UBC Publications

UBC Publications

UBC Publications

UBC Reports Mar 13, 1974

Item Metadata


JSON: ubcreports-1.0118593.json
JSON-LD: ubcreports-1.0118593-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): ubcreports-1.0118593-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: ubcreports-1.0118593-rdf.json
Turtle: ubcreports-1.0118593-turtle.txt
N-Triples: ubcreports-1.0118593-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: ubcreports-1.0118593-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

 "B.M..I...-.L. '-'.LO.WIMM
Board Approves Capital Budget
A capital budget of just over $12 million for the
fiscal year 1974-75 was approved by UBC's Board of
Governors at its meeting on March 5.
The budget includes provisions to complete financing of a number of major campus buildings now in
various stages of advanced planning.
It virtually completes the building program
launched three years ago on the recommendation of
the President's Committee on Academic Building
The provincial government's capital grant to UBC
for 1974-75, announced by Premier David Barrett in
his recent budget speech, amounts to $8 million, an
increase of $2 million over the 1973-74 grant.
The remaining $4 million-plus in UBC's capital
budget will come from student contributions and
other anticipated donations for a new swimming
pool; contributions to fund campaigns for new facilities for the Faculties of Agricultural Sciences and
Commerce   and   Business   Administration   and   the
Departments of Civil and Mechanical Engineering;
from funds carried forward from the current year's
capital grant; and from donations to earlier fund
Among the projects included in the new budget
are a north wing for the Biological Sciences Building
on the southeast corner of Main Mall and University
The new wing, which will cost a total of
$2,875,000, will provide new or improved accommodation for the Departments of Botany and Zoology
and the interdepartmental Biology Program, and for
the Institutes of Oceanography and Animal Resource
Ecology. It will also include office space for the Dean
of Science (now housed in a former army hut), and a
new electron miscroscopy laboratory.
The budget also includes $524,851 to complete
financing of a new Anthropology and Sociology
Complex on the former Fort Camp Residence site. In
its  final   form  the complex will  consist of three
renovated former permanent women's residences and
an addition to tie them together.
The complex will provide offices and research
facilities for some members of the Anthropology and
Sociology faculty and graduate students, seminar
rooms for undergraduate honors and major students,
and a Resources Centre for the department.
The Anthropology and Sociology Complex is
adjacent to the Museum of Anthropology now under
construction on the Fort Camp site. Approximately
$1 million was allocated to the complex in the
current 1973-74 capital budget.
The new budget also includes $1,790,000 to
complete financing of the $3.3-million Civil and
Mechanical Engineering Building, which is to be built
immediately south of the departments' joint laboratory building at Main Mall and Stores Road.
The new building will be a low structure
Please turn to Page Four
Vol. 20, No. 5/March 13, 1974/Vancouver,B.C.
New residence fees and room-and-board charges
for single students have been approved by UBC's
Board of Governors.
The increased rates will apply to 1974 Summer
Session students living in the Place Vanier Residence
and to single Winter Session students occupying the
Place Vanier, Totem Park and Walter H. Gage Residences from Sept. 1, 1974.
Approved by the Board of Governors was an increase of approximately 7.2 per cent in the room
portion of rates charged to students living in UBC's
three single residence complexes — the Walter H.
Gage, Totem Park and Place Vanier Residences.
In Place Vanier and Totem Park, where board is
provided, an additional increase has been provided,
yielding total room-and-board increases of approximately 10.75 per cent.
Students will pay the following annual residence
fees in 1974-75, based on a 218-day Winter Session
(1973-74 rates in brackets):
PLACE VANIER AND TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES: senior single room - $1,061.66 ($957);
single room - $983.18 ($883); double room -
$941.76 ($846).
Daily rates for students living in residence during
the 1974 Summer Session have been increased by approximately the same percentage as for Winter Session students. Summer Session students living in
single rooms will pay $5.53 per day in 1974 compared to $5.00 in 1973, while students living in
double rooms will pay $5.29 per day in 1974 compared to $4.78 in 1973.
The 1974-75 rate increase for single-student residences was not unexpected. Last year, when the Uni-
Please turn to Page Four
-Ifl^'f «f|f Sr* 1|f
WAS IT an "anti-trek" designed to encourage the idea
of moving UBC's School of Architecture to a downtown Vancouver location? Was it a tribute to Prof.
Henry Elder, who retires June 30 after 12 years as.
head of the Architecture School? Or was it just a
publicity stunt to advertise the Vancouver Art Gal
lery show, which continues until March 30, of the
work of the UBC School over the past 28 years? Only
the students of UBC's Architecture School knew for
sure as they set out from the Frederic Lasserre Building March 6 on their march to downtown Vancouver.
