starting to be offered. It was a little daunting because there were serious questions about the financing of this, particularly this new vision of trying to get an integrated facility--it was more complex. The fact that Surrey offered up some land and gave support to it, I think, was helpful along the way. But, there was 15:00encouragement in the fact that courses were starting to be offered. And am I imagining it, maybe when I came over for the groundbreaking, I also met with students at that time. That’s probably true--that’s probably when it happened. Because I do remember meeting with students, and that must have been in conjunction with coming over for the formal groundbreaking, or the notional formal groundbreaking for the new site when we announced it. But I think a lot of the concerns was this vision of Bing Thom’s and the marriage of ICBC at the time with a technical university, with the acquisition of the shopping area: was it all going to work within the financial mandate that had been set? Was the planning of the university going to be effective in terms of delivering the kind of programming that was going to be beneficial? And also meet budget targets. So those were probably the greater concerns at the time. 16:00Hendrigan: Right
Andrew Petter: Although I remember being very excited and feeling very positive
with a spade in my hand and a hardhat at what is now Surrey City Centre to actually break ground. That was a pretty exciting moment.Hendrigan: Were you aware of what was going on academically? Do ministers at
that level, kind of…Andrew Petter: I was certainly...I can’t recollect the details of it but I was
certainly kept aware of what was happening by my staff in regular briefings about what courses were being offered. About the Board. But again, what I would be told would mostly focus on issues and “issues” means “problems” so, yes I would probably be told there were so many courses being offered and wasn’t that great but I would be told, “Hey we’re really worried here because we’re not sure that we can get treasury board approval for this unless we do this, unless we do that; we’re not sure that the development of the curriculum is in fact meeting the expectations that the community has, that 17:00the government has.” Again, I can’t give you the details of it unfortunately but those would be more the kind of things that would have come to my attention.Hendrigan: Right. Because the building costs were included in the cost per
student calculation, which ended up putting TechBC students at a numerical disadvantage compared to students in other institutions, and when the government changed they used those figures as justification for closing TechBC down. So, would you do any thing differently next time in terms of that kind of accounting?Andrew Petter: Well, it’s kind of hard for me to answer that because for me I
was handed a file that was already formed. I wasn’t there at the formative stages so I really, probably can’t answer the question effectively. I obviously have a strong bias, not surprisingly, for institutions that have the more traditional attributions of university governance, particularly universities that call themselves “universities.” But of course in this 18:00province we have all sorts of animals now that are called universities that have different governance forms. I think this was a very fluid time. I think TechBC did go from being a more trades focused institution that was going to be farther out in the Fraser Valley to being more of a tech focused institution that was closer in. If we had known that at the time, if we had known that the tech bubble was then going to burst a few years later, who knows? Maybe we wouldn’t have gone ahead with this at all. I guess what I take comfort in--I think that the piece of the decision making process that I was involved--in the time frame that I was involved in, was the right decision. I mean, when I applied for the job of being president of SFU I didn’t do it until after I had sussed out SFU and an important part of that sussing out was paying a visit to the Surrey campus and getting Joanne Curry to show me around and having my mind blown at 19:00how much of what Bing Thom had said was starting to happen in terms of the community and what had already happened in terms of the campus. To see the vibrancy of that campus. It’s hard to look back and say, “Gee I wish we hadn’t done it at all or I wish we had done it differently.” I do think perhaps for reasons at that time I wasn’t altogether supportive of, I do think happily the decision to turn it over to SFU and have it become part of SFU and therefore become endowed with the attributes of collegial governance and a professoriate that is appointed with tenure, has been a wonderful thing. A wonderful thing for SFU, a wonderful thing for the Surrey, SFU Surrey, and a wonderful thing for the community. So, I don’t know if two wrongs make a right, or if five wrongs make a right or five happenstances make a well informed decision but sometimes things find their way in the strangest of ways and in this case I think what’s come out of this whole experience and the decision 20:00that were made along the way--each of which one can critique or maybe say we would have done things differently, has actually been a wonderful, a wonderful result.Hendrigan: Um, so you moved on to the law school at UVic after the election.
What was your vantage point to what was unfolding at TechBC, from September 2001 to February 2002, before it was announced that SFU would take over but--Andrew Petter: I didn’t have much of a vantage point. I guess, I mean I was
disengaging from politics, or trying to. It’s not always easy to do. Mike Harcourt talks about being a “recovering politician”--you know, you have to sort of take the oath every day. I think I’m over that now. But, I think I was concerned at the time. Certainly there was...I was aware that there was some peril around the future of TechBC and obviously I had become somewhat wedded to 21:00the vision of the campus and of the work that had gone in and the support from the community was huge. I was concerned that the successor government might not feel that same affinity. I think there was an attempt at some point to try to portray the whole TechBC experience as some kind of huge financial fiasco, to associate it with the fast ferries and that kind of thing, which I’m sure I felt at the time was both unfair and unfortunate. And therefore I was relieved when SFU was tagged or chosen with the role of taking it on. I know David Mitchell quite well and I had met Michael Stevenson briefly. And I had a lot of confidence in SFU back then. I mean I was an admirer of SFU when I was Minister 22:00of Advanced Education--another reason I put my hat into the ring for this job. And so the fact that SFU took it on and that it would continue, albeit in a slightly different form, I think, gave me some gratification after some period of real concern that it might be unfairly written off or shut down.Hendrigan: If you’ll indulge me in a little bit of speculative thinking
Andrew Petter: Hey, that’s all I seem to be capable of these days!
