UBC Publications

UBC Publications

UBC Publications

UBC Reports Dec 8, 1976

Item Metadata

Download

Media
ubcreports-1.0118351.pdf
Metadata
JSON: ubcreports-1.0118351.json
JSON-LD: ubcreports-1.0118351-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): ubcreports-1.0118351-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: ubcreports-1.0118351-rdf.json
Turtle: ubcreports-1.0118351-turtle.txt
N-Triples: ubcreports-1.0118351-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: ubcreports-1.0118351-source.json
Full Text
ubcreports-1.0118351-fulltext.txt
Citation
ubcreports-1.0118351.ris

Full Text

Array •fecial aeuecnoNs
Vol. 22, No. 43, Dec. 8, 1976. Published by
Information Services, University of B.C., 2075
Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1W5.
ISSN 0497-2929. J. A. Banham and Judith
Walker, editors.
ubc reports
President Kenny's
December 2 statement
to UBC's Joint Faculties
President Kenny addressed the
Joint Faculties of the University last
Thursday (Dec. 2) on "the present
fiscal situation of the University and
its academic implications." Here is the
full text of his remarks.
There is an old Chinese proverb
which seems particularly appropriate
on an occasion like this: "May you live
in interesting times." As a University,
we are living in very interesting times.
That is why I have called this meeting.
This University faces a challenge.
Universities are resilient institutions,
but the challenge is a serious one. Our
values and our standards are in
question. The effective operation of
the University faces a severe test. In
short, we are confronted with a
situation with serious fiscal and
academic implications. Some very
difficult decisions lie ahead of us.
The first purpose of this meeting is
simply to inform you of that fact: to
impress upon you a realistic awareness
of its seriousness, to discourage you
from over-reacting, and to encourage
as much as I can a positive,
constructive and co-operative response
to the problems which face us.
The second purpose of this meeting
is to make everyone in the University
community aware of the facts. I am
particularly concerned that faculty
and students should be fully informed.
I will try to lay before you the
particulars of the University's fiscal
situation. I hope you will be patient
with me. In trying to be clear and
complete I may be explaining things
with which some of you are already
familiar. I want to be sure that
everyone understands the problems we
are facing.
Specifically, I will explain and
discuss the following points:
First, the fiscal arrangements in the
current year, including a description of
how this year's operating budget was
arrived at;
Second, the present status of
capital funding, i.e. the funding of
building projects; and
Third,  what  has  happened so far
with respect to our proposed operating
budget for the 1977-78 fiscal year,
how the prospects look for that year,
and the problems and decisions which
face us if certain developments occur,
and there is reason to think they may
occur.
Finally, I would like to tell you
briefly what I believr: are two main
implications of these-ldevelopments for
this University as an academic
community.
Let me begin with the facts about
our most recently completed financial
year, 1975-76. In order to be sure that
these facts are clear to everyone, I will
review briefly how the budgeting
process works at this University.
Our main source of revenue is an
annual operating grant from the
provincial government, which
constitutes approximately 84 per cent
of our operating budget. Our other
main source of revenue is student
tuition and other fees, which comprise
about 11 per cent of our operating
budget. The remainder of our
revenues, some 5 per cent, are derived
from services, investment income and
miscellaneous sources.
Our  expenditures  divide into five
major categories: academic — 74.1 per
Continued on p. 2 Continued from p. 1
cent; library — 7.4 per cent; student
services and scholarships — 2.2 per
cent; administration and general — 4.6
per cent; and physical plant —11.7 per
cent. Taken together, the first two
categories comprise our academic and
academic support functions and make
up 81.5 per cent of our budget, the
largest proportion of any sizable
Canadian university. Our
administrative costs, incidentally, are
proportionately the lowest of any
Canadian university.
Put another way, about 83 per cent
of our expenditures are for salaries and
wages, and only 17 per cent for
non-salary items.
Let me now describe briefly how
our major revenue source, the
government operating grant is
determined. Under the new
Universities Act of 1974, as you know,
the provincial government created a
Universities Council, which is designed
to act as an intermediary between the
universities and the government,
interpreting and representing our
interests and needs to the government.
According to the Universities Act, we
are required to submit to the Council
by Aug. 15 of each year our requests
for funds, or estimates for operating
purposes, for the fiscal year beginning
the following April 1.
After considering these estimates
from the universities, the Council then
forwards them — along with its own
recommended estimates — to the
government by Oct. 15. When the
government announces its budget,
usually in February or March, it of
course includes the amount it has
decided to grant the universities. This
total grant is then allocated among the
universities by the Council according
to its judgment of the respective needs
of each university.
Theoretically, this system appears
to make sense. In practice, there are
some difficulties. Since the Council is
a group of lay persons, it is necessary
for the universities to explain their
funding requests to people who are
not familiar with the nature and
functioning of a university. Also, the
Council feels that, in order to make
decisions about university funding, it
must closely inquire into every aspect
of   university   operations.   Answering
this constant stream of detailed
enquiries, incidentally, is very
time-consuming for the
administration. Finally, despite the
fact that it does not have the power to
tell the universities how they shall
allocate the funds granted, the Council
— in working out its decision whether
to grant funds to a university — has
inevitably tended to try to exert
influence on decisions which belong
within the university.
However, despite the fact that I am
sometimes puzzled by the Council's
interpretation of its public advocacy
role, I am still hopeful that it can play
a constructive part in the development
of higher education in the province.
How are the operating cost estimates
submitted to the Council arrived at?
The preparation of these estimates
involves a long process of consultation
and  discussion across the University.
"About 83 per cent
of our expenditures
are for salaries..."
This iterative process starts at the
department level, where the head, with
appropriate consultation, examines the
academic functions and needs of the
department and makes his or her
requests to the dean. These are
discussed in detail with the dean, and
sometimes revised after further
consultation within the department.
The dean, after additional
consultations, then makes budget
recommendations to the president.
Again, there is considerable
discussion with each dean, often
resulting in further revisions and
further consultations in the faculty.
The president is also required to
discuss the entire University budget
with the Senate budget committee,
which gives further advice on possible
revisions.
Finally, after this long process of
consultation, the president
recommends a budget to the Board of
Governors,    which    has    the    final
authority over such matters. Further
revision of the operating estimates can
be made by the Board. When it
approves the figures, however, the
University's official estimates for
operating purposes are finally
submitted to the Universities Council.
