Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

What Makes A Student-Driven Project?: A Study Of The AMS New Sub Project, 2007-2010 Jarvis, Bronwyn 2010-08-31

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
310-SCARP_Aug2010_gradproject_Jarvis.pdf [ 5.93MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 310-1.0102518.json
JSON-LD: 310-1.0102518-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 310-1.0102518-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 310-1.0102518-rdf.json
Turtle: 310-1.0102518-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 310-1.0102518-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 310-1.0102518-source.json
Full Text
310-1.0102518-fulltext.txt
Citation
310-1.0102518.ris

Full Text

  WHAT MAKES A STUDENT-DRIVEN PROJECT?: A STUDY OF THE AMS NEW SUB PROJECT, 2007-2010  by  BRONWYN JARVIS  B.A.H., Queen’s University, 2006    A PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF ARTS (PLANNING)  in  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  School of Community and Regional Planning    We accept this project as conforming to the required standard  Advisor: Maged Senbel, Assistant Professor, SCARP, UBC  ......................................................  Second Reader: Ekaterina Dovjenko, VP Administration 2010/11, UBC AMS  .....................................................     THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 2010 © Bronwyn Jarvis, 2010         Abstract  In spring of 2007 the Alma Mater Society (AMS) of the University of British Columbia (UBC) began the process to develop a new Student Union Building (SUB). A cornerstone of this New SUB project was that it was envisioned as a ‘student-driven’ process, and it fell to the AMS to develop a system of governance and consultation that would meet this goal. By the summer of 2010, the preliminary assessment, programming, and negotiations for the project had finished, but the process developed to date had not been formally recorded, or assessed.   The purpose of this paper is to: document the first three years of the process, from spring of 2007 to summer of 2010; assess how the process has been ‘student-driven’ and ‘not student-driven’; give specific recommendations for how the project could be improved, and for how a similar project could improve on the New SUB project; and develop principles for how to achieve a student-driven project.   In my documentation and analysis I drew from: my field notes from working on the New SUB project from the fall of 2008 to the summer of 2010; publicly available documents related to the project and similar Student Union Building development projects in North America; and interviews with key project members.   To assess whether the project was student-driven, or not, I analyzed whether different aspects of the project were: a) Accountable and transparent to students;  b) Allowed broad student decision-making and consultation; and c) Allowed meaningful student decision-making and consultation  In my documentation and analysis I focused on three major aspects of the project: Initial Governance & Management; Negotiated Governance & Management; and Consultation. In my analysis, I generally found the project to be more student-driven than not, but I also found many weaknesses and potential areas of improvement for the remaining stages of the New SUB project.    Drawing from the more context-specific analysis, I concluded with general principles for a student- driven project, and I proposed that the most important determinants of a student-driven project are that: • A representative body for students initiates the project;  • The project is embedded within a healthy representative system of governance and management, in which student representatives play a key role; and • A watchdog is devoted to developing standards for student-driven processes (in terms of principles, goals, and methods for the project), monitoring the behaviour of team members, and building commitment to student-driven processes within the project team        Table of Contents  1. Part I: Introduction & Background ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Methods of Data Gathering ............................................................................................................... 3 1.3. Structure & Methods of Analysis ....................................................................................................... 5 1.3.1. Categories of Analysis: Initial Governance, Negotiated Governance & Consultation ................ 5 1.3.3. Methods of Analysis .................................................................................................................... 7 1.4. Context & Precedents for the New SUB Project .............................................................................. 10 1.4.1. UBC Context and UBC Precedents for the New SUB Project .................................................... 10 1.4.2. Precedents for the New SUB Project from other North American Universities ....................... 11 1.5. Basic Overview and Timeline of the New SUB Project .................................................................... 16 1.5.1. 2007/08 AMS Term: Preliminary Planning ................................................................................ 16 1.5.2. 2008/09 AMS Term: Referendum, Negotiations & Draft Programming ................................... 17 1.5.3. 2009/10 AMS Term: Final Programming & Negotiations ......................................................... 18 1.5.4. 2010/11 AMS Term: Final Negotiations, Primary consultant selection & Design .................... 18 1.5.5. Spring 2011 - Fall 2014 : Design & Construction ....................................................................... 19 2. Part II: Initial Governance & Management ............................................................................................. 21 2.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 21 2.2. Context ............................................................................................................................................. 21 2.2.1. The Current SUB ........................................................................................................................ 21 2.2.2. The AMS .................................................................................................................................... 22 2.2.3. The University Boulevard Project ............................................................................................. 24 2.3. Grassroots Organization & Student Media ...................................................................................... 25 2.4. AMS Council ..................................................................................................................................... 27 2.5. SUB Renew Referendum .................................................................................................................. 29 2.6. AMS Executives & SUB Coordinator ................................................................................................ 31 2.6.1. SUB Coordinator ....................................................................................................................... 33 2.7. Decision-Making Committees .......................................................................................................... 34 2.7.1. SUB Renewal Committee (New SUB Project Committee) & Project Management Committee  ............................................................................................................................................................ 34   2.7.2. Negotiation Committee ............................................................................................................ 37 2.7.3. Bus Loop Committee ................................................................................................................. 42 2.7.4. Program Review Committee ..................................................................................................... 43 2.7.5. Program User Reps ................................................................................................................... 43 2.8. Consultant Selection ........................................................................................................................ 45 2.8.1. Architect Short-listing Committee ............................................................................................ 46 2.8.2. Final Architect Selection ........................................................................................................... 47 2.9. Consultant Management ................................................................................................................. 49 2.10. Conclusion of Part II ....................................................................................................................... 51 3. Part III: Negotiated Governance & Management ................................................................................... 59 3.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 59 3.2. Context ............................................................................................................................................. 60 3.2.1. The UBC Administration ............................................................................................................ 60 3.2.2. Why did the AMS Negotiate?.................................................................................................... 62 3.3. Decision-Making Committees .......................................................................................................... 63 3.3.1. Joint Oversight Committee (JOC) & Project Management Working Committee (PMWC) ....... 63 3.3.2. SUB Renewal Committee (New SUB Project Committee) ........................................................ 65 3.3.3. Design Client Committee & Design User Reps .......................................................................... 66 3.3.4. Two AMS Reps in the Integrated Design Process (IDP) and Construction Committee ............. 66 3.4. Consultant Selection ........................................................................................................................ 67 3.4.1. UBC Position .............................................................................................................................. 67 3.4.2. AMS Position ............................................................................................................................. 68 3.4.3. Final Agreement ........................................................................................................................ 69 3.5. Consultant Management ................................................................................................................. 69 3.5.1. Change Management ................................................................................................................ 70 3.6. Other Agreements Affecting Governance ....................................................................................... 71 3.6.1. Project Budget........................................................................................................................... 71 3.6.2. Design, Program & Management of the New SUB ................................................................... 72 3.6.3. Public Private Partnerships ....................................................................................................... 74 3.7. Conclusion of Part III ........................................................................................................................ 75   4. Part IV: Consultation ............................................................................................................................... 81 4.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 81 4.2. Context ............................................................................................................................................. 82 4.2.1. The UBC Vancouver Campus Plan ............................................................................................. 82 4.2.2. The UBC Farm Workshop .......................................................................................................... 84 4.2.3. The Fairview Square Workshops ............................................................................................... 85 4.3. Preliminary Needs Assessment ........................................................................................................ 86 4.4. SUB Coordinator & Comprehensive Consultation Planning ............................................................ 88 4.5. Principles & Goals ............................................................................................................................ 89 4.5.1. Principles of Participatory Planning .......................................................................................... 89 4.5.1. Principles and Goals .................................................................................................................. 89 4.6. Media & Communications ............................................................................................................... 90 4.7. Advisory Committees ....................................................................................................................... 92 4.7.1. New SUB Student Advisory Committee (NSSAC) ...................................................................... 92 4.7.2. Sustainable SUB Committee (SSC) ............................................................................................ 93 4.8. Draft Program Process ..................................................................................................................... 95 4.8.1. Thematic Workshops ................................................................................................................ 95 4.8.2. User Meetings & First Club Survey ........................................................................................... 97 4.9. Final Program Process ...................................................................................................................... 98 4.9.1. Review of the First Draft ........................................................................................................... 98 4.9.2. Communication of Draft Program............................................................................................. 99 4.9.3. Follow-up User Meetings & Second Club Survey .................................................................... 100 4.9.4. New SUB Program Survey ....................................................................................................... 100 4.9.5. Graduate Student Program Survey ......................................................................................... 101 4.9.6. Final User Meetings and Food Consultants ............................................................................ 102 4.10. SUB Curriculum Initiative ............................................................................................................. 103 4.11. Student-Wide Architect Vote ....................................................................................................... 105 4.12. Design Process ............................................................................................................................. 107 4.12.1. Master Plan Kickoff & Communications ............................................................................... 108 4.12.2. Design Workshops ................................................................................................................ 108   4.12.3. 90% and 100% Design Proposals .......................................................................................... 109 4.13. Post-Design Process ..................................................................................................................... 109 4.13.1. Post-design Advisory Committees ........................................................................................ 109 4.13.2. Post-design Media & Communications ................................................................................. 110 4.13.3. Post-design Consultation ...................................................................................................... 110 4.14. Conclusion of Part IV .................................................................................................................... 111 5. Part V: Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 123 5.1. Summary Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 123 5.2. Accountability & Transparency ...................................................................................................... 125 5.3. Broad Decision-Making & Consultation ......................................................................................... 126 5.4. Meaningful Decision-Making & Engagement ................................................................................ 127 5.5. General ........................................................................................................................................... 129 5.6. Conclusion of Part V ....................................................................................................................... 131 6. References ............................................................................................................................................ 133 7. Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ 145 A.1. Acronyms ....................................................................................................................................... 145 A.2. Key People Involved in the New SUB Project as of April 2010 ...................................................... 145 A.3. Summary of the MOU Agreement ................................................................................................. 149 A.4. SUB Renew Referendum Question ................................................................................................ 150 A.5. SUB Renewal Committee Terms of Reference 2007 ..................................................................... 150 A.6. New SUB Project Committee Terms of Reference 2010 ............................................................... 151 A.7. New SUB Program Goals ................................................................................................................ 152 A.8. Invitation to Participate in the New SUB Student Advisory Committee ....................................... 153 A.9. List of Desired SUB Curriculum Classes & Projects, June 2009 ...................................................... 154 A.10. Introductory Letters for the SUB Curriculum Initiative ............................................................... 157 A.11. SUB Curriculum Contact & Actions Database .............................................................................. 159 A.12. Summary of Agreements for the New SUB Project ..................................................................... 161 A.13. Architect Selection ....................................................................................................................... 164 A.14. Master Schedule  ......................................................................................................................... 165 A.15. University Boulevard Master Plan  .............................................................................................. 166   A.16. Project Mission Statement .......................................................................................................... 167 A.17. Architect Shortlisting Committee Score Sheet Template ............................................................ 171 A.18. Final Architect Selection Committee Score Sheet Template  ...................................................... 172 A.19. Student Engagement Process ...................................................................................................... 173 A.20. Change Management Process ..................................................................................................... 174 A.21. Change Request Form  ................................................................................................................. 175 A.22. Budget Cost Plan  ......................................................................................................................... 176 A.23. University Boulevard Siting Map  ................................................................................................ 177 A.24. University Boulevard Massing  .................................................................................................... 178 A.25. Sustainability Charter................................................................................................................... 179 A.26. Sustainable SUB Committee Terms of Reference ........................................................................ 181 A.27. Nightlife & Artlife Thematic Workshop, Matrices Results ........................................................... 183 A.28. NSSAC Chart for Analyzing Program Uses ................................................................................... 185 A.29. Second Club Program Survey Questions ..................................................................................... 186 A.30. New SUB Program Survey Questions  .......................................................................................... 189 A.31. Graduate Student Program Survey Questions  ............................................................................ 201         1. Part I: Introduction & Background  1.1. Introduction  The Student Union Building (SUB) (see A.1. Acronyms) is iconic at UBC: as an architectural statement of the 1960s; as the hub of student life at UBC; and as a legacy of ongoing student leadership and management at the university. The current SUB serves as a resting and meeting point for students, as a waiting area for the nearby bus loop, as an eating place, and as the home of many student clubs, services and businesses.1,2    In spring of 2007 the Alma Mater Society (AMS) began to officially investigate the possibilities for renovating or constructing a New SUB for students – one that would better serve the current and future student population and be an icon of architecture and sustainable design.3 Another cornerstone of this New SUB Project was that it was envisioned as a ‘student-driven’ process. The goal to be accountable to the student body, and to involve student decision-making and input in a multitude of ways, was mentioned frequently by candidates in AMS elections since spring of 2007 (for names, see A.2. Key People Involved in the New SUB Project as of April 2010),4,5,6,7,8 and featured prominently in the promotional materials for the 2008 SUB Renew referendum for the project.9    While a student-driven process was a rare and inspiring goal for a university process of this scale, it is also a vague concept and difficult to achieve. With a project budget of $103 million (see A.12. Summary of Agreements for the New SUB Project) and a current student body of 45,00010, the New SUB project has required a development and consultation process which is unprecedented for the AMS in terms of size and complexity.11    Leading the AMS’s consultation process for the New SUB project as SUB Coordinator in the 2008/09 academic year, I spoke to many students about their expectations for the project. In the last ten years,                                                           1 UBC AMS, About the SUB, UBC AMS Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/index.php/ams/subpage/category/about_sub/> 2 UBC AMS, SUB Renewal Project: Schematic Design Program, 12 Feb. 2009, Prep. Cornerstone Planning Group, p.1, UBC AMS Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/SUB_Program_Final.pdf> 3 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive 4 Three Personal Interviews with AMS executives 5 The Ubyssey, AMS Elections Supplement, 23 Jan. 2007, UBC Archives: University Publications & Serials, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://www.library.ubc.ca/archives/pdfs/ubyssey/UBYSSEY_2007_01_23.pdf> 6 The Ubyssey, The UBC Elections Supplement, The Ubyssey Magazine, 18 Jan. 2008, UBC Archives: University Publications & Serials, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://www.library.ubc.ca/archives/pdfs/ubyssey/UBYSSEY_2008_01_18.pdf#search=%22sub%22> 7 Yonson, Neal, “VP Administration Post of Awesomeness”, 11 Feb. 2008, UBC Insiders, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://blogs.ubc.ca/ubcinsiders/2008/02/11/vp-administration-post-of-awesomeness/> 8 The Ubyssey, The 2009 AMS Election Supplement, 27 Jan. 2009, The Ubyssey, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://ubyssey.ca/news/2009-ams-election-supplement>  9 UBC AMS, AMS Referenda 2008 - SUB Changes: The Question, UBC AMS Website, 28 Jun. 2010,  <http://www.ams.ubc.ca/yes/?page=q1> 10 UBC, The Pair (Planning & Institutional Research), UBC QuickFacts, 2009, PAIR: Campus Profile Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www.pair.ubc.ca/statistics/profile/quickfacts2009.pdf> 11 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive 1  many large development and consultation projects carried out by UBC have been perceived by students as inadequately involving student input, which made some students supportive of an AMS-led project, but made others assume that a project carried out by the AMS would similarly underperform. Some students felt that the AMS was not competent or qualified to carry out the development and consultation process, while others suspected that the project would inevitably be done in a more top- down manner, with UBC administrators and consultants making major decisions (for a full discussion of how precedents impacted the New SUB project, see 1.4. Context & Precedents for the New SUB Project).12,13,14    While some students had faith in the AMS and had high expectation for student leadership and involvement in the New SUB project, the nature of these expectations varied widely – likely because the concept was so vague and because few students understood the details of how such a complex project could be run. Some of the varying expectations expressed by students in my conversations with them were that:15 • Some students would be hired to work with consultants  • Student committees would have major decision-making power in the project • Student-wide polls and surveys would be used regularly to give direction to the project • A student-wide vote on buildings designs would determine the architect and/or design for the project • The project would be internally managed by the AMS, and the broader students body would simply be updated regularly on project developments  It fell to the AMS to develop a strategy for student leadership and involvement that would: be meaningful and not ‘tokenistic’; be a positive and learning experience for students; and help produce a building that would meet student needs in terms of activities, services, green design, and aesthetics. So far the process has evolved organically, with important contributing factors being:  • Various precedents for consultation, and student governance and management at UBC;  • The pre-existing structure of the AMS government; • The negotiations with the UBC administration; • The project’s budget, determined by the AMS council, referendum, and negotiations with UBC; • The particular values, ideas, knowledge and experience of those students and non-students who have managed and advised the project in its first three years  While the New SUB project has, as of July 2010, progressed to the stage of completing negotiations and selecting the final architect, there has been little record made of the process developed to get there, and little assessment done of how that process has been student-driven or not. This paper attempts to document the process that was developed by the AMS to carry out the New SUB Project, and draw out lessons and principles for how the process could have been improved and how its remaining stages can                                                           12 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 13 Anonymous, “Choose your own SUBventure!: Comments”, 30 Mar. 2008, The Devil’s Advocate, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://ubcdevilsadvocate.blogspot.com/2008/03/choose-your-own-subventure.html> 14 C. Glen and Leslie Day, “Why the SUB Renewal is a bad idea”, Facebook: Against the SUB Renewal, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=11636582637#!/topic.php?uid=11636582637&topic=3820> 15 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 2  be more student-driven. These lessons might also be useful for other university student governments taking on similar development or consultation processes.    The remainder of Part One includes:  1.2. Methods of Data Gathering 1.3. Structure & Methods of Analysis 1.4. Context & Precedents for the New SUB Project 1.5. Basic Overview and Timeline of the New SUB Project  In Parts Two to Four I systematically outline the project using the categories of:  2. Initial Governance & Management 3. Negotiated Governance & Management 4. Consultation  I conclude each of Parts Two to Four with a summary analysis of how and why that aspect of the project was student-driven, and wasn’t student-driven. I also give recommendations for how each aspect could be more student-driven in the future of the New SUB project, and how a similar project could be more student-driven than was the New SUB project.  In Part Five, I give general recommendations for how to achieve a student-driven project.    1.2. Methods of Data Gathering  The main methods of data gathering for this paper were: Extensive field notes; study of publicly available documents; and personal interviews.  1. Extensive field notes  From October 2008 until the present (July 2010), I have kept extensive notes, records, and reflections on student leadership and involvement in the New SUB project, based on my experience with the project. My exposure to the New SUB project, and other relevant activities on campus, stems from: • Attending UBC as a Graduate Student in the School of Community & Regional Planning, September 2007 - present (July 2010) o As a student at UBC and member of the AMS I received general emails about the New SUB project, and was exposed to on-campus campaigns and opportunities for involvement related the New SUB project.   o I participated in a focus group for the New SUB project in fall of 2007 (see 4.3. Preliminary Needs Assessment), in the UBC Farm Workshop in fall of 2008 (see 4.2.2. The UBC Farm Workshop), and in a design workshop for the Vancouver Campus Plan process in March 2008, and I sat on the Vancouver Campus Plan Technical Advisory Committee in the 2008/09 academic year (see 4.2.1. The UBC Vancouver Campus Plan)  • Leading the AMS’s consultation for the New SUB project as SUB Coordinator, October 2008 - July 2009 (see 2.6.1. SUB Coordinator, and 4.4. SUB Coordinator & Comprehensive Consultation Planning)    3  • Sitting on the SUB Renewal Committee (SRC) regularly October 2008 to July 2009, and irregularly from August 2009 until the present (July 2010) (see 2.7.1. SUB Renewal Committee & Project Management Committee)    2. Study of publicly available documents  I’ve made extensive use of publicly available information to document the process, including: • AMS documentation  o Meeting minutes o Quarterly reports of the AMS Vice-President of Administration (VP Admin) o Information and reports available on the AMS website  o Public materials distributed to the SUB Renewal Committee (SRC), New SUB Student Advisory Committee (NSSAC), and Sustainable SUB committee (SSC)  For instance, interim consultation plans, raw consultation feedback, and tables and charts to guide consultation feedback analysis • Commentary on the AMS process, available on the internet o UBC Media outlet websites and online archives  For instance the major student newspaper, The Ubyssey  o Student blogs o Design blogs • Information available on student union building development at other North American universities, including (for results, see 1.4.2. Precedents for the New SUB Project from other North American Universities): o University website and online archives o Student union websites o Student union building project websites, blogs, and news commentary  3. Personal Interviews  I also carried out interviews to supplement my knowledge of the project and gather different perspectives on student leadership and involvement in the project. The interview subjects I chose all managed or advised the project in the 2007/08, 2008/09 or 2009/10 academic years – working as elected representatives (reps), AMS employees, or project consultants:   • Tristan Markle o Participated in activism related to campus development and ‘the knoll’ in the 2007/08 academic year (see 2.3. Grassroots Organization & Student Media)  o AMS Councillor, 2007/08 AMS Council term (AMS term) o AMS VP Admin and SUB Renewal Committee (SRC) Chair, 2008/09 AMS term • Michael Duncan o AMS Councillor, 2007/08 AMS term o permanent SRC member from spring of 2007 until project completion o AMS President, 2008/09 AMS term o AMS Board of Governors rep, 2010/11 AMS term o UBC Alumni employee, May 2010 - present (July 2010)  • Guillaume Savard o MHPM Interim project manager, October 2008 - August 2010 4  o AMS Project advisor, August 2010 - project completion • Crystal Hon o New SUB Student Advisory Committee (NSSAC) member, 2008/09 academic year o AMS VP Admin and SRC Chair, 2009/10 AMS term • Jensen Metchie o AMS SUB Coordinator, 2009/10 academic year • Ekaterina Dovjenko o AMS Councillor, 2009/10 AMS term o VP Admin and SRC Chair, 2010/11 AMS term  I also interviewed Maged Senbel, a faculty member at the School of Community & Regional Planning (SCARP) at UBC, about SCARP’s involvement in the Vancouver Campus Plan and University Boulevard Plan processes.   Each of the interview subjects agreed to be identified as having been interviewed for this paper. However, to protect  the anonymity of what was said in the interviews, I will not generally identity interview feedback in the body of this paper by using a name in the reference, but by using a more general descriptor such as ‘former AMS executive’.    1.3. Structure & Methods of Analysis  In the following section I first explain the three categories of analysis - initial governance, negotiated governance and consultation - and why they were chosen to organize this analysis of the New SUB project. I then discuss the measures and framework used to analyse whether the categories were student-driven.   1.3.1. Categories of Analysis: Initial Governance, Negotiated Governance & Consultation   There are many ways I could have organized my documentation and analysis of the New SUB project. I chose to analyze the project using the distinct but overlapping categories of:  • Initial Governance & Management • Negotiated Governance & Management • Consultation   Below I will: define each category and explain how it will facilitate analysis of how the project was student-driven; and explain why I chose to separate my documentation and analysis of the project into these categories.     In this paper, governance and management refers to decision-making powers and duties which are institutionalized and carried out within government and bureaucracy. These powers and duties are often written down and explained within a constitution or policies, but they can also be understood on a more informal basis, and evolve over time.   5  Initial Governance & Management refers to the government and management structure for the New SUB Project which evolved out of the pre-existing institutions of the AMS. Some examples of the institutionalized structure of the AMS include: elections & elected positions; referendums; employee positions; and decision-making committees. I also consider the grassroots organization of students as part of the AMS structure, since it is a form of self-organizing student government. The discussion of the initial governance & management of the project will show how students were able to exert direct decision-making power in the process established by the AMS.    Negotiated Governance & Management refers to the institutional structure which evolved out of the negotiation process between UBC and the AMS. Governance and management are not determined within a power vacuum, and in the case of the New SUB Project, a negotiation process with UBC led to the creation of a new structure for the project that will be fully adopted in August 2010. Changes to the institutional structure affected: decision-making committees; hiring processes; the management of consultants; and a host of other aspects of the project. Because consultation is managed through the institutional structure, these changes also had repercussions for the project’s consultation process. The discussion of the negotiated governance & management structure will show how the negotiations process affected the direct decision-making power that students have in the project.  Consultation refers to public involvement carried out by the governing and managing members of an organization, beyond one-way communication. In consultation processes, participants give input for, or assist with, a project, but are not usually delegated direct decision-making power in the project - those implementing the consultation process usually retain ultimate decision-making power over project decisions. The particulars of consultation – when it should be used, what methods should be used, how consultation feedback should be used, etc. – may or may not be dictated by the policies of the organization carrying it out. Because AMS policy includes few specific requirements and guidelines for consultation, the use of consultation in the New SUB project was highly dependent on the opinions and personalities of those in leadership positions in the first three years of the project. Some examples of consultation used by the AMS include: advisory committees, surveys, stakeholder interviews, and workshops. While communication campaigns can be one-way, they will be discussed when they were used to generate feedback from students, or to facilitate consultation. The discussion of consultation will show how students have been able to indirectly influence the project through consultation, and in the absence of direct decision-making power.   I chose these three categories because, despite the fact that the New SUB project has been extremely complex and interdependent in its first three year, these categories:  • Collectively cover all major aspects of the project;  • Minimize overlap between the categories;   • Introduce concepts, terms, and events in the earlier categories which are important in understanding the later categories; and  • Can stand on their own, as distinct discussions of three important aspects of the project  Despite their distinct nature, these three categories clearly depict:  • How the consultation process was heavily dependent on the overarching governance and management structure of the project;  • How the final governance and management structure of the project was heavily dependent on the initial governance structure and negotiations process; and  6  • How the initial governance and management structure of the project was heavily dependent on the pre-existing governance and management structure of the AMS government     1.3.3. Methods of Analysis  The Three Measures of ‘Student-Driven-ness’  The term and concept ‘student-driven’, is vague and can encompass a broad range of issues. To focus my analysis I looked at three measures of ‘student-driven-ness’: • Accountability & transparency for students   • Broad decision-making by, and consultation with, students; and • Meaningful decision-making by, and consultation with, students  These measures are drawn from ‘the principles for participatory planning’, which were used to guide the consultation process for the New SUB project in its first three years (see 4.5.1. Principles of Participatory Planning). They were developed using the work of the first SUB Coordinator, the AMS Strategic Framework,16 and general research on participatory planning.17 The principles, as presented on the AMS’s New SUB project website are18  : Principles of Participatory Planning  1. Accountability and Transparency        AMS members mandated the construction [of] a new SUB through referendum, and also democratically elected the AMS Council that will make all major decisions for the process. To be accountable to these AMS members, the SUB renewal process must be transparent. Information on all stages of the process will be made public, and clear avenues will be provided for AMS members to comment on the information provided.   2. Broad Engagement        To respect the populist mandate of the New SUB, and to ensure the process continues to receive support, opportunities will be provided for AMS members to involve themselves throughout the programming and design of the building. By using a wide variety of engagement methods, student-driven design should engage not only a large number of students, but a wide variety of students representing the diversity of perspectives that exist on campus. This will hopefully result in a building that both meets the needs of current users, and includes many new users whose needs are not met by the old SUB. Student-driven design also seeks to involve non-AMS members who will be affected by the New SUB or who can offer expertise to improve the final program and design of the building.   3. Meaningful Engagement                                                           16 UBC AMS, The AMS Strategic Framework, 23 Feb. 2008, UBC AMS Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/AMS_Strategic_Framework__updated_Feb_23_2008_.pdf> 17 Australia, Dept. Of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Towards Whole of Community Engagement: A Practical Toolkit. Canberra: Murray-Darling Basin Commission, 2004. Prep. by Aslin, Heather J. and Valerie A. Brown, Bureau of Rural Sciences Website, 5 Jul. 2010, <http://adl.brs.gov.au/brsShop/html/brs_prod_90000002769.html> 18 UBC AMS, Principles of Participatory Planning, UBC AMS Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/index.php/ams/subpage/category/principles_of_participatory_planning/> 7        Engaging a large number and wide variety of students in the SUB renewal process is not just the responsibility of the AMS, but, if done correctly, will result in a building that best serves the needs of future AMS members and the future UBC community as a whole. Participation should not frustrate or waste the time of participants by collecting useless data [or] misrepresenting the influence that participant feedback will have on the process. Instead, student-driven planning is designed to generate feedback that can be realistically and meaningfully incorporated into the program and design. To ensure participants have the greatest impact, it’s important [that] engagement be coordinated with the schedule and activities of outside consultants.  I worked with the AMS VP Admin to develop these principles shortly after I was hired as SUB Coordinator in October 2008. They were developed to guide student-driven communication and consultation processes for the New SUB project. They can be adapted however to be equally applicable to governance and management in the New SUB project. Below I explain how these three measures were used in this paper to analyse how the New SUB project was student-driven, and not student- driven, in its first three years.  Accountability & Transparency  With this measure I considered issues such as:  • Whether the project was legitimately representative of students; • Whether the activities and details of the New SUB project were transparent to students; and • Whether students were able to critique and challenge the project if they felt it was not representative of student wishes or interests.  Examples of New SUB project characteristics which affected accountability and transparency for students include: the type of governance structure managing the project, and how it represented students; AMS policies and conventions for their operations and communications; and contracts and agreements which dictated the operations and communications of other project partners.  Broad Decision-Making & Consultation With this measure I considered issues such as: • Whether the project involved a large number and variety of students, in decision-making and consultation. Examples of tools which facilitated broad student decision-making in the New SUB project include: referendums, and decision-making committees with diverse membership. Examples of tools which allowed broad student consultation include: surveys; advisory committees with diverse membership; meetings with large clubs and other stakeholder groups; and SUB Curriculum classes held in a range of academic disciplines.   Meaningful Decision-Making & Consultation With this measure I considered issues such as:  • Whether students were able to meaningfully contribute to the forums or consultation tools of which they were a part;  • Whether the forums and consultation tools of which students were a part, dealt with important and complex aspects of the project; and • Whether the forums and consultation tools of which students were a part had significant impacts on the direction of the project In the New SUB project meaningful student decision-making was facilitated, among other things, by: having students sit on decision-making committees; and giving clear and important decision-making 8  responsibility, and the appropriate support, to students in elected and hired positions. Meaningful student consultation was facilitated, among other things, by giving clear and achievable roles, and the appropriate support, to the participants in consultation tools such as: advisory committees, surveys, interviews, workshops, and SUB Curriculum classes.   These three measures are not meant to be exhaustive. They simply focus the analysis and highlight three important ways in which the New SUB project could have been student-driven.    Application of the Three Measures  In the conclusion of each of Parts Two to Four, I analyze how that aspect of the project is student-driven, and not student-driven, using the three measures. I also use these measures to analyze the precedents of other student union building projects in North-America (see 1.4.2. Precedents for the New SUB Project from other North American Universities).  