Picture by Jim Banham.
Committee Finishes Job
UBC's Senate approved the discharge on Feb. 20
of its ad hoc Committee on Student Membership in
Faculties after passing a series of general recommendations for student representation at the departmental
Discharge of the committee came after Senate
debated the question of student representation in
Faculties on six separate occasions over a period of
more than a year.
Previous Senate debates led to approval of recommendations which will result in the election of 196
students as full voting members of UBC's 12
In the course of the debates Senate approved
guidelines governing student representation as well as
regulations on such questions as who shall conduct
elections and who is eligible for election.
In its final report to Senate on Feb. 20 dealing
with student representation in departments, the
committee said a large number of departments and
Schools had provided the committee with information concerning present and proposed practices for
involving students in appropriate departmental
The information revealed a very wide range of
variation amongst departments as to administrative
arrangements and many have what appear to be
highly satisfactory arrangements for student involvement, the committee's report said.
Departments expressed a general concern that
arbitrary decisions not be made which would require
a change in existing satisfactory arrangements.
Senate approved three recommendations from the
The first of these called for departments to
develop arrangements for student representation in
conformity with the principles approved by Senate
on Jan. 17, 1973, where satisfactory arrangements do
not now exist.
In January, 1973, Senate agreed to provide for
student representation, with full voting privileges, at
Faculty meetings, meetings of Faculty committees,
and meetings of committees of divisions, departments, Schools and teaching Institutes.
Also approved was a recommendation that, although  student  opinion  would be sought, student
Please turn to Page Four
o letters on
What follows is a selection of letters from
readers commenting on an article by Dr. Robert
Collier, of UBC's School of Community and
Regional Planning, which appeared in the Feb.
13 edition of UBC Reports. The article dealt
with proposals currently under study by a President's Committee to Consider Campus Transportation and Circulation Study Reports. In
particular, the article detailed proposals for
changes in traffic circulation and parking on the
northwest campus. Additional letters will be
published in future campus editions of UBC
I should like to strongly support the concept of
turning the (northwest campus) area into a more
effective pedestrian zone: the nuisance of vehicular
traffic in this area through the day (and evening), and
the inconsiderateness of most drivers, far outweighs the
convenience of a few minutes' time upon arrival and
So far as the specific proposals outlined in Dr.
Collier's article go, I assume that expert judgment will
resolve them satisfactorily once a conceptual guideline is
fixed. The following unexpert thoughts occurred to me
upon reading the proposals.
The proposed Anthrosoc. buildings and School of
Social Work constitute a work area separated by a major
thoroughfare from the rest of campus: hence, it would
seem useful to maintain some staff parking in this area.
In addition to that on the access road, perhaps the east
end of F lot could be retained, whilst still eliminating
that portion of this lot that impinges directly in front of
the new Museum.
Internatignal House and (in future) the Museum
constitute major points of contact between University
and public. In the interest of the public, it might be
worthwhile retaining in this area the parking spaces
represented by the small, relatively unobtrusive lot by
International House. This, and a substantial portion of
the Museum lot could, so far as I can see, be made
'Visitor-only' parking. Visitors often have a notably
difficult time finding parking on campus, and cannot be
expected to abandon private transport as easily as
regular commuters.
The Faculty Club, Graduate Centre, International
House and Frederic Wood Theatre often host public
functions. Hence, it seems reasonable to maintain auto
access to these buildings. To this end, perhaps at least
half of Crescent Road roadway should be retained, to
form part of a circular driveway around these buildings.
The limited amount of parking in the area seems less
necessary. An exception is the few spaces at the
flagpole: it seems to be a favorite casual-tourist viewpoint, and it seems reasonable to retain these spaces,
again, perhaps, for visitors only.
The idea for an overpass over Marine Drive seems
useful. I wonder if additional access to the Museum area
from the direction of the Asian Centre and the major
parking area represented by Fraser River lot could not
be made by going under the road from somewhere near
International House. On the north side one should be
able to come out at grade without steps.
Michael Church,
Assistant Professor,
■■■fc^fc Vo1- 20, No. 5 - March 13,
■ ■■■I" 1974. Published by the Univer-
HBBBB sity of British Columbia and
marMWmaw distributed free. UBC Reports
REPORTS appears on Wednesdays during
the University's Winter Session. J.A. Banham,
Editor. Louise Hoskin and Jean Rands, Production Supervisors. Letters to the Editor should
be sent to Information Services, Main Mall
North Administration Building, UBC, 2075
Wesbrook Place, Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1W5.