Another significant process
involved in arriving at the estimated
operating costs is collective bargaining.
There are seven unions representing
employed staff and of course the
Faculty Association representing
faculty members and librarians. The
University engages in annual
negotiations with each group. The
result of these negotiations is binding
on the University and determines the
amount of wage and salary increase to
be included in the estimates for
operating purposes. As I have already
mentioned, some 83 per cent of that
operating budget is salaries and wages,
so of course the collective agreement
negotiations are an extremely
important determinant of our
operating estimates.
This whole process of consultation
and negotiation requires months of
concentrated effort on the part of
hundreds of people. The result
represents the final collective best
judgment of the University's needs for
the following year.
For 1975-76, the total operating
revenue of the University was
$110,636,974. Of this amount,
$91,988,957 (83.2 per cent) was the
provincial operating grant.
The estimate for operating purposes
submitted in August, 1975, for the
fiscal year in 1976-77 was
$127,708,689. Specifically, the
University requested an increase in the
government operating grant of
$35,719,732.
In October of 1975, the Council
submitted its recommendation to the
government. As you will recall, it was
in that same month that the federal
government announced its
anti-inflation guidelines. As a result of
this, the provincial government
requested the Council to revise its
recommendation to take these
guidelines into account. The Council
in turn asked the universities to reduce
2/UBC Reports/Dec. 8, 1976 the salary and wages component of
their request to a maximum 10 per
cent increase.
The requested increase in the
government operating grant for
1976-77 therefore became
$23,898,344, representing a 26 per
cent increase over the previous year.
Of this increase approximately $7
million was required to meet
carry-over commitments, i.e. salary
increases, necessary staff increases and
other items which had been agreed on
in the course of the preceding year and
to which the University was therefore
committed.
"These salary
increases ...are
not for one
year only."
Let me make clear just what is
involved in t'.is matter of carry-over
commitments. As you know, the
University's appointment and salary
year for faculty runs from July 1 to
June 30. There are also several union
contracts with other annual dates. The
fiscal year, however, is from April 1 to
March 31. Each year there are faculty
salary increases taking effect on July 1
which must be paid through to the
following June 30, or three months
past the end of the fiscal year and into
the new fiscal year.
These salary increases, of course,
are not for one year only. They are
permanent commitments which
continue thereafter. For that reason,
the money required to pay them must
also be continuing, i.e. become a
permanent part of the University's
operating base.
This would be true whatever the
dates of appointment year and fiscal
year. The dates are secondary. What is
essential is that any money granted by
the provincial government can only
provide for such continuing
commitments if it is permanent
money. Thus, in the past, a part of our
annual requested increase in operating
grant has been simply to provide for
such commitments. Of course, an
additional increase is also requested to
cover further salary and other
necessary increases which start the
following July 1. The practice of
carry-over commitments has been used
by the universities for many years,
with the knowledge and consent of the
government.
Last spring, however, when the
state of the provincial economy
suggested to the government that
increases in university grants might
have to be considerably lower than in
previous years, the minister of
education decided that the question of
carry-over commitments required
special attention. This attention also
seemed necessary to him because the
carry-over commitments into 1976-77
were considerably larger than in
previous years, due to larger than usual
salary and wage increases in 1975.
The minister decided to try to deal
with the problem by means of a
supplementary grant to universities
which would remove the additional
pressure for increases created by these
commitments. He therefore instructed
the Universities Council to employ a
firm of professional financial
consultants to determine what the
actual amounts of the universities'
salary  carry-over commitments were.
This they did, and the universities'
figures were verified. The total was
$11.8 million for the three
universities.
In March, the minister introduced a
special warrant of $7.5 million dollars
to make at least partial provision for
these continuing commitments. The
warrant was passed and the
Universities Council allotted the
amount among the universities. UBC's
share was $4.5 million — which,
incidentally, was short by $2.5 million
of our carry-over commitments. With
the receipt of the $4.5 million, we
were faced with the decision of
whether to incorporate this amount
into our operating base. Since the
warrant was given for continuing
commitments, we did incorporate it,
and wrote the minister that we were
doing so.
The alternative — i.e. treating the
amount as a strictly one-time
supplement - would have meant that
it could not in fact have been used to
meet permanent carry-over
commitments. This in turn would have
meant either reducing our 1976-77
budget by $4.5 million to meet these
commitments, or to avoid making any
further commitments in July, i.e. to
grant no salary increases. In our
judgment these were not reasonable
alternatives.
Later last March, the government
announced an increase in the total
operating grant to the universities of
about 8.5 per cent. After the Council
had decided on the division of this
amount, UBC received an increase of
8.02 per cent. Thus, including the
amount of the special warrant, UBC
received an increase in its government
grant for 1976-77 of 12.9 per cent.
"We were
of course
faced with
a shortfall."
The grant increase requested by the
Council for the universities had been
26 per cent. We were of course faced
with a shortfall.
As a result of this shortfall, we
resumed negotiations with the Faculty
Association, according to the terms of
our agreement, which says that if the
amount of the government grant is
more than 2 per cent less than the
amount requested, negotiations can be
reopened. As you know, we finally
had    to    go    to   arbitration,   which
Continued on p. 4
UBC Reports/Dec. 8, 1976/3 Continued from p. 3
resulted in an overall salary increase of
8 per cent, plus .5 per cent for
inequities.
Even with a lower salary increase
than originally requested, however, the
government grant was not sufficient to
meet our needs. Fortunately, we were
able to secure approximately $1.2
million from additional revenues. But
we still had to find ways to cut $1.3
million from our total operations. This
required lengthy discussions with
deans and the heads of non-academic
departments, and resulted in very
difficult and serious cutbacks in every
part of the University.
After the arbitration award on
faculty salaries, a further amount was
needed to meet the costs of the award.
When a request for this amount was
rejected by the government, it was
necessary to retrieve it from University
operations by means of a further y2 per
cent cut across the board. Thus, in all,
we were forced to cut back our
operating budget by a total of $1.8
million in order to manage this year.
At this point in his talk, President
Kenny drew attention to a table of UBC
operating finances which he projected
onto a screen in the Woodward Instructional Resources Centre. The table is
reproduced, with his comments on p. 5,
opposite.