When analyzing whether governance and management processes in the New SUB project are ‘student- driven’ I considered: • Accountability & Transparency: Are the actions of those with decision-making power transparent, and can they be held accountable by the student-body? How so? • Broad Decision-Making: Are a large number and variety of students involved in decision-making? How so? • Meaningful Decision-Making: Do students play a meaningful role in developing and making decisions in the project? How so?  When analyzing whether consultation in the New SUB project was ‘student-driven’ I considered: • Accountability & Transparency: Was the development, implementation, and use of consultation transparent to students, and could participants hold those who were managing the consultation accountable for carrying out a good process? How so? • Broad Consultation: Did consultation engage a large number and variety of students? How so? • Meaningful Consultation: Did consultation deal with complex and important issues, and did the results of consultation significantly influence the project? How so?  In each conclusion I also give some recommendations for how the New SUB project could be made more student-driven in its remaining stages, or how a different project could be more student-driven when approaching a similar situation.    My analysis is based on: the documentation which precedes each conclusion; my interviews with key AMS project members; and my own field notes and reflections from working for the project and sitting on the SUB Renewal Committee in the last two years. My sources of information do not include personal interviews or surveys carried out with general students outside the AMS, or members of the UBC Administration, and so my analysis is largely limited to an ‘insider’ perspective of the project and process.   Below is the chart I use to present my analysis and recommendations in each conclusion, with explanations for how to interpret the information found within. 9                                    Accountability & Transparency   Student-driven Non-student-driven 1 White boxes include comments describing how the topic of analysis was student-driven. Grey boxes include comments describing how the topic of analysis wasn’t student-driven. R : N ew  SU B  ‘Recommendation: New SUB’ boxes include recommendations for how the topic of analysis could be more student-driven in the future stages of the New SUB project. When there is no recommendation the ‘R’ box will not appear. 4 Sometimes an idea will only relate to how a topic is student-driven OR isn’t student-driven, and the adjacent box will be left empty.   R : Si m ila r  Pr oj ec t ‘Recommendation: Similar Project’ boxes include recommendations for  how the topic of analysis could be more student-driven in a different  project facing a simiar situation, if  they taken a different approach than was taken in the New SUB project.            My analysis tables will be followed with a discussion which summarizes the analysis, and explores the reasons for why that aspect of the project was student-driven, or not student-driven.    1.4. Context & Precedents for the New SUB Project  1.4.1. UBC Context and UBC Precedents for the New SUB Project  Recent and historical activities at UBC played a strong role in shaping the AMS’s student-driven process, since they informed and inspired the project that was created by students, and created expectations for the project in the minds of students. A full description and analysis of these contexts and precedents will appear at the beginning of each of the three categories of analysis: • Initial Governance & Management: The AMS’s governance and management of the New SUB project was influence heavily by the AMS’s development of the current SUB in the 1960s, the pre-existing protocols and practices of the AMS government and administration, and UBC’s development of the University Boulevard area on campus   • Negotiated Governance & Management: When negotiating a joint governance and management structure for the project, the AMS’s position was influenced strongly by their The double lines are used to separate different topics of analysis. Topics of analysis may or may not include recommendations. The numbers are a general measure of how ‘student- driven’ the adjacent topic of discussion is: 1. Not student-driven 2. Less than equally student-driven 3. Equally student-driven and not student-driven 4. More than equally student-driven 5. Very student-driven  This heading demarcates which of the ‘measures’ are being considered in the analysis below 10  knowledge of the UBC administration, and by their need for resources from UBC to move forward with the project • Consultation: When planning consultation for the New SUB Project, the AMS was able to draw lessons from consultation processes carried out at UBC in recent history    1.4.2. Precedents for the New SUB Project from other North American Universities  Precedents from outside UBC – even from other North American universities – did not play a strong role in shaping the New SUB process because they were not well known to students and the AMS and therefore did not: inform the process developed by the AMS; or figure into student expectations for the project. However the experiences of other North American universities can act as a point of comparison to help analyse and give recommendations for the New SUB project.   As demonstrated by the relatively small number of examples described below, it is difficult to find detailed documentation about the role of student governance and consultation in the development of other student union buildings. It seems that student societies have rarely dedicated resources to documenting their process of SUB development beyond what was recorded in meeting minutes, quarterly reports and legal documents, which is perhaps unsurprising of busy, cash-strapped organizations. Many of the internal documents produced for these projects are probably archived, but rarely published in journals or on the internet, and therefore difficult to access. Also, many of the examples of student-driven developments occurred in the 60s and 70s, and even fewer documents from this time have survived, or are available in digital form. The most information was available for very recent projects, since it was possible to find information online in student government websites, student newspapers archives, and student blog postings.   Below is a cursory investigation of student-driven student union building projects at other North American universities. The first section focuses on the governance and management of these projects, and the second section focuses on consultation in these projects. In the conclusion I analyze how these projects were student-driven and give recommendations for the New SUB project based on the findings.     Student-Driven Governance & Management in North American SUB Projects  Much of the student-driven construction of student union buildings in North America occurred in the 60s and 70s. While student unions have played a role in building development more recently, they often play a supportive role or share leadership with the university administration rather than leading the process themselves.  An early example is the University of Wisconsin, where in 1928 students financed the construction of a student union building mostly with external fundraising and student donations - half of the students body donated $50 or more.19                                                              19 Wisconsin Union, “Wisconsin Union: The First 100 Years”, 14 Sep. 2007, Terrace Views, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www.union.wisc.edu/terraceviews/fall07/timeline.html> 11  The student union building of the University of Alberta (U of A) opened in 1967 - it's finance, design and construction arranged by the student union. Since then, the U of A student union led the finance and design of the Housing Union Building, which opened in 1972.20 In 1968 the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) opened a student union building financed entirely by student fees.21   In 2003 students and the board of regents at UNLV approved a large student fee to finance a New Student Union building and Student Recreation Center - at its peak the fee will cost $173 per semester. It is unclear whether the student decision was made by a student council or referendum, or whether students have a played a major role as decision-makers, or through consultation, in the project.22    The development of the new student union building at Butler of Andover College, finished in 2008, was initiated and largely managed by the university administration. The student union did form a ‘student union committee’, which forwarded input and consultation results to the primary decision-making committees. 23   In 2004 the administration of Queen’s University proposed plans and a student fee for a new multi- purpose student facility. It included a major expansion of recreational facilities and the relocation of many students clubs and services from the existing student building at a cost of $169 million. Though there was resistance to the project in the student body and student government, the Queen’s AMS eventually internally voted to pledge $25.5 million in student fees towards the project. The AMS student fee started at $71 annually and increased to $141 in 2010/11, where it will remain until the full amount is paid. 24  The graduate student society had a separate referendum on instituting a student fee to raise $ 4.5 mil for the project, but the fee did not pass.25   There was no broad consultation with students for the project before or after the plans were proposed, but the AMS and GSS were given seats on governance committees to help determine the use of space in the new and existing student facilities.  At Simon Fraser University (SFU), the recent plans for developing a student union building were largely initiated by the Director of Facilities Development in the university administration. The letter of agreement to allow design to begin was jointly signed by the student society, graduate society and university administration. As reported by “The Peak” student paper, the three signatory parties “were harmonious in their intent to participate in this joint venture together” with the architectural firm, while the directory of facilities development was quoted as saying, “we’re excited that the two student societies are willing to participate”. The cost of the initial stage is being shared about 75%/10%/15% by                                                           20 U of A Students’ Union, Student Union Building, U of A Students’ Union Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www.su.ualberta.ca/about/sub> 21 UNLV, History of the Student Union Building, UNLV Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://studentlife.unlv.edu/facilities/su-history.htm> 22 UNLV, Making it Happen, UNLV Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://studentlife.unlv.edu/facilities/making-it- happen.htm> 23 Stapleford, Heath, “Student Union design revealed”, 30 Apr. 2007, The Lantern, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://media.www.lanternonline.com/media/storage/paper297/news/2007/04/30/News/Student.Union.Design. Revealed-2890265.shtml> 24 Haque, Labiba, “Queen’s Centre set to open in December”, The Journal, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www.queensjournal.ca/story/2009-10-23/news/queens-centre-set-open-december/> 25 Anonymous, “SGPS Should pay for a say”, The Journal, 28 Jun 2010, <http://www.queensjournal.ca/story/2010- 03-05/editorials/sgps-should-pay-say/> 12  the student society, graduate society and university administration respectively. The same architect that was used in the preplanning stages will be used for the design stages, and it seems they were selected collectively by the three parties. While it is unclear how much consultation was carried out by the student society before signing this agreement, the graduate society had only carried out one survey with about 65 responses. The student society will be seeking full autonomy for the building once it is built.26   The student union at the University of Missouri Kansas City (UMKC) initiated the development of a student union building in 2008, and the student fee for the project was put to a referendum – the fee itself does not come into effect until the building is opened and will peak at $165 per semester.27 The project is managed largely by a project management team, steering committee, and planning committee. These groups have majority student membership with additional representation from the university administration and project consultants.28 These groups are supported by a series of subcommittees, also with majority student membership, which focus on the areas of: marketing & publicity; design & programming; technology; sustainability; and operations.29 At key stages in the project final approval is also given by the board of the university administration.30   The University of Wisconsin student union is also undertaking development of a new student union building, and renovation of their existing student union building. The students levy, financing more than 50% of the project, was passed in 2006 by a student referendum. The remainder of the project is being financed by private donors, student union operating fees, and other sources. The student union emphasized in their project documents and website, that having students finance the majority of the project was necessary for student council to maintain primary decision-making power in the project.31,32 The project is being managed by committees with majority student members, and representation from project consultants and the university administration.33     Student-Driven Consultation in North American SUB Projects  Recent examples show that student union building projects in which the student society initiated and played a leadership role throughout the process, tended to have a more comprehensive consultation process. When university administrations initiate and lead the process, students are left with the level of participation which the university administration chooses to ‘give’ them. This sometimes includes novel                                                           26 Lee, Shara, “Student union building planned for SFU”, The Peak, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www.the- peak.ca/article/3991> 27 UMKC, The UMKC New Student Union Blog, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://youdecideyoudesign.com/blog/> 28 UMKC, Members & Structure, The UMKC New Student Union Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://web2.umkc.edu/union/committeemembers.html> 29 UMKC, Subcommittee Structure, The UMKC New Student Union Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://web2.umkc.edu/union/committeestructure.html> 30 UMKC, Project Milestones, The UMKC New Student Union Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://web2.umkc.edu/union/projectmilestones.html> 31 Wisconsin Union, New South Campus Union: Information Booklet, New South Campus Union Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://newunion.wisc.edu/materials/ubp_InfoBklt_992.pdf> 32 Wisconsin Union, New South Campus Union, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://newunion.wisc.edu/index.html> 33 Wisconsin Union, Memorial Union Reinvestment, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www.unionreinvestment.wisc.edu/design-committee.html> 13  methods for student involvement but they are often tightly controlled in terms of their impact on the project.    In preparation for the development of new student residences, the administration of the University of Ryerson ran an international student design competition in the fall of 2009. Students of architecture and allied disciplines were asked to submit a proposal for a student residence on campus. It was unclear however if winning entries would receive monetary reward, or how their designs would be used to inform the actual design of residences at the university.34    While the recent development of an exemplary green building at University of Maine at Farmington was led by the administration, they did involve students in the process. A student green group was able to send representatives to sit on the architecture selection committee and was encouraged to research and share green design features they would like see in the building. The administration funded two students to research: green design and materials; the operational costs of green buildings; precedents from other campuses; and the LEED criteria. Faculty also incorporated research relevant to the project into class curriculum, to investigate issues such as siting, land-use, certified wood, water, and energy.35   Though the project at Butler of Andover was largely led by the administration, a student union committee for the project organized a survey with about 4,000 respondents, and carried out focus groups, to inform the programming and design process.36   Since 2008 the student union at UMKC has coordinated an extensive consultation process which is well documented on its student union website.  The pre-planning stage included a survey and focus groups carried out by a consultant. Consultation during programming, architect selection, and design were less broad – the main way for students to become involved was through joining a series of subcommittees that supported the governing committees of the project. These subcommittees focused on the areas of: marketing & publicity; design & programming; technology; sustainability; and operations.37 The wider student body was invited to attend an open house to comment on the three architect finalists, but they were not given a vote in the decision. The student body was also able to attend 'town hall meetings' at key stages in the project.38 The student chair of the planning committee used a blog to communicate with student about the project.39                                                              34Anonymous, “Student Competition for the Design of a University Residence Building in downtown Toronto”, Bustler, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www.bustler.net/index.php/competition/student_competition_for_the_design_of_a_university_residence _building_in_do/> 35 USA EPA New England, UMF, “Green Design: Building a Better World at a Small Public Institution”, Jan. 2007, Best Practices for Colleges and Universities: Sustainable Design & Building, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www.epa.gov/ne/assistance/univ/pdfs/bmps/UMaineGreenBuilding1-8-07.pdf>. 36 Stapleford, Heath, “Student Union design revealed”, 30 Apr. 2007, The Lantern, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://media.www.lanternonline.com/media/storage/paper297/news/2007/04/30/News/Student.Union.Design. Revealed-2890265.shtml> 37 UMKC, Subcommittee Structure, The UMKC New Student Union Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://web2.umkc.edu/union/committeestructure.html> 38 UMKC, Project Milestones, The UMKC New Student Union Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://web2.umkc.edu/union/projectmilestones.html> 39 UMKC, The UMKC New Student Union Blog, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://youdecideyoudesign.com/blog/> 14  The University of Wisconsin student union held an intensive consultation process for the design of its new student union building. Their consultation process was governed by a framework in which ‘broad’ input & feedback, and ‘user’ input & review, were gathered and analyzed by project decision-makers, some of whom were students.40 An initial program was coordinated by a consulting firm and student union members and staff, who gathered broader input using presentations, open houses, workshops, focus groups, and online surveys. Consultation continued through the design stage, and project developments during the design and construction stage have been posted on an online blog.41,42 For the renovation of the existing student union building, students can join subcommittee ‘interest groups’,43 attend architect visits at which the architect gathers public input, and attend the meetings of the decision-making committees.44     Analysis  Accountability & Transparency       Student-driven Non-student-driven The most transparent and accountable projects communicated the details of the project and process to students, and offered opportunities for student critique, through websites, open houses, and open advisory committees.    Broad Decision-Making & Consultation    Student-driven Non-student-driven Many of the projects used a referendum to pass a student levy to finance the project.  Popular tools for broad consultation were surveys and open houses. These tools were popular even in projects with little student control of the process.    Meaningful Decision-Making & Consultation   Student-driven Non-student-driven The projects in which students played the greatest decision- making role, seemed to be those where an established student government existed, and where that student Even in those projects where the student government played a strong role, the control and involvement of                                                           40 Wisconsin Union, New South Campus Union: Information Booklet, New South Campus Union Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://newunion.wisc.edu/materials/ubp_InfoBklt_992.pdf> 41 Wisconsin Union, wisconsin union building project: Project Blog, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://unionbuildingproject.wordpress.com/> 42 Wisconsin Union, Design Process, New South Campus Union Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://newunion.wisc.edu/design-process.html> 43 Wisconsin Union, Interest Groups, Memorial Union Reinvestment Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www.unionreinvestment.wisc.edu/interest-groups.html> 44 Wisconsin Union, Getting Involved, Memorial Union Reinvestment Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www.unionreinvestment.wisc.edu/getting-involved.html> 15  government spearhead the project: investigating renovation and construction options; preparing space programs; proposing financial schemes for the project; passing student referendums to approve any necessary student levy; and organizing committee and personnel structures within the student organization to manage the project. students seemed to diminish somewhat as the project advanced – due to increased partnership with the university administration and the increased role of professionals. Those projects which seemed to have the most comprehensive and meaningful consultation processes – including tools such as advisory committees user interviews, focus groups, town hall meetings, and multiple surveys – were those where the student governments were heavily involved in governance and management, and students played a key role in developing and implementing consultation. The greatest visible weakness of the successful consultation strategies were their web resources, which sometimes: didn’t clearly explain the purpose of the various consultation activities; or included multiple websites and blogs with outdated and contradictory information. R : N ew  SU B  It is important that any websites used by the AMS to inform and engage students: are clear, concise, up-to-date, and intuitively laid out; give timelines and summaries to help students understand how complicated aspects of the project fit together; and explain the purpose of the various consultation activities.   1.5. Basic Overview and Timeline of the New SUB Project  1.5.1. 2007/08 AMS Term: Preliminary Planning   In winter of 2006/07, the UBC AMS Council started to seriously discuss the need for major renovations of the current SUB. In February 2007, new AMS executives were elected for the 2007/08 AMS term, on platforms to investigate renovation options for the building, and later that spring the AMS Council formed the SUB Renewal Committee (SRC) to oversee the process. In July 2007 Council approved the SRC’s recommendation to hire Cannon Designs to complete a renovations study.45    Canon was tasked with evaluating the needs of students and determining the costs of various renovation options. Canon released a consultation summary report and renovations study in February 2008 that outlined the program requirements for the facility, and recommended three possible development options: 46 1. Full renovation of the current SUB (at a cost of about $80 million)  2. Renovation of the current SUB and expansion into University Square (USquare), adjacent to the current SUB (at a cost of about $120 million) 3. A new building on University Square (at a cost of about $120 million)  Timeline                                                           45 UBC AMS, “Minutes of Student Council”, 25 Jul. 2007, UBC AMS: Student Government: AMS Student Council Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/uploads/government/July_25,_07.pdf> 46 UBC AMS, “Minutes of Student Council”, 27 Feb. 2008, UBC AMS: Student Government: AMS Student Council Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/Feb_27th_Council_Minutes.pdf> 16   07.Feb: AMS elections for 2007/08 AMS executives 07.Jul: AMS Council forms SUB Renewal Committee (SRC) to oversee project 07.Aug: AMS hires Cannon Design as renovations consultant 07.Sep-08.Nov: Canon carries out renovations consultation 08.Feb: Cannon presents consultation & renovations reports   1.5.2. 2008/09 AMS Term: Referendum, Negotiations & Draft Programming  After considering the three development options for the SUB, the AMS Council decided to move forward with option three: building a new building. Some of the reasons for this decision were that:47,48 • Renovating the current SUB would require near reconstruction of the building because of seismic concerns and other structural issues with the current SUB;  • Expanding the size of the building through renovation or new construction would cost the same; • The AMS could continue operating in the current SUB until they moved into the new building; • Building in University Square would ensure a more public and student-centred campus core, displacing future commercial-centred development in that area (see 2.2.3. The University Boulevard Project); and  • There was an appetite in the student-body for an ambitious, iconic, sustainable new building;   The SRC proposed a finance structure for the project, and prepared a referendum question which would create a large student levy to finance the project. This referendum question was approved by AMS Council in February 2008,49 and the referendum passed in April 2008. The AMS Council then formed a negotiation committee to negotiate the terms of the project with UBC, and tasked the SRC with overseeing this negotiation process.50    The AMS and UBC negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in summer of 2008 (see A.3. Summary of the MOU Agreement). The AMS approved the MOU in July, which allowed the AMS to begin collecting the student levy for the project and developing a program for the building.51   However the AMS and UBC still had to negotiate four detailed development agreements - the Development, Lease, Finance and Surrender Agreements - before the AMS could move forward with selecting the primary architect and primary project manager for the project.  In the 2008/09 academic year the AMS began developing a program for the New SUB, for which they hired a student SUB Coordinator to lead the consultation process. The first SUB Coordinator was hired in August, but they stepped down in September and I was hired to replace them in October. The AMS also                                                           47 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive  48 UBC AMS, “Minutes of Student Council”, 25 Jul. 2007, UBC AMS: Student Government: AMS Student Council Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/uploads/government/July_25,_07.pdf> 49 UBC AMS, “Minutes of Student Council”, 27 Feb. 2008, UBC AMS: Student Government: AMS Student Council Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/Feb_27th_Council_Minutes.pdf> 50 UBC AMS, “Minutes of Student Council”, 9 Apr. 2008, UBC AMS: Student Government: AMS Student Council Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/Council_Minutes_-_April_9_2008.pdf> 51 UBC AMS, “Student Council Minutes”, 30 Jul. 2008, UBC AMS: Student Government: AMS Student Council Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/uploads/government/July_30,_2008_minutes.pdf> 17  hired MHPM as Interim project manager to assist with the project in October, and shortlisted architects for final selection in January 2009.   Timeline  08.Feb: AMS elections for 2008/09 AMS executives 08.Feb: AMS Council approves SUB Renew referendum question  08.Apr: SUB Renew Referendum passes student levy 08.Jun-Aug: AMS and UBC negotiate and sign Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 08.Sep: AMS and UBC begin negotiation of four development agreements 08.Aug: VP Admin hires 1st SUB Coordinator 08.Sep: 1st SUB Coordinator leaves and I am hired as 2nd SUB Coordinator  08.Sep: AMS hires Cornerstone as program consultant 08.Oct: AMS hires MHPM as Interim project manager 08.Oct-Dec: AMS and Cornerstone carry out draft programming consultation 08.Dec: Cornerstone presents 1st draft program 09.Jan: AMS council shortlists seven architects 09.Jan: AMS reviews 1st draft program and Cornerstone produces 2nd draft program   1.5.3. 2009/10 AMS Term: Final Programming & Negotiations  In the 2009/10 AMS term, the AMS continued negotiations the four agreements with UBC, completed the New SUB program, and carried out SUB Curriculum classes, in which students produced assignments for use in the project. The University Square (USquare) underground bus loop project, planned to be located underneath the New SUB, was also cancelled in October 2009.52    Timeline  09.Feb: AMS elections for 2009/10 AMS executives 09.Feb-Apr: AMS and Cornerstone carry out final programming consultation 09.Apr: VP Admin hires 3rd SUB Coordinator 09.Jul: I leave as 2nd SUB Coordinator 09.Sep-Dec: SUB Curriculum fall term classes run  09.Oct: Translink and UBC cancel underground bus-loop 09.Dec: SUB Renewal Committee approves final program 10.Jan-Apr: SUB Curriculum winter term classes run    1.5.4. 2010/11 AMS Term: Final Negotiations, Primary consultant selection & Design  The negotiations of the four development agreements - the Development Agreement, Lease Agreement, Surrender Agreement and Finance Agreement - were completed in spring of 2010. This allowed the AMS                                                           52 Jung, Samantha, “No underground bus loop?: Flailing TransLink can’t meet financial requirements of partnership with UBC”, 29 Oct. 2008, The Ubyssey, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://ubyssey.ca/news/no-underground-bus-loop> 18  to move forward with the selection process for the final architect in the spring and summer of 2010. UBCPT will become the primary project manager for the project and the new governance structure, agreed to in the four agreements, will fully come into effect in August 2010. The design process should begin in fall of 2010.  Timeline  10.Feb: AMS elections for 2010/11 AMS executives 10.Apr: AMS carries out student-wide architect vote to select three finalists 10.Apr: VP Admin hires 4th SUB Coordinator, 3rd SUB Coordinator leaves 10.May: AMS and UBC have signing ceremony for four agreements    Projected Timeline  10.Jul: AMS selects final architect 10.Aug: UBC Properties Trust (UBCPT) starts selection process for sub-consultants 10.Aug: UBCPT becomes primary project manager and MHPM becomes Project advisor 10.Aug: Joint committees, with AMS and UBC reps, form to manage the project 10.Aug: Concept development (also known as Schematic Design) begins  10.Dec: Design development begins   1.5.5. Spring 2011 - Fall 2014 : Design & Construction  The design process should finish, and construction begin, in spring of 2012. The New SUB should officially open in fall of 2014 (see A.14. Master Schedule).  Projected Timeline  11.Aug: Construction drawings begin 12.Apr: Site work begins and Construction firm is selected 12.Jun: Construction begins 14.Sep: AMS moves in and New SUB opens   19  20  2. Part II: Initial Governance & Management  2.1. Introduction   Note: When ‘the AMS’ is referred to as an active entity implemented in the New SUB project, in Part Three, it refers most specifically to the SUB Renewal Committee (SRC) - who were the driving forces behind project planning, implementation and decision-making - but it also refers to the AMS Council who were generally aware and supportive of the actions and views of the SRC. This use of the term ‘AMS’ is not meant to imply that: the views of the student-body, AMS government, or AMS Council, were homogenous; or that the views of the SRC were perfectly representative of, or communicated to, AMS Council (for further details on the relationship between AMS Council and the SRC, see 2.4. AMS Council, and 2.7.1. SUB Renewal Committee & Project Management Committee)  In Part Two I will first discuss how the governance and management of the New SUB project was influenced by the context of: the AMS’s development of the current SUB; the pre-existing AMS governance and administrative structure; and the University Boulevard development at UBC. Then I will outline various aspects of the initial governance and management structure for the New SUB project:  2.3. Grassroots Organization & Student Media 2.4. AMS Council 2.5. SUB Renew Referendum 2.6. AMS Executives & the SUB Coordinator 2.7. Decision-Making Committees 2.8. Consultant selection 2.9. Consultant management  In the conclusion I will analyze in detail how each aspect was student-driven and not student-driven, using the three measures of student-driven-ness: accountability & transparency; broad decision-making; and meaningful decision-making. This analysis will include recommendations for how these aspects of the project could be more student-driven in the future, and how a similar project could be more student-driven than was the New SUB project.    2.2. Context  2.2.1. The Current SUB   Brock Hall, which opened in 1940, was the AMS’s first student union building.53                                                           53 UBC AMS, Point Grey: The First 40 Years, UBC AMS Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/index.php/ams/subpage/category/3_point_grey_the_first_40_years/>  In 1958 a student facility committee was formed to explore opportunities for financing the construction of a new building. In 1962 the committee carried out a survey to assess student needs, and by 1965 the AMS had developed a functional program and project brief for the current SUB. A referendum was held, in which students voted to pay a long term student levy to finance the construction of the building - the student levy 21  contributed 78% of the necessary fees while UBC financed the difference.54 The AMS negotiated necessary agreements with UBC for the financing of the building and the lease on the land. An architect was selected through a national architectural design competition in 1966, and the SUB opened in 1968.55 Since that time the AMS has managed the building successfully and continued to renovate and modify the building and its uses to best suit students. The lease for the current SUB lasts a maximum of 60 years, from 1968 to 2028 – it technically lasts 45 years, until 2013, with the AMS having the right to extend the lease a further 15 years.56    This experience provided a model for how the AMS could build a student union building (SUB) in a way that would be accountable to students. Students voted for the project fee through a referendum, and their elected representatives (reps) in the student government coordinated the project and negotiated the terms of the project on behalf of students. The AMS was able to dictate much of the project by spearheading it - carrying out significant consultation and project planning before UBC became involved. The present AMS mimicked much of this experience in their approach to the New SUB project.   2.2.2. The AMS  The AMS was formed by students in 191557. In 1928 the AMS was incorporated as a private non-profit organization under the Society Act of the BC. 58 The operations of the government and administration are dictated by the Society Act as well as AMS policy which can be changed by the AMS council. The AMS Council members include about 45 annually elected AMS councillors, who mostly represent academic constituencies in the student body, as well as five AMS executives who run for particular portfolios and are elected by the entire student body. 59,60                                                           54 UBC, Library Archives, Student Union Building (SUB), University Archives Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www.library.ubc.ca/archives/bldgs/studentunionbuild.htm>  Members of the AMS Council discuss and vote on issues raised in bi-weekly Council meetings such as: change to AMS policies; approval of budgets; formation of committees; and creation of hired positions. The AMS also regularly uses student-wide referendum questions to pass student levies and determine other critical decisions for the AMS. The AMS executives receive a full-time salary and work closely with the AMS’s administrative branch. The administration consists of student and non-student employees hired on a full-time, part-time, or contract basis. Permanent professional managers and annual student managers are hired to manage the finances, 55 UBC AMS, Project History, New SUB Project Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/index.php/ams/subpage/category/project_history/> 56 UBC, UBC AMS, AMS SUB Lease, 1968, AMS Archives, Available upon request.  57 UBC AMS, Early Days, Fairview Campus, About the AMS Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/index.php/ams/subpage/category/2_early_days/> 58 UBC AMS, Point Grey: The First 40 Years, UBC AMS Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/index.php/ams/subpage/category/3_point_grey_the_first_40_years/> 59 UBC AMS, AMS Student Council Handbook, May 2010, Prep. Sheldon Goldfarb AMS Archivist-Researcher,  UBC AMS: About Student Government Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/Student_Council_Handbook_2010.pdf> 60 UBC AMS, Code of Procedures, May 2010, UBC AMS: About Student Government Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/New_Code_2010_May.pdf> 22  operations and services of the AMS and the SUB - the AMS’s annual budget is about $12 million.61 Much of the work of the administrative branch, and the work commissioned by the AMS Council, is overseen and managed by AMS committees which usually include reps from both AMS Council and the senior management of the AMS administration.62    As a private organization the AMS does not have to disclose information about the organization to the public, but as a non-profit it has to disclose such information to its members. In practice the AMS does operate quite openly and transparently, and the organization is committed to developing and maintaining protocols and practices to remain accountable and transparent to its student members.63 On its website, the AMS archives the AMS meeting minutes, and documents the organization’s positions, committees, services, and policies.64 The AMS administrative branch also operates in a very transparent and informal way for an organization of its size. The location of the AMS administration, businesses, services and clubs in the current SUB, is also the primary social space for students, giving these operations automatic exposure. This exposure is further increased by the large numbers of students working and volunteering for AMS services and businesses. While governmental administrations are typically wary of scrutiny, the AMS administration is accustomed to it, and at least some head administrators see it as a tool which helps them to provide constantly improving services.65,66   Students-at-large can become involved in the AMS by participating in the AMS Council, applying or volunteering to sit on an AMS committee, applying to work for the administrative branch, and voting in elections and referendums. Students-at-large can also impact the AMS by working for student newspapers and internet media which follow the activities of the AMS and often report critically on those activities. Student activism and grassroots organization also plays an important role in influencing the agenda of AMS council.  Despite the mechanisms for transparency and student involvement mentioned above, a common sentiment at UBC is that many students are apathetic and uninterested in involvement in the AMS.67 I found during my time working as SUB Coordinator, that even among those students participating in consultation, many were poorly informed about the basic structure and activities of the AMS. For instance, many students thought that the AMS was a subsidiary organization of the UBC administration, and didn’t know that the AMS was an independent self-managed entity.68                                                           61 UBC AMS, AMS budget, UBC AMS Website, 28 Jun 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/index.php/student_government/subpage/category/ams_budget/>  Many students feel that apathy and ignorance is inevitable at a University of 45,000 students, where about two-thirds of 62 UBC AMS, About Student Government, UBC AMS Website, 28 Jun 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/index.php/student_government/category/about_student_government> 63 UBC AMS, The AMS Strategic Framework, 23 Feb. 2008, UBC AMS Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/AMS_Strategic_Framework__updated_Feb_23_2008_.pdf> 64 UBC AMS, UBC Alma Mater Society, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/> 65 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive 66 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 67 Anonymous, “A welcome, introduction, and voter apathy”, 14 Jan. 2008, The Devil’s Advocate, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://ubcdevilsadvocate.blogspot.com/2008/01/welcome-introduction-and-voter-apathy.html> 68 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 23  students live off-campus.69 Others feel that the AMS is responsible for discouraging student involvement and awareness, by being elitist and disconnected from the student body as a whole.70 Some even say campus media is to blame, and criticize the main student newspaper, The Ubyssey, for failing to cover important issues and galvanize student interest in campus politics.71 In 2010 the student-wide AMS elections had a turnout of 14.9%,72 and in 2009 the turnout was 14.6%, which was a marked improvement from the 6.4% turnout in 2008. In contrast, the University of Ottawa, which has a student population of 38,000 students, had voter turnout of about 13.5% in their 2008 elections, which doubled to 27.2% in 2009 when electronic balloting was introduced for the first time.73   Impact on the New SUB project  The initial governance and management structure used by the AMS for the New SUB project grew out of, and operated within, the pre-existing governance bodies and conventions of the AMS. As such, it inherited the AMS’s safeguards and guarantees for accountability, transparency, student decision- making, and student consultation, and also the weaknesses of the current system.     2.2.3. The University Boulevard Project  In 2002 UBC’s Campus + Community Planning(C+CP) department began to develop the University Boulevard (UBoulevard) Neighbourhood Plan, which was completed in January 2004.74 The UBoulevard area is a major hub on campus south of the current SUB – it includes University Square (USquare) and the USquare bus loop, which is adjacent to the current SUB (for a map of the area, see A.15. University Boulevard Master Plan). The initial plans for this area were developed with little student input and included “up to 17 different buildings constructed over ten plus years, including two 18-story condos. It envisioned a mix of market and rental housing, retail and office space, and an underground bus loop.”75 In spring of 2004 a group of students from the UBC School of Community & Regional Planning presented a plan to the UBC Board of Governors, proposing that C+CP use a design competition, with a student- wide vote, to determine the architects for the UBoulevard area.76                                                           69 UBC, UBC: Youbc: Commuter Students, 28 Jul. 2010, <https://you.ubc.ca/ubc/vancouver/commuter.ezc>  A committee was formed to manage the design competition, and in 2005 UBC invited three shortlisted architects to prepare designs for UBoulevard. In March 2005 students were able to cast votes on the three concept designs, but the final 70 Anonymous, “The Alpha Male Society”, The Knoll, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://knollubcelections.wordpress.com/issues- the-alpha-male-society/> 71 Eom, Gina, “The Ubyssey Reportcard”, 25 Mar. 2007, <http://ubcinsiders.blogspot.com/2007/03/ubyssey- reportcard.html> 72 Anonymous, “AMS Elections Results + Slideshow!”, Jan. 30 2010, The Ubyssey, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://ubyssey.ca/news/ams-elections-results-slideshow> 73 Bell, Justin, “Online ballots hike voter turnout”, 19 Mar. 2009, p.3, The Ubyssey Magazine, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://ubyssey.ca/archive/2009.03.17/Page%203.pdf> 74 UBC, C+CP, University Boulevard Neighbourhood Plan, Oct. 2003, C+CP: Documents Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www.planning.ubc.ca/smallbox4/file.php?sb4ab282481ed84> 75 McElroy, Justin, “The People’s Peets”, 7 Oct. 2008, The Ubyssey, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://ubyssey.ca/ideas/the- people%E2%80%99s-peets>  76 Senbel, Maged, Personal Interview with SCARP Faculty member, 29 Jul. 2010  24  decision was made by a committee.77 After the architect was selected however, there was little student or UBC community involvement in further development of the designs and plans for the area. Many students opposed the plans for USquare presented in spring of 2007, for reasons such as: opposition to the planned removal of a grassy hill, ‘the knoll’, from USquare; concerns with the suitability and design of the underground bus loop; opposition to having a large ‘for-profit’ complex at the heart of a public university. In April 2007 thousands of students signed a petition against the plans, and the AMS and Graduate Student Society (GSS) created policy statements opposing the plans.78,79 This led to the creation of a new UBC working group with student representation to oversee new consultation by C+CP in July and September 2007,80 and re-imagining of the plans and designs for USquare. The new plans, presented in November 2007, significantly scaled back development, returned ‘the knoll’, restricted the residential development to affordable student housing, and included a possible ‘SUB extension’ in USquare.81       In winter 2007/08, UBC began to doubt that they could fund the USquare development in the near future. Some leaders within UBC communicated to leaders within the AMS, that if they could bring forward funding for a New SUB project in USquare, then the University would be willing to let this project displace much of the intended development for the area.82    Impact on the New SUB project  The opportunity that arose to site the new SUB in USquare played an important role in accelerating and determining the process for the AMS. UBC was supportive because the New SUB project provided financing from students to move forward with the development of UBoulevard, and diminished some of the student opposition to the UBoulevard development (see 2.3. Grassroots Organization & Student Media).83   The AMS was supportive because it positioned the new building at the heart of campus and displaced a more commercial development which had incorporated little student input. Complications with developing in UBoulevard would arise in negotiations however, since UBC had already signed several agreements related to development and tenancies in the UBoulevard area that had impacts on the New SUB project (for a full discussion of these agreements, see 3. Part III: Negotiated Governance & Management).  