I have read with interest Dr. Collier's summary of the
plans for the development of the northwest campus.
Clearly, the committee charged with planning for the
area is facing a difficult task; one made even more
difficult by the April 1, 1975, deadline for the completion of the Museum. The entire project appears to point
out the critical need for a comprehensive development
plan for the area.
Some years ago the University adopted a campus
master plan. Implementation of this plan, however,
seems to concentrate more on erecting physical structures and providing roadways rather than planning for
the needs of a community of people. Needless to say,
the development of the campus is made more difficult
by the uncertainty of capital funding from one year to
the next. Under the existing University planning framework, each project appears to be developed largely in a
vacuum. Plans are developed by "users" of the building
and all too frequently ignore the relationships between
the users of surrounding buildings and the buildings
Until very recently, this seems to have been the
situation with respect to the northwest corner of the
campus. Exciting plans have been developed for several
buildings (the Asian Centre, the Museum, and Anthropology and Sociology), but the overall planning has not
considered the amenities required by the people who
will use the area. The name of the committee itself
("Campus Transportation and Circulation") suggests to
me a rather narrow approach to planning for the area.
What seems to have been absent up to now is planning
on a larger scale which would include provision of facilities for visitors and others, including food and information services and washrooms, From my viewpoint as an
interested observer with limited planning experience, the
proposal as outlined in Dr. Collier's article appears to
pose several as yet unresolved problems. As I see them,
these problems may be summarized as follows:
1. Adequate Provision of Visitors' Amenities — I have
referred above to the lack of planning for visitors. From
the most recent projections, it would appear that the
area will become a magnet attracting thousands of
visitors each month. Our past experience indicates that
the north end of the campus already includes two major
attractions for campus visitors, Totem Pole Park and the
Nitobe Gardens. The addition of the projects under
development will add substantially to the volume of
visitors to the area. While interim solutions have been
considered, some policies must be developed immediately to cope with the needs of these visitors. It will be
difficult to finalize traffic and circulation plans until this
question is resolved. It seems strange that neither the
University planners nor the planning consultants have
foreseen the requirements of visitors to this area and
made recommendations to meet them. We are now in a
position of having to make hasty decisions to provide
facilities in time for the opening of the Museum.
2. Provision of Increased Parking — With the present
shortage of parking at the north end of the campus, it
seems hard to understand the consultants' thinking in
recommending removal of approximately 230 spaces. As
I recall the consultants' plans for the area, the creation-
of a pedestrian walkway along Crescent Road and Main
Mall was tied in with the future provision of a large area
of underground parking on the campus, and the assumption that in the short term the spaces lost would be """1
replaced elsewhere. To date, the University has not
appeared to accept the need for parking structures.
Replacement of the lost spaces on the north end of the
campus seems uncertain. I have recently written to the
Traffic  and   Parking  Committee   in   response  to  their
The bringing of cars onto this campus is an immediately critical problem. ... To my way of thinking there
is no alternative to immediate steps to curtail and
eventually ban the parking of private vehicles on this
campus (except for urgent business, emergencies and to
aid the handicapped). Those 10,000 cars you mention
are not only a major source of pollution and land
desecration but compound the traffic problems of
already-overburdened city arteries.
Some 15,000 to 20,000 people attend this campus
daily. It is the one identifiable concentration of people '
on the peninsula . . . and is ideally suited to access by
mass transportation systems, i.e., at present, the bus.
Hydro is slowly improving its services to this campus. If
their transit management had a little more intelligence
and initiative, sufficiently good services could be provided that both Hydro (in the financial sense) and UBC
(in the environmental sense) would benefit.
Park and ride is not a possibility - those 10,000 cars
would just become somebody else's headache.
You raise one very ugly suggestion — that of building
high rises for cars . . . and turning them over to the oil
companies. This will not harmonize with the environment, geographic or intellectual (I may be wrong on the -
latter point). If you want tennis courts, put them on the
ground, not on top of a high-rise for bloody cars. At
least give some attention to the hitting of the ball over
the edge!
I would like to say that I was an undergraduate at the
University of Sydney (Australia). This University began (
in the last century and virtually no consideration has
ever been given to the parking of cars. The University is
much bigger people-wise than UBC and the ground is
virtually covered with buildings, foot-paths and lawns.
