ES 480 Divest UVic THEFINAL

1
2014
Understanding Transformative
Change in Academic Institutions
Olivia
Hall
Marlo
Shaw
Alec
Young
Keira
Zikmanis
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
E n v i r onme n t a l
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4

2
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
1.Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………….…………………..….4
2.
Introduction
and
Context……………………………………………………………..….…………………..…4
3.
Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………….…………..……….
4
4.
Key
Findings
and
Implications……………………………………………………………….…………………5
4.1
Formal
vs.
Informal……………………….………………………………………….……………....5
4.2
The
University
of
Victoria
Foundation……………….……………………….……………..
7
4.3
Other
Key
Financial
Players……………………………………………………….……………..
.9
4.4
Board
of
Governors……………………………………………………………………..…………..11
4.5
Senate………………………………………………………………………………..…………………...
12
4.6
Informal
Powers……………………………………………………………….………….……….…
13
4.7
Alumni…………………………………………………………………………….……………….….…..
14
4.8
Staff
and
Unions……………………………………………………………….…………..…….……
15
4.9
Faculty……………………………………………………………………………….………….…….…..
16
4.10
Donors……………………………………………………………………………….………….….……
17
4.11
Current
Students………………………………………………………………….………….……..19
4.12
Media………………………………………………………………………………….………….………20
4.13
Case
Study:
Cunningham
Woods
Tree-‐sit…………………………….………………….21
5.
Recommendations
for
Divest
UVic…………………………………………………………………….…..23
5.1
Students……………………………………………………………………………….…………………..24
5.2
Financial
Research
and
Understanding……………………………….……………….……24
5.3
Faculty…………………………………………………………………….…………………………….…
25
5.4
Staff……………………………………………………………………….………………………..…….…25
5.5
Financial
Governing
Powers………………………………….………………………….…….…25
5.6
Board
of
Governors………………………………………….……………………………………….26
6.
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………
.26
7.
Works
Cited……………………………………………………………………………………………...………….
.28
8.
Appendix
Appendix
A:
List
of
Acronyms………………………………………………….…….………………..
35
Appendix
B:
Endowments
at
UVic…………………………………………………….……………..35
Appendix
C:
Active
Foundations……………………………………………………….…………..
..36
Appendix
D:
List
of
Endowments
and
Governing
Bodies………………………….…….
.37
Appendix
E:
What
is
Fiduciary
Duty?...................................................................37
Appendix
F:
Key
Players……………………………………………………………………….…….…..
38
Appendix
G:
Visual
Representation
of
Endowment
Procedures……………..…….…
49
Appendix
H:
How
Endowment
Funds
Work…………………………………………….….…..
40
Appendix
I:
List
of
Board
of
Governors………………………………….…………………….……41
Appendix
J:
List
of
Senate
Members…………………………………………………….…….....…42
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4

3
Appendix
K:
Preliminary
Research
Appendix
K1:
Community
Associations………………………………….………………42
Appendix
K2:
Media:
Maclean’s……………………………………………………………
42
Appendix
K3:
Prospective
Students………………………………………………………
43
Appendix
L:
Partial
Hierarchies………………………………………………………………………..
43
Appendix
M:
UVic
Framework
Agreement………………………………………………………..44
Appendix
N:
UVic
Fundraising
and
Gift
Acceptance
Policy…………………………….….45
Appendix
O:
UVic
Sustainability
Action
Plan
2014-‐2019…………………………………...45
Appendix
P:
Key
Financial
Players
at
UVic……………………………………………………..….46
Appendix
Q:
Opportunities
for
Further
Research…………………………
…..………….….47
Appendix
R:
Memorandum
of
Understanding…………………………………………………..49
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4

