UBC is charitable and UBCPT is not, so it is evidently acknowledged that this is not a charitable donation. Since UBCPT leases the land and also builds CIRS, this route may be more efficient, although it makes it look a bit more like a bribe.

UBC wanted CIRS built, and it wasn’t fully funded. They struggled for a very long time to figure out how to pay for it. Long enough to get ultimatums from and trigger rule changes at CFI, who funded a fair chunk of it.

If the South Campus application was submitted one week before Board, it was probably after Board’s committee day, when the decision had been actually made, for all intents and purposes. It was probably framed as: adding one insignificant storey somewhere gets CIRS $3.5M closer to being fully funded. All levels of approval and oversight are UBC anyway, so changing the rules isn’t tough.

-In addition to questions this raises about the integrity of university’s development governance, seems like your report raises other questions about how UBC managed it’s compliance w/ existing policies that govern its acceptance of donations/gifts — policy 114, specifically. Is a contribution not a type of gift? Is there a separate policy that guides the university’s acceptance of contributions? UBC’s original media release ( http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/2011/02/04/ubc-and-china%E2%80%99s-modern-green-development-partner-to-advance-green-building-research/ ) refers to arrangement as a strategic partnership and contribution. UBCPT, in Ubyssey, calls it contribution, and says no donor receipt given. Interestingly, flack from UBC Development is less hip to semantic care and calls it ‘donation.’ Policy 114 explicitly qualifies a ‘gift’ as a voluntary transfer where there is no expectation of return. The contribution contract, in bullet 2. makes clear that there is quid pro quo. The University accepted this contribution, but are having UBCPT accept the actual payment. Is that the university’s effort to stay compliant with their stated donation policy? Is that sufficient diligence?

-Also seems like Policy 97 allows someone to raise this as a potential conflict of interest, and provides an investigatory process. Maybe especially since UBC’s release refers to the South Campus development as an example of ‘applied research’ that Modern Green and UBC will partner on. Seems like that brings scholarly integrity into play. Point is that there may be review processes here that are outside of DPB or campus planning, and it might be useful to see how those can investigate this matter.

Just some thoughts. Seems like your effort here should inspire some action beyond the story. Didn’t read to deep on these policies, so my bad if I’m off on some facts. Bet Darren will jump in here too…

–Jeff Friedrich