Very few cars fit on campus. Despite its being in the
middle of a large and stinking city it is a kind of oasis
that this place could well emulate. But I share your
pessimism. The maladministration here is exemplified by
the recent cutting-up of the lawn in front of the Winter '
Sports Centre for the parking of more cars — a small
gesture of contempt toward those who try not to be
crass. There will be bigger insults.
Finally, on the matter of getting around campus. Why
not walk? A few covered walk-ways might be in order as
protection against our unspeakable weather, but the ,
human is blessed with legs for self-propulsion. Exercise
may kill a few, but the surviving Canadians would be less
Peter Vaughan,
Assistant Professor,
Two new PLANS for vehicle and pedestrian traffic on
the northwest campus were revealed in R.W. Collier's
Feb. 13 UBC Reports article. This article began with a
quotation (presumably from an unemployed planner):
"What this campus needs is better planning." Well, in my
opinion, what this campus needs is less planning. Let me
outline my feelings on PLANS in general, and on the
various PLANS, present and proposed, for traffic at
What is a PLAN? PLANS are something dreamed by
anonymous individuals huddled over downtown drafting
tables. (Downtown is probably downtown Montreal,
Toronto or Seattle, but occasionally Vancouver). PLANS
are designed principally to look well when printed sans
serif on the heavy vellum pages of reports. PLANS contain
maps replete with arrows (in primary colors) showing
traffic flows the way ornithologists' maps show bird-
migration patterns. Above all, PLANS create order out of
scruffy, man-made chaos. Everything in a PLAN has a
niche: people go here; cars go there; here we walk; there
we ride; here we park; there we don't.
But is this not a Good Thing, you ask? Why should I
not wish the "quality of my life" improved by logical
PLANS which create an overall order in at least one
small segment of my existence?
Because it is precisely the little idiosyncracies of daily
life that make it all worthwhile. I am not willing to
submit to endless little annoyances in order to conform
to a master PLAN that looks great on paper but which
stinks when it is raining. Let me be specific. . .
Signs. Signs are supposed to be informative. This is
the most that one need ask of a sign. UBC, however, has
a sign system that is uninformative. In simple language
the signs (printed vertically, yet!!) are unreadable.--■-
Engineers with their cans of red spray-paint are better at
signs than the experts who did their inventive worst for
UBC. In addition, the unreadable signs are color-coded
(remember those arrows) to a PLAN so complex that no
one has been known to figure it out.
University Boulevard. Some years ago the final
hundred yards of University Boulevard were closed to
private traffic. Drivers approaching the Biological Sciences parking lot from the Boulevard must detour
around three sides of a large rectangle in order to
conform with this particular PLAN. At the same time
several small, but useful, parking areas around the
Physics and Chemistry Buildings were eliminated. Hitch--_
hiking from the convenient stop in front of Wesbrook
Hospital was done away with. Students now plod
through the rain to the big intersection where stopping
to pick up a rider is a hazardous undertaking. Small
things. People things. Important things. - J
The "Walking Campus" Myth. Dr. Collier talks of the
"attempts to create a walking campus in the face of the " ~
average   Canadian's  attachment  to  his  personal   automobile." The alternative implied by this snide remark
seems to be hordes of students rushing to their cars to      i
drive from Buchanan to Angus between classes.
But this misses the point. During the period that most
students are on campus (Mr. Barrett notwithstanding),
walking is seldom a pleasant experience. One's best hope is
to get from car to class and back as quickly as possible.
And, of course, the central core is not vehicle-free. De-
9/1 IRP  Bannrtc/Mlar^h  Ti    1Q7/I proposal to increase the parking fees in the next session.
My suggestion was to substantially increase the rates for
parking on campus and to use new revenues to develop
improved parking, especially multi-level parking. The
impact of increases in parking fees could be minimized if
payment could be made in instalments, rather than in
one lump sum. In the case of faculty and staff this could
easily be accomplished through monthly payroll deductions. This does not preclude the development of greatly
improved public transit services, but in the foreseeable
future it seems likely that the private vehicle will
continue to be the major mode of travel to the campus.
3. Creation of a Pedestrian Mall — The idea of
creating a pedestrian campus is a very attractive one.
Unfortunately, we have not been able to achieve an
effective separation of pedestrians and vehicles because
of the need for service and emergency vehicles to use
pedestrian walkways. Perhaps it would be possible to
create a major pedestrian walkway on the Main Mall and
Crescent Road area that would not be violated by
vehicles except for emergencies. This would necessitate
the creation of "service alleys" to each of the major
-> buildings in the area. These could also be used by
handicapped persons. If the Main Mall-Crescent Road
area is to be truly a pedestrian mall, it seems to me that
the roadways may ultimately have to be raised to the
grass level and some kind of landscaping done to prevent
■*     access by non-emergency traffic.