4
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4
1.
Acknowledgements
The
authors
thank
Bradley
Cranwell,
the
anonymous
UVic
donor,
Rita
Fromholt,
Matt
Hammer,
Ingmar
Lee,
Dr.
Michael
M’Gonigle,
Dr.
William
Pfaffenberger,
the
anonymous
PR
officer,
and
Doug
Sprenger
for
their
invaluable
contributions
to
this
paper.
2.
Introduction
and
Context
The
realities
of
human
caused
global
climate
change
has
sparked
an
international
activist
movement
calling
for
institutions
to
divest
their
stocks
from
fossil
fuel
companies.
This
movement
has
gained
momentum
in
the
last
decade,
successfully
encouraging
14
colleges
and
universities,
34
municipalities,
65
religious
institutions,
and
29
foundations
to
consider
more
ethical
investment
decisions
(Fossil
Free,
2014).
The
quest
to
create
transformative
change
in
these
complex
institutions
has
often
been
supplemented
by
a
greater
understanding
of
how
the
institution
functions,
where
the
obstacles
lay
and
where
the
pressure
points
for
administrative
change
are
located.
This
research
paper
has
been
developed
by
students
within
the
University
of
Victoria
Environmental
Studies
class
ES
480:
Capstone
Course
in
Transformative
Research,
in
partnership
with
Divest
UVic
to
address
these
institutional
complexities
within
the
University
of
Victoria
(UVic).
The
purpose
of
this
research
project
is
to
1)
define
and
visually
map
out
the
formal
and
informal
power
relationships
of
the
people
of
the
University
of
Victoria
(faculty,
administration,
alumni,
donors,
student
body,
etc)
and
to
engage
with
the
people/organizations
who
influence
the
university;
2)
to
identify
potential
obstacles
that
may
affect
the
success
of
Divest
UVic’s
campaign;
and
to
3)
suggest
possible
solutions
or
recommendations
for
Divest
UVic
to
overcome
these
obstacles.
This
paper
also
includes
a
case
study
of
the
UVic
Cunningham
Woods
tree-‐sit,
and
the
moratorium
on
development
of
natural
spaces
on
campus.
3.
Methodology
In
this
document
we
articulated
our
research
questions
and
set
out
to
better
understand
the
operations
and
institutional
barriers
the
university
might
hold
against
realizing
fossil
fuel
divestment
from
the
endowment
fund.
Initially,
information
acquired
in
pursuit
of
these
answers
was
accomplished
solely
through
web-‐based
research
of
academic
journals,
the
UVic
website,
and
relevant
grey
literature.
During
the
second
phase
of
our
research,
Divest
UVic
research
group
designated
each
member
to
pursue
further
information
in
each
research
avenue
by
interviewing
relevant
stakeholders.
This
process
began
with
an
invitation
via
email
requesting
the
potential
interviewee
to
participate
in
an
interview
with
a
consent
form
attached.
Interviews

5
were
conducted
and
recorded
(with
consent)
and
key
insights
were
extracted
to
supplement
information
retrieved
from
the
internet.
The
key
findings
of
this
information
were
then
synthesized
to
illustrate
this
report.
Our
ability
to
compile
a
complete
and
comprehensive
review
of
all
our
research
goals
was
limited
by
several
factors:
-‐ Time:
ES
480
is
a
three
month
long
class,
which
limited
our
ability
to
compile
information.
During
the
first
half
of
this
course
we
were
unable
to
conduct
interviews
due
to
the
processes
required
to
receive
ethics
approval.
Due
to
the
time
restriction,
we
were
only
able
to
conduct
a
small
sample
of
interviews,
limiting
the
diversity
of
knowledge
we
collected.
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4
-‐ Private
information:
Many
of
us
encountered
struggles
when
attempting
to
receive
information
from
particular
sources
because
of
the
interviewee’s
unwillingness
to
share
knowledge
and
their
inability
to
disclose
classified
and
restricted
documents.
Some
of
the
participants
that
we
contacted
were
concerned
about
the
formalities
of
information
sharing,
and
were
reluctant
to
share
opinions
about
procedures
within
the
university.
-‐ Complexities
and
bureaucracies:
The
complex
and
bureaucratic
nature
of
UVic’s
administration
made
it
difficult
to
determine
where
the
appropriate
sources
of
information
were
located.
These
complexities
also
contributed
to
a
loss
of
time
because
many
participants
felt
that
the
responsibility
of
responding
to
our
questions
belonged
to
other
individuals.
-‐ Access
to
contacts:
All
of
the
above
factors
affected
our
ability
to
access
and
utilize
some
of
our
targeted
contacts.
Some
of
our
targeted
contacts
were
also
unavailable
or
unwilling
to
participate
4.
Key
Findings
and
Implications
4.1
Formal
vs.
Informal
Power
This
report
is
divided
into
sections
which
illustrate
the
structure
and
importance
of
several
of
the
formal
and
informal
bodies
that
influence
UVic.
As
illustrated
in
Figure
1,
these
formal
and
informal
powers
are
not
discrete,
as
some
bodies
are
able
to
hold
both
forms
of
power.
We
define
formal
power
as
influence
that
can
be
employed
through
established
conduits
or
protocols
through
which
bodies
can
influence
the

