Sometimes we know “whodunit” and the challenge is it to figure out why – what motivated the perpetrator. In 1969 Charles Manson and his “family” committed some horrible crimes. In the award-winning book Helter Skelter, Manson’s prosecutor devotes a considerable part of the detective story trying to figure out Manson’s motive. Without knowing the motive, it would be difficult to make the case against Manson. In this case, the key was figuring out not “whodunit,” but “whydunit.”
In Alberta politics, we have an egregious attack being committed against Athabasca University. We know whodunit: Alberta Minister for Higher Education, Demetrios Nicolaides, in support of Premier Jason Kenney. What we seek is their motivation, the “whydunit.”
[Full disclosure: My wife is an employee of Athabasca University. This posting reflects my opinion as an academic and a 38-year participant in and observer of post-secondary education politics in Alberta.]
The UCP party under Premier Jason Kenney has been attacking the Alberta post-secondary sector since the day he assumed office. Over the past three years, his government has slashed the budgets of universities and colleges at an unprecedented level. In particular, he seems to have an issue with the University of Alberta and singled them out for extreme financial punishment.
Whydunit? Although I disagree with what the government has done and continues to do, I can rationalize their reasoning. Oil prices are low, Alberta’s economy is overly dependent on the energy sector, the province is running massive deficits, and Alberta’s finances need to be balanced. A solution is to cut, cut, cut. Is it the right thing to do? No, in my opinion. But there is a logical reason for what the government of Alberta chose to do. It can be argued that their strategy is “good” for all Albertans. I can rationalize in my mind that their motive makes some sense.
This brings me to the current situation. The government of Alberta, fronted by Demetrios Nicolaides, has decided to rewrite the mandate of Athabasca University (AU). The mission of all of Alberta’s post-secondary institutions are to provide high-quality educational opportunities to Albertans (and Canadians). Apparently this is now a secondary consideration for AU. They have been instructed to prioritize economic growth for the town of Athabasca. Specifically, they are being asked to move a minimum of 65% of their workforce to Athabasca. Failure to do so results in a $3.5 million penalty per month to the University starting October 1. In other words, the education mission is secondary to growth of a rural Alberta town.
I can’t rationalize in my mind that whatever their motive is, that it makes some sense.
Why would the government want to single out AU for “special” treatment. The University is Canada’s only open and online research university. It serves all Albertans, but especially enables rural and non-traditional learners to get a high-quality education in the comfort of their own home. In 2015, the University was on the verge of bankruptcy. New management turned the University around. It has grown to over 42,000 learners, revamped its program offerings, modernized its support services and infrastructure, envisioned a strategic plan that puts the University at the global forefront of online learning, and is strengthening the international reputation for Alberta. In short, AU has emerged as an Alberta jewel, something to be proud of and supported.
As makes sense for an online university, AU supports having its employees working from anywhere they want. This “near virtual” strategy has been in place since before the pandemic. It is part of the University’s strategic plan which was most recently approved in July 2021 by – you guessed it – Demetrios Nicolaides. The near-virtual strategy allowed the University to emerge unscathed by the pandemic. While all other Alberta (and Canada) post-secondary institutions were scrambling to move courses online and staff off campus, AU just carried on business as usual.
The above leads to the obvious conclusion: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Nicolaides has bypassed all the AU governance processes and mandated his (Kenny’s) vision without the usual consultations and approval processes. It’s not clear that this is legal. Even if it is, as is already being seen in the media the approach is guaranteed to produce animosity from the faculty, staff, and students of AU whose right to inform/advise the AU Board of Directors on important decisions is being ignored. Trust is easily lost, but hard to gain.
The opposition to the Nicolaides edict is strong, growing, and vocal. As many people have voiced, the proposal makes no sense. Politicians aren’t stupid, so one wonders why the UCP is embracing this disruptive policy. Whatever the reason, it’s important to the UCP party: Nicolaides keeps doubling-down on his edict.
We need to figure out whydunit. Once that’s known, then appropriate strategies against – or even for – the government’s mandate can be formulated.
The first possible whydunit is that the government’s strategy will enhance the opportunities and experiences of the University’s learners. After all, the raison d’etre for AU is the students. But it’s hard to make the case that forcing over 500 employees (over 1,000+ people when you consider families) to move to Athabasca adds anything to the student experience. More generally, what benefits would accrue to the university, its students, or its staff? Will AU be better off because of the move? Nothing comes to mind.