That, then, is how we got to where
we are in our present operating
budget. I hope this explanation may
have helped you to understand a little
better how it is that we are operating
this year on a considerably tightened
budget. I might add that the whole
experience of adjusting our operations
to their present level of constraint has
been, for me personally, a sobering
experience. I am extremely grateful
for all the help I have received during
this time. These sometimes traumatic
adjustments would not have been
possible without the constructive
co-operation of many people, among
whom I'd like particularly to mention
the deans and the members of the
Senate budget committee.
Before I go on to the matter of our
1977-78 operating estimates, let me
take a moment to describe the present
situation with regard to capital
funding.
"...adjusting our
operations to their
present level... has
been, for me personally,
a sobering experience."
At the time the government
announced this year's operating grants,
they also made clear that there would
be no capital monies allocated to the
universities for new projects. Instead,
there was to be only a comparatively
small sum allotted for necessary
maintenance and renovation of
existing facilities.
A little later in the year, the
minister announced that the financing
of capital projects at the universities
would in the future be handled quite
differently. Previously the universities
had submitted each year a list of
capital project priorities and the
government granted a certain amount,
separately from operating monies, for
some of these projects. With the
advent of the Universities Council, this
system continued in essentially the
same form. In fact, we had submitted
to the Council in 1975 a five-year
projection of capital funding needs
which we understood would be funded
in the usual manner. Our needs for
academic space had  been established
by the Senate academic building needs
committee, which carefully examines
submissions from all faculties and
establishes a priority list which it
submits to the Board of Governors.
In the spring session of the
Legislature, the government passed Bill
46, the B.C. Educational Institutions
Capital Financing Authority Act, by
which a borrowing authority was
created for the funding of capital
building projects at the universities. In
the future, then, such projects are to
be funded by borrowing the necessary
money through a government
borrowing authority, with the
government guaranteeing the
repayment and amortization costs.
Following the passage of this bill, we
were asked by the government through
the Council to do two things.
First, we were asked to submit for
immediate consideration any
unfinished projects — buildings or
facilities which were under way but
needed funds to be completed. These
were to be submitted without regard
to their priority in the University's
building needs.
We have submitted three such
projects: (1) the Library Processing
Centre, which is needed because the
processing section of the present
library has been declared by the
factory inspector to be substandard in
working conditions; (2) the Aquatic
Centre, now under way and funded in
part by student support and student,
faculty and outside fund-raising; and
(3) the Asian Centre, of which only
the first phase has been completed,
funded by contributions from Japan
and the federal and provincial
governments. We do not yet know the
final decision of the Council or the
government about our submissions of
these projects.
Continued on p. 6
4/UBC Reports/Dec. 8,1976 UBC Operating Finances
ACTUAL REDUCED* BASIC*
75-76 76-77 77-78
EXPENDITURES
Salary                   $ 90,776,627 $103,617,333 $105,273,804(l)
Non-salary                19,860,347 19,443,783 17,787,312(4)
TOTAL            $110,636,974 $123,061,116 $123,061,116(5)
REVENUES
Province of B.C.
Basic Grant 71,881,415\—7-^ 91,988,957\ "> 99,370,966
Increase                  20,107,542/—{3}—7,382,009J ?
Increase % (27.97%) (8.02%) 	
Sub-total                91,988,957               99,370,966 99,370,966
Special Warrant                NH                      4,549,800 *"v
Special Warrant %                                         (4.95%)    |
Total provincial        91,988,957              103,920,766     | 99,370,966(1)
Fees & other             18,648,017                19,140,350 19,140,350
revenue        J        	
TOTAL            $110,636,974           $123,061,116 $118,511,316
I
-      l»
Possible shortfall — — V>$    4,549,8000
*The term "Reduced" refers to budget reductions of $1,800,000.
**The  term "Basic" refers to the '76-77 reduced budget projected  into '77-78 but
without any provision for negotiated salary increases, inflation, growth, development, etc.
The financial summary which I have just put on the screen highlights and
re-emphasizes some of the points to which I have made reference earlier in my talk. Let
me first call your attention to the footnotes which explain what columns two and three
are. Next, I would like you to notice these particular points:
MJThis figure indicates the labor intensive nature of the University operations. The salary
proportion of total expenditures is increasing from 82 per cent in 1975-76 to almost
86 per cent in the basic 1977-78 column.
\2jThe grant from the Province of British Columbia is the major source of revenue and is
of the order of 83 per cent to 84 per cent.
(3)Note the sharp decline in the increase in the basic operating grant from $20,107,542 in
1975-76 to $7,382,009 in 1976-77: a drop in the increase in the grant from 27.97 per
cent to 8.02 per cent.
{AjExtreme pressure is being exerted on non-salary expenditures, many of which are
virtually non-controllable, for example heat, light, etc. The cost of these items is
increasing steadily.
M5jSince April 1, 1976, we have operated in accordance with the "no commitment edict"
of the minister of education. This is demonstrated by the fact that our basic 1977-78
expenditures in the aggregate are held in line with those of the previous year
($123,061,116  vs $123,061,116).
(6)However, without a continuance of the special warrant amount of $4.5 million (or
funds in lieu of the special warrant provision) being built into the increase in the basic
grant, there will be a shortfall of at least $4.5 million. The critical problem facing the
University is, what value will be placed on the question mark? Will it be enough to
overcome the non-continuance of the special warrant amount of $4.5 million plus the
funds necessary to meet negotiated salary settlements for 1977-78, plus the
inflationary costs of non-salary items, plus provision for enrolment growth, for
development or other additional expenditures.
UBC Reports/Dec. 8,1976/5 Continued from p. 4
We have also been asked to submit
to the Council by January a complete
list of our building priorities for
consideration under the new
borrowing authority system. Because
of the new system, and because our
last examination of these priorities was
done in 1974, the Senate academic
building needs committee is
re-examining our needs and has invited
any new information faculties and
departments may wish to submit. When
their re-examination is complete, this
list, after Board approval, will be
submitted to the Council, who in turn
will make their recommendations to the
government by March 1, 1977.
'...our total requested
gov't grant was
$129,804,130.
...an increase
of 25 percent..."
That is where we stand at the
moment with regard to capital project
funding.
Let me now return to the subject of
operating funds. On Aug. 15, we were
required to submit to the Universities
Council our estimates for operating
purposes for the fiscal year starting
next April. At the same time, under a
new system introduced by the
Council, we were asked to present our
estimates for the following two years
as well. Thus deans and the heads of
non-academic units-had to prepare,
through the system of consultations I
have described, estimates of their
needs for three years in advance. In
doing so, they had to include several
major considerations. First, enrolment
growth had to be taken into account,
based on the best projections we could
produce.   Second,   they  had  to   plan
ahead for the initiation and
development of new programs. Third,
they had to consider the funding needs
of our existing programs.