6
university.
For
example,
through
votes
or
introduction
of
policy.
We
define
informal
power
as
less
established
in
nature,
but
still
able
to
influence
the
university
to
change
or
transform.
For
example,
the
bodies
in
question
may
not
have
official
routes
they
can
travel
to
influence
the
university,
but
may
be
able
to
affect
the
reputation
of
the
university
which
would
then
prompt
the
university
to
change
or
transform.
This
paper
will
begin
by
exploring
the
bodies
that
hold
formal
power
over
UVic
including
the
University
of
Victoria
Foundation,
the
Financial
Administration,
the
Board
of
Governors,
and
the
Senate.
This
will
be
followed
by
briefly
discussing
informal
influence
over
the
university,
and
an
exploration
of
some
of
these
bodies
of
influence,
including
students,
faculty,
staff,
donors,
and
alumni.
The
specific
workings
and
influence
of
several
of
these
bodies
is
then
illustrated
by
a
case
study
on
the
Cunningham
Woods
Tree-‐sit,
a
campaign
at
UVic
that
is
a
tangible
and
relevant
example
of
how
these
two
spheres
of
power
collide.
Figure
1:
Overlapping
Formal
and
Informal
and
Informal
Power
Relations
of
UVic.
This
venn
diagram
lists
the
main
bodies
that
influence
UVic
as
an
institution,
and
illustrate
the
nature
of
the
power
they
wield
in
terms
of
its
formal,
informal
or
overlapping
nature.
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4

7
4.2
The
University
of
Victoria
Foundation
The
University
of
Victoria
Foundation
(the
foundation)
is
an
institution
that
was
created
by
the
University
of
Victoria
in
1954
to
manage
gifts
that
are
given
to
UVic’s
endowment
funds
(University
of
Victoria,
2014c).
The
University
of
Victoria
Foundation
is
one
of
the
four
endowment
foundations
that
Uvic
owns
(Appendix
C).
The
governing
body
of
The
Foundation
is
a
board
of
directors
(the
foundation
board)
composed
of
both
elected
and
appointed
members
(Appendix
3.2)(University
of
Victoria,
2014c).
The
foundation
board
members
have
the
ability
to
create
and
amend
policy
regarding
investment
procedures
by
voting
on
a
majority
rules
basis.
(Anonymous
Financial
Services,
personal
communication,
Nov
11,
2014).
All
board
members,
except
the
officers,
are
allocated
one
vote.
The
Foundation’s
policy
procedures
are
protected
from
the
influence
of
University
of
Victoria’s
administration
because
the
Foundation
is
a
separate
entity
with
it’s
own
governing
body
and
its
own
governing
act
(The
University
of
Victoria
Foundation
Act)(University
of
Victoria,
2014c).
This
discrepancy
allows
the
Foundation
to
make
executive
decisions
about
how
it
governs
itself
and
how
investment
decisions
are
made
without
consulting
other
members
of
the
financial
administration
(Anonymous
Financial
Services,
personal
communication,
Nov
11,
2014).
With
this
being
said,
division
between
the
Uvic
administration
and
the
Uvic
foundation
is
not
as
distinct
as
many
formal
powers
describe
it
to
be
(M.
Hammer,
personal
communication,
Nov
14,
2014)
.
In
fact,
there
are
several
examples
of
situations
where
UVic’s
administration
deals
directly
with
the
foundation.
There
two
key
players
of
UVic’s
administration
which
are
the
ex
officio
members
on
the
foundation
board:
Gayle
Gorrill
and
Jamie
Cassels
(University
of
Victoria,
2014c).
This
means
that
their
involvement
with
the
foundation
is
required
in
their
responsibilities
as
President
and
Vice
President
of
Finance
and
Operations
(VPFO).
The
office
of
VPFO
and
the
Financial
Services
office
provide
administrative
and
advancement
services
involving
the
endowment
funds
in
the
foundation(University
of
Victoria,
2014b)(Appendix
B).
The
Board
of
Governors
is
required
to
vote
in
4-‐6
members
to
the
foundation
board
(University
of
Victoria,
2014c).
From
this,
we
can
imply
that
even
though
the
UVic
Foundation
is
a
separate
entity
from
UVic,
it
is
still
entrenched
and
entangled
in
the
financial
administration
of
UVic.
Recently,
the
foundation
has
made
direct
acknowledgment
of
the
Divest
UVic
campaign
(Hill,
2014).
In
the
Foundation’s
first
annual
report
(2013/2014)
the
board
members
make
two
statements
about
divesting
from
fossil
fuels:
“The
Board
shares
the
concerns
of
these
stakeholders
in
regard
to
the
impact
of
CO2
emissions
on
our
environment.
As
a
result,
we
are
reviewing
our
approach
to
responsible
investing
and
we
will
engage
our
investment
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4