4. Creation of a Pedestrian Overpass — With respect
to the proposed overpass, it would appear that the
concept should be given further study. What seems to
have been lost is the fact that during the period when
Fort Camp was operating there were approximately 600
students crossing Marine Drive during the lunch period.
This figure is approximately the same as that projected
by the consultants for peak student crossings. While the
Fort Camp crossing was not ideal it did not necessitate
an overpass. It would appear that if an overpass is
necessary it should be constructed in the area of West
Mall and Marine Drive. This appears to be where the
majority of pedestrian traffic (i.e., visitors) is likely to be
■ • concentrated. Perhaps it would be best to make the
entire stretch of Marine Drive into a restricted speed
zone with street-level pedestrian crosswalks as required.
This would seem to me to be the logical starting point
rather than building a  pedestrian overpass which may
*-    never be utilized.
5. Consideration of Cecil Green Park and the School
of Social Work — While Cecil Green Park and the School
1 of Social Work are not included in the area to be
developed co-operatively by the University and Parks
Board, their proximity to the area would seem to
indicate that they should be considered for planning
purposes. From the discussions to date I am not certain
'',     that this has been done.
I hope that the foregoing comments will be taken
constructively. It is all too easy to be critical without
posing any solutions. It would seem, however, that as an
institution of higher learning, in the case of campus
planning, we may be accused of ignoring many of the
„     very principles we espouse.
Byron H. Hender,
■» Financial Aid Officer.
livery trucks, mail trucks, Physical Plant's enormous fleet
— they are all there. Pedestrians, lulled by propaganda
*-  about the "walking campus," take their lives in their hands
every time they step off a curb in the "vehicle-free zone."
Peripheral Parking and the PLAN. PLANS revel in large
parking lots far removed from the centres of activity.
Small parking areas are an affront to PLANS. Eliminate 13
- spaces by the flagpole; purge eight spaces in front of the
Freddy Wood; remove these tag-ends of disorder! I
** This is the grand culmination of the PLANS-versus-
PEOPLE philosophy. PLANS ignore the fact that those
eight spaces are convenient to people who arrive early
enough to get one. They are convenient to people whose
activities take them on and off campus during the day.
They are convenient on quiet Sunday mornings when
-^  cluttered desks wait to be cleared.
And, most important, they are convenient in the rain.
And rain, Mr. Collier, is a fact of life at UBC. A fact of life
much more important to the little person than the grand
order created by your precious PLANS.
► I   have   noticed   recently   that   cement  walks  have
sprouted all over campus in belated recognition of the
"' observable fact that, in the rain, the driest distance between two points is a straight line. Let's be realistic about
cars as well. Let's open the roads, reinstate the little
places: eight here, three there. Let's make PEOPLE over
PLANS our motto. And for God's sake, get rid of those
stupid signs before I get a permanent crick in my neck.
Richard Spratley,
Research Administration.
has another
conversation with
The subject of B C 's public universities came
up once again when Premier David Barrett was a
guest on CJOR broadcaster Jack Webster's
open-line radio show on March 6. The Premier
previously appeared on Mr. Webster's program
on Feb. 12, the day after his budget speech, in
which he urged the universities to seek new ways
to maximize the use of their facilities, to
develop "bold, imaginative and thoughtful
programs," and to make their services more
available to the public. Dr. Robert Clark,
director of UBC's Office of Academic Planning,
appeared on Mr. Webster's program on Feb. 15
to respond to the Premier's Feb. 12 remarks.
What follows is an edited version of the
discussion between Premier Barrett and Mr.
Webster on March 6.
WEBSTER: Political interference in universities. Since I
last interviewed you, sir, I have spoken to (Dr. Robert
Clark, of the Office of Academic Planning) at UBC, I've
spoken to the academic vice-president at Simon Fraser
University. They are very concerned indeed. . . Stuart
Jamieson (professor of Economics at UBC) told me the
other day he's absolutely stunned by your action in
starving them of enough money even to give the
professors in the faculty the minimum wage increase.
PREMIER BARRETT: Well, it's my understanding that
the professors in the faculty are organizing, just as the
BCTF has an organization, just as plumbers and other
people have an organization. Our purpose as a
government is to ensure that the universities are open to
the greatest number of people on a reasonable basis that
is possible.
WEBSTER: They reject your quarter system.