This three-year estimate of our
operating needs had to be prepared for
submission to the Council in August.
At the same time, of course, we
entered into negotiations with the
Faculty Association in order to agree
upon a salary increase for 1977-78
which could be included in the
submission to the Council. Happily,
we were able to reach agreement on a
proposed salary increase. This
comprised a basic increase of 7 per
cent, plus 3 per cent for career
development and merit adjustments,
and .5 per cent for inequity
adjustments. Included also in our
submission to Council was .7 per cent
to cover the estimated additional cost
of the revised study leave proposal
agreed upon last year.
Thus, our total requested
government grant submitted to the
Council in August was $129,804,130.
This involves an increase of 25 per
cent over the 1976-77 operating grant.
Please note that in our submission
the $4.5 million received by special
warrant last spring is included in the
base operating figure over which we
are requesting an increase. I have
already explained why this was done.
In early summer, however, the
minister stated that this amount will
not form part of the base, but was in
fact only a one-time grant. This
development is a crucial factor in the
situation we now face. I will return to
it in a moment.
At this point, I must mention
another series of events which relate
significantly to our total fiscal
situation. That is the matter of the
proposed expansion of our medical
school. On March 9, the minister of
education and the minister of health
made an announcement in which they
called upon this University to double
the size of our medical class from the
present 80 students to 160 per year.
In their announcement, the
ministers stated that $50 million was
available,    in    matched    provincial
government and federal health
resources funds, to build a campus
teaching hospital of 240 beds, provide
the additional basic science facilities
required for the expansion, and update
the clinical teaching facilities at the
downtown teaching hospitals. The
ministers asked the University to
present within 60 days a plan for
accomplishing the expansion of the
medical class.
After consultation with the Board
of Governors, and the dean and
academic and clinical department
heads in the Faculty of Medicine, it
was decided that the University should
try to respond positively to the
government's challenge. Accordingly, a
report was prepared, in consultation
with the downtown teaching hospitals,
setting out the necessary conditions
under which the University would be
prepared to consider expanding its
medical class. It was determined that
minimally adequate facilities to handle
the enlarged class could be built with
the capital funds proposed.
More important, however, was the
question of operating costs. We
realized that the increased operating
funds needed to accomplish the class
expansion would have to be provided
in a way which would not adversely
affect the funding of the University's
other academic functions, including
the present operations of the Faculty
of Medicine.
It was therefore stated forcefully in
our report to the government that,
before embarking on any expansion
plan, the University would require
firm assurances that the funding of the
medical class expansion would be
provided independently, without
impinging on the rest of the
University's operating support. After
much discussion with the government,
we have now received sufficient
assurance to justify putting the
question to the Faculty of Medicine,
the Senate and the Board of Governors.
But from the start we have been
aware of the inherent contradiction of
the government wishing to expand one
segment of the University and
simultaneously voicing a policy of
restraint for the University as a whole.
We were faced with the fact, however,
that the government had made
expansion of the medical school a top
6/UBC Reports/Dec. 8, 1976 priority. Nevertheless, we have
constantly insisted on the necessity of
protecting the operations of the
University as a whole from potential
adverse effects.
We also stressed in our response to
the government's challenge that
another important condition of
undertaking expansion was securing
the necessary academic approvals from
the Faculty of Medicine itself, the
Senate and the Board of Governors.
The matter is coming before the
Faculty of Medicine on Dec. 6, will be
discussed by the Senate in the very
near future, and subsequently will
come before the Board of Governors. I
will not attempt to predict the
outcome of their deliberations.
,.. the weather signs
are not promising.
I will tell you
what they are."
I have now, at last, reached the
present moment. From now on I must
deal in conjecture. We do not yet
know what increase the Council has
recommended to the government, and
we will not know until February or
March what increase the government
will actually grant the universities.
But the weather signs are not
promising. I will tell you what they
are.
First, as I have mentioned, the
minister has stated that the $4.5
million warrant amount will not be
included in our base operating grant. If
this happens, it means quite simply
that even if we should receive the
percentage increase we have requested,
we will in fact still be $4.5 million
short of our needs.
Second, the minister has made a
number of statements recently which
suggest that next spring's grant to the
universities may well involve little or
no increase over last year. In fact, the
minister just last week wrote to the
chairman of the Universities Council
on this matter. I think you should
know what he said.
First, he states, "It is necessary for
us to inform you that it is unlikely
that the provincial government will be
able to supply the full amount of the
operating grants requested by the
Universities Council."
Even more significant is the next
paragraph in his letter. Let me read it
to you in full:
"Further, it has come to my
attention that certain members of the
university community are assuming
that salary increases will be supported
if they do not exceed maximum limits
established by the Anti-Inflation
Board. I must advise you that there is
no guarantee that provincial grants will
be sufficient to support such
settlements, even if they would not be
rolled back by the Anti-Inflation
Board. Obviously, the AIB is
concerned with the national question
of inflationary control, and does not
concern itself with either the ability of
provinces to provide funds, or whether
previous salary and wage levels reflect
appropriate productivity. Those are
questions to be decided by
government upon recommendation of
the Universities Council." [Emphasis
added.]
These, then, are some of the
weather signs. They suggest that we
may well face considerable difficulty
in the coming year. I cannot predict
the exact dimensions of that
difficulty. It is, of course, clear that if
the $4.5 million from the government
warrant is not included in our grant,
we will face a shortfall of at least that
much. It is conceivable that the
amount of shortfall could be greater;
how much greater would depend
mainly on the extent to which the
government grant provides the increase
we have requested to fund our salary
and wage settlements.
Trying to predict actual figures
would be an idle exercise. However, I
feel I have a responsibility to present
the possibilities to you, so that you
may see the magnitude of the
potential problem we must be
prepared to face.
Finally, what should we do if a
serious shortfall should occur? Though
we cannot predict with certainty,
clearly we must make every effort to
be prepared.
Obviously, there are two means
available    to    handle    a    shortfall:
increasing revenue and/or reducing
expenditure. Let's look at our options
in these two categories.
How can we increase revenue? As I
have said, we have only three basic
sources of revenue. The Board of
Governors, unfortunately, is not
authorized to print money; nor does
the Universities Act authorize it to
engage in deficit financing, unless it
receives specific permission to do so
by order-in-council, which in present
circumstances is extremely unlikely.