8
managers
to
determine
appropriate
and
sustainable
investment
choices.(Hill,
2014
pg.
2)”
“In
addition,
as
a
result
of
a
recent
campaign
for
the
Foundation
to
divest
of
fossil
fuel
investments,
the
Board
revisited
its
Responsible
Investing
beliefs
originally
crafted
in
2012.
(Hill,2014
pg.
4)”
The
second
statement
refers
to
the
Environmental
and
Social
Governance
(ESG)
policy
in
the
UVic
Foundation’s
Investment
Beliefs
Summary
(University
of
Victoria
Foundation,
2013a).
This
policy
is
created
to
suggest
that
the
board
considers
ESG
factors
when
making
decisions
about
investment
procedures
(University
of
Victoria
Foundation,
2013a).
This
policy
states
the
the
foundation
take
the
ESG
factors
into
consideration
when
choosing
their
investment
managers
1(University
of
Victoria
Foundation,
2013a).
The
Foundation’s
ESG
policy
also
requires
an
annual
disclosure
from
the
investment
managers
showing
how
they
are
considering
ESG
factors
in
their
investment
policy,
and
what
specific
investment
decisions
have
been
voted
on(University
of
Victoria
Foundation,
2013a).
When
the
foundation
was
asked
what
the
next
steps
for
addressing
the
demand
for
socially
responsible
investing
will
be,
they
responded
that
they
are
enhancing
their
approach
to
socially
responsible
investing
by
becoming
a
signatory
of
the
United
Nations
Principles
for
Responsible
Investment.
By
becoming
a
signatory,
the
foundation
has
agreed
to
participate
in
voluntary
investment
procedures.
The
foundation
will
then
be
required
to
release
an
annual
responsible
investment
transparency
report,
where
they
can
voluntarily
disclose
specifics
about
their
responsible
investment
practices
(UNPRI,2014).
The
flexibility
of
the
UNPRI
has
historically
been
detrimental
to
its
effectiveness
in
enforcing
stringent
regulations
in
socially
responsible
investing
(Horwitz,
2014).
The
foundation
has
not
yet
appeared
on
the
digital
list
of
asset
owner
signatories
released
on
the
UNPRI
website;
however,
two
out
of
the
five
of
the
foundation’s
investment
managers
are
currently
listed
as
investment
manager
signatories
(UNPRI,2014).
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4
1
For
more
information
regarding
Uvic’s
endowment
composition,
procedures,
and
liabilities
please
see
appendices
B-‐F.
1
I n v e s tme n t
m a n a g e r s
a r e
p e o p l e
w h o
c h o s e
t h e
d i s t r i b u t i o n
o f
t h e
f o u n d a t i o n ’ s
a s s e t s
i n
a c c o r d a n c e
t o
t h e
f o u n d a t i o n ’ s
i n v e s tme n t
p o l i c y .
(A p p e n d i x
F )