2.3. Grassroots Organization & Student Media                                                            77 Austin, Brenda, “Choice Imminent for University Town Design”, 7 Apr. 2005, UBC Reports, 28 Jun. 2010,  <http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/ubcreports/2005/05apr07/utowndesign.html> 78 Petition Against the U-Blvd development project, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://www.universityboulevard.blogspot.com/> 79 McElroy, Justin, “The People’s Peets”, 7 Oct. 2008, The Ubyssey, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://ubyssey.ca/ideas/the- people%E2%80%99s-peets>  80 Kreitzman, Maayan, “U-Blvd re-consultation kickoff”, 4 Jul. 2007, UBC Insiders, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://ubcinsiders.blogspot.com/2007/07/u-blvd-re-consultation-kickoff.html> 81 Kreitzman, Maayan, “AMS meeting Nov. 7th - Nancy and Arts”, 8 Nov. 2007, UBC Insiders, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://ubcinsiders.blogspot.com/2007/11/ams-meeting-nov-7th-arts-exerts-brawn.html> 82 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive 83 Findlay, Stephanie, “SUB Renewal full steam ahead”, 2 Sep. 2008, The Ubyssey, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://ubyssey.ca/news/sub-renewal-full-steam-ahead> 25  While not a part of the formal governance structure, grassroots movements and student media did have a strong impact on the direction of the New SUB project. The desire for a strongly student-driven project, and the idea of locating the New SUB in USquare, in part originated from student activists that opposed UBC’s prior top-down and commercial development in UBoulevard.    In spring of 2007 a group of student activists created the April 2007 petition against the USquare plans. While some students were involved in the working group to reconsider the USquare plans,84 they were disappointed with the direction of the working group,85 and in fall of 2007 a loose coalition of students began to more actively mobilize against the UBoulevard project.86 Since UBC had relocated the above- ground USquare bus loop to prepare for excavation, student activists built a make-shift social space, ‘Trek Park’, in the former USquare bus loop in fall of 2007 to highlight their belief that USquare should be a public, not commercial, space. Various protests were staged throughout the year and the position of the activists was often publicized in the student paper ‘The Knoll’.87  The event which received the most coverage was a gathering at the knoll in April 2008 called Knoll Aid 2.0 – a bonfire was started and the fire department and police were called to the scene.  One student who resisted the fire’s extinguishment was detained, followed by several students who resisted her detainment, and more were detained after they linked arms around the police vehicle that held the initially detained students – a total of 19 students were charged.88,89     Though some of the students who opposed the UBoulevard project self-affiliated with particular organizations, they did not have a collective or formal mandate, and were heterogeneous in their views and approaches. For instance, some students wanted a stop to development, some wanted UBC’s administration to become more transparent and more responsive to student input, and others started to propose an alternative development in USquare – one that would be for students, by students.90,91   This was undoubtedly influenced by the fact that AMS Council had started investigating options for renovating the current SUB in spring of 2007, and were considering options for renovation or new construction by spring of 2008 (See 1.5.1. 2007/08 AMS Term: Preliminary Planning).  It is important to note that the stance of the activists was deeply divisive and poorly understood on campus. Some students believed the entire purpose of the activists was to save the knoll – a green space in USquare. This confusion might have been partly due to the activists lacking of a clear organizational structure and mandate, and failing to effectively communicate with and engage students. Some                                                           84 Petition Against the U-Blvd development project, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://www.universityboulevard.blogspot.com/> 85 Kreitzman, Maayan, “Unpublished U-square consultation results!”, 27 Oct. 2007, UBC Insiders, 28 Jul. 2008, <http://ubcinsiders.blogspot.com/2007/10/unpublished-u-square-consultation.html> 86 Ferrari-Nunes, Rodrigo, “Student Resistance, the UBC Farm Movement, and the Underground Bus-Loop Fiasco”, 5 Nov. 2009, UBC Student Media, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://ubcstudentmedia.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/student- resistance-the-ubc-farm-movement-and-the-underground-bus-loop-fiasco-2/>  87 Kreitzman, Maayan, “Trek Park update, and related topics”, 27 Oct. 2007, UBC Insiders, <http://ubcinsiders.blogspot.com/2007/10/trek-park-update-and-related-topics.html> 88 Eom, Gina, “25 students detained during peaceful protest”, 5 Apr. 2008, UBC Insiders, <http://ubcinsiders.blogspot.com/2008/04/peaceful-protest-interrupted-by-police.html> 89 CBC News, “UBC student protesters face charges”, 5 Apr 2008, CBC News, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/04/05/bc-ubc-student-arrests.html> 90 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive  91 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field Notes 26  students were apathetic and had no desire for more student involvement in campus development. Other students opposed to the activists’ anti-commercial stance, or felt their tactics with the UBC administration were overly aggressive and counter-productive. Some students organized against the ‘knoll’ activists; voicing their disapproval in campus papers, student blogs, and AMS Council.92,93,94,95   This decreased the legitimacy of the activists and their actions until they could communicate their message and challenge their detractors within the broadly representative arena of the AMS Council.  During spring of 2008 some student activists decided to ‘formalize’ their movement by running for AMS executive positions. They saw this as an opportunity to find out how much of the ‘general’ student body at UBC would support student-driven development in USquare. Several of these students were successfully elected - Tristan Markle as VP Admin, and Stefanie Ratjen as VP External -96 and became instrumental in the progression of the New SUB project.97 An unintended consequence of the election of some of the activist organizers was that the grassroots movement shifted its focus to other issues on campus, assuming they were now adequately represented within the AMS and concerning USquare development.98   Oppositional media reporting on the New SUB project diminished when the Referendum was passed in the spring of 2008. For the next two years of the project the VP Admin, SUB Coordinator, and other AMS representatives communicated regularly with media outlets on campus about the project, to reduce misleading and sensationalizing portrayals of the project and ensure that the project was represented accurately in articles and commentary. The AMS worked with major media outlets to publish major stories on the New SUB project at least once each term.99,100,101    2.4. AMS Council   While the call to investigate renovation options for the SUB originated from AMS executives and Council members, the duty of overseeing the details of the process was delegated to the SUB Renewal Committee (SRC) in spring of 2007.  Since that time, the chair of the SRC - the AMS executive, Vice-President of Administration (VP Admin) – has updated the AMS Council on SRC actions at each AMS Council meeting, which take place bi-weekly.                                                           92 Anonymous, “UBC SDS are a bunch of fakes!”, 22 Apr. 2008, The Devil’s Advocate, 28 Jun. 2010,  <http://ubcdevilsadvocate.blogspot.com/2008/04/sds-shit-you-shouldnt-care-about.html> 93 Ferreras, Jesse, “UBC’s resurgent left,” The Thunderbird, 28 Jun. 2010,  <http://thethunderbird.ca/2008/04/14/ubcs-resurgent-left/> 94 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive 95 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 96 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive  97 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive  98 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 99 UBC AMS, New SUB Student Engagement Communication Plan – 2010-11, 3 Jun. 2010, Prep. Andreanne Doyon AMS SUB Coordinator, UBC AMS: VP Administration Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/New_SUB_Student_Engagement_Communication_Plan.pdf> 100 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 101 Metchie, Jensen, Personal Interview with SUB Coordinator Apr. 2009-2010, 21 May 2010 27  Usually these updates were short, but sometimes they included presentations of 10-20min, by the VP Admin or by other project team members. The AMS councillors regularly discussed aspects of the New SUB project, and were asked to approve and vote on major project issues such as (This list is not exhaustive but includes the most common roles of the AMS Council): • The formation of hiring committees and hiring criteria • Final hiring decisions • Consultant and project budgets • Negotiation developments and strategies • Consultation plans  Comments on Meaningful Decision-Making  The extent of involvement of the AMS Council depended on the approach and discretion of the VP Admin and SRC members (For a full discussion of this discretion, see 2.7.1. SUB Renewal Committee & Project Management Committee). As the project progressed and became more complex and technical, it became difficult for AMS Council members to play a hands-on role in decision-making. The SRC often presented information to Council in a way that the final decision was implied or already made. Increasingly Council members did not have the background knowledge or time necessary to meaningfully critique and debate decisions for the New SUB project before they went to a vote. This compromised the ability of AMS Councillors to meaningfully oversee the New SUB process.102   Comments on Accountability & Transparency  In terms of the accountability and transparency of AMS Council itself, as of the 2010/11 AMS Council term, the elected voting members of AMS Council included 9 reps representing the entire student body - which include the AMS executives - and 43 reps representing specific academic constituencies – different faculties and departments. 103 Many councillors do not seek re-election, so the threat of not being re-elected is not significant, and since few students-at-large attend Council meetings they cannot meaningfully verify the performance of Councillors. Based on my experience working as SUB Coordinator and sitting in on AMS Council meetings, and based on my interviews with AMS executives past and present, the most effective surveillance and motivator of Councillors is provided by student newspapers, blogs, and other media. These media outlets often report on the activities of the AMS executives, and the discussions of AMS Council. While non-executive councillors don’t receive as rigorous or regular critiques, they are influenced by media stories to pursue particular lines of questioning and raise particular issues in Council.104,105     Students-at-large can, in theory, communicate directly with their constituency representatives to voice concerns with the New SUB project, but my experience at the AMS, and my interviews with AMS executives, didn’t reveal any instances where AMS constituency representatives brought forward                                                           102 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 – Jul. 2009 103 UBC AMS, AMS Student Council Handbook, May 2010, p.36, Prep. Sheldon Goldfarb AMS Archivist-Researcher,  UBC AMS: About Student Government Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/Student_Council_Handbook_2010.pdf> 104 Three Personal Interviews with AMS executives  105 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 – Jul. 2009 28  critiques of the New SUB project or process in AMS Council that were unique to their constituency, or that arose from any systemic communication with their constituents. Students-at-large did however on many occasions approach the AMS executives directly – especially the AMS President and AMS VP Admin – to discuss the project. For instance several sports and clubs groups approached AMS executives to discuss the concerns of their stakeholder groups, which had no direct representation within Council.106, 107    Students-at-large can technically table issues and make comments themselves during Council meetings, and the upcoming schedule and past minutes of AMS Council meetings are made public on the AMS website.108,109 To my knowledge and the knowledge of the past AMS executives that I interviewed, there were no instances in the first three years of the project when students-at-large tabled critiques of the New SUB project, though sometimes they participated in general discussion of the New SUB project during Council meetings. This might have been due to student satisfaction with the project, but it likely had to do with low attendance at AMS Council meetings and lack of awareness of project details. While the size of the Council Chambers is one restrictive factor on attendance, there were often empty seats at meetings. Many student were probably discouraged from attending because meetings often ran over two hours, and the schedule was unpredictable due to items running overtime and new items being added during meetings.110,111 For students that didn’t attend meetings, the meeting minutes were likely too dry and cryptic to serve as a viable alternative for keeping informed. As of July 2010 however, the AMS executive is preparing to live-stream Council meetings starting in fall 2010, to increase student access to this forum.112      2.5. SUB Renew Referendum   In April 2008 a student-wide referendum was used to determine whether an annual fee would be levied on UBC students to finance the New SUB project (for the full question, see A.4. SUB Renew Referendum Question). In February 2008 the SRC developed an incremental fee structure which could finance the project, and proposed implementing this student levy in the referendum question:  the levy was proposed to start at $20 in the 2008/09 academic year, and increase by $10 each year until plateauing at $100 in 2016/17. The fee would continue until the loan was paid off, though the exact length of time this would take was no stipulated.113,114                                                           106 Four Personal Interviews with AMS executives   107 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 – Jul. 2009 108 UBC AMS, AMS Student Council Handbook, May 2010, Prep. Sheldon Goldfarb AMS Archivist-Researcher,  UBC AMS: About Student Government Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/Student_Council_Handbook_2010.pdf> 109 UBC AMS, Code of Procedures, May 2010, UBC AMS: About Student Government Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/New_Code_2010_May.pdf> 110 Four Personal Interviews with AMS executives  111 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field Notes from sitting in SRC, May-Jul. 2010 112 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field Notes from sitting in SRC, May-Jul. 2010 113 UBC AMS, AMS Referenda 2008 - SUB Changes: The Question, UBC AMS Website, 28 Jun. 2010,  <http://www.ams.ubc.ca/yes/?page=q1> 114 UBC AMS, “Minutes of Student Council”, 27 Feb. 2008, UBC AMS: Student Government: AMS Student Council Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/Feb_27th_Council_Minutes.pdf> 29   Many students didn’t support the referendum, with some of the principle objectives being: the size of the fee; the environmental impact of the project; a lack of desire for an improved facility; and a lack of trust in the AMS’s ability to manage the project with competence and accountability.115,116 The SRC coordinated a large communications campaign to explain the student levy and proposed project, and encouraged students to vote yes. The AMS campaign included posters, a website explaining the project, presentations to students, and informative hand-out flash cards.117,118 In the end 32% of students voted on the SUB referendum question and it passed with 54% in favour of the project119. Though the margin of success was small, the turnout was seen as a success since 32% is considered a very high turnout for a UBC referendum.120     In the final agreement, the fee will actually plateau at $110,121 and according to the financial plan, the project loan will be paid off and the fee will end in 2054. The referendum question also mentioned that the fee might be indexed to account for inflation after 2016/17, and this change to the fee structure will be proposed to AMS Council and may be implemented in the 2010/11 academic year.122   Compared to estimates made in the referendum material, UBC agreed to contribute $25 million rather than $40 million in capital to the project. Comments on Accountability & Transparency   Referendums give students the ability to directly determine AMS policy decisions and fees, and students can file complaints about the process, or have the process investigated by an AMS authority. In the case of the New SUB project, students could legally challenge the actions of the AMS, through AMS court or BC court, if they weren’t consistent with the wording of the referendum question and campaign materials,123 though there is some room for movement due to vague wording. AMS policy also requires the AMS to run a NO campaign if the AMS receives a petition for such a campaign with at least 150 student signatures, but no such petition was submitted for the SUB Renew Referendum.124     Because of a number of criticisms - the lack of detailed information and lack of a NO campaign in the referendum, and the discrepancies in project finances after MOU negotiations – some students began to                                                           115 Two Personal Interviews with former AMS executives  116 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 – Jul. 2009 117 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive  118 UBC AMS, AMS Referenda 2008 - SUB Changes: The Question, UBC AMS Website, 28 Jun. 2010,  <http://www.ams.ubc.ca/yes/?page=q1> 119 Kreitzman, Maayan, “March 2008 Referendum Results”, 1 Apr 2008, UBC Insiders, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://ubcinsiders.blogspot.com/2008/04/march-2008-ams-referendum-results.html> 120 UBC AMS, AMS Referenda 2008 - SUB Changes: News, UBC AMS Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www.ams.ubc.ca/yes/> 121 Mann, Arshy, “AMS, UBC finalize new SUB agreement, $103 million building to be completed by September 2014”, 30 Apr. 2010, Ubyssey, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://ubyssey.ca/news/ams-ubc-finalize-new-sub-agreement> 122 Savard, Guillaume, Personal Interview with MHPM Interim project manager, 18 May 2010 123 UBC AMS, “Code of Procedures – Section IX A: Electoral Procedures”, May 2008, UBC AMS: Student Government: AMS Elections Website, 5 Jul. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/SectionIX.ElectoralProcedures_.pdf> 124 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive 30  petition for a new referendum in the summer of 2008.125   AMS policy states that a petition of 1000 signatures is necessary to repeat a referendum, but this goal was not met  and the movement eventually lost momentum.  Comments on Meaningful Decision-Making  It was difficult for students to make an informed vote in the SUB Renew referendum since the referendum was held before many project details were known. In the months before the referendum the AMS had tentatively discussed the parameters of the project with UBC in the Land Use Planning Committee (see 2.7.2. Negotiation Committee), but no formal negotiations had been carried out, and the AMS had yet to develop clear plans for how they would carry out important aspects of the project such as: the student consultation process; and the architect selection process. Despite this lack of details, the AMS made no plans to carry out a second referendum after the terms and plans for the project became more concrete. They also didn’t consider asking students in the first referendum about their approval of different potential models for the project, such as: different structures for the student levy; different budgets or program sizes for the project; or the different development options of new construction, total renovation, or renovation-expansion.   The SRC didn’t strongly consider holding a post or interim-negotiations referendum because: it is not typical referendum protocol; it could have been confusing for students; it could have slowed down the project; and they didn’t want to expose the AMS to losing a later referendum. The SRC also wanted to establish some strict and ambitious terms for the project in the referendum, so that they could: bring UBC to the negotiating table; and use these terms as leverage to convince UBC that the AMS might have to pull out of the project if the agreements didn’t closely reflect the referendum language.126 On the other hand, holding a second referendum might have increased the pressure on UBC to agree to project terms that were favourable to students, since unfavourable terms would be less likely to pass in a second referendum.127 UBC might have been unwilling to engage in negotiations that could be nullified by a second referendum, but the AMS never asked UBC their position on this issue.128 The strict wording proved to be restriction for the AMS as well – in the 2008/09 academic year the SRC considered switching the project to a renovation-expansion, but they felt such a large change to the project would require a second referendum to endorse the decision, and they were ensure of student approval for renovation-expansion.129     2.6. AMS Executives & SUB Coordinator  While all five AMS executives do work and discuss strategies together, the President and the VP Admin are the executives who worked closest with the New SUB project. The VP Admin acted as primary manager of the New SUB project and as chair of the SUB Renewal Committee (SRC). The President also sat on the SRC as a voting member. The VP Admin and President are also the two student reps that sit                                                           125 “Against the SUB Renew”, Facebook, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=11636582637&v=wall> 126 Two Personal Interviews with AMS executives 127 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, 2008/09 academic year 128 Two Personal Interviews with AMS executives 129 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, 2008/09 academic year 31  on the three-person negotiation committee with the AMS General Manager, and from January 2008 to May 2010 these executives were continually and heavily involved in discussing issues with UBC, and drafting agreements for the negotiations.     Each incoming executive receives one week of training from their predecessor. They are also able to hire students to assist with their responsibilities. To request additional assistants they can take a proposal to AMS Council for approval. The VP Admin in 2007/08 recommended that their successor hire a part-time SUB Coordinator to share the heavy workload for the project.130   The ability to delegate work to assistants was critical to the AMS President and VP Admin being able to competently fulfill their project responsibilities - especially those related to negotiations. The individuals that served as VP Admin in 2007/08, 2008/09, 2009/10 and 2010/11 all ran on platforms supporting a student-driven New SUB project, and advocating for student leadership and consultation in the process.131,132,133,134,135 This did give some assurance that they would try to fulfill that mandate. Often executives do not run again for office after serving, so students cannot express their opinions about the past work of executives through their vote, but in January 2009, the previous VP Admin ran again for the same position and was not re-elected.136 Also, the surveillance and input of the AMS Council, other executives, SRC, AMS managers, and executive assistants, helped the VP Admins to achieve their mandate, and helped to ensure that they didn’t betray their campaign promises. There were instances when certain executives tried to pursue an agenda or a stance in negotiations that was not supported by the SRC, but in each of these cases the problem was identified early and the other members of the negotiation committee and the SRC succeeded in working with the executive to re- establish a synchronised position and approach in negotiations (for a full discussion, see 2.7.2. Negotiation Committee).137    As mentioned in 2.4. AMS Council, the clear role of the AMS President, and especially the VP Admin, in managing the New SUB project, also led many students-at-large to approach them to discuss project issues. The fact the AMS government offices are easily accessible to students in the upper floor of the current SUB building, made it easy for students to come see the executive without an appointment – some came back repeated times over several months until they were satisfied that their concerns had been resolved with changes to the project or the process.138                                                               130 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive 131 Three Personal Interviews with AMS executives 132 The Ubyssey, AMS Elections Supplement, 23 Jan. 2007, UBC Archives: University Publications & Serials, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://www.library.ubc.ca/archives/pdfs/ubyssey/UBYSSEY_2007_01_23.pdf> 133 The Ubyssey, The UBC Elections Supplement, The Ubyssey Magazine, 18 Jan. 2008, UBC Archives: University Publications & Serials, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://www.library.ubc.ca/archives/pdfs/ubyssey/UBYSSEY_2008_01_18.pdf#search=%22sub%22> 134 Yonson, Neal, “VP Administration Post of Awesomeness”, 11 Feb. 2008, UBC Insiders, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://blogs.ubc.ca/ubcinsiders/2008/02/11/vp-administration-post-of-awesomeness/> 135 The Ubyssey, The 2009 AMS Election Supplement, 27 Jan. 2009, The Ubyssey, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://ubyssey.ca/news/2009-ams-election-supplement>  136 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field Notes from working as SUB coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 137 Two Personal Interviews with AMS executives 138 Two Personal Interviews with AMS executives 32   2.6.1. SUB Coordinator  On the recommendation of their predecessor, the VP Admin hired the first SUB Coordinator in August 2008 to assist with their workload. By delegating certain project responsibilities to an assistant, the VP Admin could select the applicant who had the most relevant knowledge and experience. Theoretically the VP Admin could have chosen to focus on managing the consultation process, and used an assistant to be chief negotiator, hiring them based on their negotiation knowledge and experience. However the VP Admin had already been involved in MOU negotiations by the time they hired an assistant, and they felt it was more appropriate for them as an elected official to take on the role of negotiator. For this reason they selected a SUB Coordinator to manage the consultation process, and this division of labour was repeated by subsequent VP Admins in 2009/10 and 2010/11.139,140    The first SUB Coordinator worked with the VP Admin to develop hiring guidelines for the New SUB programming consultant and Interim project manager, and develop comprehensive plans for student consultation. Due to a heavy academic workload, this student left their position in September 2008 and I was hired as the second SUB Coordinator.141     Since I entered this role when little work had been done, I had little direction in terms of what was expected of the consultation process and how students should be involved. I had a great deal of latitude in determining my own responsibilities, and they evolved to include:142 • Developing a communications strategy with the AMS Design & Communications Department  • Developing long term consultation plans and principles, and project goals, with the SRC • Developing budgets for consultation • Working with consultants to refine and divide up consultation responsibilities • Coordinating and facilitating consultation  • Analyzing results from consultation • Liaising with consultants to ensure they used consultation input • Coordinating student advisory committees and student volunteers • Receiving general feedback/complaints/suggestions from students on the project  I and the VP Admin hired a third SUB Coordinator in May 2009. The new SUB Coordinator and I worked together until my departure in July 2009, summarizing the findings of the previous years’ consultation process, and preparing for the next phase of consultation. The fourth SUB Coordinator was hired in April 2010 and took over in May after working with the previous SUB Coordinator for a month. These successors had many of the same duties as I (for a full discussion see 4. Part IV: Consultation).143    Comments on Accountability & Transparency                                                            139 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive 140 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 – Jul. 2009, and sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 – Jul. 2010 141 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive 142 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 – Jul. 2009 143 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 33  Though the 3rd SUB Coordinator and I had great deal of independence in our roles, we also regularly communicated directly with the VP Admin, and sat in SRC meetings, to discuss and receive approval for consultation plans and documents. We also reported consultation developments and plans to AMS Council about twice each academic term, and presented budgets to Council for approval when necessary.144,145 I felt however that this surveillance wasn’t sufficient, given the responsibility and lack of precedent for my position, so I formed two student advisory committees during the 2008/09 academic year to help me develop and critique my plans for consultation, and to contribute to the discussion of other project issues. Unfortunately these committees are not guaranteed to continue in the future project, due to a lack of enforcement mechanisms. The creation and use of advisory bodies was not mandated by AMS Council and was not part of the terms of reference of the SRC, or the job description of the SUB Coordinator (for a full discussion, see 4.7. Advisory Committees).146,147   Comments on Meaningful Decision-Making  It was important that SUB Coordinators were hired to work sufficient hours to fulfill their duties, or additional assistants should be hired to assist them – since doing otherwise can cause the quality of consultation to suffer. If the AMS had carried out poor consultation early in the project this would have severely curtailed the influence of student input in the project, and it could have led to UBC demanding that the AMS delegate this role to the project manager or architect in later stages in the project – which would have been significantly more expensive and definitely reduced the AMS’s direct control over the consultation process. Because the SUB Coordinator position was created late in the project, it was necessary for me to work full-time hours in the 2008/09 academic year, and to work part-time hours together with the incoming SUB Coordinator in the summer of 2009, before the hours were reduced to one part-time position starting in fall of 2009.148 The AMS is prepared to increase the current SUB Coordinator’s position from part-time to full-time, or hire an additional assistant, in the 2010/11 academic year if it is required during the design stage.149      2.7. Decision-Making Committees  2.7.1. SUB Renewal Committee (New SUB Project Committee) & Project Management Committee  The SUB Renewal Committee (SRC) was formed by the AMS Council in spring of 2007 to investigate renovation options for the SUB. It has continued to be the major working group and decision-making committee for the New SUB project.   Membership                                                            144 Metchie, Jensen, Personal Interview with SUB Coordinator Apr. 2009-2010, 21 May 2010 145 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 – Jul. 2009 146 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, May-Jul. 2010 147 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 – Jul. 2009 148 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 – Jul. 2009 149 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, May-Jul. 2010 34  From fall of 2008 to spring of 2010 the SRC’s voting members included:150 a) the current VP Admin (who acts as the chair);    b) the current AMS President;  c) two current AMS councillors, selected by AMS Council; and  d) two permanent members (students-at-large or AMS councillors selected by AMS Council)  The SRC’s official non-voting members included: a) the AMS General Manager;  b) the AMS Designer (responsible for SUB interior designs and renovations);151 c) the AMS Building and Facilities Manager;   and   Other regular non-voting attendees of SRC meetings included the Interim project manager, the SUB Coordinator, and a volunteer student-at-large who performed a great deal of work for the SRC. Though decisions were technically made by voting members, the SRC made its decisions by consensus in practice.152    After the non-official volunteer student-at-large left the SRC in the spring of 2010, the SRC decided to create two voting student-at-large positions. The SRC carried out a rigorous application and interview process to fill these positions. One longstanding problem in the committee in its first three years was the irregular attendance of the non-executive AMS councillors, especially during the summer. These absences were problematic since the SRC sometimes lacked the necessary quorum to make formal decisions during meetings. In future replacements of the AMS councillor positions, the SRC will likely use a rigorous selection process like the one used for the student-at-large positions.153   The various annually elected members of the committee changed in a staggered way through the year. Since the SRC was regularly subjected to the surveillance of new members with a different perspective, the committee was unable to become to stale or inward-looking in its views and approach. Also, this staggering meant that the committee was never overwhelmed with too many incomers at one time, who had to be filled in on the project and the processes of the SRC.154     Responsibilities & Protocols  The original mandate of the SRC was to investigate options for renovations and prepare plans for AMS Council approval (see A.5. SUB Renewal Committee Terms of Reference 2007). However, as the project progressed, the responsibilities of the SRC evolved to include:155 • Overseeing communications and promotions;  • Overseeing consultation with students and the UBC community  • Deciding which consultants were necessary, and developing contracts for consultants  • Developing hiring processes for consultants (i.e. the architect, and programmer)                                                           150 UBC AMS, “Student Council Minutes”, 11 Mar. 2009, UBC AMS: Student Government: AMS Student Council Website. UBC AMS, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/Council_Minutes_-_March_11_2009.pdf> 151 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 152 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 153 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, May-Jul. 2010 154 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 155 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 35  • Working with consultants and reviewing their work  • Overseeing the other AMS decision-making and advisory committees • Developing negotiation positions and strategies • Determining which AMS reps should be user reps for the program and designs, and working with those user reps to receive approval  • Giving updates and deferring major decisions and approvals to AMS Council   Comments on Accountability & Transparency  Though minor decisions could be made by the SRC, they were expected to report to the AMS Council regularly and defer major decisions, and approval of major issues, to AMS Council. Issues which were brought for approval to Council included:156 • the MOU   • the general position and approach of the negotiation committee • project budgets • changes to the SRC’s membership or mandate • hiring criteria and the composition of hiring committees • final hiring recommendations • the four negotiated agreements with UBC  None of the terms of reference for the SRC included a description of what constitutes a ‘major decision’ that should be deferred to AMS Council.  Because of the composition of its membership, however, the SRC rarely had trouble deciding what approvals should be deferred to Council. The AMS Managers sitting on the SRC drew from their long term experience working with AMS committees, and while the AMS Council reps sometimes varied in their preference to share information depending on the issue, this variance led to sensitive discussion of the issue. In cases where the SRC was unsure, the VP Admin asked AMS councillors how they would like to be involved in decision-making, during Council meetings.157,158   In the summer of 2009 the SRC developed an overarching mission statement for the project, which included project ‘values’ and ‘goals’, to guide the SRC’s behaviour and help them to evaluate project progress and success (see A.16. Project Missions Statement). In summer of 2010 the VP Admin wrote a new terms of reference for the committee, which renamed the SRC the ‘New SUB Project Committee’ (see A.6. New SUB Project Committee Terms of Reference 2010), and updated the responsibilities of the committee.159   Project Management Committee  Until the Interim project manager was hired in fall of 2008, the SRC met once a week. After this hiring, project management meetings replaced the SRC meetings every second week. These meetings were chaired by the Interim project manager but were attended by the same SRC attendees. Similar issues                                                           156 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 157 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Aug. 2009 - Jul. 2010 158 Two Personal Interviews with AMS executives 159 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 36  were discussed in the project management meetings but long brainstorming sessions and voting decisions were left for the SRC meetings.160    2.7.2. Negotiation Committee   The AMS negotiation committee negotiated with UBC reps to develop and agree upon:  • Tentative land-use plans for the New SUB project - in the Land-Use Planning Committee - in spring of 2008;  • Tentative development, financial, lease, and surrender terms for the project – in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) - in summer of 2008; and • The four final agreements for the project – the Development, Finance, Lease, and Surrender agreements - from fall 2008 to spring 2010.  These agreements were crucial to the scope and student-driven nature of the project, since they dictated the project’s siting, finance, and lease terms, and a new governance structure for the project that would take effect after the project’s primary consultants were selected (the architect and primary project manager) (see 3. Part III: Negotiated Governance & Management). The regular members of the AMS Negotiation Committee included:161 • the AMS President;  • the AMS VP Admin; and • the AMS General Manager  For the Land-Use Planning Committee, the UBC reps included:162 • Brian Braley, the Associate VP of the UBC Treasury;   • Brian Sullivan, the VP of Students; • Anne De Wolfe, the Executive Coordinator of the VP of Students’ Office; • the President of UBC Properties Trust (UBCPT); • the Associate VP of Campus + Community Planning (C+CP); • the University Architect of C+CP; and • occasionally a rep from UBC’s architects for the UBoulevard project.   The VP of Finance played a role in these meetings except that, at this time, there was only a temporary VP of Finance, and UBC was in the process of selecting a new permanent VP of Finance. Over the course of about five meetings between January and March of 2008, this large group was able to develop and agree to a rough plan for the scope of the New SUB project. These discussions informed the wording of the AMS’s SUB Renew Referendum question, and the positions of AMS negotiation committee in the MOU negotiations.163                                                              160 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 161 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 162 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive 163 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive 37  From May to July of 2008, the AMS negotiation committee met with UBC reps to agree upon general terms for the project, which were approved by the AMS Council and BOG in July 2008. For the MOU negotiations, UBC sent only:164 • Brian Braley, the Associate VP of the UBC Treasury; and   • Anne De Wolfe, the Executive Coordinator of the VP of Students’ Office  In September 2008 the Associate VP of the UBC Treasury was fired,165 and to negotiate the four agreements in fall of 2008, UBC sent:166 • the Associate VP of Land and Building Services; and   • Anne De Wolfe, the Executive Coordinator of the VP of Students’ Office.  While the UBC VP of Students did not sit in on negotiations in the fall, they did begin to correspond directly with the AMS reps about negotiation issues by the end of the term. While the AMS and UBC reps made some progress in the early fall, progress began to slow by the end of the term. The AMS reps felt that the agreements made in the MOU process were weakened by the departure of the Associate VP of the UBC Treasury, who had had influence within UBC. The AMS reps also suspected that key administrators within UBC who were not currently sitting in on negotiations – likely, some who had been involved in the Land-Use Planning Committee in the spring of 2008 - disapproved of aspects of the MOU and the new agreements that the AMS was proposing. However, the AMS reps had difficulty verifying who within UBC was influencing the process, and what their concerns were. Because these key UBC administrators were not participating in negotiations, the AMS could not have discussions with them to address their concerns and develop a workable agreement.167,168   Starting in late fall of 2008, the SRC started to develop contingency plans to improve negotiations. The SRC considered hiring a professional facilitator to lead a multi-day negotiation workshop with a larger group of AMS and UBC representatives – adding expertise and problem solving power through the facilitator and added reps, and ideally including the UBC reps necessary to make executive decisions. The membership would have been similar to the Land-Use Planning Committee of spring of 2008.169,170    In the winter term of 2009, negotiations temporarily stopped - contributing factors to this were that: the AMS negotiation reps were pre-occupied with the Bus Loop Committee discussions (see 2.7.3. Bus Loop Committee), and the AMS executive elections; and UBC was displeased that the AMS had selected an Interim project manager and began an architect shortlisting process.171,172,173                                                           164 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive  Also at this time, UBC’s administration was going through internal restructuring. The new UBC VP of Finance, who had been 165 Jung, Samantha, “Silence in UBC’s finance department”, 12 Nov. 2008, The Ubyssey, 5 Jul. 2010, <http://ubyssey.ca/news/silence-in-ubc%E2%80%99s-finance-department> 166 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive 167 Two Personal Interviews with AMS executives 168 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 169 Two Personal Interviews with AMS executives 170 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 171 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive 172 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 173 UBC AMS, “Student Council Minutes”, 28 Jan. 2009, p.4, AMS: Student Government: AMS Student Council Website, 6 Jul. 2010,  <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/Council_Minutes_-January_28_2009.pdf> 38  hired in November 2008,174 shuffled several UBC departments, and broke up the department of Land and Building Services. The former Associate VP of Land and Building Services was re-appointed as “Leader of University Sustainability”, under the UBC President’s Office. John Metras - who had been the former Director of Plant Operations with Land and Building Services, and who sat on the Bus Loop Committee in winter of 2008/09 - was re-appointed as Managing Director of a new department, Infrastructure Development.175 When negotiations resumed in spring of 2009, the UBC reps included:176 • John Metras, the Managing Director of Infrastructure Development   • Anne De Wolfe, the Executive Coordinator of the VP of Students Office;  • occasionally the UBC VP of Students; and • occasionally a rep from UBC’s project management subsidiary, UBC Properties Trust (UBCPT).      