The Board, therefore, must do the best
it can with very little control over
sources of revenue.
Our main resource is, of course, the
government grant. We are doing all we
can to increase that by presenting a
reasoned and reasonable request to the
Universities Council and the
government, and by pressing our case
as strongly as possible. This we will
continue to do.
"...we are faced with
the possibility of having
to increase our revenue
from student
tuition fees..."
Second, we are examining our other
non-tuition sources of revenue very
closely to discover every possible
means of increasing these by
reasonable means. In this area,
however, the possibilities are severely
limited.
Finally, we are faced with the
possibility of having to increase our
revenue from student tuition fees to
help offset a potential shortfall. To
meet the need for $4.5 million, for
example, would require an increase in
tuition fees of approximately $200 per
student, or about 45 per cent. This is a
large increase: unfairly large, in my
opinion.
Continued on p. 8
UBC Reports/Dec 8, 1976/7 Continued from p. 7
There are some who contend that
we should do this, however. They
argue that since we have not had a
tuition increase since 1965, the
proportion of educational costs paid
by students has fallen from about 32
per cent to about 10 per cent. They
feel that to return to the higher
percentage figure would not be unfair,
since students benefit, financially and
otherwise, from their education and
should pay a sizable proportion of its
cost. Second, they argue that if the
need is not met through tuition
increases, it can only be met by a
serious reduction in academic
programs, which will be to everyone's
detriment, particularly students'.
As I have said many times, I
personally believe in the lowest
possible tuition fees, because I am
concerned about maintaining
maximum accessibility to higher
education. However, I also believe
strongly in maintaining the quality of
education. For these reasons, my
personal desire is to keep any
necessary increase in tuition fees at the
lowest level consistent with
maintaining high academic standards
at this University.
Minimizing tuition increases,
however, will reduce our ability to
meet the need simply by increasing
revenue. Accordingly, we must look —
and we are looking — at ways to
reduce expenditures. We will of course
look first at ways which will least
affect our academic programs. But
since the bulk of our budget goes to
academic functions it is clear that if
cuts must be made they are bound to
harm the academic enterprise.
We may have to face the prospect
of actual reductions in our academic
offerings, larger classes, increased
teaching loads. If cuts are required, the
decisions will of course be made with
consultation at least as wide as that by
which our budget is worked out. But if
the need is there, sacrifice will be
required from everyone.
Meanwhile, we are doing our best
to prepare for possible eventualities.
Several weeks ago, as many of you are
already aware, the deans were asked to
begin formulating contingency plans.
Discussions are now going on about
how such contingencies could be met
with the least possible harm to our
essential academic functions.
At the same time, as part of the
normal   budgetary   process,  we  must
8/UBC Reports/Dec. 8, 1976
begin thinking about our next
submission to the Universities Council.
Again, it is to be for a three-year
period — in this case, 1978-79,
1979-80, and 1980-81. Though it may
seem contradictory to be asked to plan
at the same time for cutting back and
for normal growth and development, it
is probably better so. It is essential, I
think, that we not let the prospect or
even the reality of hard times entirely
determine our thinking. A depression
mentality is not appropriate for an
institution devoted essentially to the
future.
That question of attitude — the
effect of the situation on us, our
response to it — is the last point I
would like to mention. It is a crucial
point. Despite my necessary emphasis
today on matters of finance, the more
important question, I believe, is not
"How great is the difficulty, how
many dollars will we lose?", but "How
will we respond as an institution, as a
community of learning?"
..can we maintain
our hold
on the values
this institution
represents...?"
As I said at the start, this University
is being tested. And not only this
University. The problems I have been
describing are not unique to UBC, or
British Columbia. They are being
widely experienced across Canada and
the rest of North America.
The problem, while to a great
extent economic in origin, is by no
means merely a problem of shortage of
money. When money is short, social
pressures mount and society's
perceptions of priorities are affected.
When the economic stress eases, which
it will, many of the doubts now felt
will be relieved and more normal
responses will probably return.
As long as such stress continues,
however, the public, and governments,
tend to lose their long-range
perspective and to judge most things in
immediate economic terms. Thus
questions are raised about the value of
higher education. Newspapers and
magazines start printing articles about
the worth of the bachelor's degree.
The public starts wondering if higher
education isn't just a luxury. Notions
like zero-based budgeting gain
currency and are applied in the
public's mind to institutions of higher
learning. The public, and governments,
begin to ask universities to justify their
existence, and their cost.
We are thus in a position where,
like it or not, the University itself may
have to adopt a zero-based attitude.
Certainly we must re-examine and
reaffirm our basic functions and goals,
so as to be able to convince taxpayers
and governments that those goals are
worth the cost. That is one essential
part of the challenge we face.
The other part is even closer to
home. How will we react internally to
the pressures of restraint and possible
cutbacks? We are a community of
learning. To many, however, we are
simply a community made up of
privileged people with vested interests.
Some therefore expect that we will
respond as certain other communities
have: dog eat dog, the devil take the
hindmost.
But because we are a special kind of
community, I believe we can confound
such expectations. We are bound
together by a common concern for
learning and teaching, by common
values like truth and tolerance. Our
most fundamental characteristic as a
university is that, whatever the
pressures of the present, we are
basically dedicated to the future.
At the moment, the immediate
future may look bleak. But as things
change, as the economy regains its
natural vitality, I am sure that the
public's awareness of the long-term
value of higher education will return.
Meanwhile, many people are
watching us to see how we respond to
the test. At a time when economic and
political and social pressures are all
pushing us towards reacting with
defensive self-interest, can we maintain
our hold on the values this institution
represents and to which we as
members of that institution have
committed ourselves?
I believe we can. I ask for your help
in proving that we can. Busy week on the UBC labor scene
This  week   is  a   busy one on the
labor scene at UBC.
On     Tuesday     (Dec.     7),     the
University and the Association of
University and College Employees,
Local  1,  resumed negotiations under
Federal gift aids pool
UBC students and local citizens are
$435,000 closer to an indoor
swimming pool.
That amount of money was pledged
toward construction of UBC's aquatic
centre on Sunday by Hon. lona
Campagnolo, minister of state for
fitness and amateur sport.