9
4.3
Other
Key
Financial
Players
Figure
2:
Financial
Governing
Powers
This
Administrative
hierarchy
is
a
fusion
of
several
different
power
maps
that
UVIC
has
provided
to
the
public
to
represent
it’s
assembly
of
financial
operations
(Appendix
L).
This
hierarchy
is
tailored
to
incorporate
all
financial
powers
that
may
be
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4

1 0
important
for
Divest
UVIC.
The
importance,
governing
power,
and
relevancy
of
the
positions
in
the
hierarchy
are
to
be
read
from
top
to
bottom
(top
being
the
most
influential)
and
from
left
to
right
(left
being
more
influential).
In
this
context,
the
Financial
Services
office
holds
more
administrative
power
than
the
Associate
VPFO
office
because
they
deal
directly
with
the
administration
of
The
Foundation,
where
the
Associate
VPFO
office
deals
primarily
with
pensions,
short
term
investments,
and
budgets.
It
should
be
emphasised
that
this
is
an
extremely
simplified
visual
of
the
positions
in
the
UVic
administration,
and
that
there
are
many
other
positions,
committees
and
boards
that
are
absent
because
they
are
not
important
in
this
context
or
because
there
is
a
lack
of
available
information
about
them.
Figure
3:
Gayle
“Runs
the
Show”(Anonymous
Financial
Services,
personal
communication,
Nov
11,
2014)
for
more
information
on
some
of
these
key
players
see
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4
Appendix
P.

1 1
This
mind
map
image
is
created
to
reflect
the
emphasis
in
verbal
and
digital
sources
implying
that
Gayle
Gorrill
“runs
the
show”
in
the
UVic
financial
world(Anonymous
Financial
Services,
personal
communication,
Nov
11,
2014)
.
In
the
Hierarchy
on
the
previous
page,
Gayle
appears
as
a
conduit
where
a
large
number
of
financial
decisions
are
channelled
through.
The
reality
of
this
influence
is
much
more
exaggerated
when
considering
that
a
total
of
11
people
report
directly
to
her
(see
Appendix
P).
Gayle
is
also
the
only
person
in
the
financial
administration
of
UVic
that
reports
directly
to
the
president.
Gayle’s
office
has
the
ability
to
apply
to
add
to
the
agendas
of
the
UVic
Foundation’s
general
meetings.
From
this,
we
can
speculate
that
Gayle
Gorrill
may
be
the
most
influential
financial
administrator
when
considering
changes
in
endowment
policy.
4.4
Board
of
Governors
(BoG)
The
Board
of
Governors
is
responsible
for
the
management,
administration
and
control
of
the
property,
revenue,
business
and
affairs
of
the
University
of
Victoria
(University
of
Victoria,
2014k).
Refer
to
Appendix
I
for
a
list
of
important
people
within
the
2014-‐15
University
of
Victoria
Board
of
Governors
(University
of
Victoria,
2014j).
This
15-‐member
board
is
made
up
of
individuals
from
various
parts
of
the
university
including
the
president
and
8
members
elected
by
the
lieutenant
governor
in
council
(University
of
Victoria,
2014k).
The
Board
of
Governors
has
created
five
different
sub
committees
to
take
on
specific
challenges
within
the
university
(University
of
Victoria,
2014k).
These
additional
committees
consist
of
the
Executive
and
Governance
Committee,
the
Finance
Committee,
the
University
Operations
and
Facilities
Committee,
the
Audit
Committee,
and
the
Compensation
and
Review
Committee
(University
Act).
When
one
of
the
sub-‐committees
decides
that
necessary
amendments
need
to
be
made
to
existing
policy,
or
it
is
necessary
to
create
a
new
policy,
they
present
their
case
to
the
Board
of
Governors,
who
have
the
authority
to
make
recommendations
to
the
university
and
are
involved
in
final
decisions.
With
the
implementation
of
policy
#1480,
adopted
by
the
Board
of
Governors,
members
of
the
UVic
community
are
entitled
to
propose
that
the
University
engage
in
several
forms
of
social
activism
regarding
the
Short
Term
Investment
Fund
(University
of
Victoria,
2002).
These
forms
of
activism
include
sending
letters
and
petitions
to
companies
in
which
the
university
is
invested
under
the
Short
Term
Investment
Fund.
These
requests
would
be
forwarded
to
the
Executive
Director
of
Financial
Services
and
would
outline
specific
complaints
regarding
social
responsibility
and
UVic’s
investments
and
propose
resolutions
for
the
Board
of
companies
regarding
the
Short
Term
Investment
Fund
(University
of
Victoria,
2002).
The
Executive
Director
of
Financial
Services
would
seek
external
advice
to
determine
the
accuracy
of
the
complaint
and
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4