The AMS negotiation committee reformed after elections with the new AMS President and VP Admin, though the former AMS President and VP Admin attended negotiation meetings for the first month to help with the transition.177 The AMS’s lead Interim project manager from MHPM also occasionally attended the meetings. These reps met for 1-2 hours about once a week, and started to make slow progress on drafting the details of the four agreements.178    After the new AMS executives were elected in February 2010, they resumed negotiations almost immediately – the previous AMS executives attended one negotiation meeting with them to assist with the transition. At this time the AMS’s lead Interim project manager from MHPM began attending all negotiations meetings. The MHPM rep assisted the new AMS reps with their transition, and helped the AMS reps to make better informed decisions, and arguments, regarding technical and complex negotiation issues. John Metras and Anne De Wolfe remained the regular UBC negotiation reps, but they regularly made phone-calls during meetings to UBC administrative heads –such as the UBC VP of Students, VP of Finance, and advisors within UBCPT - to quickly seek guidance and approval on critical negotiation issues. This was encouraged by the AMS reps to speed negotiations, and adjournments were called during meetings to allow the UBC reps to speak privately with their advisors. From February to April of 2010, negotiation meetings were held about 3 times a week, for 3 hours each time. The UBC reps were willing to commit this amount of time to the process because they were receiving intense pressure from UBC BOG and top UBC administrators to finalize most negotiations by the April 8th BOG meeting.179 A great deal of progress was made in negotiations over a short period of time, and negotiations were mostly finalized by the April 8th BOG meeting,180 with the final four agreements being signed by both parties on April 20th, 2010.181                                                               174 UBC, “UBC Names New Vice President, Finance, Resources, and Operations”, 19 Nov. 2008, UBC Public Affairs, 6 Jul. 2010, <http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/media/releases/2008/mr-08-151.html> 175 Yonson, Neal, “Pierre Shakes it Up”, 2 May 2009, UBC Insiders, 6 Jul. 2010, <http://ubcinsiders.blogspot.com/2009/05/pierre-shakes-it-up.html> 176 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive 177 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive 178 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive 179 Personal Interview with an AMS executive 180 UBC, BOG, “Minutes”, 8 Apr. 2010, BOG: Meeting Agenda & Minutes Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www.bog.ubc.ca/__shared/assets/MIN-BG-10-04-089614.pdf> 181 Mann, Arshy, “AMS, UBC finalize new SUB agreement”, 30 Apr. 2010, The Ubyssey, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://ubyssey.ca/news/ams-ubc-finalize-new-sub-agreement> 39  Comments on Accountability & Transparency   From spring of 2008 to spring of 2010 these negotiation meetings were always in-camera – meaning no public minutes were taken and the documents and discussions therein were often confidential. The AMS negotiation reps could only share confidential negotiation information with the SRC and the AMS Council during in-camera portions of their regular meetings. While the SRC generally preferred more transparent operations, confidentiality was important in this case to create a trusting atmosphere where the AMS and UBC reps could freely discuss a wide range of models and options – the leaking of information could have led to the agreements being misconstrued by media outlets.182     Because of the delicacy and complexity of the issues, the AMS negotiation committee did not always give detailed negotiation updates to AMS Council. This caused some friction with AMS Council in the winter of 2008/09. At the beginning of the AMS executive elections campaigns in January 2009, the SRC learned that the UBC VP of Students was planning to override the negotiations process, and make a presentation directly to AMS Council, to tell them that it was necessary to allow UBC to select either the architect or the primary project manager for the project. The SRC felt that the presentation was meant to weaken the AMS Council’s trust in the AMS negotiation reps and the SRC, and to jeopardize the campaigns of the AMS President and VP Admin for AMS positions in the coming year. At the beginning of the AMS Council meeting when the presentation was to take place, the AMS President and VP Admin held an emergency in-camera session, to update the Councillors on the negotiations process and the situation, and advise them to show a front of solidarity during the UBC presentation, as doing otherwise could undermine the negotiating position of the AMS.183 While the AMS councillors did show a front of solidarity during the presentation,184 some felt that they had not been well-enough informed about the negotiations previous to this crisis, and did lose confidence in the activities of the AMS negotiation reps as a result. This may have contributed to the VP Admin not being re-elected to their position in the February elections.185     To re-establish trust the next VP Admin for the 2009/10 AMS term updated AMS Council about once a month as to what was being discussed and proposed in negotiations, and tried to make the complex negotiations as clear as possible. The VP Admin gave councillors the opportunity to discuss the issues presented, and invited them to ask questions, or discuss the issues personally. Several times the VP Admin worked with the UBC negotiation reps to prepare common negotiations presentations that were presented to both UBC BOG and AMS Council. The UBC negotiation reps also attended several of the AMS Council negotiations presentations.186    There were several instances when the weaknesses of a small negotiation committee were also felt by the SRC. On some occasions in the first three years of the project some AMS executives believed in negotiation positions, or in using approaches in negotiations, that were not fully supported by the other members of the SRC. These discrepancies were often clear to the SRC, and were sometimes brought to the SRC’s attention by other members of the negotiation committee, and in all cases the SRC discussed                                                           182 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 183 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 184 UBC AMS, “Student Council Minutes” 28 Jan. 2009, p.5, AMS: Student Government: AMS Student Council Website, 6 Jul. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/Council_Minutes_-January_28_2009.pdf>  185 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive 186 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive 40  the issues and developed a strategy together until the entire negotiations committee and SRC were again synchronised in their positions and approach.187,188     Comments on Meaningful Decision-Making   Throughout the negotiation process there were set-backs in negotiations when UBC reneged on agreements that had been made previously189,190 - this was acknowledge by the UBC VP of Students, Brian Sullivan, in a letter he wrote to the Ubyssey newspaper near the end of negotiations, reflecting on the process.191 Contributing factors to UBC’s flip-flopping likely included: changing financial circumstances faced by UBC;192 disagreement within UBC administrators regarding past agreements; and the small size and limited decision-making authority of the UBC negotiating team. The small number of UBC reps involved in negotiations could have also led to confusion and lack of understanding of the process among other UBC administrators, and fragmentation in the process whenever the team changed - this is similar to the problems that UBC faced with a small negotiation committee.193,194     Regarding the success of using student negotiators in the AMS negotiation committee, the results were unsurprisingly mixed. The AMS executives who sat in MOU negotiations learnt a great deal about how to undertake aggressive negotiations from working with Brian Braley, the UBC rep. After Brian Braley left however, these same AMS reps found it difficult to adapt to negotiating with a new UBC team, who they felt was much less experienced with negotiating than Brian Braley had been.195,196 All of the AMS executives I spoke with felt that they would have benefited greatly from taking professional negotiation training before entering into negotiations – even if it had been only an intensive weekend course.197    In terms of long-term tactics for negotiations, the AMS negotiation reps generally seemed to be able to make the most progress when carrying out intensive negotiations during the summer. In the summer the responsibilities of both parties decreased, and because AMS election occurred in the spring, the elected negotiators benefited from several months of experience before carrying out intensive negotiations. Between mid-fall and spring was a problematic period for negotiations. The AMS’s elected negotiators could be tempted to push through flawed agreements before their term was over, and the UBC reps could be tempted to stall negotiations in the hopes that the incoming elected negotiators would be weaker.198                                                             187 Two Personal Interviews with AMS executives 188 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 189 Three Personal Interviews with AMS executives 190 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 191 Sullivan, Brian, “To the Editor”, 29 Mar. 2010, The UBC Admin Blog, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://blogs.ubc.ca/theadministration/files/2010/04/SUB-Renewal-Blog-and-Ubyssey-Mar-29-2010-_2_.pdf> 192 Sullivan, Brian, “To the Editor”, 29 Mar. 2010, The UBC Admin Blog, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://blogs.ubc.ca/theadministration/files/2010/04/SUB-Renewal-Blog-and-Ubyssey-Mar-29-2010-_2_.pdf> 193 Two Personal Interviews with AMS executives 194 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 195 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive 196 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 197 Four Personal Interviews with AMS executives 198 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 41   2.7.3. Bus Loop Committee  In late November of 2008, BOG approved phase 1 of the underground bus loop project.199 This allowed the release of further funds for the project and allowed UBC’s architects to begin construction drawings for the underground bus loop. The SRC and AMS Council were strongly opposed to construction drawings being made of the underground bus loop until the AMS could verify that its design wouldn’t conflict with the plans for the New SUB, which was sited on top of the bus loop. Before construction drawings were made, the AMS wanted to hire their architect for the New SUB project, so that the AMS and UBC architects could work together to design the infrastructure layer between the two buildings, and get the greatest benefit from their adjacency. In their November meeting, members of UBC’s Advisory Urban Design Panel also voiced the need for AMS and UBC to collaborate on the design of the underground bus loop.200 The AMS began to shortlist architect teams for the New SUB project in winter of 2008/09, in case the AMS needed to quickly select an architect for the New SUB project to collaborate on the bus loop design.201   At the November BOG meeting, the AMS President and VP Admin also presented their concerns to the Board. The BOG agreed to form a Bus Loop Committee, where reps from UBC and the AMS could discuss and resolve some of the AMS’s concerns with the bus loop.202 The AMS reps included:203 • the AMS President;   • the VP Admin; • the AMS Designer; • an advisory structural engineer; and • three reps from the Interim project management firm  The UBC reps included:204 • John Metras, the Director of UBC Plant Operations;    • a Vice-President of UBCPT;  • a rep from C+CP • a rep from UBC’s structural engineering firm working on the UBoulevard project; and • a rep from UBC’s architect team working on the UBoulevard project.  The AMS reps were given access to schematic designs for the underground bus loop, and made several recommendations for modifications to the plan – one of the most important being, additional structural supports in the underground bus loop to ensure that it could support the New SUB above. UBC also agreed to undertake a new ridership study to check if the capacity and design of the underground bus                                                           199 UBC, BOG, “Minutes”, 27 Nov. 2008, BOG: Meeting Agenda & Minutes Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www.bog.ubc.ca/__shared/assets/MIN_08_11_276719.pdf> 200 UBC, C+CP, “Advisory Urban Design Panel Meeting: Minutes”, 6 Nov. 2008, C+CP: Documents: Advisory Bodies Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://planning.ubc.smallboxsoftware.net/smallbox4/file.php?sb4b1956a43b6eb> 201 UBC AMS, “Minutes of Student Council”, 14 Jan. 2009, p.6, AMS: Student Government: AMS Student Council Website, 6 Jul. 2010,  <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/council_minutes_January_14_2009.pdf> 202 UBC, BOG, “Minutes”, 27 Nov. 2008, BOG: Meeting Agenda & Minutes Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www.bog.ubc.ca/__shared/assets/MIN_08_11_276719.pdf> 203 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive 204 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive 42  loop was still appropriate. While this committee became an important arena for discussion and negotiation in winter of 2008/09, it was unclear if any of the AMS’s recommendations would be fulfilled, or if the AMS would be made to pay for some of their requested changes, such as additional structural supports in the underground bus loop.205 The AMS reps felt that many of the discussions that took place in the meetings were misrepresented in the meeting minutes, which were taken by the Director of UBC Plant Operations. When the meeting minutes did not verify that certain discussions and agreements had taken place then the AMS could not ensure that this information was passed on to others within UBC, and they could not hold UBC accountable to fulfilling their agreements.206    Due to financing problems, the underground bus loop project was stalled and then cancelled by Translink and C+CP in fall of 2009.207   Had this not occurred, it is uncertain that the AMS would have been able to protect student interests regarding the underground bus loop, through the Bus Loop Committee.    2.7.4. Program Review Committee  After the first draft of the New SUB program was finished by the program consultants in December 2008, the SRC formed a temporary senior AMS committee to review and give feedback on that draft in January 2009. The members of the committee included: the SRC members; the entire AMS executive; and senior AMS managers.208   This committee was responsible for ensuring that the program was consistent with the interests and long term plans of the portfolios and departments of the committee members. Knowing that they would have to present their ideas at meetings, members were motivated to review the sections of the program relevant to them prior to the meetings. As the committee discussed each section in turn, members were also exposed to other sections of the program that they would not have otherwise read, and were able to offer important insights about those sections as well. The meetings ran for two or more hours each which allowed lengthy, inclusive discussions. Since most AMS executives and managers did not have the time to be regularly involved in the project, this was an effective way to involve them in the decision- making process at a key stage in the project.209    For further details about how the work of this committee fit into the consultation process, see 4.9.1. Review of the First Draft.  2.7.5. Program User Reps   After internal AMS review of the first draft program, the SRC decided to select a user rep for each section of the program, to review the second draft and final program, and officially sign off on the final                                                           205 UBC AMS, “Student Council Minutes”, 28 Jan. 2009, p.4, AMS: Student Government: AMS Student Council Website, 6 Jul. 2010,  <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/Council_Minutes_-January_28_2009.pdf> 206 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 207 Jung, Samantha, “No underground bus loop?: Flailing TransLink can’t meet financial requirements of partnership with UBC”, 29 Oct. 2008, The Ubyssey, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://ubyssey.ca/news/no-underground-bus- loop> 208 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 – Jul. 2009 209 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 – Jul. 2009 43  program. Before they gave their final approval, the program user reps were also expected to gather feedback from stakeholders relevant to their sign-off section. These user reps had similar responsibilities but they acted independently and didn’t meet as a formal committee.210    In February 2009 the SRC chose AMS executives, AMS managers, and club presidents to be user reps, based on:  • Their experience and expertise relevant to their section of the program;  • Their ability to draw together a stakeholder group to help review their section of the program, from the AMS employees, volunteers or club members that they worked with; and  • Their prior involvement in the user meetings of fall term (see 4.8.2. User Meetings & First Club Survey), and the first draft program review of January 2009 The program user reps were informed of their new responsibilities in March 2009, with an expectation that the SRC would seek their final approval by the end of summer 2009.211    The process was very successful in weeding out issues with the program.  Many user reps came forward to ask for changes to the program in spring and summer of 2009, on behalf of themselves or their stakeholder group.212 Some user reps didn’t come forward with issues until they were asked to give their final approval at the end of summer 2009. The SUB Coordinator and Interim project manager spent much of fall 2009 resolving issues that several user groups had with the program. The program was finally fully approved in December 2009,213   with the entire signoff process for the final program taking about 6 months. User reps were often late in requesting changes to the program because:214,215 • They had recently been hired or elected, and were only able to identify problems with, and suggest changes to, the program after gaining experience in their position for several months  • They had replaced another user rep mid-process, and had different ideas and demands • They and their stakeholders had heavy workloads, and meetings and review of the program were delayed until they were pressed by a ‘final deadline’   An advantage of using this system is that it absolved the AMS of any responsibility to change the program in the future if new stakeholder groups came forward with new desired changes to the program – regardless of whether these groups come from outside or within the AMS. If such groups did come forward, it would be the responsibility of the user reps to explain why the groups weren’t consulted, and the AMS will not be forced to make changes to the program. If a user rep is replaced through new hiring or other means, than the new rep has to accept the program that was approved by their predecessor, even if they disagree with it in principle. This is important since changes to the plan at later stages of the project are often not possible without heavy cost.216,217                                                             210 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 – Jul. 2009 211 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 – Jul. 2009 212 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 – Jul. 2009 213 Metchie, Jensen, Personal Interview with SUB Coordinator Apr. 2009-2010, 21 May 2010 214 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 – Jul. 2009 215 Metchie, Jensen, Personal Interview with SUB Coordinator Apr. 2009-2010, 21 May 2010 216 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 – Jul. 2009 217 Savard, Guillaume, Personal Interview with MHPM Interim project manager, 18 May 2010 44  Alternately, an advantage of this system for user reps and their stakeholders in the user approval process is that it provides them with security and consistency. Once user reps have signed off on a section of the program, this section of the program cannot be changed significantly, by UBCPT or the AMS, unless the change receives the approval of the appropriate user rep. This right of the user reps is protected within the project charter included in UBCPT’s contract (for a full explanation of the project charter, see 3.5. The Management of the Consultants and Sub-consultants).218    2.8. Consultant Selection  When hiring consultants the SRC typically delegated investigation and selection of applicants to temporary hiring committees. The SRC chose the criteria, procedures, and membership of the committees based on previous hiring operations of the AMS, and sometimes the advice of professionals working in the field in which they were hiring. AMS Council approved the criteria and membership of the hiring committees before they began their activities.219     Hiring committees often included some but not all SRC members, based on their interest and the time commitment necessary. The committees sometimes included professional advisors, or additional councillors or students-at-large as members. Most selection processes began with the release of a request for proposals (RFP), to which interested consultants submitted a proposal by a set deadline. The hiring committee then: reviewed the proposals; interviewed all, or the highest scoring, applicants; checked up on references; and scored the applicants based on their proposals, interviews and references. Lastly they looked at the estimated fees proposed by the applicants, and scored them based on fee. The fee was checked last to ensure it didn’t influence the committee’s general scoring of the firms – this is called the ‘two envelope’ process. The hiring committee sometimes renegotiated fees or contract duties with the applicants before final selection. Finally the selection of the hiring committee was reviewed and approved by the SRC and AMS Council.220   Since its formation in spring of 2007, the SRC has coordinated the selection of: Cannon Design in August 2007 to produce a renovations study;221 Cornerstone Planning Group in September 2008 to draft the Detailed Facilities Program;222 MHPM in November 2008 to act as Interim project manager;223 a shortlist of seven architects in January 2009;224                                                           218 UBC AMS, “1. Content Plans”, New Student Union Building Project Charter, 26 Apr. 2010, Prep. by MHPM, p.4-7, AMS Archives, Available upon request   and KaizenFood in June 2010 to prepare a detailed Food Services 219 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 220 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 221 UBC AMS, “Minutes of Student Council”, 25 Jul. 2007, UBC AMS: Student Government: AMS Student Council Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/uploads/government/July_25,_07.pdf> 222 UBC AMS, “Minutes of Student Council”, 8 Oct. 2008, UBC AMS: Student Government: AMS Student Council Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/Council_Minutes_-_October_8_2008.pdf> 223 UBC AMS, “Minutes of Student Council”, 19 Nov. 2008, AMS: Student Government: AMS Student Council Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/sc_minutes_November_19_2008.pdf>  224 UBC AMS, “Minutes of Student Council”, 28 Jan. 2009, AMS: Student Government: AMS Student Council Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/Council_Minutes_-January_28_2009.pdf> 45  Plan for the New SUB (see A.13. Architect Selection). The SRC also created a hiring committee to select the final architects in July 2010.225     It was vital that all committee members committed the time necessary to read documents, and attend all interviews and meetings. This prevented members from relying too much on each other for opinions and scoring, and forming ‘cliques’ in their preference for specific consultants. When members were fully informed they were each able to bring a unique perspective to the assessment process. The short lifespan of the hiring committees made it easier to verify that all members could devote the necessary time. Committees sized 5-12 members worked best since they were large enough to bring a range of perspectives, but small enough to allow inclusive discussions and to verify that everyone could commit the necessary time.226   The hiring committees used many methods to assess whether the consultants would enhance the student-driven process, such as:227 • Asking consultants in the RFP to estimate the hours they intended to spend working with AMS reps, and sometimes to estimate their plans for consultation  o the committee could learn a lot from the hours they allocated to work with the AMS, and their suggestions for student consultation • Informal methods which included judging consultants in the interview process on whether they communicated respectfully with, and listened to, students, and on whether they exhibited a genuine desire to engage with the broader student population o While this is important in all client-consultant relationships, it is much more likely to be lacking when the client is a young non-professional, and more likely to be a women or visible minority than the status quo in many professional settings today. It was surprising how many consultants behaved condescendingly or dismissively towards students even during a hiring interview - which does not bode well for the future relationship • Calling references to ascertaining how consultants might behave in a day-to-day setting   2.8.1. Architect Short-listing Committee  In November 2008 the SRC decided to move forward with the architect shortlisting process. The purpose of the process was to narrow down the number of architects interested in the project to those that were most competent to develop the design. The SRC developed: a call for Expressions of Interest (EOI); the criteria which would be used to judge submissions; and the membership of the selection committee. The details of the selection process were developed with advice from the Interim project manager, professional advisers, the two student advisory committees, and AMS Council. The SRC decided that EOIs provided sufficient information for shortlisting, and that interviews and other investigative methods weren’t necessary, since the shortlisting was meant only to identify those firms that were technically competent to design the project.228                                                             225 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, May-Jul. 2010 226 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 227 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 228 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 46  Interested architects submitted EOIs which: proposed a design team; explained their capacity for local operation; pitched their approach to university multi-purpose buildings, sustainable design, and the participatory design process; and listed relevant design experience. Committee members judged each submission individually and graded them numerically on specific criteria. The total score was based (see A.17. Architecture Shortlisting Committee Score Sheet Template): • 40% on the firm’s characteristics and experience; • 20% on their proposed project approach; • 20% on their proposed team members; and  • 20% on their proposed sub-consultant team  Out of the 21 applicants, seven firms came out with scores clearly above the majority. These firms were notified that they’d been shortlisted and that they would be contacted with an RFP when the final architect selection process began. Knowing that the shortlisted firms were all competent to carry out the New SUB project gave the SRC the confidence to consider different options, such as using a student- wide vote, for the final stage of architect selection.229    2.8.2. Final Architect Selection  From spring of 2009 to spring of 2010 the SRC discussed ideas and refined their plans for the final architect selection process. The RFP itself was written by the Interim project manager. Many options were considered for the selection – each having different repercussions for student involvement and the rigorousness of the process.230   Two major decisions that had to be made were: whether the architects would submit concept proposal or design proposals; and whether the final selection would be made by a committee or a student-wide vote. Below I will discuss the methods considered, and analyse the final methods chosen.    Concept Proposals Vs. Design Proposals   In a design proposal process all applicants are expected to present a concept design for the project (including massing, form, general aesthetics and technologies). Firms are often given several months to digest available material and come up with a viable and compelling design for the development. Firms must be compensated for their time, which would be a particularly burdensome cost for the New SUB project if all seven shortlisted firms were invited to design. After a firm is chosen they continue to develop their design based on their proposal, meaning that student consultation can’t be involved in the design from the very beginning. It is possible to have the architects start from scratch with the design, but again this would add significant cost to the project.231   In a concept proposal process all applicants are expected to pitch a concept and approach for the project but not an actual design. Firms are typically given several weeks to a month to digest the material and come up with a proposal. This is a fairly typical process for an architecture firm and the                                                           229 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 230 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 231 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 47  client does not need to pay the architects for their time. A disadvantage of the concept proposal method is that competing firms can’t be compared based on tangible designs. An advantage of the concept proposal process is that students can be involved in the design process from the very beginning, and since the architects have had less time to develop their own preferences for the project, student input from consultation might have a stronger impact on the direction of the architects.232     In the end the SRC decided to have the shortlisted architects present concept proposals because: this would allow students to be involved in the design process from the very beginning; and design proposals would be too costly and could bias the selection towards the impressive aesthetics of some designs .233     Vote Selection Vs. Committee Selection  If a selection committee was used to select the final architect, members of the committee would be chosen based on their experience with the AMS and the New SUB project, or their expertise in the area of architecture or green design. The committee would score applicants on criteria designed by the SRC, judging them based on their proposal, interview and references. The committee could also use creative methods of assessment such as office visits or a ‘mock charrette’ led by the hiring committee to understanding how the architects interact and communicate with students and each other. After initial scoring the committee would then study and score the proposed fees. If the top scoring architect, pre- fee-scoring, went down in rank because their fees were too high, the committee could try to renegotiate fees or duties with them to put them back at the top of the ranking. If the committee failed to re- negotiate with their top choice, they could move to negotiations with the next ranked firm. The fact that the committee selection process is closed gives the committee more leverage to renegotiate fees, since neither the architects nor the student-body know the scores or ranking of the various architects.234    If the final architect was selected by a student-wide vote, the architects would present their proposals to the student-body using a variety of media including: webpages; web-videos; public presentations; concourse displays; and handouts. Since the architects were previously screened in the shortlisting process for competence and experience, there isn’t the possibility of a ‘disaster’ firm being chosen. A disadvantage of the vote is that since the winner would be publicly known the AMS would have little leeway to bargain better contract fees with the winner if their price was too high. Also, because student- wide campaigns are restricted to more superficial and quick-to-digest mediums of information, students could be more easily manipulated by savvy presentations and media than in a committee.  Advantages of the voting approach include: its ability to engage students in the New SUB project; and the added legitimacy it would lend to the outcome in the eyes of students.235    The SRC considered different hybrid selection methods to try to get the best of both options. In a survey distributed to the AMS councillors by the myself - and to students-at-large by the members of the New SUB Student Advisory committee (NSSAC) – in fall of 2008, about 50 respondents indicated on average that they would prefer the final decision to be a combined one - determined about 50% by a student-                                                           232 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 233 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 234 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 235 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 48  wide vote, and 50% by an AMS architect selection committee.236 The SRC considered using a collective decision for final selection, where the numerical results of the student-wide vote and the committee scoring would be combined to create the final ranking - with the student-wide vote counting as 30-50% of the final decision. The SRC was concerned, however, that students would have trouble understanding how their vote was translating into the final decision, and that this would discourage participation.237    In the end the SRC settled on a sequential selection process, where a student-wide vote would be used to narrow down the shortlisted architects from seven to three, and then a selection committee would rank the three finalists and negotiate fees with the final architect. The SRC felt that the advantages of the sequential method were that: it wasn’t confusing for students; it allowed direct decision-making by students in the voting stage; it allowed an AMS committee to use a rigorous selection process, and focus their fine-grained investigative methods on a smaller number of firms; and it made the ranking of the three finalists confidential, so the AMS could competitively negotiate fees with them.238   Each stage had a separate RFP, which asked the architects to respond with materials that were appropriate for the student-body and committee, respectively (for a full description of the student-wide vote process, see A.13. Architect Selection). After the student-wide vote in April 2010, the SRC announced the three finalists - Bing Thom Architects, Busby Perkins+Will, and HBBH+BH – but didn’t release their ranking, so that students wouldn’t become attached to the ranking, and be disappointed if the top-ranked firm wasn’t selected by the committee.239,240    The scoring of firms by the architect selection committee was based (see A.18. Final Architect Selection Committee Score Sheet Template): • 10% on firm qualifications, including proposed work plans in the RFP; • 20% on their proposed project approach in the RFP; • 30% on their proposed team members in the RFP; and  • 20% on the interviews and other investigate technique carried out by the committee; and • 20% on their cost proposal  The final architect selected in July 2010 was HBBH+BH.241    2.9. Consultant Management  In the first three years of the New SUB project, consultants were sometimes hired on a contract basis by the AMS to perform specific professional tasks, for which the AMS did not have in-house expertise, or needed additional help. The SRC carried out research to decide what consultants were necessary for the New SUB project, and what their responsibilities should be. Project consultants signed a contract with                                                           236 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 237 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 238 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 239 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 240 UBC AMS, “New SUB Architect Selection’, UBC AMS: New SUB Project Website, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/index.php/ams/subpage/category/architect_selection/> 241 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, May-Jul. 2010 49  the AMS which dictated their exact responsibilities and fees. Though consultants had leeway in their contract to perform their work, they were expected to update the AMS regularly on their activities, and sometimes attend the meetings of AMS committees or AMS Council. So far, the AMS has enjoyed extremely respectful, transparent and fruitful relationships with its consultants for the New SUB project.242    The AMS delegated critical project work to consultants. To ensure that consultants were transparent with their work and welcomed student involvement and input, the AMS:243 • Used a selection process which encouraged and tested for a collaborative working style (see 2.8. Consultant selection);    • Drafted contracts which specified how and how much the consultant was expected to meet with AMS reps and share their work with the AMS; and  • Put effort into fostering respectful relationships with consultants and making them excited about working with students  Even in very collaborative firms, consultants were often wary of involving the wider public in the professional process, except in a very controlled way. They were often concerned that students would have unrealistic expectations, and that if students asked for things in focus groups or surveys that could not be provided, than those students would start to oppose the project as a whole. The SRC and especially SUB Coordinator played an important role in allaying the fears of the consultants, and advocating for the benefits and opportunities of wider consultation. During my term I and other members of the SRC tried to communicate to consultants that even if students’ desires couldn't be met, it was important to find out what those desires were so that we could: enlist students to come up with their own solutions to these problems; or explain to students clearly why their desires would not be met. We felt this was a better approach than allowing unvoiced disappointment to continue - which can lead to apathy and distrust. In a more pragmatic sense, the SUB Coordinator and VP Admin helped the consultants to work with students by:244 • Developing consultation plans with consultants that would be effective with students;  • Dividing consultation responsibilities between the AMS and consultants in a way that suited the skills and preferences of each party; • Assisting in the preparation of consultation materials; • Gathering AMS resources and contacts lists for the consultants;  • Scheduling meetings for consultants with AMS and student stakeholders; and • Co-chairing stakeholder meetings with consultants;  The SRC was able to have a meaningful impact on the work of consultants because of the free flow of information between organizations. This allowed both parties to spot problems and opportunities early, when something could still be done, and then creatively work together to achieve the best project outcome. For instance, since the Interim project manager was quickly able to get approval from the SRC to select a cost-analyst and commission an early cost-analysis of the program, when the program came                                                           242 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 243 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator from Oct. 2008 – Jul. 2009, and sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 244 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator from Oct. 2008 – Jul. 2009, and sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 50  out over-budget the SRC had several months to: reassess the program; discuss alternatives with stakeholders and UBC; and develop changes to the program that everyone could accept – in this case the SRC decided to keep some uses in the current SUB and renovate those space, so that no uses would have to be eliminated from the program.245    2.10. Conclusion of Part II  To judge whether the governance and management of the initial New SUB project was student-driven, I consider:   • Accountability & Transparency: Were the actions of those with decision-making power transparent and could they be held accountable by the student-body? How so?  • Broad Decision-Making: Were a large number and variety of students involved in decision- making? How so?  • Meaningful Decision-Making: Did students play a meaningful role in developing and making decisions in the project? How so?   Each table will include recommendations for how different aspects of the New SUB project could be changed to be more student-driven in the project’s later stages, or how a similar project could take a different approach than was taken by the New SUB project to be more student-driven. In the discussion section after each table I will summarize the findings, and explore some of the causes behind why different aspects of the program were, or were not, student-driven.   Accountability & Transparency  Student-driven Non-student-driven 2. 3.  G ra ss ro ot s O rg an iz at io n &  St ud en t M ed ia  2 Students opposing UBoulevard development used a publication, ‘the knoll’ to transmit their message to students.  The student activists were part of a loose coalition, which many students didn’t see as broadly representative of, or accountable to, students. 4 Media outlets on campus have reported on, and critiqued the project, helping to keep the actions of the AMS transparent and accountable to students.    2. 4.  A M S Co un ci l 3 The elected AMS Council had oversight and ultimate decision- making power in the project. Council meetings were public, and the meeting minutes were archived online. Most students are unaware of Council activities and can’t hold their councillors accountable, because students rarely attend Council meetings or read meetings minutes. AMS Councillors rarely carried out consultation to help them represent the interests of their constituents in Council.                                                           245 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator from Oct. 2008 – Jul. 2009, and sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 51  R : N ew  S U B  Though Council meetings will be live-streamed starting in fall of 2010, it will be important to archive these videos to make them more useful to students. The videos will also be more accessible and legible to students if the timeline of the video is bookmarked with relevant topic headings, so students can skip to parts of the meeting relevant to them (for an example, see the archived and bookmarked live-stream of C+CP’s recent Transportation Forum).246 2. 5.  S U B Re ne w  R ef er en du m   To make the activities of AMS councillors more accountable to their constituency members, the SUB Coordinator could assist them to facilitate New SUB Town Hall meetings with their constituencies, or prepare short surveys for them to send out to their constituents, which would provide the councillors with information about the concerns of their constituents. 3 A referendum was held to approve the student levy for the project. AMS policy allows students to demand a NO campaign or a repeat referendum with petitions, but insufficient signatures were gathered for these causes. No referendum was carried out after the MOU or the final agreements were made, and so the decision to move forward with project after the project’s terms were decided was not accountable to students. R : Si m ila r Pr oj ec t In a large project such as this, it is most accountable to students to carry out a final referendum when the scope, terms, and other important aspects of the project are near definite. 2. 6.  A M S Ex ec ut iv es  &  S U B Co or di na to r 3 The students who had primary responsibility over negotiating and managing the project - the President and VP Admin – were both elected (and sometimes subject to re-election), and their actions were monitored by the other executives, SRC, Council, and media outlets. The numerous responsibilities of the AMS President and VP Admin did provide them some opportunity to exert their personal agenda, especially in the negotiations committee which had the least surveillance.  4 The SUB Coordinator’s activities were monitored by the VP Admin, SRC, AMS Council, and two student advisory committees. The SUB Coordinator was not required to chair and seek advice from any student advisory committees, and student advisory bodies could be discontinued in later stages of the project due to a lack of enforcement mechanisms. R : N ew  S U B  Since the SUB Coordinator’s position holds so much responsibility and control over information, SUB Coordinators should be required to chair at least one student advisory committee to critique their plans and the results of their consultation. This requirement could be passed as a motion in Council, or included in the terms of reference of the SRC or the job description of the SUB Coordinator. 