PREMIER BARRETT: They reject the quarter system
and I don't know if they reject it entirely, but I . . .
WEBSTER:  They don't accept your Ford Foundation
research authority.
PREMIER BARRETT: ... I quoted from a Saturday
Review and I'm going to dig up the source. I was quite
sure it was the Ford Foundation, but I'll dig up the
source and bring it back. But I'm suggesting that with
the 11 per cent increase in faculty, we can use the
facilities 25 per cent more. That was the source that I
Now, if that means paying the faculty more, paying
them for overtime, we are prepared to do that. But I
cannot accept a university system that has not altered in
the last umpteen years while society has changed
dramatically. There are industrial workers, there are
housewives, there are native Indian people who need
practical approaches to that university. I've spoken on
this when I was in opposition so it shouldn't come as a
surprise. . .
WEBSTER: UBC tells me they're using the facilities to
the fullest. Simon Fraser tells me that almost anyone can
get a degree on a part-time basis and that all the things
you want are already there.
PREMIER BARRETT: That is not correct, because I
heard part of the Simon Fraser broadcast and when you
asked the question about, are all the courses offered in
the summer that are available in the winter, the answer
was "no".
WEBSTER: But they csn't get - they can only get
2,300 (students), which is only half the winter
enrolment, to attend in summer.
PREMIER BARRETT: They can't get students if they
don't offer the year-round courses, can they? And if
they hire the staff to give year-round courses, then the
students will come. My point is this. Some of the most
prominent universities in the world are able to provide
year-round equal opportunity of education on the
quarter system. They are able to provide, from 8:00 to
12:00 every day, the same courses; from 1:00 to 5:00,
the same courses; and from 7:30 in the evening to 10:30
in the evening, the same courses that are accredited.
People can adjust their work schedules. People can
adjust their own problems and come to the university.
The university can move itself, in terms of programs, out
to the community. If they are prepared to do that, I am
telling you that this government is prepared to finance it
to the full cost of those kind of programs.
WEBSTER: But right at the moment they haven't even
got enough money in the kitty to pay the minimum
wage increases for the year starting July 1. There isn't
enough money in the kitty.
PREMIER BARRETT: If they come to the government
and say, "We're moving in this direction and this
direction and this direction," the money will be in the
WEBSTER: Now the teachers got all kinds of money
this year. The professors want between 15 and 17 per
cent and there isn't the money in the budget even to give
them 8 percent.
PREMIER BARRETT: Look, there is a common redneck feeling out there, contributed to by some unnamed
radio broadcasters, that the university professors aren't
working hard enough; that the universities aren't producing enough. And I wouldn't want to name any names
. . . but the fact is that the universities have not
explained themselves to the public and vice versa. Now,
I'm saying, now the challenge is to the university. We are
not anti-intellectual. We want the universities to be
relevant to the total community. If they come to us . . .
WEBSTER: Mr. Barrett, you've said that a dozen times.
Are you prepared on the basis of salaries negotiated by a
union for the universities, to give the universities the
money — I'm acting on behalf of these poor underprivileged university professors — to give the universities
the money to pay the salary increases negotiated?
PREMIER BARRETT: Well, of course. If the clerical
staff, for example, that have been treated paternalistical-
ly for years, had a proper representation, as every other
working person has, then of course they'd be in a
position to bargain. And I don't see anything, you know,
when I read in the paper that the clerical staff are
unorganized and the university professors are going to
get organized, I'm suggesting that there's a real world of
toughness out there for other people, and why shouldn't
it be that way for the universities? They should be in a
position to justify and fight for what they want. But
that still is a separate issue from what I'm talking about
in terms of making those universities relevant.
WEBSTER: ... a simple question, Mr. Barrett,. . . If they
negotiate a salary increase this year, plus the rising costs
and the 5 per cent increased enrolment, are you prepared
to meet the cost in operating grants to the universities, of a
salary increase that's been negotiated?
PREMIER BARRETT: The universities will have to
come back to us and tell us what their costs are and
what their programs are, and I have said, and I say again,
that we will meet the costs of new programs. And if
they're faced with new costs because of negotiations,
yes, we will meet those as well. But I'm telling you that
that is action that is within the university area. We do
not want to interfere with the universities. But I am
laying down the kind of things that we feel, on behalf of
the people of this province.
WEBSTER: They'll be very pleased to hear that ... If
they negotiate wage increases and come back to you and
can explain it, even with no program improvements at
the moment, you'll pay the increases.
