As a former employee of Carlton Trail Regional College (CTRC), I have been following the story as my town council raises concerns about the proposed merger between CTRC and St. Peter's College (SPC) in Muenster.
In December, Meyers Norris Penny came to Watrous for consultations regarding this proposed merger.
Research of documents on government and college websites have raised many questions. Although Minister Rob Norris had repeatedly denied that any formal merger had been decided upon, the minutes of the CTRC Board of Trustees contradict this claim.
As early as April 28, 2009, the CTRC board minutes indicate an agreement "to enter into a Letter of Understanding with St. Peter's College regarding amalgamation."
Regular updates on "amalgamation" followed consistently in the minutes, including Ministry officials who attended the board meetings with the message that the Ministry "hopes that the merger can be official by the fall of 2010," and that "Direction has been given by Minister Norris to proceed." (January 26, 2010 minutes)
Another concern centres around what appears to be contravention of The Regional Colleges Act.
Section 7 (1) of the Act states that,"The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall appoint the members of each board." Section 7(2) states that,"a board shall consist of not less than four and not more than seven residents of the region in which the college is to provide services." Section 12 states that, "a board shall: (b) ensure that the business and affairs of the College are conducted in accordance with this Act;"
In reviewing the "Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Trustees of Carlton Trail Regional College," St. Peter's College trustees have been attending CTRC meetings on a regular basis since January 2010, and since that time have being making and seconding motions whether they are listed as "guests" or listed as "participating" in those minutes. Are these motions legal?
On one occasion, a trustee from SPC chaired the CTRC board meeting (September 2010). It is the board members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council who should be making and seconding motions, and it is also those same board members who should be ensuring "that the business and affairs of the college are conducted in accordance with this Act."
According to The Regional Colleges Act, CTRC is permitted to have a maximum of seven board members. SPC has 11 different members listed as trustees who have participated in CTRC board meetings. This allows SPC to be in a position to control all of the business of CTRC.
In the last two meetings of 2010 (September and November), the header for the minutes reads, "Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Trustees of Carlton Trail Regional College and St. Peter's College."
Several years ago, our CTRC staff was graciously hosted by SPC to lunch and a joint meeting. It was tradition for CTRC to contribute a specific sum of money annually to SPC to offset the cost of university classes at SPC.
Although university classes were offered in other locations in CTRC, Humboldt did not offer classes in order to avoid competition with SPC. Several years before I left the employ of CTRC in 2005, St. Peter's Abbey personnel no longer did all the teaching and operating of St. Peter's College. At the time, they cited "dwindling population" and "aging population" (St. Peter's Abbey website today indicates residents numbering 20) as the reasons they would lease SPC.
With respect to the merger with CTRC, what is the arrangement for ownership?
I presume that since St. Peter's Abbey owns all property, the merger will be with St. Peter's Abbey. When referring to SPC, "they" lease it from St. Peter's Abbey. Who is "they?" In other words, who is St. Peter's College?
The minutes of CTRC board meetings refer to the merger with "St. Peter's College," not St. Peter's Abbey. Does this mean that Carlton Trail Regional College is merging with the lessee of St. Peter's College?
In the business world, this would be like a renter sub-letting the property to another entity. I presume that these details have been completed by the Ministry, since it was they who wanted the merger to be official several months ago.
The Minister needs to be clear and transparent with respect to the details of the agreement.