2. 7.  D ec is io n- M ak in g Co m m it te es  4 Decision-making committees, including the hiring committees, all contained some elected students. The SRC - the primary decision-making and oversight committee - deferred final decisions to AMS Council. Some reps sat on several committees and could clearly communicate information between them, while other reps were unique to particular committees and provided additional surveillance. The regularly turnover in members also helped to ‘shake-up’ The SRC lacked detailed protocols to ensure that they would report the appropriate information and defer the appropriate decisions to AMS Council. None of the committees posted minutes on the                                                           246 C+CP, “Ideas Fair”, C+CP: Transportation Consultation 2010, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://www.planning.ubc.ca/vancouver_home/consultations/transportation_consultation_2010/articles336.php 52  committee dynamics and helped the committees to not be impervious to critical outside perspectives. The creation of the bus loop committee, somewhat improved the transparency of the bus loop project, and the accountability of the project to students. The addition of the MHPM rep made the negotiation committee more transparent to the SRC by acting as an unbiased advisor. AMS website. The small negotiation committee was also vulnerable to strong personalities and mis- communication with the SRC, especially before the addition of the MPHM rep.  R : Si m ila r Pr oj ec t Increasing the number of AMS reps involved in negotiations could have helped with surveillance of the process, and helped to ensure that the actions of the negotiators were fully supported by the SRC. R : N ew  S U B   To avoid abuse of power by the SRC, and confusion and distrust amongst AMS councillors, the SRC could post their minutes on the AMS website, and have a more detailed terms of reference which describes:  • How often the SRC should report to AMS council • What kind of information the SRC should report • What types of decisions and approvals should be deferred to AMS council 2. 8.  Co ns ul ta nt  Se le ct io n 3 The criteria, membership and final selections of hiring committees were approved by Council. A student-wide vote was also used to narrow down the architects from the shortlist of 7 to 3 finalists, making that decision accountable to students.   2. 9.  Co ns ul ta nt  M an ag em en t 4 The AMS enjoyed open communication with consultants and good surveillance of their work, due to rigorous selection, detailed contracts, and fostering of good working relationships.   The initial governance and management structure of the New SUB project was reasonably accountable and transparent to students because of the pre-existing structure, protocols, and context of the AMS government.   A weakness in the initial stages of the project was that the decision to move forward with the project was not fully accountable to students-at-large, since the referendum to approve the project took place before most project terms had been decided. Also, AMS Council members lacked the detailed information they needed to make the SRC fully accountable for their actions. The protocols ensuring that AMS executives, AMS employees and AMS committees acted transparently and accountably should have been made stronger and more detailed through Council motions, job descriptions, and terms of reference.   Fortunately, the informal surveillance and openness of the AMS - oversight and review responsibilities were often duplicated by several parties - ensured that the actions and positions of the AMS Council, AMS committees, AMS employees, and consultants were mutually known and critiqued. Rigorous selection and detailed contracts were used to ensure a high level of accountability and transparency in the working relationships with consultants   53  Broad Decision-Making    Student-driven Non-student-driven 2. 3.  G ra ss ro ot s O rg an iz at io n &  S tu de nt  M ed ia  3 The activist movement engaged many students in the project that would not have normally been engaged with the AMS. Since the dispersal of this group, the AMS has worked and resolved issues with other interest groups that have approached the AMS executives or SUB Coordinator with particular ideas or concerns.   The AMS did not actively involve the student activists, or those opposed to them, in discussions or decision-making concerning the New SUB project. Once the activists elected reps to the AMS Council, the activists moved on to other issues - the AMS did not harness the energy and organizing power of this movement.   R : Si m ila r Pr oj ec t Having a SUB Coordinator earlier in the process would have perhaps allowed the AMS to more constructively reach out to, and organize discussions with, the student activists and other interest groups that emerged early in the project. 2. 4.  A M S Co un ci l 3 AMS Council had primary oversight and approval power in the New SUB project. About 43 councillors represented particular academic constituencies, and 9 councillors were selected by a student-wide vote.  2. 5.  S U B Re ne w  Re fe re nd um  5 The referendum made the project more legitimate in the eyes of students, and allowed the negotiation process to begin with UBC. 32% of students voted (much more than the 6.4% who voted in the elections that year) and the question passed with 54% in favour.  2. 6.  A M S Ex ec ut iv es  &  S U B Co or di na to r 3 The SUB Coordinator used two student advisory committees to help make decisions on consultation and give direction on other project issues. These advisory committees collectively involved about 35 students in 2008/09, who represented a number of different interest groups on campus, and the majority of whom did not otherwise work within the AMS (see 4.7. Advisory Committees).   2. 7.  D ec is io n- M ak in g Co m m it te es  4 The SRC, hiring committees, negotiations committee and bus loop committee allowed AMS student employees, AMS executives, AMS councillors and students-at-large to take part in decision-making. The program review committee and user reps allowed the entire AMS executive team, and some club heads, to contribute to decision-making. While about a third of the members of these committees were AMS managers or AMS consultant reps, they helped the committees to make decisions in the best interests of students.  2. 8.  Co ns ul ta nt  Se le ct io n 4 2,400 students voted to narrow down the shortlisted architects from seven to three – this was important for students to become educated and engaged in the project, and was a decision in which many students wanted to have a say.  2. 9.  Co ns ul ta nt  M an ag em en t 0  No students were hired on a contract basis to work as consultants for the project in its first three years. 54  In the first three years of the project, the most successful mechanisms used for delegating decision- making to a large number and diversity of students were the referendum for the student-levy, and the student-wide vote for the selection of the three architect finalists. The SRC was reluctant to delegate decisions to a student-wide vote in other ways, because they felt: that it was difficult to adequately educate students about the necessary issues; and that student votes interfered with the decision- making power of the AMS Council.247   Within the AMS, students contributed to decision-making in a number of way - within AMS Council and committees, and as user reps. AMS councillors are elected to represent different constituencies on campus, while the student and non-student user reps and committee members were selected from within or outside the AMS because of their ability to represent a particular interest group among students. The advisory committee members represented a broad diversity of students, in terms of academic programs, academic year, club affiliation, ethnicity, and whether they commuted or not, among other traits.248    Outside of the AMS, students have indirectly influenced project decisions through student media and activism, but the AMS has rarely reached out to these students to help promote discussion of the project, or inform project decisions. The AMS has also refrained from hiring students on a contract basis to perform professional work for the project, or from requesting that consultants hire students as part of their team.    Meaningful Decision-Making   Student-driven Non-student-driven 2. 3.  G ra ss ro ot s O rg an iz at io n &  S tu de nt  M ed ia  3 By presenting many sides of the issues, student media likely encouraged critical discussion of the project among students and in AMS Council.  3 The activists opposed to UBoulevard development contributed to the drive to locate a student building in USquare through their actions and publications, and they were able to participate in decision-making more meaningfully after they elected representatives to the AMS.   R : S im ila r Pr oj ec t If the AMS had made an effort to mediate between the opposed student groups and bring them into the planning process in a positive way, these students could have played a more significant role: contributing to critical discussions of project issues; helping to organize and inform students; and serving as watchdogs for the behaviour of the student government and other project partners. 2. 4.  A M S Co un ci l 2 The varied membership of AMS Council did ensure some debate of project issues. Council was often unable to have in-depth discussions about the project or make informed decisions because: with 50 members it was too large to allow everyone to participate in discussions; little time was devoted to New SUB project presentations and discussions; and AMS Councillors lacked the regular and detailed information necessary to have useful debate.                                                            247 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 248 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 55  R : N ew  S U B  To provide councillors with the time and information necessary to meaningfully discuss the project, the beginning of each Council meeting could be allocated to a 10min project update by the SRC, and a 10min Council discussion. These guaranteed bi-weekly updates would better inform those attending the meetings or watching the live-stream video, and would give those attending an expectation to come prepared to discuss the issues.   2. 5.  S U B Re ne w  R ef er en du m  2  Students had few concrete project details on which to base their vote when the referendum passed, and were only informed through a YES campaign. The referendum only passed with 54%, and students could only vote on a simple yes/no question, and not weigh in on different options.  R : S im ila r Pr oj ec t Perhaps the referendum should asked students to approve different potential options for the project, for instance: different structures for a student levy; different project scopes and terms; or the possibilities of the project being new construction, total renovation, or renovation-expansion. This would have let the AMS know which of the options had the highest overall approval, but also would have let them move between any of the options with more than 50% approval, depending on what became most appropriate as the project evolved. This might have also made the YES campaign less biased, since the AMS would at least have had to present positive arguments for the different options.  2. 6.  A M S Ex ec ut iv es  &  S U B Co or di na to r 5 The AMS President and VP Admin significantly impacted the project by sitting on the SRC and negotiation committee. For them to competently carry out their large portfolios, it was important that were able to hire assistants.  5 The SUB Coordinator was responsible for developing and coordinating communications and consultation. This was an appropriate leadership role for a student since it required enthusiasm, creativity, communication skills and commitment to student involvement, more than specialized knowledge or years of experience. The hours required to competently fulfill this role varied widely based on the stage of the project, and whether they inherited preparatory work from a predecessor.   R : Si m ila r Pr oj ec t To be most effective the SUB Coordinator position should have been created in the 2007/08 year, to allow oversight of the entire project, and to allow the heavy workload to be spread out.  R : N ew  SU B  The VP Admin should receive pre-authorization from Council to increase the SUB Coordinator’s hours, or hire an additional SUB Coordinator, in case a busy stage of the project requires additional work. At least two weeks of overlapping work is recommended for knowledge and skills to be passed between SUB Coordinators. 2. 7.  D ec is io n- M ak in g Co m m it te es  4 As the primary oversight and implementing body of the New SUB project, the SRC dealt with a host of varied and complex project issues. The program review committee and user reps allowed students to take part in the development and approval of the program, and the negotiation and bus loop committees allowed student reps to take part in critically important discussions and negotiations with UBC regarding the bus loop project, and the major terms and joint agreements for the project. The SRC’s ability to discuss and vote on issues with quorum was often compromised by the irregular attendance of some non-executive councillor reps. The ability of AMS reps to meaningfully participate in the negotiation and bus loop committees was compromised by: their lack of training; and the bus loop committee’s lack of a mandate or authority to make changes to the bus loop project. 56  R : S im ila r Pr oj ec t To help the AMS negotiation reps better represent student interests, the AMS should have paid for them to take a weekend or week-long negotiations training course when new executives were elected. If the bus loop project had gone forward it might have been necessary for the AMS to move their site to ‘the Bosque’, west of the current SUB, or another lot on campus that wasn’t undergoing simultaneous development, if they wanted to have more decision-making power in the design and budget of the new SUB.  R : N ew  S U B   To find more committed AMS councillors the SRC should use a rigorous selection process like that used for students-at-large. The SRC could also: hire councillors and students-at- large for shorter terms – over the summer or academic year – so that it’s easier for applicants to predict their availability; or start to enforce the rule of removing members after they miss three meetings. The SRC might also want to consider paying its volunteer members a stipend to encourage participation, since sitting on the SRC often requires extra meetings and work outside of meetings. 2. 8.  C on su lt an t Se le ct io n 5 Hiring committees were able to make meaningful decisions by employing diverse investigative methods to vet the applicants - especially to discern their interest and ability to work transparently and collaboratively with students.  The student- wide architect vote was limited to selecting 3 finalists, because the SRC doubted students’ ability to make a nuanced decision given their limited information.  2. 9.  Co ns ul ta nt  M an ag em en t 4 AMS committees were able to spot problems and opportunities in the work of consultants, and work with consultants to achieve the best project outcomes, because of: rigorous selection processes; detailed contracts; and regular communication and meetings between consultants and AMS reps and committees.    In the first three years of the project the students with the greatest meaningful decision-making power were likely the VP Admin, AMS President, SUB Coordinator, and student members of the SRC, program review committee, user reps and hiring committees. The AMS was also able to collaborate meaningfully with their consultants because of: rigorous selection processes; detailed contracts; and regular communication and meetings between the consultants and the AMS reps and committees.  The meaningful decision-making power of AMS Council was compromised in the project’s first three years because: AMS Councillors didn’t receive information about the project with enough clarity, detail, and frequency; and with so many councillors and such little time, councillors weren’t able to debate project issues deeply or inclusively during Council meetings.   The SRC, program review committee, user reps, and hiring committees were able to effectively make decisions because they:  • Were delegated clear  and achievable roles and responsibilities within the project; • Contained the reps necessary to clearly transfer information to other decision-making bodies  • Received detailed information about the project (or about applicants, in the case of hiring committees) from various sources; • Had cumulative expert knowledge of the project and AMS from their long term involvement; • Had a size of 5-12 members, allowing inclusive discussions, but varied enough experience and perspectives to allow creative problem solving; • Included sufficient professionals and AMS managers to help students make decisions on technical and complex issues, in the best interests of students; 57  • Had members with the necessary authority and influence within their department or the AMS to effect changes agreed to in their committee • Had a fair number of salaried members, able to devote time to lengthy meetings and outside work;   Though the AMS reps on the negotiation and bus loop committees had significant influence on the process, these joint committees with UBC were less able to make effective decisions than the AMS committees, because:  • The committees lacked the professional members or assistance necessary fulfill their duties effectively (i.e. professional negotiators for the negotiation committee, and architects for the bus loop committee); • Agreements and discussions did not always seem to be adequately communicated between the AMS reps and the AMS decision-making bodies, and between the UBC reps and the UBC decision-making bodies, creating confusion and lack of buy-in on both sides, and making the agreements vulnerable to retractions; • The UBC negotiation reps seemed to lack influence and decision-making authority within UBC, especially after Brian Braley left;  • UBC didn’t give the bus loop committee the authority, or budget, to effect real change within the bus loop project; and • And negotiations often slowed between September and March because of the other responsibilities of both parties, and the turnover in the AMS executive  To make the negotiations process more effective for both sides, the AMS and UBC should have formed a new large negotiation oversight committee - including the major decision-makers from each party - after the dissolution of the Land-Use Planning Committee in spring of 2008. This committee could have met monthly during the academic year and more frequently during the summer to oversee the work of the smaller negotiation committee. Larger committees are harder to negotiate with, but they can expedite the negotiations process in the long term: by allowing major decision-makers to explain their expectations for, and give direction to, negotiations; by making sure major decision-makers are informed and understand the logic behind agreements and compromises; and by forcing major decision- makers to collectively commit to agreements, thereby making those agreements less vulnerable to retractions. The AMS and UBC could have also hired a negotiations facilitator to assist with negotiation oversight committee meetings, or to attend a multi-day negotiations workshop with the larger group.    58  3. Part III: Negotiated Governance & Management  3.1. Introduction   Note: When ‘the AMS’ is referred to as an active entity in Part Three, it refers most specifically to the AMS negotiation committee and SRC, who were the driving forces behind negotiations, but it also refers to the AMS Council who were generally aware and supportive of the actions and views of the SRC and negotiation committee. This use of the term ‘AMS’ is not meant to imply that: the views of the student- body, AMS government, or AMS Council, were homogenous; or that the views of the SRC and negotiations committee were perfectly representative of, or communicated to, AMS Council (for further details on the relationship between the AMS Council, SRC and negotiation committee, see 2.7.2. Negotiation Committee).  The AMS had to negotiate with UBC to determine major project terms because the New SUB project could not go forward without a number of resource contributions from UBC. Because of these contributions, UBC also wanted to negotiate a joint AMS/UBC governance and management structure for the project. Negotiations were often slow and contentious. The AMS generally felt that some of the alternatives proposed by UBC would have severely restricted the scope of the project, or curtailed the opportunities for student oversight, leadership and involvement in the project. The AMS felt they needed oversight of the project for it to remain accountable and transparent to the student-body, and they felt they needed student leadership and involvement in the project to create the best possible building for students.249,250 The UBC VP of Students, Brian Sullivan, submitted a letter to the Ubyssey near the end of negotiations, which articulated some of UBC’s concerns with the process. Critical concerns included: the need to manage risk and protect UBC’s investment in the project; and the need to develop a workable financial model for the project, given UBC’s finances.251     Pre-negotiation discussions between AMS and UBC reps took place in the Land-Use Planning Committee in spring of 2008. This committee discussed tentative terms for the New SUB project, which were reflected in the AMS’s SUB Renew Referendum question. In the summer of 2008 AMS and UBC reps negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the project. The MOU outlined what each party would contribute to the project in terms of finances, land, and other resources, but it did not resolve the more contentious points of how the project would be governed and managed after the program was completed. These details were resolved in the four agreements - the development agreement, finance agreement, lease agreement, and surrender agreement - which were simultaneously negotiated between AMS and UBC reps, from fall of 2008 and spring 2010 (for a full discussion of the process and members of negotiations, see 2.7.2. Negotiation Committee).252   In Part Three, I will first examine the context of negotiations: Why the AMS was concerned that co- managing the project with UBC would compromise the student-driven process; and why the AMS                                                           249 Three Personal Interviews with AMS executives 250 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as AMS SUB Coordinator, 2008/09 academic year. 251 Sullivan, Brian, “To the Editor”, 29 Mar. 2010, The UBC Admin Blog, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://blogs.ubc.ca/theadministration/files/2010/04/SUB-Renewal-Blog-and-Ubyssey-Mar-29-2010-_2_.pdf> 252 Two Personal Interviews with AMS executives 59  negotiated with UBC, considering their concerns. I will then investigate the aspects of the project’s future governance and management structure that were determined by negotiations: 2.3. Decision-Making Committees 2.4. Consultant Selection 2.5. The Management of Consultants & Sub-Consultants 2.6. Other Agreements Affecting Governance  I will conclude with analysis of how these changes might make the project more or less student-driven in the future of the project. This analysis will include recommendations for how the New SUB project can be more student-driven in the future, in the context of the changes.    3.2. Context   3.2.1. The UBC Administration   UBC was formed by the British Columbia University Act in 1908 and its governance is dictated by the University Act.253 UBC’s administration includes the Board of Governors (BOG), the Senates, the Convocation, and the Faculties of the university.254 The BOG has primary responsibility over non- academic affairs – “the management, administration and control of the property, revenue, business and affairs of the university are vested in the board”.255 In 2009/10 UBC as a whole had a total annual revenue of about $1.9 billion.256 The BOG also appoints senior administrative officials and faculty members at the university. The BOG has a total of 21 full-time salaried members including: eleven people appointed by the province; three students elected by students; three faculty members elected by faculty; two employees elected by employees; and a chancellor elected by the current UBC community and alumni. These BOG members in turn select a President of the Board. Many of the members serve multi-year terms. 257   Having 12 appointed members out of 21, the board is majority non- representative.  Like in the AMS, much of the hands-on work of overseeing UBC operations is done by board committees that report to the BOG and present proposals and recommendations to them for approval. Many of the board members sit on the board committees, including the three elected student reps who sit on several of the committees.258                                                           253 R.S.B.C., University Act, 6 Nov. 2009, Office of the University Counsel Website, 28 Jun 2010, <http://www.universitycounsel.ubc.ca/univ_act/University_Act_20091106.pdf>  Board committee meetings, and the first part of board meetings, are open to the public, though public attendance is limited and requires prior notice, and the public cannot speak 254 UBC, Library Archives, A Brief History of the University of British Columbia, University Archives Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www.library.ubc.ca/archives/hist_ubc.html> 255 R.S.B.C., University Act, 6 Nov. 2009, Part 6, Article 27, p.17, Office of the University Counsel Website, 28 Jun 2010, <http://www.universitycounsel.ubc.ca/univ_act/University_Act_20091106.pdf> 256 UBC, Budget Summary Book 2009/10, 6 Aug. 2009, UBC Finance Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.finance.ubc.ca/budgets/documents/2009_10UBCBudgetSummaryBook06Aug2009.pdf> 257 R.S.B.C., University Act, 6 Nov. 2009, Part 6, Office of the University Counsel Website, 28 Jun 2010, <http://www.universitycounsel.ubc.ca/univ_act/University_Act_20091106.pdf> 258 UBC, Standing Committees of the Board, UBC: BOG Website, 28 Jun. 2010,  <http://www.bog.ubc.ca/about/committees.html> 60  at meetings. The second part of board meetings is closed and can include discussions, review of confidential documents and rulings.259 The BOG does not use UBC-wide referendums to make any decisions, though they do sometimes use consultation to inform their decisions.260    Though student newspapers and blogs report on the activities of UBC’s administration and subsidiaries, there is less accessibility and sharing of information than with the AMS. Factors which contribute to this include: UBC’s operations being much larger in scale and more complex than those of the AMS; UBC’s operations being located in administrative buildings which students cannot casually access; and a smaller proportion of students working in management and other positions than at the AMS.261    Since it is a public institution UBC must make much of its internal information public upon request, but if it denies information a request can be made through the Province under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. In 2009 the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for BC ruled that UBC must also release information on its subsidiaries, which include the development company UBC Properties Trust (UBCPT). UBC had initially denied a request for information about its subsidiaries on the basis that they were private organizations.262    The Province of BC initially set aside 175 acres for UBC’s Point Grey campus in the University Site Act of 1911. The University Endowment Land Act of 1907 (lasted revised in 1996) gave UBC management of 3,000 acres of land in the Point Grey area of Vancouver, which UBC could develop to finance the University’s operations. 1,800 acres of these UEL land were protected to create Pacific Spirit Park in 1989, and of the remaining 1,200 acres which can be developed by UBC, about 700 had already been developed as of 2005.263 Main Campus Plan  The management of UBC’s Vancouver lands is dictated by various land-use plans and regulations including the , Official Community Plan, and Neighbourhood Plans.264   Impact on the New SUB Project  While it may not have been entirely fair analysis, many members of the AMS with whom I spoke, and students who participated in the consultation process, from spring of 2008 to spring of 2010, voiced concerns that the operations of BOG and UBC’s administration were far less accountable and transparent than those of the AMS, and that there were fewer opportunities for broad and meaningful student decision-making within that structure. Many felt that if the New SUB project was jointly governed and managed with UBC, than the scope for student decision-making, involvement, and access to information could greatly diminish. These concerns were also fuelled by UBC’s recent history of top-                                                           259 UBC, Board Procedures, UBC: BOG Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www.bog.ubc.ca/about/procedures.html> 260 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive 261 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as AMS SUB Coordinator, 2008/09 academic year. 262 Yonson, Neal, “Freedom of Information Applies to UBC’s Corporate Entities”, 25 Apr. 2009, UBC Insiders, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://ubcinsiders.blogspot.com/2009/04/freedom-of-information-applies-to-ubcs.html> 263 BC, Ministry of Community Services, The University Endowment Lands Official Community Plan, 14 Oct. 2005, UEL: Administration Website, 28 Jun 2010, <http://www.universityendowmentlands.gov.bc.ca/library/Official_Community_Plan.pdf> 264 UBC, C+CP, Planning Contexts + Policies, C+CP Website, 28 Jun 2010, <http://www.planning.ubc.ca/plans_and_policies/planning_context__policies.php> 61  down development (see 2.2.3. The University Boulevard Project) and poorly received student consultation (see 4.2.1. The UBC Vancouver Campus Plan).265,266     3.2.2. Why did the AMS Negotiate?   After the SUB Renew Referendum passed in spring of 2008, the AMS faced the decision to enter into negotiations with UBC. While the AMS was aware that negotiating with UBC could erode the student- driven process, they were also faced with the reality that to forgo some or all negotiations, the New SUB project would have had to change dramatically in scope and scale.267,268    This is because the AMS hoped to receive a range of resources and other supports from UBC to complete the project. These included:269,270 • A 60-100 year land lease at little cost, and located in the high value USquare  • An ‘owner’s lease’ rather than a ‘commercial lease’ on the building271 • UBC Operations performing maintenance for the New SUB  • UBC paying for all maintenance and utilities costs of non-commercial space in the New SUB (at an estimated cost of $2 million per year) • UBC contributing $20-40 million towards the capital costs of the project • UBC financing the loan for the project through the Province, at a lower public interest rate than the AMS would have been able to receive from a commercial bank  To be willing to contribute these resources, UBC wanted control and influence in the governance and management structure of the project. This would allow them to manage risk, avoid financial losses, and ensure that the pre-existing contracts and urban design guidelines for the UBoulevard area were followed (For more information on the pre-existing contracts, see 3.4.1. UBC Position, and 3.6.2. Design, Program & Management of the New SUB).272,273,274   These were not groundless demands, but they could certainly erode student control of the project. There were some options that the AMS could have pursued to have more independence in the project, and avoid negotiations with UBC totally, or in part. These included:275,276 • Requesting, or paying full cost for, a land lease somewhere else on campus;                                                             265 Two Personal Interviews with AMS executives 266 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as AMS SUB Coordinator, 2008/09 academic year. 267 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive 268 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as AMS SUB Coordinator, 2008/09 academic year. 269 Three Personal Interviews with AMS executives 270 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as AMS SUB Coordinator, 2008/09 academic year. 271 An owner's lease gives the leasee (in this case, the AMS) primary control over the premises during the duration of the lease, while a commercial lease give the owner (in this case, UBC) primary control 272 Two Personal Interviews with AMS executives 273 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as AMS SUB Coordinator, 2008/09 academic year. 274 Sullivan, Brian, “To the Editor”, 29 Mar. 2010, The UBC Admin Blog, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://blogs.ubc.ca/theadministration/files/2010/04/SUB-Renewal-Blog-and-Ubyssey-Mar-29-2010-_2_.pdf> 275 Three Personal Interviews with AMS executives 276 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as AMS SUB Coordinator, 2008/09 academic year. 62  • Renovating the current SUB and expanding only into lands within the current SUB’s lease, delaying lease renegotiations on that land until they expired in 2028; • Paying a higher interest rate for a loan from a commercial bank • Paying for maintenance and utilities themselves; • Paying for the entire capital cost of the project themselves; or  These options, however, would have increased the capital, financing, construction, and maintaining costs of the project significantly. The AMS would have had to significantly increase the size of the student-levy - which would have made it very unlikely to pass in a referendum - or significantly decrease the scope and scale of the building – which may have made the proposal unlikely to pass in AMS Council or in a referendum. The AMS could have pursued land or monetary donations to fund the project; the Graduate Student Society (GSS) building is located on land donated by a private donor,277   and some American universities have relied heavily on private donations to fund their student union buildings (see 1.4.2. Precedents for the New SUB Project from other North American Universities). This however would have been a time-consuming strategy, which might have proved fruitless in the end, and might have required the AMS to agree to terms set by outside donors.  Despite the risks, the AMS during the spring of 2008 was confident that they would be able to negotiate the required resources from UBC, while maintaining a high level of student leadership and involvement in the project. The AMS felt that UBC would be willing to agree to terms that were favourable for the AMS government and students because:278,279 • Through the project the AMS would contribute $80 million towards the UBC campus;   • The New SUB would provide a vibrant development in USquare, where UBC could no longer fund development itself (see 2.2.3. The University Boulevard Project);  • After the new SUB’s completion, the AMS would return the use of the current SUB to UBC at no cost, about 14 years before the current SUB’s lease was intended to end, in 2028; and   • There was precedent for the financial and lease terms being proposed by the AMS in the agreements negotiated in the 1960’s for the current SUB (see 2.2.1 The Current SUB).   Summary  Despite their concerns with negotiating with UBC, the AMS during spring of 2008 felt that they had no choice but to negotiate if they wanted to locate the building in USquare and deliver a project with the scale and scope necessary to meet students’ needs and expectations. The AMS also felt confident they could negotiate favourable terms for the project because of the resources they were offering UBC and because of the precedent of the agreements negotiated for the current SUB in the 1960’s.   3.3. Decision-Making Committees  3.3.1. Joint Oversight Committee (JOC) & Project Management Working Committee (PMWC)                                                            277 UBC, Library Archives, Thea Koerner House Graduate Student Centre fonds, University Archives Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www.library.ubc.ca/archives/u_arch/koernerhouse.html#admin> 278 Two Personal Interviews with AMS executives 279 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as AMS SUB Coordinator, 2008/09 academic year. 63  In negotiations UBC was adamant that they be given oversight and decision-making power in the project through a new joint committee structure. The membership and responsibilities of these new committees was a very contentious part of the negotiation process.   The AMS did not want the number of UBC reps to outnumber student reps in any decision-making committee, in case UBC reps preferred using voting rather than consensus to make decisions. The AMS also felt committees would likely be more productive if they included more AMS reps, because they were sceptical that UBC reps would be willing or able to commit as much time to the project as AMS reps - because of their other work commitments and because they might not feel as invested in the project as students.280    After many iterations UBC and the AMS agreed to a joint committee structure with two decision-making committees: The Joint Oversight Committee (JOC) and the Project Management Working Committee (PMWC). The SRC will continue as a steering committee for the AMS, assisting and giving direction to the AMS reps sitting on the JOC and PMWC (To see how the committees fit within the governance structures of UBC and the AMS, see the Project Organization Chart in A.12. Summary of Agreements for the New SUB Project).  The JOC will include four senior AMS reps and four senior UBC reps, and a non-voting Alumni rep jointly selected by the other reps. This equal split in reps gives neither party ultimate say over the project, and will hopefully encourage the committee members to based on consensus. The AMS JOC reps, who will also sit on the SRC, will likely be: the VP Admin, a Council-elected rep, the AMS General Manager, and the MHPM Project advisor (former Interim project manager). The UBC JOC reps will come from the Treasury, C+CP, UBCPT, and Infrastructure Development (for instance, Associate VP of Infrastructure Development, John Metras). The JOC will meet monthly to receive updates from the various reps, discuss issues and give approvals. Minutes will be kept by the AMS (see the Project Organization Chart in A.12. Summary of Agreements for the New SUB Project) – by recording the discussions and agreements of the JOC, the AMS can better ensure that the information will be passed on within UBC and the AMS and honoured (see 2.7.3. Bus Loop Committee). The JOC will “be responsible for reviewing the project budget, fundraising oversight, space allocations, and any unforeseen issues that may arise during a project.” It will also be responsible for making decisions where the PMWC cannot reach consensus.281   Though the JOC has higher decision-making power than the PMWC, they will perform less hands-on project work. Where the JOC cannot reach a decision, the issue will be discussed by the AMS Council and BOG.   The PMWC will include six AMS reps and four UBC reps. The AMS PMWC reps, who will also sit on the SRC, will likely be: the VP Admin, MHPM Project advisor, SUB Coordinator, AMS Designer, and two students (either students-at-large or Councillors selected by AMS Council).282                                                           280 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as AMS SUB Coordinator, 2008/09 academic year  The UBC PMWC reps will come from Plant Operations, C+CP, UBCPT, and Infrastructure Development. This committee will meet bi-weekly and give bi-weekly updates to the AMS Council and monthly updates to the JOC. The meetings will be chaired by the UBCPT rep and project manager, who is stipulated in the Project Charter to be Rob 281 UBC AMS, “4. Project Organization”, New Student Union Building Project Charter, 26 Apr. 2010, Prep. by MHPM, p.12-13, AMS Archives, Available upon request  282 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field Notes from attending SRC meetings, May.-Jul. 2010 64  Brown,283 and UBCPT will take minutes for the meetings (see the Project Organization Chart in A.12. Summary of Agreements for the New SUB Project). This committee will absorb functions of both the former SRC and the AMS management committee meetings. The PMWC will “be responsible for working in conjunction with the consultant team to establish and approve floor plans, layouts, design concepts, program modifications, appropriate program adjacencies, and any issue that may arise during the development process that requires the AMS and UBC oversight and or approval.”284   UBC was comfortable giving the AMS a majority on this committee because it must reach decisions by consensus, not by voting. Where a decision cannot be reached by consensus, votes will be taken and the issue and votes will be communicated to the JOC for consideration. The AMS appreciated that they could send more reps to this committee, which allows more AMS reps to be meaningfully involved in decision- making and oversight of the project.  The presence of many UBC and AMS reps in the JOC and PMWC will undoubtedly improve the access to information and understanding of each side, regarding the other’s views on the project. Hopefully the combined experience and knowledge of the diverse reps will lead to more creative and better decision- making for the project.  Hopefully The AMS did not officially stipulate who should serve as the UBC reps for the JOC and the PMWC, other than stipulating that Rob Brown, as the UBCPT project manager for the New SUB project, should chair the PMWC. The SRC however, has considered which UBC employees they feel would be most respectful of students and the easiest to communicate and work with on the committees. The SRC will make recommendations to UBC based on these discussions, but the final decision will be that of the UBC administration and BOG.285     3.3.2. SUB Renewal Committee (New SUB Project Committee)  The SRC will, at least initially, maintain the same membership and continue meeting bi-weekly. The SRC will serve the important function of allowing a larger and more diverse group of AMS reps to become informed about project developments, and to analyse, brainstorm, problem solve, and come up with positions to present to the PMWC and JOC. The PMWC and JOC meetings will not allow much time for members to learn about and discuss project issues, so the AMS reps will be expected to come well informed and prepared with positions and ideas. Since the SRC includes both the AMS reps in the JOC and PMWC, it will also serve as an important touch point for committee members to cross-check  each other’s activities and views and make sure all the members are somewhat synchronized.286,287 The SRC will decide on the allocation of the five AMS ‘cost centers’ in general budget (see 3.6.1. Project Budget).288                                                           283 UBC AMS, “4. Project Organization”, New Student Union Building Project Charter, 26 Apr. 2010, Prep. by MHPM, p.12-13, AMS Archives, Available upon request   In other project decisions however, the SRC will not have decision-making power unless it is 284 UBC AMS, “4. Project Organization”, New Student Union Building Project Charter, 26 Apr. 2010, Prep. by MHPM, p.12-13, AMS Archives, Available upon request 285 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field Notes from attending SRC meetings, May.-Jul. 2010 286 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field Notes from attending SRC meetings, May.-Jul. 2010 287 Savard, Guillaume, Personal Interview with MHPM Interim project manager, 18 May 2010 288 UBC AMS, “2. Cost Plans”, New Student Union Building Project Charter, 26 Apr. 2010, Prep. by MHPM, p.8-9, AMS Archives, Available upon request  65  delegated to them by the JOC or PMWC. The SRC will also continue to create and oversee any student advisory committees as they are required.289    3.3.3. Design Client Committee & Design User Reps   During the design process, the architects will treat the members of the JOC, PMWC and SRC, and the design user reps – who served as program user reps during the programming stage - as the primary project clients. This primary client group will be invited to key design meetings and workshops such as:290 • The initial design charrette; charrette on sustainability; and interior design charrette;  • Review meetings during each of the three stages of design, where draft plans will be presented, and members can give comments; and  • A final presentation and official approval at the end each of the three stages of design  Additionally, the design user reps will meet with the architects to give design input on the spaces that relate to them, and do a final review and approval of those spaces. These duties will apply to each stage of the design process: concept development; design development; and construction drawings. As with the program user reps: the design user reps will be responsible for collecting input and feedback from their stakeholder groups; the design user reps will not be able to demand changes to the designs in a previous stage after they’ve given their approval; and UBCPT and the AMS will not be able to make major changes to approved designs unless they receive renewed approval from the relevant design user reps. This design user approval process is protected within the project charter (see 3.5. The Management of the Consultants and Sub-consultants).291   To see where the activities of the design client committee and design user reps fit into the overall schedule for design consultation, see the activities marked with grey in the chart in A.19. Student Engagement Process.  