The money was from a federal
government fund to allow universities
to bring athletic facilities up to
international standards of
competition. Another stipulation of
the Physical Resources Development
Program is that the local community
must be able to use the facility to the
greatest extent possible.
Stage one of the pool has already
begun and is scheduled for completion
late this spring. Money for stage one
came from the Alma Mater Society,
the provincial government's
Community Recreational Facilities
Fund and the University.
The federal grant of $435,000 will
be applied to stage two of
construction. Fund raisers need an
additional $1 million to complete
construction of the facility.
If there is no break in construction
work between the end of stage one
and the beginning of two, the centre
should be open during the winter of
1977-78.
Professor emerita dies
A memorial service was held in
Vancouver Saturday (Dec. 4) for Professor Emerita Mollie Cottingham, a
well-known B.C. teacher and a member of UBC's Faculty of Education
from 1958 until her retirement in
1971.
Miss Cottingham began her teaching
career in B.C. schools in 1927 after
graduating from UBC with the degree
of bachelor of arts. She obtained her
master of arts degree from UBC in
1947.
She taught in high schools in the
Interior and in Vancouver until 1955,
when she joined the staff of the
Provincial Normal School, which was
incorporated into UBC as the Faculty
of Education the following year.
In 1957-58 Miss Cottingham served
as president of the B.C. Teachers'
Federation, which honored her in
1967 with the Fergusson Memorial
Award for outstanding service to the
teaching profession.
Miss Cottingham was the BCTF
representative on UBC's Senate from
1953 to 1958. At UBC she was active
as a member of the Faculty Association and served on numerous University committees.
She was assistant director of the
division of student teaching in the
Faculty of Education from 1964 until
her retirement.
AUCC proceedings available
The Association of Universities and
Colleges of Canada has published
volume one of the proceedings of the
association's annual meeting held in
Regina in November.
Volume one is made up of papers
presented at conference workshops
under the general theme of "The
Changing Conditions Within the
Universities."
Workshop papers deal with such
topics as graduate education,
international aspects of university
operations, evaluation of performances
in the university, and continuing
education.
Volume two of the proceedings
should be available late in December.
Copies of both volumes, at a total cost
of $3, may be obtained from the
AUCC Publications Office, 151 Slater
St., Ottawa K1P5N1.
Nominees sought
Nominations are now being
accepted for the Royal Bank
Award, an annual award of $50,000
to honor "a Canadian citizen or
person domiciled in Canada whose
outstanding achievement is of such
importance that it is contributing
to human welfare and the common
good."
Brochures describing the award
are available from Research
Administration, Room 312, Old
Auditorium. Nominations close
Feb. 28, 1977.
mediator Jock Waterston, who was
appointed by the provincial
Department of Labor in November to
assist in current negotiations for a new
contract. AUCE's contract with UBC
expired Sept. 30.
Negotiations between AUCE and
UBC had been recessed until this week
in anticipation of receiving the ruling
of the federal Anti-Inflation Board on
the settlement reached by the
University and AUCE following a
one-week strike by the union in
December last year. The union
received an increase that cost a total of
19.1 per cent.
The University's offer of this
amount was made prior to the
establishment of AIB guidelines and
was in line with average increases being
qranted in B.C. at that time.
Also on Tuesday (Dec 7),
representatives of UBC and the Health
Sciences Association, which represents
16 paramedical professional employees
in the UBC Health Sciences Centre,
met with arbitrator Hugh Ladner. UBC
and the association have agreed to
binding arbitration. This contract
expired Dec. 31, 1975.
Mr. Waterston is also serving as
mediator in negotiations between the
University and the Office and
Technical Employees Union, which
represents 41 clerical and technical
employees in the Department of
Physical Plant. The OTEU contract
expired March 31.
Negotiations are continuing with
the Registered Nurses Association of
B.C., which represents 58 nurses in the
UBC Health Sciences Centre and the
University Health Service. The
association's agreement with UBC
expired Dec. 31, 1975.
Negotiations will begin Thursday
(Dec. 9) with the International Union
of Operating Engineers, Local 882,
representing 24 stationary and
maintenance engineers.
The operating engineers current
agreement expires on Dec. 31 this
year. The union agreed to a new
agreement last April for a salary
increase of 8 per cent, which was
approved by the AIB.
In October, the Canadian Union of
Public Employees (CUPE), Local 116,
and UBC ratified a contract that
provided for a general wage increase of
7.5 per cent and a provision that
guaranteed tradesmen 90 per cent of
the hourly rate paid to tradesmen in
the B.C. construction industry.
The current agreement with CUPE
expires March 31, 1977.
UBC Reports/Dec 8, 1976/9 University submits position paper to
The University submitted a position
paper to the provincially appointed
task force studying future
development of the University
Endowment Lands Tuesday.
The paper was presented by
Vice-President C. J. Connaghan on
behalf of President Douglas Kenny. It
was based on a study of the UEL by
an advisory committee chaired by Dr.
Peter Larkin, dean of Graduate
Studies. The committee included
faculty members, students, staff and
alumni, operating under the following
terms of reference:
"To advise the president on the
future development of the University
Endowment Lands, keeping in mind
the special nature of the Endowment
Lands, keeping in mind the special
nature of the Endowment Lands, their
original purpose, their present use, as
well as the future land and related
requirements of the University of
British Columbia."
The University position follows:
Since the early 1900s, when a
portion of Point Grey was set aside as
the University Endowment Lands by
the provincial government, some
confusion has existed in the minds of
the public concerning the relationship
between   the   University   Endowment
Lands  and   the   University of British
Columbia.
The provincial government of that
day saw the University Endowment
Lands as a means of providing the
University with a source of revenue,
by endowment rather than through
governmental estimates. It was the
hope of the government that such a
fiscal arrangement would provide a
secure source of funding for the
institution irrespective of the state of
the provincial economy.
In actual fact, however, the
University has derived no financial
benefit from the Endowment Lands,
and financial support for the
University is provided by the province
through the annual provincial budget.
Furthermore, it is recognized that
the University Endowment Lands are a
valuable recreation area owned by the
Crown and as such, in the opinion of
the University, should be made
available to a more broadly based
community than simply the University
community.
It is therefore recommended that
the province make a clear declaration
that the University Endowment Lands
are not to be developed for the
financial endowment of the University
of British Columbia, but rather are to
be managed for the benefit of all
citizens of British Columbia.
Because of its proximity to the
University Endowment Lands, the
University of British Columbia has
made extensive use of the lands in the
past for teaching and research
purposes.