1 2
decide
on
whether
to
engage
in
the
requested
social
activism
on
behalf
of
the
University
(University
of
Victoria,
2002).
In
regards
to
the
divestment
campaign
on
the
UVic
campus,
the
Board
of
Governors
has
not
shown
substantial
support
(Maltese,
2014).
The
Finance
Committee
within
the
Board
of
Governors
acknowledged
the
importance
of
the
issue
of
fossil
fuel
divestment
during
an
extensive
discussion
at
a
meeting
on
September
30,
2014
(Maltese,
2014).
Despite
acknowledging
the
issue,
the
Board
currently
believes
that
there
will
be
negative
impacts
on
the
performance
of
the
university
by
divesting
from
a
market
so
large
(Maltese,
2014).
A
student
representative
of
the
Board
of
Governors,
Bradley
Cranwell,
expressed
that
the
Board
of
Governors
believes
divestment
within
the
University
of
Victoria
is
not
appropriate
at
this
point
in
time
due
to
the
lack
of
consultation
at
an
executive
and
student
level
regarding
the
issue
of
fossil
fuel
divestment
(B.
Cranwell,
personal
communication,
November
12,
2014).
No
consultations
or
expressed
opinions
at
an
executive
and
student
level
have
been
achieved
within
open
forums,
which
has
resulted
in
no
significant
'push'
for
ethical
investment
within
the
university
(B.
Cranwell,
personal
communication,
November
12,
2014)
Very
few
BoG
members
engage
in
forms
of
activism,
challenging
the
senior
administration
(McGonigle,
personal
communication,
November
14,
2014).
The
Board
of
Governors
further
stated
that
divestment
will
not
occur
at
this
point
in
time,
but
the
committee
supports
further
discussion
on
alternative
investment
options
(Maltese,
2014).
Although
the
board
acknowledges
opinions
of
others
regarding
the
university’s
investments,
it
continues
to
act
in
the
best
interest
of
the
university
pursuing
capital
gains
(B.
Cranwell,
personal
communication,
November
12,
2014)
.
This
does
not
necessarily
mean
that
the
Board
of
Governors
will
never
move
towards
ethical
investment,
as
they
have
created
investment
policy
components
that
do
take
ethics
into
some
degree
of
consideration
(University
of
Victoria,
2012k).
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4
4.5
Senate
The
University
of
Victoria
Senate
is
responsible
for
the
academic
governance
of
the
university.
This
includes
matters
related
to
libraries,
faculties,
departments,
fellowships,
courses
of
instruction,
awards,
exhibitions,
admissions,
student
appeals,
scholarships,
bursaries,
prizes,
admissions
and
student
appeals
(University
of
Victoria,
2014i).
The
senate
is
composed
of
a
president
or
nominee,
seven
faculty
members,
a
student
Senator,
and
a
convocation
member
of
Senate
(University
Act).
The
senate
delegates
authority
to
its
twelve
standing
committees
consisting
of
the
Senate
Committee
on
Academic
Standards,
Admission,
Re-‐registration
and
Transfer,
Agenda
&
Governance,
Appeals,
Awards,
Continuing
Studies,
Curriculum,
Honorary
Degrees
and
Other
Forms
of
Recognition,
Learning
&
Teaching,
Libraries,
Planning
and
University