3.3.4. Two AMS Reps in the Integrated Design Process (IDP) and Construction Committee  It is typical for large developments, especially those expecting to achieve a high level of sustainability, to use an Integrated Design Process (IDP), where the primary project manager, architects and sub- consultants work together from the beginning to the end of the design process. A unique element of the New SUB project however, is that two AMS representatives will sit in on this IDP – possibly the MHPM Project advisor and SUB Coordinator.292                                                           289 UBC AMS, “4. Project Organization”, New Student Union Building Project Charter, 26 Apr. 2010, Prep. by MHPM, p.12-13, AMS Archives, Available upon request  If the SUB Coordinator does not participate, then another student rep will be chosen who has some expertise or experience in sustainable design so they can effectively communicate and participate in the IDP. The two AMS reps will bring their knowledge and values from working on the project within the AMS, and provide additional oversight for the PMWC, SRC and AMS Council.   290 Savard, Guillaume, Personal Interview with MHPM Interim project manager, 18 May 2010 291 UBC AMS, “1. Content Plans”, New Student Union Building Project Charter, 26 Apr. 2010, Prep. by MHPM, p.4-7, AMS Archives, Available upon request  292 UBC AMS, “4. Project Organization”, New Student Union Building Project Charter, 26 Apr. 2010, Prep. by MHPM, p.12-13, AMS Archives, Available upon request  66   Two AMS reps will also sit on the Construction committee during the construction phase of the project, though the identity of these reps has yet to be determined (see the Project Organization Chart in A.12. Summary of Agreements for the New SUB Project).293     3.4. Consultant Selection   Both the AMS and UBC wanted to have control over selecting the major consultants for the project: the primary project manager; the primary consultant (architect); and sub-consultants (i.e. engineers).294,295      3.4.1. UBC Position  UBC wanted to appoint UBC Properties Trust (UBCPT) as the primary project manager – UBCPT is a private subsidiary of UBC, which UBC formed in 1988 to manage development projects on campus.296 Since 2000, UBCPT has managed most development projects on campus,297 and during negotiations the UBC reps explained that: UBC trusts UBCPT’s ability to manage risk and complete projects on time and on budget; and before forming UBCPT, UBC had had problems with cost and time overruns with other project management consultants.298    UBC wanted to appoint HCMA/KPMB as lead architects for the project, or at least for the exterior design of the building. This was primarily because, as part of the UBoulevard project, UBC had contractually awarded this firm with monopoly over designing everything within UBoulvard.299,300 UBC was also concerned that if the AMS used a different architect, the UBoulevard area wouldn’t be complementary in terms of aesthetics and urban design. UBC also indicated that they had a policy of not working with some of the architects in the AMS’s shortlisted seven, because of problematic working relationships in previous projects at UBC.301    UBC wanted to select the sub-consultants through their own selection process administered by UBCPT, since they felt UBCPT could negotiate the best price with the most reliable firms based on previous                                                           293 UBC AMS, “4. Project Organization”, New Student Union Building Project Charter, 26 Apr. 2010, Prep. by MHPM, p.12-13, AMS Archives, Available upon request 294 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, 2008/09 academic year 295 Sullivan, Brian, “To the Editor”, 29 Mar. 2010, The UBC Admin Blog, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://blogs.ubc.ca/theadministration/files/2010/04/SUB-Renewal-Blog-and-Ubyssey-Mar-29-2010-_2_.pdf> 296 UBC, Library Archives, A Brief History of the University of British Columbia, University Archives Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www.library.ubc.ca/archives/hist_ubc.html> 297 UBCPT, Portfolio, UBCPT Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www.ubcproperties.com/portfolio_list.php?category=Location&list=Vancouver> 298 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive 299 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive 300 Tang, Colleen, “University Boulevard project under the belt of new architects”, Vol.XXIII N.2, Summer, 9 Aug. 2006, Ubyssey, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www.amandastutt.com/PDF/as_eagleridge_bluffs_article.pdf> 301 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive 67  relationships. UBC also had a policy of not working with some of the sub-consultants that appeared in the EOIs of AMS’s shortlisted architects, because of poor experiences in the past.302     3.4.2. AMS Position  The AMS was opposed to selecting either primary consultant without: an open invitation for applicants; AMS Council approval of the hiring committee members and criteria; and rigorous committee investigation of the applicants. The AMS preferred to continue the architect selection process which they began in December 2008 (see 2.8.2. Final Architect Selection), and since HCMA/KPMB had not applied to the initial shortlisting process it was not possible to admit them for the final selection stage. The AMS also preferred to select one architect for the entire building, rather than selecting one for the interior and using HCMA/KPMB for the exterior. The AMS felt the complicated coordination necessary to have two teams work together might make the project unnecessarily expensive, or hamper the green design process or the student consultation process.303     As was done in the shortlisting process, the AMS preferred to have the shortlisted architects select and negotiate the cost of their sub-consultants as part of their final proposals. The AMS was concerned that sub-consultants selected unilaterally by UBCPT might not be capable of the green design aspirations of the project, or might have poor working relationships with the chosen architect. Green design necessitates an integrated design process, where the architect and sub-consultants work together throughout the process, so healthy working relationships are essential. The AMS felt that the applicant architects: would know from prior experience which sub-consultants would be the best partners for the New SUB project; and would be motivated to negotiate reasonable fees with their sub-consultants to submit a competitive proposal for the project.304      For the primary project manager the AMS preferred to use a new open selection process (which would be open to UBCPT, as was the first selection process), or to appoint MHPM as the primary project manager since they’d already been vetted for this position during the initial selection process.305     If the primary consultants were appointed without contest (as proposed for UBCPT and HCMA/KPMB), or without AMS oversight (as proposed for the sub-consultants), the AMS felt they could not be accountable to students and ensure that the choices were the best for the project. Since neither UBCPT nor HCMA/KPMB had submitted proposals for the selection processes initiated by the AMS, the AMS had no assurance of their quality of service.306 The AMS was concerned that since UBCPT had not had to compete for its UBC projects in a competitive market,307 that their operations might not be at peak industry standard – especially in terms of how they manage risk, and report operations to their clients. The AMS also felt they had little assurance that the HCMA/KPMB team was the best choice for the New SUB project, because of the way they’d been selected for the UBoulevard project.308                                                           302 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive  The design 303 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, 2008/09 academic year 304 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, 2008/09 academic year 305 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, 2008/09 academic year 306 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, 2008/09 academic year 307 UBCPT, Profile, UBCPT Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www.ubcproperties.com/profile.php> 308 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, 2008/09 academic year 68  competition for UBoulevard in May 2005 had in fact been won by the architect team HCMA/MRY. MRY, which was responsible for much of the design of the Master Plan in the first year, left the team and was replaced by KPMB by an internal BOG decision in July 2006.309    The AMS was also concerned that appointing UBC’s choices would jeopardize the AMS’s ability to act as an informed and effective decision-maker in the project, because of the existing relationships UBC had with their chosen consultants.310 The AMS was concerned that even if the consultants were technically contracted to work for the AMS, they might still treat UBC as their primary client - sharing more information with them and deferring to them for direction.311      3.4.3. Final Agreement    In the final development agreement, UBCPT was appointed as primary project manager, but the AMS was able to select the UBCPT lead for the project, Rob Brown, a VP of UBCPT. The SRC felt that Rob: was qualified and competent to head up the project; would be a respectful of students; and would be an effective team player.312 The final agreement allowed the AMS to retain control of the architecture selection process, but gave UBCPT primary control over selection of the sub-consultants.313 UBCPT however, will take into considerations the final architect’s recommendations for the sub-consultants (see A.13. Architect Selection).314    The final agreement also allowed the AMS to retain their MHPM Interim project manager, Guillaume Savard, as a Project advisor, financed out of the project’s budget. As of July 2010, the role and fees of the Project advisor are not definite, but could include: advising the AMS team, reviewing documents provided to the AMS by UBCPT; sitting on the JOC and PMWC to assist the AMS in articulating their views; and managing the AMS’s five cost centres (see 3.6.1. Project Budget), such as changes to the program, and the implementation of student consultation.   3.5. Consultant Management   Another contentious part of negotiations was the order of command, and the management protocols between the consultants and the AMS.   Both parties wanted the primary project manager to act as primary administrator for the project, with the architect and sub-consultants sub-contracted through the primary project manager. However both UBC and the AMS wanted to act as project developer, with the primary project manager contracted to                                                           309 Tang, Colleen, “University Boulevard project under the belt of new architects”, Vol.XXIII N.2, Summer, 9 Aug. 2006, Ubyssey, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www.amandastutt.com/PDF/as_eagleridge_bluffs_article.pdf> 310 Louman-Gardiner, Tom, “Governance Part II: UBC Properties Trust”, 13 Apr. 2007, UBC Insiders, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://ubcinsiders.blogspot.com/2007/04/governance-part-ii-ubc-properties-trust.html> 311 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, 2008/09 academic year 312 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008-Jul. 2010 313 UBC AMS, “4. Project Organization”, New Student Union Building Project Charter, 26 Apr. 2010, Prep. by MHPM, p.12-13, AMS Archives, Available upon request 314 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, May-Jul. 2010 69  their side directly. UBC would only allow the primary project manager to be contracted to the AMS if the AMS agreed to a long list of contractual responsibilities, but the AMS didn’t want to accept contractual responsibilities if it didn’t come with meaningful power - the AMS was concerned that due to the pre- existing relationship between UBC and UBCPT, that the AMS might not be able to exert meaningful power over UBCPT’s actions.315   In the end, the AMS agreed to have UBCPT be contracted directly to UBC, with UBC assuming the power and responsibilities of project developer. MHPM will be contracted directly to the AMS as Project advisor.   As the AMS’s Interim project manager, MHPM prepared a detailed project charter for UBCPT’s contract, which sets minimum standards for UBCPT’s operations, procedures, recording and reporting practices, and production of detailed project plans. The charter covers the typical areas of responsibility for a project manager, and the plans included are:316 • Content Plan: concerning the general deliverables expected of UBCPT, and the user approval process (see 3.3.3. Design Client Committee & Design User Reps)    • Cost Plan: concerning financing and cost parameters and procedures  • Time Plan: concerning the schedule and scheduling • Project Organization: concerning the governance and management structure and procedures, and the change management process (see 3.5.1.) • Communication Plan: concerning standards and procedures for communication • Quality Management Plan: concerning expectations for quality management  • Procurement Management Plan: concerning the selection of consultants and other third-parties • Risk Management Plan: concerning expectations for risk management • Commissioning & Initial Operations Plan: concerning planning for LEED certification, and the AMS’s take-over and move in to the new SUB    If UBCPT has major failures in fulfilling their contractual duties, the AMS can pursue mediation and arbitration, and in a worst case scenario they could terminate UBCPT’s contract. These methods however, would always be a last resort for the AMS.317 The AMS’s preferred approach is to work with the UBCPT reps on the JOC and PMW, and build relationships with other UBCPT team members, to encourage adherence to the charter guidelines and develop satisfactory solutions for both parties.318    3.5.1. Change Management    Many changes to the scope and details of the New SUB project will occur during the design and construction stages – this is typical of any development project. These changes are typically documented, reviewed and approved by the architect, construction manager and project manager, but not necessarily the client (the AMS, in this case).319                                                           315 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, May-Jul. 2010  To ensure these changes are accountable and transparent to the AMS, the New SUB project charter requires UBCPT to implement a change 316 UBC AMS, New Student Union Building Project Charter, 26 Apr. 2010, Prep. by MHPM, AMS Archives, Available upon request 317 Sarvard, Guillaume, Personal Interview 318 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, May-Jul. 2010 319 Sarvard, Guillaume, Personal Interview 70  management process, to at least the minimum standard outlined in the charter (see A.20. Change Management Process).   During the construction stage it is typical for many small changes to be made to costs and designs, for instance last-minute changes to the types of construction materials being purchased.320 All of these changes are documented in ‘change orders’ and entered into a ‘change log’. The JOC will not have the power to approve these small changes – since decisions on these smaller changes often have to be made quickly, sign-off power is impractical, and monthly approval would be only ceremonial.321   The charter states however that the AMS should receive a copy of all the change orders and the change log at least monthly, so that they can review these changes.  Change orders are sometimes preceded by formal ‘requests for information’ made by one of the primary consultants in the project, which can influence their decision to make changes. The charter states that when a request for information form is submitted, this form should be circulated to the architect, construction manager, and UBCPT project manager so that all the primary consultants are given warning of potential changes. If this process leads to a ‘potential change order’ form being originated, then the charter states that this should be documented in the change log, and that the AMS should also receive a copy of these forms at least monthly.   Less frequently in the project ‘change requests’ will be made by one of the primary consultants in the project, and will require approval. Change requests generally regard decisions with greater cost ramifications, or that could fundamentally impact the scope of the program or the functionality of the building for the user. These change requests are generally made months before the actual change could take place. The charter states that the AMS should receive copies of these ‘change requests’ when they are originated, so that the AMS can meaningfully monitor, and dialogue with project consultants about, these larger changes. The charter suggests that request forms should require (see A.21. Change Request Form): • the originator to include the details of the change and give justification;  • the architect, construction manager, and UBCPT to sign-off on the form and include a recommendation for whether or not the change should be made; and • the AMS’s final approval before the change is allowed   While UBCPT’s change management process will likely differ somewhat from the charter’s suggestions, UBCPT must submit a detailed plan for the process within one month of beginning their mandate.322      3.6. Other Agreements Affecting Governance  3.6.1. Project Budget                                                            320 Sarvard, Guillaume, Personal Interview 321 Sarvard, Guillaume, Personal Interview 322 UBC AMS, “6. Quality Management Plan”, New Student Union Building Project Charter, 26 Apr. 2010, Prep. by MHPM, p.15, AMS Archives, Available upon request 71  In negotiations AMS and UBC compared their estimated budgets for the project and compromised to agree on a general budget for the project. The JOC will oversee expenditures and approve any changes to the budget.323    The budget affects the governance and management of the project since it restricts the amount of money that the PMWC and JOC can allocate to each part of the project – such as consultants, construction, and consultation. The AMS agreed to contribute about $80 million towards the capital costs of the project, and UBC agreed to contribute about $25 million, making the total project capital budget about $103 million. Within the $103 million general budget, the AMS does have sole responsibility for allocating five cost centers, which account for $8.5 million of the total budget (see A.22. Budget Cost Plan). These cost centres:  • Equipment & interior signage: which includes furniture but not computer equipment • AMS specialty consultants: such as legal advisors, and food retail consultants • The student engagement process: including the communication plan, SUB Coordinator and MHPM advising services • The moving plan: including necessary consultants, movers and communications • The AMS General Allowance: which can be used at the AMS’s discretion and is an important reserve for the AMS to influence the project324 o It could be used for public art, loading bays, to supplement the fees of an expensive but desired consultant, or to supplement cost overruns in one of the other four AMS cost centers    The AMS must submit their budgets for each of the cost centers to the JOC, and must seek approval from the JOC if they wish to increase the budget allowed for any cost center.325 The allocation of the AMS cost centers will likely be largely determined by the SRC.326     3.6.2. Design, Program & Management of the New SUB   UBC’s University Boulevard Design Guidelines dictate the general siting, form, massing of the new SUB which impacts on the freedom of the design process. When negotiating the urban guidelines for the new SUB, UBC pushed for a small building footprint that would have largely dictated the shape of the building. In the final agreement, the AMS was successful in securing a larger building footprint within which the architects can design and site the building. The AMS accepted other restriction however, such as agreeing that two covered - but not necessarily enclosed - walkways would crosscut the new SUB to allow continuous north-south views and pathways – one along the west sides of the current and new SUB, and another through the current SUB’s concourse and along the east side of the new SUB.327   For diagrams of the agreed siting, form and massing of the new SUB, see appendices A.23. University Boulevard Siting Map, and A.24. University Boulevard Massing.                                                            323 Sarvard, Guillaume, Personal Interview 324 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, May-Jul. 2010 325 UBC AMS, “2. Cost Plans”, New Student Union Building Project Charter, 26 Apr. 2010, Prep. by MHPM, p.8-9, AMS Archives, Available upon request 326 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, May-Jul. 2010 327 Personal Interview with an AMS negotiations rep who served in 2010 72  Outside of the new SUB’s building edge, the lease dictates that the AMS will be able to use and manage bookings in 7,000 ft2 of outdoor space on the west side of the building, and 3,000 ft2 on the north-east side of the building328 - the AMS manages 13,600 ft2 of outdoor space outside the current SUB.329 The AMS will only be able to put temporary structures in these outdoor areas, and UBC will be primarily responsible for designing, constructing, renovating and maintaining these spaces. The Aquatic Center is currently located on the New SUB’s east side, but if this building is demolished in the future, then the AMS can redistribute their allotted 3,000 ft2 on the north-east side of the building, along the rest of the east side.330,331   The AMS will hire a landscape architect to design the outdoor space within a 6m buffer of the edge of the building – they will likely use the same architect being used for the USquare’s landscape design, to ensure seamless and complementary design of the outdoor space.332 Mike Duncan – AMS President in 2008/09 and UBC Alumni employee as of July 2010 – also began organizing a ‘USquare Activity Planning committee’ in summer of 2010. This committee will hopefully allow reps from UBC, UBC REC (the Athletics & Recreation Department), C+CP, the AMS, and any other organizations that face on to USquare, to: plan for annual uses and activity programming in USquare; and prepare for collective management of USquare in a new committee once construction is completed.333    The lease limits the new SUB’s program by only permitting two licensed venues. One of the venues must be located in the basement level, and neither of these venues can open on to USquare on the ground level, nor be visible from USquare334 – it is possible that a venue could be located on the west side of the building on an upper level, if it was sufficiently set back and not visible from USquare.335 These restrictions were necessary because UBC signed a contract with Mahoney & Sons giving them monopoly over serving liquor in the UBoulevard area.336    UBC wanted to use a typical commercial lease for the entire building, which would have given the owner, UBC, quite a bit of latitude to: evict tenants if they did not follow strict practices outlined in the lease; and control the activity in the public ‘common’ areas of the building according to strict standards. This would have severely curtailed the AMS’s ability to control and manage the spaces in and around the New SUB. In the final agreement, the commercial lease standards only apply to commercial spaces in the new SUB, while more lax standards apply to the non-commercial spaces in the building, which accounts for the majority of the space. The entire building will be managed by the AMS.337                                                           328 UBC AMS, “7.5: Plaza and Outdoor Area”, Lease Agreement, 28 Apr. 2010, p.23, UBC AMS, AMS archives, available upon request   329 Savard, Guillaume, Personal Interview with MHPM Interim project manager, 18 May 2010 330 UBC AMS, “7.5: Plaza and Outdoor Area”, Lease Agreement, 28 Apr. 2010, p.23, UBC AMS, AMS archives, available upon request 331 Savard, Guillaume, Personal Interview with MHPM Interim project manager, 18 May 2010 332 Personal Interview with an AMS executive 333 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, May-Jul. 2010 334 UBC AMS, “Schedule 4: Restricted Commercial Activities [Section 4.5(a)]”, Lease Agreement, 28 Apr. 2010, p.3- 4, AMS archives, available upon request 335 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, May-Jul. 2010 336 Mann, Arshy, “AMS, UBC finalize new SUB agreement, $103 million building to be completed by September 2014”, 30 Apr. 2010, Ubyssey, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://ubyssey.ca/news/ams-ubc-finalize-new-sub-agreement> 337 Two Personal Interviews with AMS negotiations reps who served in 2010 73   According to the Surrender Agreement, the AMS can keep up to 24,000 ft2 in the current SUB for AMS uses for up to 8 years, after which, UBC can moves these uses if they:  “make best commercial efforts to provide functionally comparable alternative space on campus for the specific AMS activities that need to be moved (e.g. Film Society’s Norm Theatre, Photography Club, Pottery Club, etc) at no additional cost to the AMS”.338   Also, UBC is warranting the building for the first year after it is built. According to the development agreement:  “UBC hereby guarantees and warrants the entire Building (and each part thereof) against defective design, workmanship, and materials, latent or otherwise, for a period of each part of the Building of one (1) year from the date of Substantial Completion of the Building (the “Warranty Period”), and UBC agrees, at its sole cost and expense, to repair or replace any defective item occasioned by defective design, workmanship or materials during the Warranty Period.”339    3.6.3. Public Private Partnerships   In the spring of 2008, Partnerships BC, a department of the BC province, began to investigate whether the New SUB Project should be a public private partnership (P3). This investigation occurs for most public projects with a budget over a certain monetary amount, though most projects being carried out by UBCPT for UBC do not undergo the investigation. If the New SUB project had become a P3, then the AMS would have had to prepare documents detailing the requirements of the project, and much of the process would have been contracted out to a private project management firm – their duties could have included raising finances, selecting consultants, managing the development process, and potentially even maintaining the building after its construction.340    Many AMS Councillors felt that this would prevent the AMS from participating meaningfully in the governance and management of project, and so in July 2008, AMS Council passed a motion which stated: “BE IT RESOLVED THAT should the SUB Renewal project be required by Partnerships BC to become a Public Private Partnership with a private third party other than the AMS, AMS Council will not approve the expenditure of any further fees toward the project.”341   In fall of 2008, Partnerships BC’s preliminary investigation found that the New SUB Project should be considered for a P3. UBC reps involved in the negotiation process, assisted the AMS in reviewing and commenting on Partnership BC’s preliminary report, which changed the report’s ‘rating’ of the New SUB project, and decreased the likelihood of further investigation. However, the AMS was still concerned that Partnerships BC would request a full investigation. UBC reps involved in the negotiation process,                                                           338 UBC AMS, “5.0 Right to Retain Space in the Existing SUB”, Surrender and Termination Agreement with a Right to Retain Space in the Existing Building, 27 Apr. 2010, p.4-6, AMS archives, available upon request 339 UBC AMS, “4.8: Warranty Period”, AMS Development Agreement (New SUB), p.8, 27 Apr. 2010, AMS archives, available upon request 340 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, 2008/09 academic year 341 UBC AMS, “Student Council Minutes”, 30 Jul. 2008, p.20, UBC AMS: Student Government: AMS Student Council Website, 6 Jul. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/uploads/government/July_30,_2008_minutes.pdf> 74  however, indicated that if the AMS and UBC could come to an internal agreement about the governance and management of the project, then UBC could assist the AMS in preventing the New SUB project from becoming a P3.342,343   When the AMS signed the agreements with UBC in May 2010, they were still awaiting confirmation from the Province of BC that the project did not need to become a P3 (see A.12. Summary of Agreements for the New SUB Project).   3.7. Conclusion of Part III  In this section, I judge whether the negotiated governance and management structure of the New SUB project is, or is not, student-driven. In three tables I consider:   • Accountability & Transparency: Are the actions of those with decision-making power in the negotiated structure transparent and can they be held accountable by the student-body? How so?  • Broad Decision-Making: Are a large number and variety of students involved in decision-making in the negotiated structure? How so?  • Meaningful Decision-Making: Do students play a meaningful role in developing and making decisions in the project in the negotiated structure? How so?   The analysis tables also include recommendations for strategies that the AMS could use to make the New SUB project more student-driven in its later stages, in the context of the new negotiated structure. These recommendations could also be applicable to organizations in a context similar to that of the AMS. In the discussion section after each table I will summarize the analysis, and explore some of the reasons why different aspects of negotiated project structure made the project more, or less, student- driven. I will not repeat analysis or discussion from Part I: Initial Governance & Management Structure where the processes have not been changed by negotiations.   Accountability & Transparency  Student-driven Non-student-driven 3. 3.  D ec is io n- M ak in g Co m m it te es  3 All key joint decision-making committees in the project – the JOC, PMWC, IDP, Design Client committee, and Construction committee - have at least two AMS reps, to provide transparency and accountability in the process. The AMS reps on the joint committees will present bi-weekly to AMS Council. The fact that the two primary decision- making committees - the JOC and PMWC - each have 4 UBC reps, should increase transparency for the AMS, regarding UBC’s views and actions relevant to the project.  The fact that the two primary decision- making committees - the JOC and PMWC - each have 4 UBC reps, and must make decisions by consensus, does make the new structure less accountable to students, who cannot easily access or demand recourse against the UBC reps.                                                            342 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive 343 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, 2008/09 academic year 75  R : N ew  SU B  To maximize transparency for students, the AMS reps on the various committees should advocate for the benefits of sharing information, and work with their committee members to define boundaries for what information can and will be shared within the AMS, or with the larger student body.  3. 4.  Co ns ul ta nt  Se le ct io n 3 The AMS was able to select the architect, lead project manager - Rob Brown - and Project advisor. UBCPT will take into consideration the recommendations of the final architect when selecting the sub-consultants. UBC selected the primary project manager, UBCPT, and UBCPT will select the sub-consultants. 3. 5.  C on su lt an t M an ag em en t  4 As primary contract-holder, UBC is primarily accountable for the development and execution of the New SUB project, and their responsibilities are outlined in the four agreements. The project charter included in UBCPT’s contract set a minimum standard for their transparency and accountability to the AMS, through the clauses regarding: recording and reporting to the AMS; and the user approval and change management processes.  Since the AMS is not the primary developer for the project, they might lose some accountability in the process by not being the primary contract holder of the consultants.  3. 6.  O th er  A gr ee m en ts  A ff ec ti ng  th e Pr oj ec t 3 The AMS can also hold UBC accountable for faulty design, materials or equipment, under the one year building warranty. The AMS Council helped to ensure an accountable process by passing a motion that the project could not become a P3.   The decisions regarding relocation of AMS uses left in the current SUB will not be accountable to students, since UBC is responsible for determining when and how these uses should be relocated. R : N ew  SU B  To increase transparency, and perhaps accountability, of the relocation of AMS uses left in the current SUB, the AMS should be prepared to form a joint committee with UBC as early as possible, to share information and ideas regarding relocation of uses.  The negotiated structure for the New SUB project is less directly accountable to students than what was initially practiced by the AMS. However, the AMS was able to include contracts, protocols, and personnel in the new structure that should indirectly enhance transparency and accountability for students in the joint committees, and in the AMS’s relationships with the project consultants – this was especially important for consultants not vetted and selected by the AMS. The wording of the surrender agreement doesn’t gives specifics of the extent to which UBC is accountable for replacing AMS uses left in the current SUB, and since UBC is fully responsible for the relocation of uses, the process could give students little practical accountability as well.      Broad Decision-Making  Student-driven Non-student-driven 3. 3.  D ec is io n- M ak in g Co m m it te es  3  The negotiated decision-making committee structure does not increase or decrease the number or diversity of students involved in decision-making. 76  3. 4.  Co ns ul ta nt  Se le ct io n 5 Since the AMS was able to dictate the selection process for the architects, they were able to use a student-wide vote to contribute to the selection process.  3. 5.  Co ns ul ta nt  M an ag em en t  3  The negotiated consultant management process does not increase or decrease the number or diversity of students involved in decision-making. 3. 6.  O th er  A gr ee m en ts  A ff ec ti ng  t he  Pr oj ec t 3 In later stages of project, the AMS can unilaterally decide to use student-wide votes to contribute to project decisions- making as long as the votes only impact on the AMS’s five cost centres.   If the AMS wants to use student-wide votes to contribute to project decisions that impact on areas other than the AMS’s five cost centres, then the AMS will have to approve the use of student- wide voting in the PMWC and JOC. R : N ew  S U B  Since allocating the AMS’s five cost centres is primarily the responsibility of the AMS, the AMS has more ability to use student-wide votes to help determine their strategies and decisions concerning these five cost centres. In later stages of the project, the AMS could perhaps use a student-wide vote to help decide how to use the general allowance in the budget.  The negotiated structure for the New SUB project did not provide new opportunities for broad student decision-making in the project, but it also did not pre-emptively restrict broad student decision-making. The negotiated structure did allow the AMS to continue their plan to use a student-wide vote for the architect selection process. In future, the AMS will need to seek approval from the JOC and PMWC if they want to use a student-wide vote to contribute to project decision-making, unless the vote only concerns the AMS’s five cost centres.    Meaningful Decision-Making  Student-driven Non-student-driven 3. 3.  D ec is io n- M ak in g Co m m it te es  4 The additional knowledge and experience of the UBC reps on the joint committees might allow more complex discussions and effective decision-making than was possible in the AMS committees.  R : N ew  S U B  To take maximum advantage of the joint decision-making committees, the AMS must make sure that the SRC, user reps, and student advisory committees (see 4.7. Advisory Committees) carry out adequate research, review, discussion and planning to present legitimate, clear, and persuasive ideas and positions at the PMWC, JOC, IDP, Design Client committee, and Construction committee. If the AMS selects a student not employed by the AMS to sit on the IDP process, they should be paid a stipend to encourage and help them to commit the time necessary to do the job competently.   77   In general, the negotiated project structure re-organized, but didn’t diminish, meaningful student decision-making in the New SUB project. The new committee structure might in fact increase the meaningful decision-making power of students, because of the value of having various UBC reps on the committees.   While the AMS was not able to rigorously select the primary project manager, they were able to exert meaningful decision-making power by selecting several critical project consultants - the final architect, Project advisor, and lead project manager. By selecting these consultants based on their ability and 3. 4.  C on su lt an t Se le ct io n 3 The AMS was able to use a rigorous AMS hiring committee to select the final architect, and since they were chosen, in part, based on their ability and desire to work collaboratively with students, this should enhance meaningful student decision-making during the design process. By selecting UBCPT’s lead project manager, Rob Brown, the AMS was able to select someone that they felt would be able to work collaboratively with students. Having MHPM stay on as Project advisor will allow the AMS to oversee and collaborate on the project more effectively. The AMS was not able use a rigorous selection committee to select the project manager. As a result, the AMS is unsure of UBCPT’s ability or desire to work with students during the project, which could impact negatively on meaningful student decision-making in the future project.  3. 5.  C on su lt an t M an ag em en t  5 The project charter included in UBCPT’s contract requires them to regularly communicate and share internal documents with the AMS, which will give the AMS the detailed information and early notice necessary for them to meaningfully contribute to decision-making and problem-solving in the project.   R : N ew  SU B  The AMS should focus on forming strong relationships with the UBCPT employees working on the new SUB project, to encourage good communication and teamwork.  3. 6.  O th er  A gr ee m en ts  A ff ec ti ng  t he  P ro je ct  4 The meaningful decision-making power of students in the project is safeguarded by the AMS’s:  • power to allocate the AMS’s five cost centres;  • freedom to design within a large building footprint; • power to designate 10,000 ft2 of bookable space outside the building; • power to choose which uses should stay in the current SUB; • power and responsibility to manage the New SUB; and  • avoidance of the New SUB project becoming a P3 Also the USquare Activity Planning committee will hopefully give the AMS more information about, and influence over, the programming and management of the outdoor space adjacent to the new SUB in USquare. The meaningful decision- making power of students in the project is limited by: the inability of the AMS to design outdoor space outside of the 6m building buffer; the requirements for north-south pathways through the New SUB’s building footprint; and the restrictions on liquor venues.  R : N ew  S U B  The AMS should support and advocate for the formation of the USquare Activity Planning committee, as early as possible. The AMS should also find out the end-date and exact terms of the Mahoney & Sons monopoly agreement, so that the AMS can work with UBC to renegotiate these terms so as to allow the AMS to move a liquor venue on to USquare after the current agreement expires - if this is possible then the AMS could develop a long term plan to move a liquor venue on to USquare.  78  desire to work collaboratively with students, the AMS also safeguard their future ability to meaningfully contribute to the project. The meaningful collaboration of the AMS was also safeguarded by the detailed protocols and terms that were included in the consultant contracts and the project agreements.   A number of other agreements granted and limited the AMS’s rights in terms of budget allocation, and design and management of the new building. Many of the restrictions concern how the new SUB should interconnect with surrounding spaces, and how the AMS should interact with surrounding uses.   After three years of project experience the AMS is ready to competently represent student interests within the new project structure, which will include many UBC reps and industry professionals.  These three years of experience have allowed the AMS to: • Develop successful committee structures and protocols to manage internal AMS discussion and decision-making by the AMS Council, SRC and advisory committees; • Become confident in selecting, and working and communicating with consultants;  • Prepare the terms and protocols included in the consultant contracts and project agreements which safeguarded accountability, transparency, and decision-making for students; and  • Develop important student positions like the SUB Coordinator, which have justification to continue in the project after several years of successful results These skills, protocols and personnel will be critical to the AMS effectively contributing to complex discussions and decision-making in the negotiated governance and management structure.    79  80  4. Part IV: Consultation     4.1. Introduction   Note: When ‘the AMS’ is referred to as an active entity implemented in the consultation process in Part Three, it refers most specifically to the SUB Coordinator, VP Admin and SUB Renewal Committee (SRC) - who were the driving forces behind consultation planning, implementation and decision-making - but it also refers to the AMS Council who were generally aware and supportive of consultation activities. The use of the term ‘AMS’ is not meant to imply that: the views of the student-body, AMS government, or AMS Council, were homogenous; or that the views and actions of the SUB Coordinator, VP Admin and SRC were perfectly representative of, or communicated to, AMS Council (for further details on the relationship between AMS Council and the SRC, see 2.4. AMS Council, and 2.7.1. SUB Renewal Committee & Project Management Committee).   The New SUB’s consultation process provides an important precedent for involving a large and diverse ‘client group’ in the design of a complex and ambitious building. The first three years of the New SUB consultation process provided unique challenges and opportunities for the AMS because: • It had to draw from a student population of 45,000 that was annually changing and two-thirds commuting,344 • While few students are professionals, they are becoming experts in their respective disciplines, and have access to cutting edge information;  and from other UBC community members; • The building must meet a high standard of green design (LEED Platinum or equivalent) (see A.12. Summary of Agreements for the New SUB Project); and  • The building must meet the needs of current users, current non-users that the AMS would like to serve better in the new building, and future students whose needs are difficult to anticipate  Because of the pre-existing structures and protocols of the AMS, the consultation process developed and carried out by the AMS was assured of being reasonably accountable and transparent. However the AMS had no protocols or policies that dictated which consultation methods and tools should be used.345   The consultation process developed for the New SUB project depended heavily on precedents from consultation processes carried out recently on campus, and on the experience, knowledge, skills and values of the AMS reps and consultants that became involved in the project. Oversight of the consultation process in the first three years of the project was the responsibility of the SRC since it was formed in spring of 2007. This is important since the SRC is chaired by the VP Admin, and every VP Admin elected since 2007 has run on a platform promising student involvement in the New SUB project (see 2.6. AMS Executives & SUB Coordinator). The SRC largely delegated consultation coordination and implementation to the renovation consultant in 2007/08, and to the SUB Coordinator in 2008/09 and 2009/10. Since the SUB Coordinator was hired the AMS and SRC have played a much stronger role in developing standards and an overall plan for student consultation, implementing consultation, and ensuring that the outcomes and results of consultation are adequately analysed and considered.346                                                           344 UBC, UBC: Youbc: Commuter Students, 28 Jul. 2010, <https://you.ubc.ca/ubc/vancouver/commuter.ezc>   345 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 – Jul. 2009 346 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 – Jul. 2009 81   The SUB Coordinator will report and seek budget approval from the Project Management Working Committee (PMWC) after it forms in August 2010. However, the primary responsibility for overseeing the consultation process and the work of the SUB Coordinator will largely remain with the SRC, since the budget for these activities falls within the five ‘cost centers’ for which the AMS has sole responsibility (see 3.6.1. Project Budget).    In analyzing whether the New SUB consultation process was student-driven, I first discuss how the context of other consultation processes on campus has influenced the AMS’s process: the UBC Vancouver Campus Plan; the UBC Farm workshop; and the Fairview Square workshops. I then outline and analyze major aspects of the New SUB’s consultation process, including:  4.3.    Preliminary Needs Assessment 4.4.    Comprehensive Consultation Planning & SUB Coordinator 4.5.    Principles for Participatory Planning 4.6.    Goals for the New SUB 4.7.    Media & Communications 4.8.    Advisory Committees 4.9.    Draft Program Consultation 4.10. Final Program Consultation 4.11. SUB Curriculum Initiative 4.12. Student-Wide Architect Vote  4.13. Design Consultation 4.14. Construction & Operation   Lastly I conclude with a summary analysis of what made the first three years of consultation student- driven and not student-driven, and recommendations for how future stages of the New SUB project could be more student-driven, and or a different project in similar situations could be more student- driven than was the New SUB project.    