The continuing contribution of the
area to the academic endeavors of the
University is reflected in the large
number of classroom and research
programs conducted by members of
the Faculty of Forestry and the
Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, to
mention just two faculties.
The lands are an important
academic asset which would be
destroyed should large-scale
urbanization take  place within them.
The University recommends that
most of the University Endowment
Lands be preserved as a natural park
area, in a manner which provides
appropriate recreational opportunity
to the public and at the same time
retains the lands as a teaching and
research facility, and provides for
agricultural, forestry and ecological
demonstration areas.
This recommendation contemplates
that the natural park will embrace:
(a)     most of the existing Frank Buck
UNIVERSITY  ENDOWMENT LANDS
10/UBC Reports/Dec. 8, 1976 task force studying future of UEL
Memorial Park,
(b) the foreshore area surrounding
the UEL,
(c) the wooded area north of
Chancellor Boulevard, and
(d) the triangular piece of property
south of Marine Drive adjacent to
the Musqueam Indian Reserve.
The residential area of the
University Endowment Lands has
historically been a source of housing
for members of the University faculty,
members of the University staff and
students. The University would view
with alarm any change in the
traditional housing pattern which
would penalize residents of the area
who have  limited financial resources.
While the University considers it
inappropriate to comment on the
future aspirations of the University
Endowment Lands residents, it would
support physical development of the
area between 16th Avenue and
Chancellor Boulevard, providing such
development preserved the unique
character of the area and maintained
and enhanced the housing
opportunities for members of the
University community and others.
The administration of the
University Endowment Lands is now
the responsibility of the provincial
government. The University is aware
of the desire of some UEL residents
for more autonomy in the
administration of the lands and the
establishment of some form of
municipal governing structure.
The University believes the matter
of administering the University
Endowment Lands has two
components: the administration of
any future municipal structure of the
residential area and the administration
of the natural park.
As to the administration of the
residential area, the University is
keenly aware of the sensitivity of this
topic. It is our opinion that it would
not be appropriate for the University
to have direct involvement in whatever
structure may be developed for the
day-to-day administration of the
residential area.
However, the University believes
that there would be mutual benefit to
having formalized lines of
communication between a University
Endowment Lands residential
governing body and the University of
British Columbia. It would be the
hope that such a mechanism would
provide a means for expeditiously and
harmoniously dealing with matters of
mutual concern.
The natural park area should be
administered by the Provincial Parks
Branch through a board of
management which should include
representatives of the Parks Branch,
the University, the City of Vancouver,
the Greater Vancouver Regional
District and the residents of the
Endowment Lands.
Bearing in mind that the University
is vitally interested in the maintenance
of the natural park for academic
purposes, and that the University has
substantial expertise to contribute to
the management of the park, it is
expected that the University would
have strong representation on the
board of management.
Even though not all the available
land within the University boundaries
has been given over to buildings,
almost all of it has been appropriated
for academic, academic-support and
non-academic services. Indeed 974
acres of the government grant of 989
acres has been committed for use.
Apart from building sites, land has
been set aside for playing fields, the
development of the Botanical Gardens,
agricultural field plots and animal care
facilities, all of which are examples of
academic land use.
Moreover, because of the need for
students, staff and faculty members to
commute daily from various parts of
the Lower Mainland, it has become
necessary to use part of the available
land for parking lots, roadways and
walkways.
A further matter for consideration
is the future land requirement for
student housing, in particular for
students with children. The University
is concerned that the land available at
present will be insufficient to meet
future demands.
Attention must also be paid to the
needs of faculties for future expansion
of their existing facilities. In
particular, the Faculties of Forestry
and Agricultural Sciences have
requested additional land beyond the
campus.
Both of these requests are
predicated on the belief that their
capacity to provide first rate teaching
and research will be inhibited unless
their decreasing land holdings within
the University are replaced. In light of
the importance of these two faculties
to the provincial economy, their
requests should be given high priority.
The University feels that a request
by the Faculty of Forestry for an area
to be used for demonstration and
research, for which the prime
motivation is public education, is
compatible with the intended use of
the natural park.
The Dean of Agricultural Sciences
suggests that between ibO and 250
acres be set aside for development of a
farm for public education.
We believe that the campus is no
larger than is necessary, especially in
view of the future physical expansion
necessary to meet the educational
needs of the province. However, it is
the University's belief that it would
not be fulfilling its responsibilities if it
did not record with the provincial
government concern about meeting its
future land needs.
It therefore recommends that the
University land-holdings be increased
by at least 300 acres at an appropriate
future date, and in a manner which
does not injure the concept of a
natural park.
The University is enthusiastic about
collaboration between industry,
government and University
researchers, and recognizes that a
research park may be one means of
accomplishing this objective.
The B.C. Research Council has
studied this question and has
recommended that such a facility be
established. The Council has suggested
that a minimum of 50 acres will be
necessary, with eventual growth to
200 acres.
While the University is sympathetic
to the establishment of a research
park, it has concluded that the amount
of land required for such a
development could not be set aside
from the available University acreage
without seriously hampering the
ongoing academic enterprise.
The University therefore
recommends that land required for a
research park be found outside the
University boundaries. It also
recommends that a full and thorough
study be made of such a proposal
before a final decision is made.
In conclusion, the University is
aware of the unique features of the
University Endowment Lands and
recognizes the valuable contribution
the lands have made over the years to
the public and to students and faculty
members by providing valuable field
settings for study and research. The
University is most anxious to maintain
the lands for use by future
generations.
The University recognizes it has a
responsibility as an autonomous unit
on the Point Grey Peninsula to
co-operate with the government,
municipalities, University Endowment
Lands residents and the public at large
to develop an appropriate long-range
program for the Endowment Lands
that will prove of benefit to all
concerned. This it is prepared to do.
UBC Reports/Dec. 8, 1976/11 NEXT WEEK AT UBC
Noticesmust reach I nformationServices, Main Mall North Admin. Bldg.,by mail, by 5 p.m. Thursday of week preceding publication of notice.
LOST AND FOUND
The campus Lost and Found is located in Room
208, Student Union Building. Hours are 11:30 a.m.
to 1:30 p.m. and 3:00 to 4:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday.
MUSIC LIBRARY DISPLAY
Scores, recordings and literature pertinent to the
English composer Havergal Brian (1876-1972) will
be displayed in the Music Library, Music Building,
until Jan. 15, 1977.