1 3
Budget
(University
of
Victoria,
2013i).
Refer
to
Appendix
J
for
a
list
of
the
2014-‐15
Senate
Committee
on
University
Budget
Members.
The
72-‐member
Senate
Committee
consists
of
16
elected
students
of
which
students
are
eligible
to
vote
for
(University
of
Victoria,
2013b
).
The
16
elected
students
consists
of
one
member
from
each
faculty
which
has
three
representatives
(except
the
Faculty
of
Graduate
Studies)
and
the
remaining
students
are
elected
as
at-‐large
student
members
(University
Act).
Students
furthermore
have
the
power
to
elect
student
representatives
within
the
Senate
Committee
that
would
have
the
potential
to
encourage
divestment
within
the
University
of
Victoria.
This
can
further
push
the
university
toward
divestment
as
student
representatives
within
the
Senate
Committee
can
demonstrate
students’
demand
for
divestment
and
can
vote
on
sustainable
investment
strategies
for
the
University
Budget
within
the
Senate.
The
budget
framework
was
developed
through
the
University
of
Victoria's
integrated
planning
process
by
the
Senate
Committee
on
University
Budget
with
the
goal
to
ensure
that
the
university's
financial
resources
are
aligned
with
institutional
priorities
and
areas
of
strategic
focus.
The
Senate
Committee
is
in
charge
of
ensuring
that
the
university's
financial
resources
are
aligned
with
institutional
priorities,
therefore
demanding
the
importance
of
ethical
investments
to
be
of
institutional
priorities
will
further
push
the
University
of
Victoria
towards
divestment.
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4
4.6
Informal
Powers
Understanding
how
bodies
with
informal
power
can
affect
the
decision
making
of
UVic’s
administration
is
integral
to
developing
an
effective
campaign
strategy
that
will
create
transformative
change
within
the
university.
These
bodies
have
the
ability
to
influence
the
university
in
several
key
ways,
including
impacting
UVic’s
reputation,
public
image,
and
funding.
In
the
following
sections
we
will
explore
each
body
in
question
and
the
nature
of
the
informal
influence
they
hold
over
UVic.
These
bodies
include
alumni,
staff
and
unions,
faculty,
donors,
current
students,
and
the
media.
Following
these
sections
we
will
present
a
case
study
of
the
Cunningham
Woods
tree-‐sit
and
the
moratorium
on
the
development
of
natural
spaces
at
UVic.
This
case
study
will
serve
to
present
a
tangible
example
of
how
informal
power
can
be
utilized
to
create
transformative
change
within
the
institution.

1 4
Figure
4:
Linkages
between
the
University
and
Informal
Spheres
of
Influence.
This
diagram
serves
to
illustrate
the
interconnectedness
of
various
bodies
that
hold
informal
power
over
UVic,
and
the
key
areas
of
the
university
that
they
impact.
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4
4.6
Alumni
The
University
of
Victoria
Alumni
Association
is
registered
under
the
Society
Act
of
BC
with
the
mission
of
encouraging,
in
partnership
with
the
institution,
a
lifelong
relationship
between
UVic
alumni
and
their
university
(University
of
Victoria,
2014j).
There
are
currently
115,067
UVic
alumni,
31,000
of
which
still
live
in
Victoria
(University
of
Victoria,
2014).
Alumni
are
key
donors
to
the
University
of
Victoria.
As
UVic’s
investments
in
fossil
fuels
attracts
more
from
students
and
media,
we
expect
UVic
alumni,
who
are
key
donors,
to
begin
to
hold
back
their
donations
until
UVic
agrees
to
divest.
(Divest
UVic,
2014).
These
individuals
of
the
UVic
Alumni
Association
can
mobilize
together
to
pressure
the
university
to
make
ethically
responsible
administrative
decisions.
The
UVic
alumni
association
also
have
the
power
to
nominate
two
Lieutenant
Governors
in
Council
members
within
the
Board
of
Governors
(University
Act).