Hendrigan: If you were the president of a freestanding startup university today,
would it look anything like TechBC?Andrew Petter: Well you see there’s two parts to that question. I would only
become President of a freestanding university if I felt I had some capability to assist that university, and I’m not sure that I would naturally think of a technical university as fitting my skill set, so I’m going to dodge your question by saying that. But look, I have drunk the...whatever it is, the nectar 23:00of SFU Surrey. I think the best model for what was going to be TechBC is now SFU Surrey. So, if you ask me to speculate, my speculation is entirely informed by the fact that no, I would, if I were asked to take on the presidency of a university called TechBC located somewhere south of the Fraser, knowing what I do now, I would urge that it be taken on as a third campus of Simon Fraser University.Hendrigan: Ok another sort of speculative thinking question. What do you think
Surrey’s postsecondary landscape would have looked like if TechBC had never existed?Andrew Petter: Um, well that is speculative. I mean, I think that for a range of
24:00reasons it’s hard for me to envision that there wouldn’t be an additional postsecondary presence south of the Fraser in addition to the University of the Fraser Valley and Kwantlen, and Trinity Western I guess. Because I just think the need there is so great. And this is a community that is going to outgrow Vancouver in ten years, that has a population profile that is both younger and more in need of university education because of historic lower transfer rates that are now starting to change. Because the economic benefits of having a research institution of some kind are so great. That’s in fact one of the reasons why I think SFU being there is a better outcome for Surrey and the community than TechBC because we bring the research strength that TechBC alone would have had difficulty mustering. Particularly based on the budget model that 25:00you reminded me of! Um, so I think there probably would have been--someone would have found their way to Surrey, it would have--whether it would be been SFU. I know, just reading through--this is something I didn’t know until this morning when I was reading through a little TechBC history to remind myself. I see that Bill Saywell way back when was even speculating or urged to consider a third campus for SFU way back when. So, one way or another, I think there would have been a postsecondary presence in addition to Kwantlen and University of the Fraser Valley. I hope it would have had some research dimension to it but I don’t think that’s guaranteed. And it’s another reason why I kind of think, by gosh and by golly, we’ve ended up with something that turns out to have worked out very well, subject to the recognition of government for the need 26:00for investment and further growth of the existing campus.Hendrigan: We’re kind of winding down now. But is there anything else you want
to say about TechBC that hasn’t come out yet?Andrew Petter: One thing I think I would say is--I’ve talked a lot about how I
think that SFU taking on TechBC has been hugely beneficial and why I think that’s the right thing. Having said that, I also think that we have to acknowledge that the character of SFU Surrey would not be the character that it is and probably wouldn’t be as positive as it is had there not been a TechBC. If Surrey had simply established its own freestanding campus in the way that it had wanted to and gone through its own visioning exercise to do that in consultation with the community, I’m not sure it would have been as distinctive; it wouldn’t have the same kind of freewheeling quality that SFU 27:00Surrey has; it mighn’t have programs like Mechatronics and the School for Interactive Art and Technology. It mightn’t have--universities being conservative institutions, it mightn’t not have chosen to go with a leap of faith of creating this mixed use facility which, ironically, given it’s located in Surrey, probably become the best example of “Vancouverism”: this idea of mixed use, of bringing unlikely partners together into something that turns out to be greater than the sum of its parts, which is what Vancouverism is all about. And Bing Thom will tell you that Surrey City Centre is probably the best example of Vancouverism we have: a shopping mall, a university, an office tower. And in turn a catalyst for suburban renewal. It’s pretty dramatic. Now universities being conservative institutions, might have said, No no no we’d like to have our own building thank you very much.” They mightn’t have not done that. So I guess the other thing I’d say is as much as I think the community has benefited and the system have benefited from SFU 28:00having what was TechBC a third campus, I think that third campus and its character benefited hugely from some of the history of of TechBC and some of the energy and vision and ideas of TechBC. Some of the personnel from TechBC who carried over into SFU and who brought some of the unconventional and cutting edge thinking and some of the out of the box thinking they brought had a huge impact on SFU. And I actually, I’ll go further: I think SFU Surrey has had a huge and profound impact on the whole culture of SFU. And I understand this is something you’ll know better than I. I understand it was not uncontroversial at the time, within the SFU community to take on what was TechBC. But I think a 29:00lot of “the Engaged University” vision, the connection to community, a lot of our commitment on innovation, has been