CHRISTMAS BAKESHOP
UBC Food Services offers fruit cakes, mince tarts,
shortbread, etc. for sale. Orders should be
telephoned in advance to 228-3649 until Dec. 22.
SUNDAY, DEC. 12
3:00 p.m.    CHRISTMAS     CHOIR     CONCERT    by     the
Vancouver School of Theology Sacred Music
Choir, directed by John Mitchell, with Music of
Bach and Mozart. Chapel of the Epiphany, 6050
Chancellor Blvd.
MONDAY, DEC. 13
12:30 p.m. CANCER RESEARCH SEMINAR. Hulbert Silver,
Cancer Control Agency of B.C., on Current Status
of Clinical Cancer Immunotherapy. Library, Block
B, Medical Sciences Building.
4:30 p.m. CANCER CONTROL SEMINAR. Dr. John L.
Benedet, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, UBC, on
Role of Colposcopy in Pregnant Patient with
Positive Cytology. Second floor conference room.
Cancer Control Agency of B.C., 2656 Heather St.
TUESDAY, DEC. 14
12:30 p.m.    PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES   LECTURE.  Dr.
J. E. Orr, Bio Research Laboratories, on Relations
Between Drug Induced C.N.S. Effects and Plasma
Levels of Diazepam in Man. Lecture Hall 1,
Woodward Instructional Resources Centre.
4:30 p.m. PHYSIOLOGY LECTURE. The first in a series of
three lectures by Dr. Marc Colonnier, Laboratoires
de Neurobiologie, Universite Laval and visiting
professor. Medical Research Council of Canada, on
the visual cortex. Considerations on the Six Layer
Model of the Neocortex: Cytoarchitecture and
Connections of Cells in the Different Laminae of
the Visual Cortex of Cat and Monkey. Lecture Hall
5, Woodward Instructional Resources Centre.
WEDNESDAY, DEC. 15
12:30 p.m. PHARMACOLOGY SEMINAR. Dr. Ernest Puil,
Pharmacology, UBC, on Electro-
Micropharmacology of Neurons in the Central
Nervous System: Aspects Relevant to Rational
Design of Drugs Affecting GABAergic Systems.
Room 221, Block C, Medical Sciences Building.
4:00 p.m. MICROBIOLOGY SEMINAR. Dr. Austin Sargent,
Faculty of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan
on Myeloma proteins and their interaction with
lymphocyte membrane antigens. Room 201,
Wesbrook Building.
4:30 p.m. PHYSIOLOGY LECTURE. The second in a series
of three by Dr. Marc Colonnier will be on
Intracortical Connectivity Patterns Underlying the
Functional Columnar Organization of the Neocortex: A Study of Radial and Tangential Fibres in
the Visual Cortex of Monkey. Lecture Hall 5,
Woodward Instructional Resources Centre.
5:00 p.m. SURGERY LECTURE. Dr. George S. Sheldon,
Department of Surgery, University of California,
San Francisco, on Protein Sparing and Lipid
Therapy, B floor lecture hall, Faculty of Medicine
Building, Vancouver General Hospital.
8:00 p.m. SENATE MEETING. Free tickets for interested
members of the University community are
available from Frances Medley, 228-2951. Board
and Senate Room, Old Administration Building.
THURSDAY, DEC. 16
12:15 p.m. BIOMEDICAL COMMUNICATIONS lunch hour
media show. The second in this series is a six-part
program on Diabetes. Room B8, Woodward
Instructional Resources Centre.
1:00p.m. NORTHWEST COAST ARTISTS AND
CRAFTSMEN. Haida artist Gerry Marks discusses
his work. Orientation Centre, Museum of
Anthropology.
4:30 p.m. PHYSIOLOGY LECTURE. The last lecture in this
series of three by Dr. Marc Colonnier is on
Electron Microscopic Studies of the Visual Cortex
of Turtle, Cat and Monkey: Synaptic Contacts and
Evidence for Two Types of Dendritic Spines.
Lecture Hall 5, Woodward Instructional Resources
Centre.
9:00 p.m. BEYOND THE MEMORY OF MAN. C. Friedrichs,
C. Stocker and R. Unger discuss Reformation and
Pilgrimage. Channel 10, Vancouver Cablevision.
10:30 p.m. UBC PUBLIC AFFAIRS presented by the Centre
for Continuing Education. This week's program is
on The End of Economic Control? Host Gerald
Savory. Channel 10, Vancouver Cablevision.
FRIDAY, DEC. 17
9:00 a.m. PEDIATRICS GRAND ROUND. Dr. John Tze,
Pediatrics, UBC, on Prototype of Implantable
Endocrine Pancreas. Lecture Hall B, Heather
Pavilion, Vancouver General Hospital.
3:30 p.m. ECONOMICS SEMINAR. Dr. Albert Rees,
Princeton University and former director, U.S.
Council on Wage and Price Stability, on Wage and
Price Stabilization. Room 218, Buchanan Building.
9:00 p.m. CHRISTMAS DANCE hosted by International
House and featuring the Trinidad Supertones
Steelband.   For  more information, call  228-5021.
MONDAY, DEC. 20
12:30 p.m. CANCER RESEARCH SEMINAR. Bruce Dunn,
Cancer Research Centre, UBC, on Correlation of
Susceptibility to Cancer With Carcinogen
Activation. Library, Block B, Medical Sciences
Building.
THURSDAY, DEC. 23
12:15 p.m. BIOMEDICAL COMMUNICATIONS lunch hour
media show. The third in this series will feature a
tour of the Woodward Instructional Resources
Centre.. Room B8, Woodward Instructional
Resources Centre.
DEC. 24, 25, 26, 27
University closed. Merry Christmas!
JAN. 1,2,3
University closed. Happy New Year!
THURSDAY, JAN. 6
12:15 p.m. BIOMEDICAL COMMUNICATIONS lunch hour
media show. The fourth in this series will be on
Scoliosis. Room B8, Woodward Instructional
Resources Centre.
FRIDAY, JAN. 7
9:00 a.m.     PEDIATRICS     GRAND    ROUND.    Dr.     Derek
Applegarth, Pediatrics., UBC, on Hurler Syndrome,
1977. Lecture Hall B, Heather Pavilion, Vancouver
General Hospital.
12/UBC Reports/Dec. 8, 1976

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/cdm.ubcreports.1-0118351/manifest

Comment

Related Items