PREMIER BARRETT: Yes. But we'll want a reason
why. We'll want an explanation of why, and we'll want
an explanation of the procedure, but we will pay on that
basis. But the challenge still goes out to the universities. . . Look, what the universities must understand is
that we've come out of 20 years of scrapping with the
universities. I am not anti-university.
WEBSTER: They think you are.
PREMIER BARRETT: Well, I believe that the universities don't understand that for the average person out
there, the university is irrelevant. The university should
be a vital, exciting part of the community, and it isn't.
And that's what I want. Campus Parking Fees Increased
UBC's Board of Governors has approved an increase in annual campus parking fees.
The increase was recommended by the 15-member
Traffic and Parking Committee, which includes representatives of the faculty and employed staff and
five students.
The new parking fees, which will be effective on
Sept. 1, 1974, are as follows, with existing rates in
Faculty and staff - $30 ($22.50); students parking in preferred lots on central campus - $20 ($15);
students parking in regular lots — $6 ($5); reserved
parking under Music Building - $133 ($100); motorcycle parking T $3 ($2).
Hourly parking rates for visitors will also be
increased to 25 cents per hour up to a total of $1.50
in any one day. Present rates are 10 cents for the first
hour, 15 cents for the second hour, and 25 cents for
each additional hour up to $1.50 a day.
Parking meter charges in some areas, chiefly in the
northwest section of the campus, will also be increased from 10 to 15 cents per hour.
A proposal to increase campus parking rates was
accepted by the Traffic and Parking committee in
January. The committee delayed forwarding the
recommendation to the Board of Governors for one
month to allow members of the University community to express their views on the proposed
The committee received a total of five letters.
Three writers objected to the increase on the grounds
that campus parking fees are too high already, and
one writer suggested an even greater increase than
that proposed by the committee.
The fifth letter, from the Canadian Union of
Public Employees, Local 116, which represents about
1,200 members of UBC's employed staff, said that
the proposed percentage increase for employed staff
was too great.
In response to the letters the Traffic and Parking
Committee has approved a proposal to change the
status of Parking Lot B immediately to the south of
the H.R. MacMillan Building. Beginning Sept. 1, any
member of the University community — faculty, staff
or student — may pay the $6 student fee and obtain a
general parking sticker entitling him or her to park in
Lot B. At present the lot is designated for student
parking only.
Individuals who choose to park in Lot B will be
able to take advantage of the campus shuttle bus
system which operates from 7:30 to 9:30 each
morning from south campus parking lots to the
Bookstore on the central campus.
The increased parking fees will meet an anticipated
deficit of more than $71,000 in the 1974-75 operating budget of UBC's Traffic and Security Department, which is responsible for campus traffic control
and assistance and building security.
UBC's Gas Bill Up
President Walter H. Gage has again reminded
the UBC community of the need to reduce heat
and power consumption wherever feasible.
Last November the President asked faculty,
staff and students to co-operate in reducing the
University's total consumption of electrical power
and heating fuel. He pointed out that the University's total energy bill then was running to more
than $1 million annually, and that substantial
savings could be realized by reducing room temperatures and eliminating wastage of electrical
The need for action is even more important
now, he said, because of the University's difficult
financial   position  and   because of a massive increase in B.C. Hydro rates for natural gas.
Hydro's new rate schedule increases UBC's
annual gas bill by $189,107. This is an increase of
nearly 70 per cent.
In his earlier call for co-operation, the President
asked that room lights, electric typewriters and
office machines, fans, electrical heaters and other
appliances be switched off when not actually in
use. Although this obviously does not affect the
University's natural-gas bill directly, continued
economy in the use of electricity will reduce the
total costs of energy consumption.
Continued from Page One
versity increased residence rates following two
months of discussions between Administration officials and representatives of residence students, the
Board of Governors warned that additional increases
for single students might be necessary in the years
The increased rates are designed to offset increased
food, labor and maintenance costs and to enable the
University to meet payments to Central Mortgage and
Housing Corp., which lends money for residence construction.
The proposed rate increases for single-student residences were discussed during the 1973-74 academic
year and set on the recommendation of a new Joint
Residences Committee, which includes student representatives from all UBC residences.
Mr. Leslie Rohringer, UBC's Director of Residences, said the student representatives held public
meetings in each single residence to explain the need
for the rate increases and to answer questions by resident students.
Mr. Rohringer said there would be no rent increase
for married-student accommodation in Acadia Park
and Acadia Camp beyond what was approved by the
Board of Governors in 1973.