informed and to some extent driven by ideas that come out of SFU Surrey and probably wouldn’t have come out of SFU Surrey if SFU Surrey hadn’t come out of TechBC. I think of a program like Venture Connection. I mean this was a first in Canada: to have a student incubator, that any student in the University, can get advice on how to take an idea to market and get mentorship. That program started at SFU Surrey; it’s since migrated to all of our campuses. Some of the work that goes on in SIAT: visual analytics. Visual analytics provides huge added value to our Big Data capacity here at the Burnaby campus, because it means you can take big data, and now we can translate and interpret it visually in ways that wouldn’t have been 30:00possible. Would we have had that visual analytics capacity? Maybe, but maybe not. So, I think culturally, programmatically, in terms of the student experience, SFU Surrey has made a big contribution to what SFU writ large is now all about. So, I’m a believer in that good things often come out of processes that...maybe it’s the common lawyer in me that: the whole theory of common law is that law will work its way through to something, even though in the moment it may seem chaotic. Unlike a sort of, um, civil law system where you try to come up with the ideal principle and derive the law from that. Commons law is: you build law slowly out of experience and out of that accretion of experience comes a principle that makes sense but is informed by that experience. Well, maybe that’s why I’m more comfortable than others would be 31:00with the fact that, even though you may look at individual components of this and say, “What? Why did they do that?” Or, “Why did government do that?” Here’s another example of what Otto von Bismark called Sausage making is his metaphor for making laws: the sausage is pretty good! We may not like the way the sausage is made; we may not think that the ingredients at various times were done with due deliberation, but somehow out of this process, what has resulted, is kind of wonderful. And you have to wonder, would it have been as wonderful if it hadn’t have happened in this kind of chaotic way? Now I’m not arguing for, forHendrigan: Chaos
Andrew Petter: For chaotic, for chaos. Although there is a whole bunch of chaos
theory--physicists and others can tell you about it, philosophers can tell you chaos has an important role to play.Hendrigan: But as an organizational…
Andrew Petter: But as an organizing tool, I’m not saying that we should
aspire to chaos. But what I’m saying is, that sometimes the accretion or the accumulation of decisions that are made that individually may not seem to be 32:00optimal in isolation, actually add up over time to something that is greater than they appear to be in isolation. And I think this is an example of that.Hendrigan: President Petter, I thank you. This has been a great conversation and
I truly appreciate the time you’ve taken with me to speak with me about your experience.Andrew Petter: Well it’s been fun! I just wish my memory were better but
hopefully the hypotheses and speculation will carry us over the rough bits.Hendrigan: I think it will. Thank you
Andrew Petter: Thank you
0:00 - Introduction / Ministerial portfolios during TechBC era / Technology vs trades focus of university
Direct segment link:
Partial Transcript: I’m here to ask you some questions about your experience as a cabinet minister in the NDP government that created the Technical University of British Columbia. I looked at your government CV and noted that, like many TechBC employees, you wore a lot of different hats during that time.
Segment Synopsis: Provides overview of experience in Cabinet during the two term NDP government, which included Finance, Advanced Education, and the Crown Corporation Secretariat, which oversaw ICBC. Explains the rationale of government to initially build a university focused on trades and technical education.
Keywords: Access to Education; Cabinet Officers; Employment Experience; Government School Relationship; Trade and Industrial Education
Subjects:
3:08 - Technical University of British Columbia Act and economic development
Direct segment link:
Partial Transcript: Sure, that’s fine. My second question is about the Technical University of BC Act. There was a big brouhaha over its lack of a Senate and tenure for faculty and we’ll get back to this as well. But what I find very interesting about the Act is the University’s purpose. One of the clauses reads, “To create strong links with Business and Labour and develop programs that are relevant to, and at the forefront of industrial and professional initiative. Can you comment on this mandate?
Segment Synopsis: Discusses the Technical University of British Columbia Act and the purpose of the University, which was to be an engine for economic development. Also mentions Royal Roads University, another startup university that the government wanted to organized on a non-traditional governance model. But by the time Petter was Advanced Education minister, the CAUT-CUFA boycott against TechBC had been lifted.
Keywords: Economic Development; Educational Legislation; Labour Force Development; Technical Education
Subjects:
5:09 - Royal Roads University as example of new model of university and CAUT/CUFA-BC censure
Direct segment link:
Partial Transcript: I’m referring to the CAUT/CUFA BC censure and boycott campaign against TechBC: I’ve heard a thing or two that that was actually a reaction to what Royal Roads had done. Did you want to say anything about TechBC’s lack of a senate or tenure?
