I was recently hired into the president's office at TechBC. Some of you may remember me as last year's president of the Dalhousie Faculty Association. I was at Dalhousie for six years, and involved with the faculty association for four of those six years. I believe that during that time I demonstrated my commitment to the founding principles of post-secondary education. I accepted a position at TechBC because I see it as an exciting new opportunity, both for myself and for the people of BC. I am absolutely convinced that those involved in the creation of TechBC are as committed to the principle of academic freedom as any academics I have ever met.

BC has one of the lowest participation rates in post-secondary education in Canada. The lower Fraser Valley, where TechBC will be situated, has the lowest participation rates in BC. Thus the idea for TechBC was born.

TechBC has a traditional board of governors (identical to the boards of UBC, SFU and UVic), a university council, and program advisory committees. Faculty and student participation exists at all three levels. Bill 30 was written to give TechBC a chance to evolve into a fully functioning university. The legislation gives the president and board greater powers than at BC's more traditional universities; however, this makes sense if you think about it rationally. The president and the board will initiate the planning processes which will eventually lead to the hiring of faculty and the admission of students. In the absence of faculty and students to staff the university council, the president and board will be responsible for the management of TechBC. Bill 30 permits many of the traditional academic powers of a senate to be delegated to the council at some point in the future once the requisite stakeholders are in place.

In the TechBC: Warning ad printed in September's Bulletin CAUT says that Bill 30 does not offer the same protections for institutional autonomy contained in other university statutes. This is blatantly untrue. Bill 30 makes provision for certain sections of the University Act to apply to the Technical University of BC. One of these is Section 48, which prohibits the Minister of Education from interfering in the formulation and adoption of academic policies and standards, the establishment of standards for admission and graduation, and the selection and appointment of staff.

Bill Bruneau (Editorial, September) claims that "faculty members at this institution will have to go cap-in-hand to the board of governors to receive approval for research projects." While the board has the power to "approve strategic programs and research directions and policies," it is ridiculous to imagine that the board would be involved in approving individual research projects. I think the larger issue here is that academics such as Bruneau and Robert Clift ("No Senate, No Tenure, No Academic Freedom," September) simply do not trust any president or board to manage their universities. CAUT has also falsely claimed that the board of TechBC will have "extraordinary power to establish, change or discontinue programs or program areas of the university without provision for the fair treatment of employees." At TechBC the president, in consultation with the university council, makes recommendations to the board for the establishment, change or discontinuance of programs. Yes, the board has final approval, but the boards at UBC, SFU and UVic also have final approval over program changes or discontinuance.

The program advisory committees were specifically designed to give business, industry, labour organizations, professional associations and other post-secondary institutions a chance to be involved in decision making processes at TechBC. We expect that the representatives from business and labour will be academics/professionals with expertise in the appropriate disciplines, not the CEOs of these organizations.

Communicating with the communities we serve is, I believe, a welcome change from the ivory tower mentality that universities have had for far too long. The best way to improve our image with the public is to involve community members in some aspects of decision making in our institutions and to learn to trust that their concerns for public education in this country are genuine.

Additionally, I think it is about time we started producing graduates who are readily employable. Students are becoming increasingly vocal in their call for cost-effectiveness in education and in efforts to ensure that their education serve them well in the "real-world." Part of our mission at TechBC is to provide the basis for lifelong employability. Students have a right to this, for after all, they are the central reason that universities exist.

In summary, I believe CAUT's reporting of the TechBC legislation has been one-sided and in at least one case, incorrect. Yes, the legislation does create an institution which differs in its governance structures from the more traditional universities in BC. The TechBC experiment is one which is long overdue and which Canadian academics should be watching with interest, not with fear and threats of reprisal.

E. Jane Fee, Academic Assistant to the President, Technical University of British Columbia