4.2. Context   Other consultation processes which happened at UBC previous or simultaneous to the New SUB project, influenced the direction of the New SUB project by creating expectations and preconceptions in the minds of students for what the AMS’s consultation could or should be like.    4.2.1. The UBC Vancouver Campus Plan  In fall of 2005 UBC’s Campus + Community Planning(C+CP) Department began developing a new UBC Vancouver Campus Plan.347 The last comprehensive plan had been completed in 1992.348                                                           347 UBC, C+CP, Program Overview – Key Components, Campus Plan Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www.campusplan.ubc.ca/process/index.php#p1>  In the first 348 UBC, C+CP, UBC Vancouver, C+CP: Plans + Policies: Campus Planning Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www.planning.ubc.ca/plans_and_policies/campus_planning/ubc_vancouver.php> 82  three phases, from fall of 2005 to spring of 2007, the C+CP carried out: many technical studies; focus groups with invited reps from different campus groups; public open houses and presentations with opportunities for discussion and feedback; and several short online questionnaires.349,350 60% of those who sent online feedback in phase three were students and of the 280 online comments received by C+CP, 105 stressed the need to preserve the UBC Farm – the next most common topic was mentioned in only 35 comments.351    In March 2008 C+CP carried out several large design workshops where students, faculty, UBC employees and design professionals worked in mixed groups to propose plans for the campus.352 Each workshop began with a presentation detailing specific requirements and constraints for the plan, such as budget, green-space, and facility space. With the help of an information binder each group drew a land use plan that met the requirements, and then presented their plan to the entire group.353 At a charrette later on, a smaller group of design professionals condensed these plans into three possible outcomes for the campus: distributed single uses in ‘Traditional Campus’; distributed mixed uses in ‘Villages in Precincts’; and centralized mixed uses in ‘Campus Crossroads’. In the fourth planning phase in fall of 2008 these three options were presented in a booklet with a questionnaire section, and the public could attend presentation and discussion sessions or give feedback online.354    Throughout the Campus Plan process, C+CP received feedback from a steering committee355 and technical advisory committee356,357   about once a term – each committee had an AMS and Graduate Student Society (GSS) rep. The detailed results of each planning phase were also posted online, except for the design workshops and charrette which occurred in spring of 2008. In the spring and fall of 2008, many students and other UBC community members came forward with criticisms of the Camus Plan process. In particular, many were concerned that: the direction of the Plan                                                           349 UBC, C+CP, A Workshop on the Scope and Process for Reviewing UBC Vancouver’s Campus Plan, 18 Nov. 2005, Campus Plan: Program Overview – Key Components Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://campusplan.ubc.ca/docs/pdf/2005_Nov03_Workshop_Notes_Compilation.pdf> 350 UBC, C+CP, UBC Vancouver Campus Plan Review: Phase 2 Ideas & Issues: Consultation Summary Report, Jan. 2007, Campus Plan: Program Overview – Key Components Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://campusplan.ubc.ca/docs/pdf/Phase_2_Consultation_Summary_Report_January_2007.pdf> 351 UBC, C+CP, UBC-Vancouver Campus Plan Review: Phase 3 - Talking About the Future: Consultation Summary Report, 30 Apr. 2007, Campus Plan: Program Overview – Key Components Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://campusplan.ubc.ca/docs/pdf/Phase3_Consultation_Summary_Report_May07.pdf> 352 UBC, C+CP, UBC Vancouver Campus Plan Review: Phase 4 - Three Design Options: Consultation Summary Report, 30 Jan. 2009, Campus Plan: Program Overview – Key Components Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://campusplan.ubc.ca/docs/pdf/Ph4_ConsSumReport_Jan30-09.pdf> 353 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field Notes from attending Vancouver Campus Plan Design Workshop, Mar. 2008 354 UBC, C+CP, UBC Vancouver Campus Plan: Phase 4 - Options Review: Consultation Discussion Guide and Feedback Form, Oct. 2008, Campus Plan: Program Overview – Key Components Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://campusplan.ubc.ca/docs/pdf/Ph4_Discussion_Guide_Oct08.pdf> 355 UBC, C+CP, Steering Committee, Campus Plan: Contact Us Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://campusplan.ubc.ca/team/steering_committee/index.php> 356 UBC, C+CP, Technical Advisory Committee, Campus Plan: Contact Us Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://campusplan.ubc.ca/team/technical_advisory_committee/index.php> 357 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field Notes from sitting on the Vancouver Campus Plan Technical Advisory Committee, 2008/09 academic year 83  had been overly determined by technical studies; consultation had been too ‘controlled’ to allow creative input; the detailed results of the design workshops and charrette had not been made public;358 none of the three options, presented in Phase Four, preserved the entire 24 ha area of the UBC Farm and its forest buffer; and the sprawling ‘distributed single uses’ option contradicted the strong consultation support for sustainable development.359,360,361 Students and other community members sent a strong and clear message of displeasure in C+CP presentations and feedback booklets, and many more were mobilized outside of the planning process in activism activities in support of the UBC Farm.362 UBC responded by announcing in spring of 2009 that they would preserve the 24 ha UBC Farm area for academic use only.363   Since these concerns dominated the debate and discussions in Phase Four of the Campus Plan process, many other aspects of the Plan failed to receive adequate attention.   Impact on the New SUB Project  Many UBC students became disillusioned with consultation in general because of the Campus Plan process. Those responsible for overseeing the AMS’s New SUB consultation were committed to not repeating the mistakes of the Campus Plan process, and developing a consultation process that would win back the trust of students. One lesson that the AMS took from the Campus Plan process was the importance of posting all consultation results online, so that students would know that their input had at least been considered and how it had contributed to later planning documents. The AMS learned that they should regularly seek student criticism and suggestions when developing planning processes and materials to help spot and resolve problems – meeting with advisory committees about once a term was not sufficient for this.364   The AMS also learned that students might be happier with the overall direction of the process if broad consultation was used at the beginning to expand the possibilities of the process and give direction to the technical research, rather than allowing technical research at the beginning to dictate the process. Finally the AMS learned the importance of providing open and creative consultation forums where participants could impact on plans in a more creative and meaningful way.  4.2.2. The UBC Farm Workshop  In November 2008,volunteers from Friends of the Farm – an organization which organizes and implement fundraising and other events for the UBC Farm - in partnership with the design firm Co-                                                           358 UBC, C+CP, UBC Vancouver Campus Plan Review: Phase 4 - Three Design Options: Consultation Summary Report, 30 Jan. 2009, Campus Plan: Program Overview – Key Components Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://campusplan.ubc.ca/docs/pdf/Ph4_ConsSumReport_Jan30-09.pdf> 359 SDS, “Campus planning: a shit sandwich: UBC’s consultation features a variety of unsavoury options”, 30 Sep. 2008, The Ubyssey, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://ubyssey.ca/archive/2008.09.30/20080930%20page%2015.pdf> 360 Kreitzman, Maayan, “Consultation or lip service?”, 30 Sep. 2008, The Ubyssey, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://ubyssey.ca/archive/2008.09.30/20080930%20page%2015.pdf>   361 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field Notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 362 Ferrari-Nunes, Rodrigo, “Student Power and the UBC Farm”, 2 Jan 2010, UBC Student Media, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://ubcstudentmedia.wordpress.com/2010/01/02/student-power-and-the-ubc-farm/> 363 UBC, “New UBC Farm Sign Unveiled at Preservation Ceremony”, 8 Apr. 2009, UBC Reports, 28 Jun. 2010,  <http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/media/releases/2009/mr-09-farm.html> 364 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field Notes from sitting on the Vancouver Campus Plan Technical Advisory Committee, 2008/09 academic year 84  Design, ran a one-day design workshop to generate ideas for the future uses of the UBC Farm.365 This day was attended by about 100 participants and 30 facilitators (artists, note-takers, and speakers) – with many participants also acting as volunteers for the event. The workshop began with presentations and a short film on the farm, after which attendees collectively discussed ‘a day in the future life of the farm’ to generate ideas for future uses. The facilitators split these ideas into general theme groups, and then the large attendee group split into 10 groups of 10-15 members, each devoted to a different theme. Each smaller group discussed their theme while a note-taker recorded their ideas and an artist visually represented those ideas. At the end of the day all the drawings and notes were displayed so that participants could peruse and indicate how much they liked the ideas presented using a point system. This design workshop was very popular with the participants, who were proud of their results.366 After the workshop Co-Design prepared a summary of the day's events and results for the UBC Farm’s records. These records were used in spring and summer of 2009 to inform the South Campus Academic Plan for the Farm.367   Conclusion Analysis   The UBC Farm workshop provided an important example to UBC students and the AMS for how a large and diverse number of students could be successfully involved in a planning workshop for a public and learning space. The use of scoring on the day to help judge the merit of the different ideas, and the creation of a summary report, provided accountability and transparency in the process. It was also appropriate that this expansive and creative workshop came before the academic planning process for the farm that began in the spring of 2008.   4.2.3. The Fairview Square Workshops   UBC’s Office of the Architect, within C+CP, carried out a series of public design workshops on Fairview Square over several months in fall of 2008. The ideas discussed at the first workshop were general and value-driven and the following workshops were more specific about the qualities of the space.368 At each new workshop the architect’s team presented their analysis of the last workshop and new ideas to make sure they had understood the student input and were heading in the right direction.369                                                           365 Pikersgill, Mark, “A vision for the UBC Farm”, 10 Dec. 2008, Regarding Place, <http://regardingplace.com/?p=2581>  Since the process took place in one school term the same students could come back at each workshop to verify that the designs were on the right track, and build on the experience they’d gained in the previous workshops. These workshops were well-received by students, who felt their input had been taken 366 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field Notes from attending the UBC Farm Workshop, Nov. 2008 367 UBC, Cultivating Place: An Academic Plan for Applied Sustainability on South Campus and Beyond, Dec. 2009, Prep. South Campus Academic Planning Committee, UBC Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www.landfood.ubc.ca/cultivatingplace/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Cultivating-Place- v28.pdf> 368 UBC, Office of the Architect, Fairview Square Workshop 1: Summary and Results, 14 Oct. 2008, C+CP: Plans + Policies: Forms + Documents: Documents: Campus Projects: Fairview Square Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://planning.ubc.smallboxsoftware.net/smallbox4/file.php?sb4aba59d282dff> 369 UBC, Office of the Architect, Fairview Square Workshop 4 - Agenda DRAFT, 4 Dec. 2008, C+CP Website, <http://planning.ubc.smallboxsoftware.net/smallbox4/file.php?sb4aba5a91b871d> 85  seriously. The Architect’s Office also posted all of the workshop results and summaries in the ‘documents’ database of the C+CP website.370,371    Conclusions   These workshops provided an important example to the AMS for how students could be meaningfully involved in the design process for a public space. It also showed the value of repeat participants, since these participants could verify past consultation analysis and ‘next steps’, and could build on the confidence, skills and knowledge they’d gained from previous workshops. The process would have been more transparent however, if the results had been posted in a more obvious website location like the Fairview Square project page.372     4.3. Preliminary Needs Assessment    In spring of 2007 the SUB Renewal Committee (SRC) was formed by the AMS Council and tasked with preparing a preliminary needs assessment and renovations study. The purpose of the needs assessment was to investigate how much and what type of space was necessary to fulfill student needs for the next 60 years. A renovations study was also needed to estimate the costs of providing this new space through different renovation and construction options.373     Though these studies required consultation with students, the SRC did not at this time hire a student to oversee consultation. They instead delegated the duties of planning and implementing consultation to the consultants hired to carry out the renovation studies. A hiring committee selected Cannon Design as renovation consultant in August 2007. Since the AMS and SRC did not have any mandate or policy for consultation at this point, the style and amount of consultation carried out was determined by the consultant. One of the deciding factors in hiring Cannon was their enthusiasm and vision for involving students.374    Cannon ran an online survey in August 2007 which received 1,200 respondents. In fall of 2007 Cannon’s team leader, Christopher Rowe, taught a course at the UBC School of Architecture and enlisted his architecture students to facilitate focus groups. In October and November 2007 Cannon carried out 22 focus groups to gain a deeper understanding of student needs and interests, and used a public information booth in the current SUB to collect comment cards. They ran a second online survey in                                                           370 UBC, C+CP, Fairview Square, C+CP: Plans + Policies: Forms + Documents: Documents: Campus Projects Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://planning.ubc.smallboxsoftware.net/forms_documents/documents/libraries218.php> 371 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 372 UBC, C+CP, Fairview Square, C+CP: Campus Design + Public Places: Current Projects: Academic Lands Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://planning.ubc.smallboxsoftware.net/campus_design__public_places/current_projects/academic_lands/arti cles265> 373 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 374 Personal Interview with a former AMS executive 86  November which had 2,900 respondents. All together 4,000 students participated in the two surveys and focus groups; about 12% of UBC’s full-time student population.375     In the first survey students were asked to choose their top needs in the new building, from a list of pre- determined options (the #1 choice was: green space / roof garden).   The focus groups targeted different stakeholder groups on campus. These groups met for an hour, usually at lunch or from 5-6pm, in the SUB Council Chambers or a space that would be more convenient and known to the stakeholder group members. The stakeholder groups targeted were:376 • General   • REC and Varsity  • Resource Groups  • Greeks  • Residences  • Audiology and Speech Sciences, Dentistry, Nursing, Medicine, Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, Pharmacy, and Rehab Sciences  • SCARP and Architecture  • Commerce  • Science  • Journalism, Law, LAIS  • Education, Forestry, LAFS, Human kinetics, and Social Work  • Arts and Music  • Applied Sciences  • Graduate Students   All the groups had the same general themes, discussing: 377 • Goals: High-level ambitions for the project  • Facts: Statements, perceptions, and observations of the current SUB or other related topics  • Needs: Deficiencies in the current SUB, and future requirements for the new SUB • Concepts: Specific ideas and applications, models seen elsewhere  Participants discussed these themes, wrote down their ideas on flashcards, and then organized their flash cards into the four theme groups on a large sheet of paper. At the end, each student was given three stickers to stick on the ideas they most liked.378    In the second survey students chose the top amenities they wanted to retain from the current SUB (#1 was ‘AMS food and retail’), the top amenities they wanted in the new building (#1 was ‘more and different food options’), and the top goals or ‘qualities of space’ they wanted in the new building (#1 was ‘daylighting and views’). The focus groups had generated a long list of ideas which were used to inform the answer choices for the second survey.                                                           375 UBC AMS, UBC SUB Renewal: Summary of Consultation, Feb 2008, Prep. Cannon Design, UBC AMS: New SUB Project Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/cannonreport.pdf>  376 Kreitzman, Maayan, "Want to be consulted? It’s your fuckin’ week”, 17 Oct. 2007, UBC Insiders, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://ubcinsiders.blogspot.com/2007/10/wanna-be-consulted-it_17.html> 377 UBC AMS, UBC SUB Renewal: Summary of Consultation, Feb 2008, Prep. Cannon Design, UBC AMS: New SUB Project Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/cannonreport.pdf>  378 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from attending two Cannon focus groups in Oct. 2007, Oct. 2008 87   On November 7th Canon Design hosted its annual design forum, bringing together architects, engineers, and planners from 25 different countries to examine the SUB Renewal process. Forum participants explored the renovation and construction options available for creating a more environmentally and student friendly SUB, incorporating ideas from student consultation, and cost estimates. In January 2008 Cannon released its consultation summary report and renovations study with recommendations for AMS Council.379    4.4. SUB Coordinator & Comprehensive Consultation Planning  After the Referendum and MOU allowed the AMS to move forward with the programming process, the SRC decided it was necessary to take a more proactive role in consultation with students. Based on a recommendation from the previous VP Admin, the 2008/09 VP Admin hired the first SUB Coordinator in July 2008 to assist with the consultation process and other project duties.380    The VP Admin and first SUB Coordinator worked together to develop a consultation plan for the coming year. In September 2008 however the SUB Coordinator resigned and I was selected as the second SUB Coordinator. I reviewed the work done by Cannon Design and the first SUB Coordinator, and in October 2008 I started working with the VP admin, SRC and newly selected program consultants to develop a comprehensive plan for student consultation.381    Some aspects of the consultation plan developed in 2008/09 were overarching, in the sense that they could be applied to all stages of the project. These included the: principles for participatory planning; media & communications; advisory committees; and goals for the New SUB.   Other aspects of the plan were tailored to specific stages or aspects of the project, and their implementation overlapped with specific SUB Coordinators: I oversaw the programming process in the 2008/09 academic year; the third SUB Coordinator oversaw the SUB Curriculum initiative in 2009/10 and the architecture selection process in March 2010; the fourth SUB Coordinator was hired and took over in May 2010, and will be responsible for overseeing the design consultation process and the continuing SUB Curriculum initiative.382    The SUB Coordinator, by carrying out comprehensive consultation planning, developed a framework for consultation which served student interests, and then coordinated with the consultants to share in the responsibilities of implementing consultation. By sharing in consultation implementation, the AMS was able to take more full advantage of AMS employees and knowledge – such as the AMS secretaries and club administrators who were able to help contact and schedule meetings with many stakeholder groups. It also allowed the AMS to carry out a more full and flexible consultation process, at little cost to the AMS. In my year as SUB Coordinator, we added many aspects to the consultation process on short                                                           379 UBC AMS, “Timeline”, UBC AMS: New SUB Project, 28 Jul. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/index.php/ams/subpage/category/new_sub_timeline/#four> 380 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 381 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 382 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 88  notice - such as the thematic workshops and graduate student survey. It would have been very expensive to renegotiate contract fees with the consultant to carry out these tasks, since the consultant no longer had compete with other firms to win the contract.383 The SUB Coordinator and other staff at the AMS, who are paid on a salaried basis, were enlisted to help with the new duties at no additional cost to the AMS.384    Because the SUB Coordinator was publicized frequently as the general contact for the New SUB project, it made it less confusing for students wanting to access information about or discuss the project. When I served as SUB Coordinator I received visits and emails from student frequently who wanted to speak about the project, give suggestions, raise particular concerns, or find out how they could become involved. Many of these students ended up becoming part of consultation forums or activities, or working with me to develop solutions to their concerns or those of their stakeholder group.385    For a general description of the duties of the SUB Coordinator see 2.6.1. SUB Coordinator.   4.5. Principles & Goals   4.5.1. Principles of Participatory Planning  The first task which I worked on with the VP Admin was developing simple principles to promote a student-driven consultation process. The three general principles are (for a full description see 1.3.3. Methods of Analysis): • Accountability and Transparency  • Broad Engagement  • Meaningful Engagement  They have been publicised on the AMS Website since fall of 2008 so students would be aware of the standards the AMS was aiming for, and could hold the AMS to those standards.386   4.5.1. Principles and Goals   In October 2010, I worked with the program consultants to develop goals for the New SUB. These goals were meant to be used to inspire and judge the program for the building, and possibly its design later in the process. The initial goals were a synthesis of:  • The AMS Strategic Framework387 • Brainstorming sessions within the SRC  388 • Brainstorming sessions within the New SUB Student Advisory Committee (NSSAC)  389                                                           383 Savard, Guillaume, Personal Interview with MHPM Interim project manager, 18 May 2010  384 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 385 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 386 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 387 UBC AMS, The AMS Strategic Framework, 23 Feb. 2008, UBC AMS Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/AMS_Strategic_Framework__updated_Feb_23_2008_.pdf>. 388 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 89   I and members of the NSSAC gave out written surveys to find out how important AMS Councillors and general students felt the various ‘goals’ were to the building. Respondents were asked to rank each goal from 1 to 5 - 1 being very unimportant and 5 being very important – and were given space to comment on the goals or suggest other goals. While there were slight differences in how students ranked these goals, the surveys mostly confirmed that students felt they were all important, and nothing critical had been left out.390,391    The complete list of goals or ‘values’ for the New SUB includes (for full descriptions, see A.7. New SUB Program Goals): 1. Governance 2. Empowerment 3. Advocacy 4. Services 5. Community Building 6. Student Development (capacity building) 7. Institutional (UBC) Development 8. Environmental Sustainability 9. Financial Sustainability/Entrepreneurship 10. Diversify & Increase Users 11. Vital Campus Place 12. Student Academic Life   Developing the goals gave AMS councillors, SRC, NSSAC and some students-at-large the opportunity to articulate their overall aspirations for the building. The goals helped the program consultants to identify and prioritize aspects of the program that would fulfill the intangible needs of students, not just tangible ones. For instance, because of the goal to improve ‘governance’ the program prioritized creating a new AMS Chambers/Forum which will accommodate a large audience, and be highly visible and easy for students to access.392,393   If the program and building succeed in fulfilling these intangible goals, the new building will surely enhance student leadership and involvement in campus and AMS life in the future.  4.6. Media & Communications  An integral part of the consultation process is communications. The AMS had an in-house communications and design team which had a great deal of experience and expertise in developing advertising and communications campaigns. The design department was able to develop graphics and format information in a way that was effective and eye-catching. The communications department also                                                                                                                                                                                            389 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 390 UBC AMS, SUB Renewal Project: Schematic Design Program, 12 Feb. 2009, Prep. Cornerstone Planning Group, UBC AMS Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/SUB_Program_Final.pdf>. 391 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 392 UBC AMS, UBC SUB Renewal: Summary of Consultation, Feb 2008, Prep. Cannon Design, 3.0: AMS Forum/Chambers, p.36, UBC AMS: New SUB Project Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/cannonreport.pdf> 393 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 90  helped to develop budgets, and strategies for which media to use and how to disseminate it. It was important to always speak to the design and communications departments as early as possible when developing consultation plans, to give the departments ample time to develop an overall communications strategy, develop and approve a budget, and design, revise, produce and distribute media.394    Media and methods used so far by the New SUB project include:395,396 • Small posters for advertising around campus  • Facebook pages • A New SUB webpage on the AMS website  o The AMS New SUB website included project history, future project and consultation plans, consultation results and project reports. • Open houses and permanent displays around campus o Foam-core information boards were used for displays  o Pamphlets and flashcards could be taken away by visitors  o A 6x6 ft model of the USquare area was used to give context   The model, as well candy, served as effective ‘ice-breakers’ to attract students to information areas and occupy them while they read information or spoke to an attendant. o Volunteers sometimes manned the displays to answer questions o These displays were often put up at large campus events like ‘clubs days’ during fall initiation, and the ‘welcome back’ day for alumni during the summer • Mass emails to UBC students  o When introducing the consultation events for each terms, and advertising important events like surveys, the AMS sent a broadcast email to the entire UBC community through the UBC administration. It was necessary to give the UBC administration several days notice to check over the email.  o I developed large internal consultation email lists through facebook, workshop attendee lists, AMS clubs lists, online surveys, and emails I received from individual students. I emailed these lists regularly with updates and sometimes with questions or internal documents for comment – the members of these lists occasionally responded with comments o When carrying out workshops or interviews that were relevant to particular AMS clubs, services, or businesses, the SUB coordinator could get their contacts from the AMS website or administration, and email these groups directly to invite their participation. o Each email I sent, generally included information about the project, and opportunities for involvement • AMS Council presentations and emails o The SUB Coordinators encouraged AMS Councillors to inform their constituents about project events through their websites and meetings, and by forwarding the emails they sent them to their constituent email lists                                                            394 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 395 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 396 Methie, Jensin, Personal Interview with SUB Coordinator Apr. 2009-2010 91  To attract students to longer events like workshops it was important to give students plenty of early and repeat notice, and display signs to direct students to the event on the day. It was also effective to advertise and offer meals or snacks, especially at lunch-time events. Offering meals however was expensive and required more cutlery, and often food went un-eaten, so after the programming phase the AMS served only snacks.397   In its first three years the project did not use a great deal of face-to-face advertising – by giving public presentation or having volunteers regularly attend displays, or carry out short surveys. These are good tools to judge students’ reaction to the project on the ground, and have frank discussions.398    4.7. Advisory Committees  I formed the two student advisory committees in the 2008/09 academic year. They were not required within the formal governance structures of the AMS, but I felt that I needed more student oversight and assistance when making the many decisions necessary in my positions.399     4.7.1. New SUB Student Advisory Committee (NSSAC)  I formed the New SUB Student Advisory Committee (NSSAC) in October 2008 to provide input and oversight of the consultation process for myself and the SRC. According to my job description I had the power to plan, facilitate and analyze consultation, and work with consultants to incorporate consultation feedback into their work. I felt I lacked the authority and expertise to do this job well without regularly receiving critical and creative input from a range of students. A committee seemed most appropriate for this role, since it would allow: reliable attendance; complex discussions; and those involved to gain familiarity with the project.400   I included a short invitation for students in a broadcast email sent to the entire UBC community, and I sent emails directly to clubs and associations on campus, inviting them to send a representative to the committee. In these invitations I explained the purpose of the committee, the expected meeting dates and times, and asked interested students to email me with a description of: why they were interested in participating; what they felt they could ‘bring’ to the committee; and whether they would be able to, or interested in, participating for more than a year (see A.8. Invitation to Participate in the New SUB Student Advisory Committee). Many first year students responded who had an interest in participating in the project throughout their time at UBC. The number of official participants was capped at 20 allowing all those who applied to be involved, but regular attendance at meetings was 10-15 members, which was a more productive and manageable number to work with. In winter of 2009 I set a meeting time that would allow the largest number of members to continue participating, and a second call for                                                           397 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 398 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 399 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 400 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 92  participants was made to replace those students who could no longer be involved. Over the course of 2008/09, about 23 different students attended the NSSAC meetings.401   The responsibilities of the committee in 2008/09 evolved according to the suggestions and interests of the members, but broadly included:402 • Discussing and making suggestions for communications and consultation plans and materials   • Assisting with communications and outreach campaigns, or consultation events • Reviewing feedback from consultation, and summarizing and prioritizing that feedback for delivery to the SRC and consultants o Raw feedback was first refined and categorized by myself so that the committee could break into smaller groups to analyse each category. Each group then presented their analysis to the whole group before they made collective recommendations  • Reviewing consultants’ work, like the Detailed Program, to ensure it was consistent with the input from the NSSAC and consultation process; and recommending changes where it wasn’t consistent • Meeting with consultants occasionally to discuss consultants’ work and give recommendations   The committee was disbanded in April 2009 and hasn’t been reformed since, since little consultation took place in 2009/10.403 The fourth SUB Coordinator will likely reconnect with NSSAC members and add those interested to a list of informal online network of advisors for the design stage of the project. The SUB Coordinator will exchange project information and comments with these advisors online, and may call meetings occasionally to help discuss and resolve particular consultation issues.404,405    4.7.2. Sustainable SUB Committee (SSC)  Though the AMS had high hopes for the ‘sustainability’ of the New SUB project, they were very vague, and initial consultation with students was not sufficient to develop more concrete ideas – few students had the expertise to discuss specifics, and even when students had expertise, focus groups and workshops didn’t afford them the time to properly develop these ideas. In addition, many of the sustainability-related ideas were new to consultants, who were unsure of how to include them in their work and therefore left them out. While some of these issues were addressed through targeted stakeholder interviews - the food co-op club ‘Sprouts’406 was able to give input on the rooftop garden - it became clear that the inclusion of boundary-pushing sustainability ideas in the project would require the ongoing work of ‘expert’ students.407                                                             401 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 402 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 403 Metchie, Jensen, Personal Interview with SUB Coordinator Apr. 2009-2010, 21 May 2010 404 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on SRC, May-Jul. 2010 405 UBC AMS, New SUB Student Engagement Communication Plan – 2010-11, 3 Jun. 2010, Prep. Andreanne Doyon AMS SUB Coordinator, UBC AMS: VP Administration Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/New_SUB_Student_Engagement_Communication_Plan.pdf> 406 Sprouts Homepage, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://ubcsprouts.ca/index.html> 407 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on SRC, May-Jul. 2010 93  I formed the Sustainable SUB Committee (SSC) in January 2008 to better define the goal of making the New SUB an ‘innovate green building’, as well as propose strategies for student involvement that could make the project more sustainable. While the NSSAC didn’t require very proactive members as they acted more as ‘commentators’, the SSC required students with the confidence, creativity and expertise to develop and draft new principles and ideas. For this reason the call for participants asked for students with a particular interest in sustainable design or environmental sustainability and also some academic or work experience in the area. Few students applied and the eventual regular membership included: two Masters’ students in architecture; two undergraduate students and one PhD student in engineering; the sustainability advisory from the Interim project manager team; and the AMS Sustainability Coordinator.408    The responsibilities of the committee were developed by the committee themselves and included:409 • Developing a New SUB Sustainability Charter (see A.25. Sustainability Charter), which described succinctly what the AMS aimed for in an ‘Innovate green building’   o The Charter includes principles and ideas for the design and use of the building, and international standards useful for assessing the design, such as the Living Building Challenge o The Charter was used in the final architect RFP to give direction to the architects’ proposals, and it will be included in the AMS’s contracts with the architect and primary project manager, to evaluate their work   • Making connections with professional and academic ‘sustainability advisors’ who could give the AMS ad-hoc advice on the New SUB project • Developing ideas for how students could be involved in the project o The SSC generated many ideas for the architect selection, design process, and SUB Curriculum Initiative   • Reviewing the ‘Environmental Management Plan’ in the RealPac Lease used as a template in lease negotiations with UBC o The SSC commented on how its wording would impact the sustainable design and management of the building   • Developing future responsibilities for the SSC, which included: o The SUB Coordinator or another rep from the SSC participating in the Integrated Design Process (IDP) to provide oversight and communicate developments to the SSC and PMWC o Reviewing drafts from the design process and providing commentary to the IDP and PMWC through the SUB Coordinator o Assisting with design workshops o Reviewing and summarizing the deliverables from SUB Curriculum classes  before they are passed to the architects  In spring of 2009 the SSC members developed a terms of reference that enshrined these responsibilities, and was approved by the SRC (see A.26. Sustainable SUB Committee Terms of Reference). As chair it is the responsibility of the SUB Coordinator to form the committee and help it complete its mandate. In fall of 2009 the SUB Coordinator invited back the previous members to finalize the New SUB                                                           408 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on SRC, May-Jul. 2010 409 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on SRC, May-Jul. 2010 94  Sustainability Charter. Over the winter and fall terms of 2009, about 12 different students attended meetings.410   In fall of 2010 the fourth SUB Coordinator will invite back the old members and invite new members to sit on a new version of the SSC, which will somewhat follow the terms of reference. The SUB Coordinator will be the chair of the SSC and likely sit as a rep on the IDP for the SSC and PMWC. The SSC will advise the SUB Coordinator on the design process, and may assist with the SUB Curriculum Initiative and design consultation process - with other duties arising as the process evolves and committee members suggest them. The SUB Coordinator will likely meet with the committee on an irregular basis as work demands, communicating with them mostly online.411,412     4.8. Draft Program Process  I developed a rough consultation plan for the program in late September 2008 to prepare for the hiring of the program consultants. After the program consultants started working in October 2008 I was able to work with them to develop an overall consultation strategy. We divvied up responsibilities between the AMS and the consultants that would support the overall strategy, and complement the skills of each organization. Since the consultant’s contract was somewhat set in terms of their consultation responsibilities, the AMS also tended to take on those duties which were not already included in the consultants’ contract.  The consultation done previously by Cannon Design to some extent dictated the consultation required for the program. The work they had done gave us a general idea of what students wanted in the building and what were their priorities. What we decided to add to this was in-depth discussion of the different uses for the building, to understand the fine-grained needs of users, and perhaps generate ideas for new and creative uses of space that weren’t raised in previous consultation. We also wanted to open more channels for students to be informed about the process, and to makes suggestions or critique the process.   In October and November 2008, three major types of engagement were carried out for the Program: • Broad communication with the general public through the website, displays, flash cards, and open houses (see 4.6. Media & Communications)  • Broad engagement through thematic workshops organized around 10 issues  • Targeted engagement through interviews with dozens of existing user groups    4.8.1. Thematic Workshops  The purpose of the thematic workshops was to:                                                            410 Metchie, Jensen, Personal Interview with SUB Coordinator Apr. 2009-2010, 21 May 2010 411 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC May-Jul. 2010 412 UBC AMS, New SUB Student Engagement Communication Plan – 2010-11, 3 Jun. 2010, Prep. Andreanne Doyon AMS SUB Coordinator, UBC AMS: VP Administration Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/New_SUB_Student_Engagement_Communication_Plan.pdf> 95  • Better develop some of the ideas presented in the Cannon consultations (i.e. how might an ‘interfaith center work’?); • Explore and develop creative ideas for uses in the building (i.e. ‘how could the New SUB promote cycling by commuters and within campus?); and  • Develop ideas for achieving some of the lofty goals of the building (i.e. ‘how could the New SUB be an unprecedented green building, and have an increased diversity of users?’).  Cannon ran workshops for specific stakeholder groups which discussed general ideas. The thematic workshops were open to all students but addressed specific issues. The workshops were held from 12- 1pm for the last week of October and first week of November, and the topics were: • A SUB to last 100 years: Predicting the Future • Nightlife & Artlife in the New SUB: Entertainment, Performance & the Arts • Sports & Recreation in the New SUB • Spirituality & Religion in the New SUB • Commuter Students & the New SUB • Creating a more Inclusive SUB • Zero Footprint SUB: Sustainability & Food Security • Public Space Inside & Outside the New SUB • Considering the Bus Loop • What is to be done with the Old SUB?   