The next place to look is at the money. Consistent with the UCP’s financial management of the post-secondary sector, surely this must be part of their strategy for balancing the books. Never mind that a tragedy halfway around the world has unexpectedly led to high oil prices and a windfall of cash to fill the government’s coffers. Unfortunately, a financial justification isn’t the whydunit we’re looking for. There’s no proposed change in the AU budget (other than the debilitating financial penalties being imposed for non-compliance).
Cynically, perhaps this is an attempt to “buy” votes. Surely the town of Athabasca supports the UCP initiative and will vote en masse for them in next year’s provincial election. But this possible justification rings hollow. The town of Athabasca is 2,800 people in a province of over 4,000,000. Rural Alberta historically strongly supports the UCP. The AU edict can’t be about an incremental gain of perhaps a few hundred new UCP supporters.
This brings us to the public whydunit reason given by the UCP for their decision: rural Alberta economic growth. While economic development for all locations in Alberta is important, one should ask whether it is appropriate for a university to be given this responsibility. Let’s look at the financial cost of doing this. There are several parts to this complex issue, some of which are given here:
* Costs to AU: employee relocation costs; employee contract buyouts; new buildings for the AU employees to work in. The money will have to come from the government.
* Rural development costs: building new housing in Athabasca; building new stores and services to accommodate an influx of over 1,000 people; providing rural high-speed Internet access. Presumably all this will come from the private sector.
* Government costs: enhancing government support services, including health care and schools.
* Community costs: growing city support capabilities, including utilities and services. The money will come from Athabasca.
* AU opportunity costs: reallocating resources towards realizing the government’s economic plans; high employee attrition (not everyone wants to move to Athabasca); the challenge of finding skilled employees who will move to Athabasca.
Looking at the above list, one can conclude that the AU edict will cost the government many tens of millions of dollars, if not over $100 million, and the edict does nothing to enhance AU, its programs, and its student experience. So, who benefits?
To figure out a whydunit, one always has to look at who has the most to gain. In the AU edict, it seems that private sector companies are the big winners. They are going to sell their land, build new housing, construct new workplace facilities, and create all the infrastructure needed to support these efforts. And all this must happen within three years, as per the Nicolaides edict.
How can this happen so quickly? If you’re starting from scratch, it will take at least a year of planning before you can even put the shovel into the ground: subdivision layouts, infrastructure expansion plans, re-zoning, competitive bidding process, negotiations, approval processes, etc. Only then comes the construction. In total, it’s worth conservatively upwards of half a billion dollars. Which individuals and companies are the winners in this process? We won’t know this until all the above public processes have been followed.
But... what if the plans are already in place? Is it possible that there’s something going on behind the scenes that makes this an attractive opportunity for the UCP party? Why is the UCP so focused on doing this to Athabasca?
This brings us to the crux of the matter. What makes Athabasca so special? Does the government of Alberta have a grand strategy for growing rural economic activity across the entire province and Athabasca is the first stage? No such initiative has come out publicly. Many other rural communities in Alberta have been proactive at making their communities attractive for investment. Why aren’t they getting the Athabasca treatment? If anything, they’ve earned the right to get government attention. In contrast, Athabasca’s lack of vision has meant that the town has stagnated for many years.
As a concerned taxpayer, I want reassurances that the government of Alberta has an appropriate rural strategy in place that has been approved by the legislature. As it turns out, there is a plan – it’s from 2014. Perhaps that’s their justification for the Nicolaides edict. From my reading of the plan, there’s nothing in it that would justify the edict, but much that would negate it. For example, Strategy 3.1 is to “Implement policies and programs that attract and retain families, skilled workers, new graduates, immigrants and Aboriginal people to rural Alberta.” Is the government’s method of “attracting” people to rural Alberta conscription? If so, for shame. No, this can’t be the whydunit.
We circle back to the question: What makes Athabasca so special? The whydunit analysis suggests that none of the usual reasons one might use to justify the Nicolaides edict make sense. Investing at least $100 million of taxpayer funds into Athabasca as part of a provincial strategy would only make sense if you make the same opportunity available to all similar rural communities. It keeps coming back to the unanswered question: who are the big financial beneficiaries from the Nicolaides/Kenny plan? Answer that question and everything will become crystal clear.
It’s hard not to be cynical here. All the obvious whydunit explanations don’t come close to justifying the Nicolaides edict. As Arthur Conan Doyle (through his character Sherlock Holmes) once famously wrote, “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” We have a whydunit question, and only one line of reasoning makes sense to explain the UCP preoccupation with AU – follow the money.
Albertans should be in support of rural development. There is a time, place, and process for doing this important work. The responsibility should not be placed on a university. Let’s let AU get back to doing what it does so well: educating Albertans to create economic wealth for Albertans.