Segment Synopsis: Explains that TechBC may have been modelled on Royal Roads University, another new institution that lacked tenure and a traditional governing council. The CAUT-CUFA BC boycott was resolved before his tenure as Advanced Education Minister
Keywords: Tenure, Experimental Universities, University Governing Councils
Subjects:
7:17 - Reasons for siting the school in the Whalley transportation corridor
Direct segment link:
Partial Transcript: So we’ll move on to the site location now. Can you talk about the factors involved in moving the campus from Cloverdale to Whalley?
Segment Synopsis: Discusses the relationship between the initial trades focus and site selection in Cloverdale. Later, the Government decided on a technology focus instead, which would be more appropriately sited on transportation corridor (ie, Skytrain line.)
Keywords: Site Selection; Technical Education; Technology Education; Transportation
Subjects:
9:31 - Meeting with Bob Williams and Bing Thom
Direct segment link:
Partial Transcript: And Bing Thom pulled out this map of Whalley and showed me the area there and said, “Here’s an area, it’s connected to Vancouver through transportation with the SkyTrain and here’s a shopping area that is hugely undervalued in the sense that it’s declining. The land is not expensive. And yet there’s huge potential here.
Segment Synopsis: Describes meeting with Bob Williams and Bing Thom, who met with him regarding different matters relating to ICBC land use, but used the opportunity to pitch the idea of siting TechBC at the Surrey Place Mall, in the Whalley neighbourhood that was struggling socioeconomically. The Mall would be redeveloped as a mixed use facility also housing a relocated ICBC headquarters. This development would catalyze urban growth and renewal in the area.
Keywords: Neighbourhood Improvement; Poverty Areas; Site Selection; Transportation; Urban Renewal
Subjects:
13:52 - Financial and governance issues with new university / Funding model’s impact on school closure
Direct segment link:
Partial Transcript: So the Act passed and as you know, staff and faculty began to be hired in 1998 and the first class of TechBC students entered the temporary classrooms in the Surrey Place Mall in 1999. So what was it like to see that happening?
Segment Synopsis: Recollects difficulties with funding the University and, possibly, issues with the school’s mandate in terms of programming. He was not directly involved in the school’s early planning period that included lease costs in student expenditure figures.
Keywords: Accountability, Multicampus Universities; Expenditure Per Student; Financial Problems; Governing Boards; Government School Relationship
Subjects:
18:34 - Legacy of TechBC at SFU Surrey
Direct segment link:
Partial Transcript: I mean, when I applied for the job of being president of SFU I didn’t do it until after I had sussed out SFU and an important part of that sussing out was paying a visit to the Surrey campus and getting Joanne Curry to show me around and having my mind blown at how much of what Bing Thom had said was starting to happen in terms of the community and what had already happened in terms of the campus.
Segment Synopsis: The success of SFU Surrey was a factor in his decision to apply for the position as SFU’s President. Ultimately, his part in the site decision of TechBC was the right one, and the merger of TechBC and SFU benefited both institutions.
Keywords: Consolidated Schools; Expenditure Per Student; Multicampus Universities; School Effectiveness; Tenure; University Governing Councils
Subjects:
20:15 - Exit from politics and choice of SFU as new governing institution
Direct segment link:
Partial Transcript: So you moved on to the law school at UVic after the election. What was your vantage point to what was unfolding at TechBC, from September 2001 to February 2002, before it was announced that SFU would take over but...
Segment Synopsis: Discusses thoughts regarding TechBC after exiting politics; was worried for a time that the school would be completely shut down given the new government’s portrayal of TechBC as a financial fiasco. Relieved that SFU acquired it, and feels the decision to consolidate with SFU was the right one.
Keywords: Career Change; Consolidated schools; Political Affiliation
Subjects:
23:39 - Surrey’s post secondary landscape
Direct segment link:
Partial Transcript: Ok another peculative thinking question. What do you think Surrey’s postsecondary landscape would have looked like if TechBC had never existed?
Segment Synopsis: Describes the benefit SFU, as a research university, brings to the growing Surrey region.
Keywords: Access to Education; Migration Patterns; Research Universities; Suburbs
Subjects:
26:08 - Techbc’s positive impact on SFU and SFU Surrey
Direct segment link:
Partial Transcript: Is there anything else you want to say about TechBC that hasn’t come out yet?
Segment Synopsis: Describes the benefit TechBC brought to SFU with its innovative spirit and programming, such as the the entrepreneurship program Venture Connection, visual analytics, and Mechatronics Systems Engineering. While the processes which led to the existence of SFU Surrey were not deliberate, they were similar to common law traditions which are more incremental and even chaotic, but ultimately beneficial and correct.
Keywords:
Subjects: Consolidated Schools Data Analysis Decision Making Educational Innovation Entrepreneurship Partnerships in Education Urban Renewal