Sessions received a turnout of between 7 and 35 students, with a collective turnout of about 150 students. At the beginning of the sessions a powerpoint presentation was used to introduce the New SUB Project and the topic and purpose of the session, and explain the activities that would be used in the session. Students were given stacks of sticky notes and large markers to write down their ideas. A series of matrices were drawn on poster paper hung on the wall, and students would put their idea sticky notes in the most relevant box of the matrices. Usually the top x-axis of the matrices were labelled with ‘uses’ or ‘users’ of the SUB which related to that session’s topic, and the left y-axis of the matrices were labelled with ‘contexts’ or ‘criteria’ for thinking about those uses.413    For instance in the first matrix of the Nightlife & Artlife workshop, the x-axis was labelled with uses – music, performance arts, etc. – and the y-axis was labelled with ‘current activities’ and ‘desired future activities’. A sticky note with the idea ‘jam space’ would go in the matrix box connecting ‘music’ with ‘future desired activities’. As participants discussed the future activities they wanted, space and management issues particular to those uses arose, and so in a second matrix each of the same x-axis uses - music, performance arts, etc. - was considered according to different physical and management characteristics in the y-axis, such as room qualities, foot-traffic, adjacency to other uses, etc. For instance a sticky note suggesting the sound qualities necessary for a music practice room would be categorized under ‘music’ and ‘room qualities’. In the third matrix the same x-axis of uses - music, performance arts, etc. – would be considered in terms of the general y-axis category of ‘overall priorities and goals’. This category would include such ideas as ‘preference should be given to spaces that allow overlap between activities’, which applied to the x-axis categories of music, visual arts and performance arts. I prepared an excel sheet with the proposed x and y-aces before each workshop and had an                                                           413 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 96  assistant transcribe the matrices sticky notes ideas during and after the workshop (for an example, see A.27. Nightlife & Artlife Thematic Workshop, Matrices Results).414     The x and y-axis labels did change between workshops to be appropriate for the topic being discussed. However, the x-axis was often consistent between the matrices within each workshop to make the process less confusing. The category labels along the x and y-axis were written on large sticky notes, so if participants thought of new category groups, or wanted to rearrange the categories, the labels could be changed quickly. In the first workshop I even asked participants to suggest the x-axis categories themselves, but this was confusing for participants and took too much time, so from that point on I proposed categories at the beginning and invited participants to suggest changes or modifications.415     Initially I planned to have participants do a prioritizing exercise at the end, evaluating the x-axis use ideas against a y-axis of the goals for the New SUB (see 4.5.2. Goals for the New SUB Program). This idea was scrapped after the first workshop for several reasons: there was not enough time; participants seemed confused and uninterested in this exercise; and it ultimately might not have been very useful for evaluating the different use ideas. At the end of the session participants were asked to write down their name and email on a form if they wished to receive future updates on the project.416   The excel sheet matrices were given to the program consultants to inform the program. The consultants included a summary of the matrices from each workshop in the Detailed Program.417 I also enlisted the NSSAC to analyze the workshop results and make recommendations to the program consultants based on their analysis. First I made a list of all the spaces suggested in the Cannon consultation and thematic workshops and categorized them into different space types. Then the NSSAC broke into groups to study several space types each. They discussed the problems and benefits of each space, ranked the important of the spaces, and chose most and least important spaces to be included in the New SUB (A.28. NSSAC Chart for Analyzing Program Uses). The groups presented their findings to each other for comment, and then I compiled a master list of recommendations which was sent digitally to the consultants, and which I presented personally at the SRC.418     4.8.2. User Meetings & First Club Survey  As part of the program consultant’s contract they facilitated about 40 program meetings with about 30 stakeholder groups.419                                                           414 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009  I worked with the VP Admin to compile the list of interview subjects, which included reps from AMS government, administration, services, businesses and clubs. Some additional meetings arose out of the thematic workshops, such as with reps from performance arts clubs, and reps from ‘movement’ clubs (i.e. sports and dance). The meetings themselves were largely coordinated by the secretarial staff of the AMS. One or two consultants attended each of these meetings. Often I or the 415 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 416 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 417 UBC AMS, UBC SUB Renewal: Summary of Consultation, Feb 2008, Prep. Cannon Design, p.A-iii, UBC AMS: New SUB Project Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/cannonreport.pdf> 418 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 419 UBC AMS, UBC SUB Renewal: Summary of Consultation, Feb 2008, Prep. Cannon Design, p.4, UBC AMS: New SUB Project Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/cannonreport.pdf> 97  VP Admin also attended to: oversee the consultant’s communication with students; judge whether follow-up meetings were necessary; and eventually judge how well the consultants included the interview feedback into the program. The consultants and I took turns taking minutes for the meetings, and shared the minutes we wrote with each other to improve transparency and accountability.420   We did not however, always share these meeting minutes with the clubs who had attended the meetings.  The consultants also prepared and sent out a survey to all the 350 clubs at UBC, hosted by the online service Survey Monkey, which asked general questions about the type and amount of club and storage space they preferred, and the number of times per weeks and durations of time they preferred to use their space. 107 clubs responded to this survey.421 This was necessary since few club reps attended the ‘general club’ interviews scheduled with the consultants, and the consultants needed more information about the space demands of clubs. Several of the largest clubs at UBC, which represented memberships of hundreds of students, did not respond to invitations to be interviewed, but some of these large clubs did respond to the survey. Unfortunately I and the SRC didn’t find out about this survey until after it had been sent out, so we couldn’t contribute to the question list included.422    4.9. Final Program Process  After the consultation of fall term was completed, the results were analyzed by the consultants to inform the first draft program. The resulting draft was completed in December 2008, and reviewed in January 2009. After the review the SRC decided that more consultation was needed to resolve certain issues and refine the program. This consultation was carried out from February to April 2009 and included: 4.10.2. Communication of Draft Program  4.10.3. Follow-up User Meetings & Second Club Survey  4.10.4. New SUB Program Survey  4.10.5. Graduate Student Program Survey   This was followed by final discussion, modification and approval of the program, which wasn’t completed until December 2009. A Food Services consultant was hired in June 2010 to prepare a detailed Food Services Plan for the New SUB. This study will lead to further small changes to the program in August 2010 (see 4.9.6. Final User Meetings and Food Consultant).    4.9.1. Review of the First Draft  The December 2008 draft program had pending decisions, gaps and mistakes that the AMS wanted to resolve before releasing it to the student body. This first draft was however circulated digitally to the SRC and NSSAC.                                                             420 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 421 UBC AMS, UBC SUB Renewal: Summary of Consultation, Feb 2008, Prep. Cannon Design, p.A-ix, UBC AMS: New SUB Project Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/cannonreport.pdf> 422 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 98  The NSSAC reviewed the report to ensure that their recommendations and the consultation feedback had been adequately incorporated. The committee members spotted some omissions or problems with the first draft, and presented these to a program consultant rep in January 2009. In some cases the program consultant gave an explanation for their choice that was adequate for the NSSAC and in other cases they agreed to modify the report. Some problems could not be resolved with the information available so it was decided to gather necessary information with survey questions.423    A similar process was carried out by a temporary program review committee (see 2.7.4. Program Review Committee). This committee included the SRC, AMS student executives AMS head managers, and thevprogram consultants. The consultants had highlighted many policy choices in the first draft to be decided on by such a committee, since the consultants didn’t feel they had the authority or information to make those decisions. The committee members went through the document together, discussing problems and policy choices in each section, and where the committee couldn’t reach a decisions they decided to use follow-up interviews or survey questions to help resolve the issues. In January the consultants made the agreed upon changes and produced a second draft program.424     4.9.2. Communication of Draft Program  In January and February 2009 I developed a communications campaign for the draft program with the NSSAC, program consultants, and AMS Design & Communications department.  We prepared materials including: foam-core information boards, handouts, and a comment form in which students could identify their feedback by the page or section it referred to in the program.425     The New SUB webpage was updated in February with uploads of the full program, handout, displays, comment form, and materials and results from the thematic workshops. A mass email was sent to students in early March 2009, directing them to the website information, and informing them of the upcoming survey. Students were invited to send general comments or fill in the comment form on the website – comments could be sent digitally or handed in to the AMS offices.426    In March one set of displays was rotated around the SUB concourse with handouts, while a second set was displayed at various locations around campus. For one week from 12-3pm NSSAC members and I took turns to speak with students at the SUB Concourse displays. Art and writing supplies were also left with comment sheets by the SUB concourse displays but these were stolen when the booth was unattended.427   Very few general comments and comment sheets were received from individual students as a result of this communications campaign – those that were, were discussed by the SRC. There were, however, some important stakeholder groups that came forward with challenges to the program as a result of the campaign.428                                                           423 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009    424 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 425 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 426 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 427 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 428 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 99    4.9.3. Follow-up User Meetings & Second Club Survey  In February 2009 we sent a program update email to all AMS clubs and other AMS user and stakeholder groups, in which we included the section(s) of the program relevant to each group. For instance, AMS Councillors received the ‘AMS Forum/Chamber’ section, the Graduate Student Society (GSS) received the ‘Graduate Centre’ section, and clubs received the ‘AMS Clubs Facilities’ section. We invited all the groups to reply with general comments or to fill in the comment form.429     I also emailed the AMS clubs with a second ‘clubs survey’, which was developed together by the program consultants and myself. We received 13 responses to this survey which helped to refine the model for club space in the program.430 The survey asked clubs specific questions about their spatial needs such as (for all questions, see A.29. Second Club Program Survey Questions):431 • Whether they preferred access through a hallway or lounge space;  • What specific space accommodations or facilities their club required; and • Which clubs they would like to be grouped with.   As a result of the public communications campaign, and the stakeholder group email update, several groups came forward with specific problems and issues with the program. From February to April 2009 the consultants and I met and worked with these groups to resolve their issues. During this time we also approached several stakeholder groups to help us resolves specific program issues – for instance I spoke with the food co-op club ‘Sprouts’ to help us refine the program guidelines for a rooftop garden, community kitchen, and their club space. Similar to the program review meetings, these meetings resulted with the consultants: adequately justifying their choices; modifying the program; or deciding to use survey questions to help resolve the issue. To resolve the questions that the GSS executive had for the Graduate Centre it was necessary to design an additional survey targeted at graduate students (see 4.9.5. Graduate Student Program Survey).432    4.9.4. New SUB Program Survey  The program consultation plans in October 2008 proposed using an online survey in the spring of 2009 - the exact purpose of this survey was uncertain, but it seemed likely that it would be necessary to consult a larger number of students before finalizing the program. The role of the survey became clear during the review of the first draft program, when the internal AMS reps felt they needed to better understand the opinions and habits of large number of students before deciding on some policy choices and space options.433                                                             429 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 430 UBC AMS, UBC SUB Renewal: Summary of Consultation, Feb 2008, Prep. Cannon Design, 7.0: AMS Club Facilities, p.57, UBC AMS: New SUB Project Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/cannonreport.pdf> 431 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 432 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 433 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 100  This survey did not explicitly ask students to choose the spaces that should be included or removed from the program. The SRC felt it was important that these decisions be clearly retained by the SRC and AMS Council, since they depended on the complex interplay of demand, cost, space, and other issues. To include those questions would have misled students and could have led to an outcry or resentment if the results of the survey weren’t implemented by the SRC. Instead the survey focused on drawing out the experience and preferences of students, by asking them questions such as (for all questions, see A.30. New SUB Program Survey Questions):434 • What kind of consultation they would prefer for the design stage of the project;   • How often and how much they would pay to use particular services (to decide whether new services were feasible and what scale of service was needed);  • How they prioritized the possible uses of the building (to guide the SRC’s decisions of which uses to include); • Whether they would like to be emailed with regular updates, or to volunteer for the project by helping to brainstorm SUB Curriculum classes (see 4.10. SUB Curriculum Initiative); and  • A number of profiling questions, such as their affiliation to UBC and/or department, their use of the current SUB, and whether they commuted or lived on campus (so that we could see if the respondents were a diverse and representative sample, and could analyze whether there were patterns in how certain types of students answered the questions)   I used the online service Survey Monkey to prepare and host the survey. The surveys assumed students had no former knowledge of the New SUB project, so any information necessary to answer questions was included in the short intro, or in each particular question. I designed the first draft of the survey in March 2009, and circulated it for comment to the Interim project manager, program consultants, SRC, NSSAC, SSC and AMS Policy Advisor.  After modifying the survey based on feedback, and having it approved by the SRC, I activated the survey for two weeks in April 2009. A broadcast email was sent with a link to the survey on the first day it started, and a reminder email was sent at the beginning of the second week, which again bumped the response rate. The survey received about 1,500 respondents, and about 2,000 written comments were collected from the survey, not counting written responses to profile questions.435   After the survey was completed, I prepared the results for the NSSAC and SRC to review. Each committee discussed the results of each question, and made a decision as to what impact it should have on the program, or the rest of the project. I relayed the recommendations of the NSSAC to the SRC. The changes which the SRC decided to make to the program were recorded by the Interim project manager and sent to the program consultants. The results of the survey were summarized and posted on the AMS website by the third SUB Coordinator in summer of 2009.436    4.9.5. Graduate Student Program Survey  In March 2009 I used the service Survey Monkey and worked with the GSS to develop a survey to better understand graduate student needs and preference for both the GSS Koerner building and the New SUB.                                                           434 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 435 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 436 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 101  The survey had to be prepared quickly to allow: the survey to run before the end of the school year; and the results to be presented at an upcoming general meeting for the GSS Council. Again I worked with the program consultants, Interim project manager, NSSAC, and AMS Policy Advisor, as well as a research advisor employed by the GSS, to improve the survey. Based on this advice I included a profiling question not included in the general survey, asking whether the respondent identified as having a disability, and whether they had any suggestions to improve disability access in the new building. The survey asked graduate students questions such as (for all questions, see A.31. Graduate Student Program Survey Questions):437 • Which services they preferred to have in Koerner Vs. the New SUB;  • How exclusive they wanted the graduate spaces to be to graduate students; • Whether they would like to be emailed with regular updates, or to volunteer for the project by helping to brainstorm SUB Curriculum classes or taking on a SUB Curriculum project (see 4.10. SUB Curriculum Initiative); and  • A number of profiling questions, such as their affiliation to UBC and/or department, their use of Koerner’s and the current SUB, and whether they commuted or lived on campus (so that we could see if the respondents were a diverse and representative sample, and could analyze whether there were patterns in how certain types of students answered the questions)  The survey was announced in a broadcast email and ran for two weeks in April 2009. The survey received about 500 respondents, and about 1,100 written comments were collected from the survey, not counting written responses to profile questions. Based on the survey results I worked with the GSS executives and program consultants to develop a new proposal for the Graduate Center in the program, and I presented the survey results and program recommendations to GSS Council in May 2009, as well as the SRC. In the summer of 2009 the GSS hired a graduate student to prepare a detailed analysis and summary of the survey which was posted on the AMS website,438 and the program consultants created a new version of the Graduate Center program section which was sent to the GSS executive.439    4.9.6. Final User Meetings and Food Consultants  In fall of 2009 the third SUB Coordinator worked with the Interim project manager to receive final approval from the various program user reps for the program (see 2.7.5. Program User Reps). Some stakeholder groups – in particular some AMS administrative departments, and the GSS – raised new issues with the program and asked for further changes before they would give their approval. Through discussion and negotiation final compromises were agreed upon and all the user reps approved their sections of the program by December 2009.440    In June 2010 the SRC hired a Food Services consultant to prepare a detailed Food Services Plan for the New SUB. The consultants carried out further interviews with AMS Managers and employees for their study, but they did not need to carry out further broad consultation since they were able to use and                                                           437 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 438 Inniss, Scott, Spring 2009 SUB Renewal Graduate Student Survey Report, 20 Jul. 2009, UBC AMS: New SUB Project, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/Graduate_Student_Survey_summary.pdf> 439 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 440 Metchie, Jensen, Personal Interview with SUB Coordinator Apr. 2009-2010, 21 May 2010 102  analyze the results from the New SUB and Graduate Student surveys of spring of 2009. The report of the food consultants will lead to further changes to the ‘AMS Food Service Facilities’ section of the program in August 2010.441     4.10. SUB Curriculum Initiative  When discussing the design consultation process with the SSC, it was suggested that the AMS should try to incorporate research and design projects related to the New SUB into regular UBC classes. This arose out of the realizations that:442 • Many UBC departments were incorporating cutting edge sustainability thinking into their curriculum and research, and it would be a waste to not leverage some of that knowledge and expertise for the New SUB project;    • It took a great deal of time and sometimes specific expertise for students to develop proposals or ideas for green design and sustainable operations and management;  • Students were busy with school, social life, and extra-curricular activities, and they were much more likely to commit a large amount of time and high quality of work if it was part of a course for which they were receiving credit; and • Though the final architect would be highly qualified to take on the project and any necessary research, they would never have the time to investigate all the topics they wanted, and they might be interested in delegating some topics to students   In the general and graduate program surveys in spring of 2009, I asked students to give suggestions for SUB Curriculum classes and research projects that could benefit the new SUB, and asked students to share their contact information if they were interested in attending SUB Curriculum brainstorming sessions in the spring. In May 2009 I called several meetings with students to brainstorm class and project ideas. From the survey comment and meetings, the third SUB Coordinator and I developed a list of ‘desired’ SUB Curriculum classes and projects (see, A.9. List of Desired SUB Curriculum Classes & Projects, June 2009).443   Identifying and approaching the multitude of departments at UBC was a huge undertaking and took myself and the third SUB Coordinator a large part of the summer of 2009. We first scanned course descriptions and departmental web-pages to identify faculty and department heads, and professors, that oversaw or were leading research or courses relevant to the New SUB project and our list of ‘desired’ SUB Curriculum classes and projects. We then developed introductory letters that were tailored to each faculty, department and professor, and included examples of SUB Curriculum projects that were relevant to their discipline and research (for examples, see A.10. Introductory Letters for the SUB Curriculum Initiative).444                                                               441 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC May-Jul. 2010 442 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 443 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 444 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 103  We sent introductory letters to faculty heads first. If they didn’t respond in two weeks we sent introductory letters to relevant department heads of those faculties – if the faculty head didn’t respond in two further weeks we moved on to relevant professors within those departments. When faculty, department heads, or professors did respond, we met with them to discuss their potential to be involved, and to ask if they could direct us to other contacts that might want to be involved. We also spoke with the directors of the SEEDS program at UBC - which coordinates a large number of applied sustainability-related courses at UBC – who directed us to a number of relevant course instructors.445      While not all the instructors we spoke to were interested in developing a class in the short term, some wanted to be involved later on. To keep track of all the contacts and correspondence the third SUB Coordinator and I developed a database in Excel. Each sheet was devoted to a particular subject area, and each row was devoted to a particular contact with successive columns having a chronological record of when and what information had been exchanged (for an example, see A.11. SUB Curriculum Contacts & Actions Database).446    We were eventually able to set up six classes for the upcoming academic year, in which students produced assignments or projects relevant to the New SUB project:447 • APSC 261 (fall) - Applied Science: Technology & Society I  o Students researched sustainable mattresses, light bulbs, paints, utensils, laundry, garbage bags, hand drying, and computer hardware • APSC 262 (winter) - Applied Science: Technology & Society I o Students researched sustainable utensils, garbage bags, net zero water, renewable energy options, a red list of materials, and alternative building materials • ENDS 401 (fall) - Environmental Design: Studio 3, Institution(s) o Students studied the current SUB and proposed New SUB program space designs • MECH 457 (fall/winter) - Mechanical Engineering: Design Project o student prepared proposal for a living wall • LFS 450 (winter) - Land & Food Systems: Land, Food & Community III, Capstone Project o Students prepared a business plan, and operations plan and design for a rooftop garden • CHBE 484 (winter) - Chemical & Biological Engineering: Green Engineering Principles and Applications for Process Industries o Students prepared a bio-fuel feasibility study  After meeting several times to develop a useful and achievable assignment, either the class instructor, or the third SUB Coordinator and I, developed an assignment proposal for each class.448 The class instructors took most of the responsibility for implementing and overseeing the assignments, but the third SUB Coordinator attended the introduction and final presentations of the assignments for each class. The SUB Coordinator also reviewed the final work of these classes and prepared summaries which were presented to the SRC.449                                                           445 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009  The fourth SUB Coordinator will work in the summer of 2010 to prepare classes for the 2010/11 academic year. Some classes will continue the work done in 2009/10, like the 446 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 447 Metchie, Jensen, Personal Interview with SUB Coordinator Apr. 2009-2010, 21 May 2010 448 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 449 Metchie, Jensen, Personal Interview with SUB Coordinator Apr. 2009-2010, 21 May 2010 104  Land & Food Systems project which started to develop a business and management plan for a rooftop garden in the New SUB. Perhaps if their involvement continues, the Land & Food Systems department can play a role in constructing and managing this garden once the New SUB is constructed. APSC 261 was warmly received by the course instructor, and will likely also repeat, with some modifications, in 2010/11.450   Basic requirements for participating in the SUB Curriculum Initiative were also included in the Architect RFP, so that the applicant architects could account for the time commitment in their estimated hours and contract fees for the project. The responsibilities expected of the architect’s were:451 • Suggesting SUB Curriculum classes that would be useful for the design stage, and looking over the SUB Coordinator’s assignment proposals for the classes to give input   • Sending an architect team rep to visit each class once during the term o The architects will likely receive invitations to see the introduction and final presentations of the assignments, but they only have to go once and the AMS prefers that they attend mid-way through the assignments to give direction to the students  • Reading a summary of each class’s work (prepared by the AMS) and writing a written response to be posted on the AMS website o The architects will receive the complete works of the students but they only have to read the summary  These requirements can give some assurance to students that their work and ideas will be considered by the architects.  There is no requirement however that the architects must use the ideas and recommendations of the students. It is written in the terms of reference of the SSC that they might assist in reviewing and summarizing the work of the SUB Curriculum classes.452      4.11. Student-Wide Architect Vote   In February 2010, the SRC received permission from UBC to move forward with the architect selection process (see 2.8.2. Final Architect Selection). The third SUB Coordinator had to quickly plan and coordinate the public communications campaign for the student-wide vote to reduce the number of shortlisted architects from seven to three.453      The SRC invited reps from the seven shortlisted architect teams to be given a tour of the current SUB, and an introduction to the AMS’s voting and campaign plans. The architects were able to discuss the proposed process amongst themselves and decided on rules which would make it fair for all the teams. The process decided on, dictated that:454 • Each team was expected to make a public presentation  o The presentations took place in the lounge south of Pacific Spirit Cafeteria in the current SUB, because it was passed by a lot of foot-traffic and visible through the                                                           450 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, May-Jul. 2010 451 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, May-Jul. 2010 452 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, May-Jul. 2010 453 Metchie, Jensen, Personal Interview with SUB Coordinator Apr. 2009-2010, 21 May 2010 454 Metchie, Jensen, Personal Interview with SUB Coordinator Apr. 2009-2010, 21 May 2010 105  south exterior window wall, but guarded from the sound and activity of the surrounding public spaces o The presentations took place between 11am-1pm over the course of one week, and each team had 20min to present and 25min for questions o Each firm had to address four issues: company profile and past projects; proposed design team; approach to sustainable development; and student participation during design and construction • Each team could produce a pamphlet to hand out at their presentation, that would also be posted on the AMS website • Each team was expected to make a video that would be posted on the AMS website o The videos had to be less than 10 minutes o The videos could only include footage from their presentations or from slides or videos used in their presentations o The AMS hired the video club to film all the presentations, but the teams could choose to use their own equipment and technicians o Each team was given their raw presentation footage on the Friday of the presentations week, and they had to hand in their edited video two days later, on Monday • Each team was also interviewed for an article in the Ubyssey student newspaper455   Despite the clear rules, there were complications. One of the architect teams filmed their own presentation and kept the footage, therefore having more time to edit the contents of their video. Many of the teams used social and online media to communicate with students by: starting facebook groups; sending campaign emails through department or club list-serves; or commenting on student blogs that were reporting on the process. Some teams were more successful at this approach than others. Some notable students on campus posted endorsements for certain teams on websites and blogs, which upset some firms, especially in cases where those students had been previously involved in the New SUB project or AMS government. Another issue arose when the SRC realized, through the Youtube ‘views counter’, that those team videos at the top of their website page were getting viewed much more than those at the bottom, simply because students lost the patience to watch all the videos. The SRC reversed the order of the videos mid-way through the voting process, which did partially rectify the inequality in video views.456   In the end about 2,400 students voted and the three finalists were announced, but not the percentage of votes that they received, or their ranking.457 Reps from all seven teams were invited to a debriefing to discuss the benefits and problems with the process. Though some had specific complaints, many agreed that they had learnt a great deal from the process – especially how social media can be used to communicate with large user groups.458                                                              455 Anonymous, “Profiles: meet the architects (Part I)”, 30 Mar. 2010, Ubyssey, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://ubyssey.ca/news/profiles-meet-the-architects-part-i> 456 Metchie, Jensen, Personal Interview with SUB Coordinator Apr. 2009-2010, 21 May 2010 457 UBC AMS, Architect Selection, UBC AMS: New SUB Project Website, 28 Jun. 2010,  <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/index.php/ams/subpage/category/architect_selection/> 458 Metchie, Jensen, Personal Interview with SUB Coordinator Apr. 2009-2010, 21 May 2010 106   4.12. Design Process  The design consultation process for the New SUB project had to be determined in some detail prior to the final architect selection process. Unlike program consultation, design consultation is largely led by the architects and at least requires their participation - if the AMS wants to change or increase consultation during the design stage they have to renegotiate the contract duties and fees of the architect, which can be prohibitively costly. To avoid renegotiations, the AMS included a minimum standard for design consultations in the RFP for final architect selection. In their response to the RFP each architect proposed a consultation strategy in terms of schedule, cost, methods, and purpose of consultation. A modified plan could be negotiated before the contract was signed, but this plan will hopefully change little or not at all during design.459   I began to gather ideas for design consultation in fall of 2008, and began to discuss and develop an overall plan with the Interim project manager, SRC, NSSAC, SSC and third SUB Coordinator in spring of 2009. A question in the New SUB Program Survey also asked students which aspects of the New SUB they’d most want to be involved in designing.460 The design consultation parameters were finalized in June 2010 for inclusion in the RFP for the committee architect selection process.461   The three stages of design are concept development, design development and construction drawings. It is an iterative process between the architects and the client (or primary project stakeholders), where the architects present proposals and drafts and the stakeholders give input and approvals.462 In the New SUB Project however, ‘the client’ is potentially the entire AMS community. Design is arguably the part of the project which the largest number of students wanted to participate in, but it is also a complex and technical process requiring difficult decisions to fulfill the program while staying on budget.463     The design consultation process developed by the SRC attempts to give students-at-large meaningful opportunities to influence the design with their ideas and expertise, while clearly retaining decision- making power in the PMWC and JOC. The architects will treat the PMWC as primary project stakeholders and go to them regularly for input and approvals. The architect will also meet with the design committee for charrettes and large presentations, and with design user reps to develop plans for specific aspects of the building (see 3.3.3. Design Committee & Design User Reps). The SUB Coordinator might also share and discuss some design proposals and issues with the network of student advisors and SSC members. This privileged role of input, oversight, and decision-making is justified because these stakeholders have in-depth knowledge of the project, the AMS and UBC, and are accountable to the AMS and UBC through their respective governance structures.464    The below discussion will be limited to those consultation elements designed specifically for broader student involvement (which are marked in green in A.19. Student Engagement Process):                                                            459 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 460 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 461 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, May-Jul. 2010 462 Savard, Guillaume, Personal Interview with MHPM Interim project manager, 18 May 2010 463 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 464 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 107  4.13.1. Master Plan Kickoff & Communications 4.13.2. Design Workshops 4.13.3. 90% and 100% design proposals   4.12.1. Master Plan Kickoff & Communications  To create student awareness and excitement around the design process, the architect is expected to carry out a large scale Kickoff event in fall of 2010. The exact nature of this event is not dictated by the AMS, but it is likely to include a large public presentation to students, and an open house where students can see displays and speak to reps from the architect team, the AMS and UBC. The architects are also expected to update students on the project and consultation events regularly – likely through posters and handouts on campus, and multimedia tools online. The architects may choose to have a permanent display booth or ‘design office’ on campus where they can regularly communicate with students.465,466    While the architects are largely responsible for developing and running the kickoff event and communications campaign, they will work with the SUB Coordinator and other AMS staff to develop an overall communications strategy and to coordinate events and media, because the AMS has: a huge amount of experience advertising for students; and many resources for contacting various stakeholder groups. To not confuse students, the cooperation between the AMS and the architects will need to be seamless and consistent. This will require regular communication between the parties and some protocols and rules. Some of the ‘rules’ currently being considered by the fourth SUB Coordinator and SRC include:467 • Using the AMS’s established logo and ‘branding’ for all advertising  o The architects can be given the templates used by the AMS Design Department • Telling students to send comments directly to the SUB Coordinator, or at least to ‘CC the SUB Coordinator when sending comments to someone else on the AMS or architect team o Students should be told that the SUB Coordinator can’t advocate on behalf of student input, and make sure it’s not lost or forgotten, if they haven’t received it • Encouraging the architects to share communication and consultation plans as early as possible with the PMWC and SRC, so the SUB Coordinator can advise them and connect them to relevant AMS personnel or resources   4.12.2. Design Workshops  The architect RFP communicated that the architects are expected to carry out about five design workshops during the concept development phase and five more during the design development phase.                                                           465 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, May-Jul. 2010 466 UBC AMS, New SUB Student Engagement Communication Plan – 2010-11, 3 Jun. 2010, Prep. Andreanne Doyon AMS SUB Coordinator, UBC AMS: VP Administration Website, 28 Jun. 2010, <http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/images/uploads/New_SUB_Student_Engagement_Communication_Plan.pdf> 467 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, May-Jul. 2010 108  These workshops should be open to about 20-40 students each. The proposed topics for the concept development workshops were informed by student responses in the New SUB Program Survey:468 1. Overall organizations of space, circulation areas, and large internal public spaces  2. Medium sized public spaces (i.e. social lounges and seating areas) 3. Green space (exterior, interior, and rooftop) 4. Art in the building 5. Bookable rooms and club space  The architects are also expected to prepare a summary of the products and ideas generated at each session, to be posted online.    4.12.3. 90% and 100% Design Proposals   Near the end of each of the three design phases, the architects are expected to present a ‘near final cut’ to students. This information should at least be posted online where it can be easily accessed by students, but it might also be presented at a public presentations or open house. Presenting this information will give students a chance to spot issues and missed opportunities in the design while there’s still time to modify the plans before final approval. While design drafts and proposals will be presented to the PMWC and design committee, these 90% proposals are the only proposals that the architects are required to share with the public. Since the design process can be complex and convoluted the SRC decided it should be up to architects to decide if they want to more regularly share their work with the public – they could use a blog to post evolving information and graphics in an informal way.469    Once each design phase is complete, the architect will share and present their ‘100%’ plans to the PMWC and design user reps to receive final approval. Once approved a summary of the plans will be posted publicly online.   4.13. Post-Design Process   There are few concrete plans for consultation after the design stage, but below I will discuss several ideas that were discussed by the SRC, NSSAC and SSC, and developed in the my own long term consultation plans when I worked as SUB Coordinator.470,471    4.13.1. Post-design Advisory Committees   Long before the building is complete the AMS will likely need to form committees to develop plans for the management and allocation of space in the New SUB. Potential committees could address:                                                           468 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, May-Jul. 2010 469 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, May-Jul. 2010 470 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from working as SUB Coordinator, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2009 471 Jarvis, Bronwyn, Field notes from sitting on the SRC, Oct. 2008 - Jul. 2010 109  • How to increase diversity of users and disability of access through building management and possibly communication campaigns or events • How to construct, finance and manage a community garden • How to manage and allocate a space for entrepreneurial student projects  • How common club space should be managed, and which clubs should be grouped together • The development of business plans for the undetermined commercial spaces, such as for a grocery store   • The development of management and user protocols for public spaces such as the social lounges, performance spaces, large public spaces, green spaces, and the kitchen co-op   4.13.2. Post-design Media & Communications    During the construction phase, until the grand opening, the responsibility for regular communications will largely shift from the architect to the project’s construction manager.472   During post-occupancy this responsibility will at some point revert to the AMS, and to the SUB Coordinator until that position is terminated. General communications are necessary to ensure that students are well informed about the new building, and can easily voice suggestions and criticisms.  Construction Kickoff  At the beginning of the construction phase the architects, construction firm, AMS and UBC will likely collaborate to hold a ground-breaking event. This day will likely include presentations, information displays, and the opportunities to speak with reps from the various parties.  Grand Opening  The AMS and UBC will likely collaborate to hold a large grand opening for the New SUB. This event will honour all those who played an important role in the project, and celebrate the strong role that student leadership and involvement has played in the project. It will likely seek to attract a large number of students, faculty, staff, alumni, and other community members, and include presentations, displays and festivities.    4.13.3. Post-design Consultation  The amount of consultation needed will likely decrease during the construction and post-occupancy phases, but the AMS will still need to continually reassess whether consultation is necessary, and which tools are appropriate.  The AMS can employ a large number of techniques and methods, including surveys, user interviews, focus groups, workshops, and SUB Curriculum projects.  Post-occupancy evaluation                                                            472 Personal Interview with an AMS executive 110  The AMS should carry out user interviews, a club survey, a graduate student survey, and a student-wide survey sometime in the building’s first year of use - perhaps after it’s been open for the full fall or winter term - to check what’s working and what needs modifications in the organization and management of the building. This is important because UBC is warranting the building for the first year after it is built (see*).    4.14. Conclusion of Part IV   In this section, I judge whether the consultation process for the New SUB project was student-driven. In three tables I consider:   • Accountability & Transparency: Was the development, implementation, and use of consultation transparent to students, and could participants hold those who were managing the consultation accountable for carrying out a good process? How so? • Broad Consultation: Did consultation engage a large number and variety of students? How so? • Meaningful Consultation: Did consultation deal with complex and important issues, and did the results of consultation significantly influence the project? How so?  The analysis tables also include recommendations for strategies that the AMS could use to make the consultation process more student-driven in the remainder of the project, and for how a similar project could be more student-driven than was the New SUB project. In the discussion section after each table I will summarize the analysis, and explore some of the causes for why different aspects of the consultation process were able to be student-driven.    Accountability & Transparency  Student-driven Non-student-driven 4. 3.  P re lim in ar y N ee ds  A ss es sm en t 3 The consultation work of Cannon Design was reasonably accountable and transparent to the AMS due to a rigorous selection process, and their good communication and close working relationship with the AMS. Since the AMS did not have a student devoted to communicating and working with Cannon, they could not closely monitor their work and how they used consultation feedback. R : Si m ila r Pr oj ec t If th