The Board agreed last year that there would be no
increase in rentals for married students living in
Acadia Park so long as they remained in their present
accommodation. Rental rates for new Acadia Park
tenants or those who changed their accommodation
were increased by 6.5 per cent in 1973.
There was no increase in rental rates in 1973 for
students occupying converted army huts in Acadia
Accommodation provided by the University for
students in 21 suites on President's Row will be subject to a rent increase after March 31 in accordance
with a policy adopted by the Board in June, 1973.
Student rates in 18 President's Row suites will increase after March 31 from $125 to $133 per month
and in the remaining three suites from $135 to $144.
Continued from Page One
badly needed classrooms, research laboratories, shops
and offices for the two departments, and will enable
them to vacate their present inadequate hut space.
It will also include offices for the Dean of Applied
Science and the Engineering Undergraduate Society
and a permanent showcase for the Wally Wagon, the
award-winning urban vehicle designed two years ago
by UBC Engineers.
Included in the new capital budget is an allocation
of $925,000 as the University's contribution to a new
Aquatic Facility, to be sited between the existing
Empire Pool and the Student Union Building.
The need for a covered pool of Olympic competition standard has become increasingly pressing in
recent years. The project was approved only after it
was determined that covering the present Empire
Pool would cost almost as much as building a new
The new pool will be capable of being divided into
three areas and will be used for instruction, competi-
tion and recreational swimming by students, staff and
the general public.
The University's contribution will be matched by
the student body, which is now contributing about
$100,000 a year to the construction fund through a
$5 annual levy.
The remaining $900,000 will be sought in gifts and
grants from outside sources. Total cost of the facility,
according to current estimates, is $2,750,000.
The new capital budget also includes $900,000 for
a processing centre to relieve intolerable working
conditions in the Main Library; $800,000 to complete financing of the $1.4-million first stage of a new
animal care facility; and $640,000 for purchase of the
B.C. Hydro substation, which reduces the University's
power costs.
Other items include $600,000 for major renovations and modifications to existing buildings;
$732,076 to complete repayment of a loan to finance
construction of the General Services Administration
Building; $195,000 for additional facilities for the
Faculty of Agricultural Sciences; $189,950 for further development of the UBC Botanical Garden; and
a number of smaller projects to improve general
campus services.
A leader of a new group of regional planners who
believes that land should be developed to meet ecological rather than economic principles will give two
public lectures this week.
Prof. Ian McHarg, chairman of the Department of
Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning at the
University of Pennsylvania, speaks at 8:00 p.m. tonight
(Wednesday, March 13) in the Old Auditorium on "A
Theory of Man-Environment."
At 12:30 p.m. tomorrow in Lecture Hall No. 2 of the
Instructional Resources Centre Prof. McHarg will speak
on "A Case Study in Ecological Planning." He is at UBC
as a Cecil H. and Ida Green Visiting Professor.
Studies currently under way to discover more information about the cultural development of West
Coast Indians, by relating artifacts to the sources of
materials of which they were made, will be discussed
by Prof. R.R. Haering, head of UBC's Department of
Physics, in a lecture to the Vancouver Institute on
Saturday (March 16).
The lecture, entitled "Physics and Archeology,"
the last in the Institute's spring series, will be held in
Lecture Hall No. 2 of the Instructional Resources
Centre, starting at 8:15 p.m.
Continued from Page One
representation would not be permitted at meetings of
Faculty or Faculty committees when the following
matters were dealt with: budget, salaries and other
financial business; scholarships and other student
awards; adjudication of marks and academic standing;
and appointments, promotion and tenure.
The second recommendation approved on Feb. 20
called for establishment of a mechanism for students
and faculty to appeal the manner in which departments are providing for student representation.
In the first instance, the committee suggested that
appeals should go to the dean of the Faculty
concerned, who might wish to handle them himself or
set up a student-faculty liaison committee in the
Faculty to recommend solutions.
"If (appeals) are not resolved at the Faculty level,"
the committee said in its report, "there should be an
opportunity ultimately for appeal to Senate, although
we would hope that the necessity for such appeals
would be rare."
The third recommendation approved by Senate
suggested arrangements for student representation in
small, medium-sized and large departments.
In small departments, the committee said, "it may
be sufficient to hold periodic department meetings
with student representatives to deal with matters such
as curriculum and course and teaching evaluations."
In medium-sized departments students should also
be represented on departmental committees concerned with matters not excluded by Senate, the
report said.
Similar arrangements would apply in large departments, the report said, "but it may also be desirable
to have a standing student-faculty liaison committee
which would deal with problems as they arise and
make recommendations to the department and the


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



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"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items