1 5
Having
alumni
support
the
divestment
movement
at
the
University
of
Victoria
would
increase
pressure
on
the
university
to
divest.
With
the
university
supporting
the
opinions
of
alumni,
it
would
affirm
the
university
supports
its
own
past
and
present
scholars
and
uphold
the
values
it
encourages
in
students
and
the
larger
community
(University
of
Victoria,
2014j)
As
the
university
depends
on
donations
from
alumni,
they
are
likely
to
respond
to
pressure
from
key
alumni
to
divest.
If
Divest
UVic
were
to
obtain
signatures
from
UVic
alumni
that
support
divestment
at
the
University
of
Victoria
this
would
increase
pressure
on
the
university
to
discuss
further
sustainable
investment
options.
UVic
alumni
also
have
opportunities
to
support
divestment
through
withholding
their
donations
and
verbal
support
of
UVic.
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4
4.8
Staff
and
Unions
Staff
and
associated
unions
have
considerable
influence
over
UVic’s
operations.
UVic
currently
bargains
with
six
different
employee
groups:
four
Canadian
Union
of
Public
Employee
(CUPE)
groups,
the
Professional
Employees
Association
(PEA),
and
the
Faculty
Association.
In
total,
the
groups
comprise
of
5463
staff
members.
Unions
are
known
to
challenge
the
university
with
regard
to
employment
conditions,
but
cannot
directly
influence
investment
decisions.
At
the
very
least,
staff
and
unions
can
provide
knowledge
on
the
functioning
of
the
university
as
an
institution,
and
can
exert
indirect
influence
over
investment
decisions
by
prioritizing
sustainability,
and
by
organizing
at
a
scale
that
would
impact
UVic’s
reputation.
UVic
staff
are
arguably
the
most
constrained
in
influencing
investment
decisions.
This
finding
is
based
on
interviews
of
the
former
staff
member
and
Sustainability
Coordinator
Rita
Fromholt,
and
the
president
of
CUPE
951
Doug
Sprenger.
Staff’s
lack
of
power
is
largely
due
to
staff
only
being
able
to
formally
exert
influence
in
contract
negotiations
(R.
Fromholt,
personal
communication,
Nov
13,
2014).
Informally,
however,
they
can
participate
in
action
but
might
hesitate
to
do
so
in
order
to
stabilize
their
job
security
(R.
Fromholt,
personal
communication,
Nov
13,
2014).
To
exert
power
for
an
issue
not
pertaining
to
employment,
such
as
divestment,
staff
can
have
their
voices
heard
in
various
committees
(R.
Fromholt,
personal
communication,
Nov
13,
2014).
There
are
staff
representatives
in
the
Board
of
Governors
(BoG),
and
the
Campus
Planning
Committee
(CPC),
though
their
influence
is
limited;
for
instance,
in
the
BoG
there
is
only
one
staff
representative
(University
of
Victoria,
2014o).
Staff
are
found
to
be
relatively
scattered
in
terms
of
power
given
that
a
significant
portion
of
staff
aren’t
unionized,
and
that
unions
(CUPE,
PEA,
Faculty
Association)
are
also
more
or
less
restricted
to
negotiating
issues
related
to
working
conditions
(D.
Sprenger,
personal
communication,
Nov
12,
2014).
CUPE
951
at
UVic
is
genuinely
“intrigued”
by
the
divestment
movement
but
they
cannot
support
it
without

1 6
consulting
their
membership
(D.
Sprenger,
personal
communication,
Nov
12,
2014).
Rather
than
advocating
for
divestment
through
CUPE
951,
a
more
likely
scenario
is
one
where
they
support
divestment
more
broadly
through
a
coalition
of
other
CUPE
groups
at
other
universities
in
BC,
or
through
CUPE’s
International
Solidarity
Committee
(D.
Sprenger,
personal
communication,
Nov
12,
2014).
They
cannot
influence
investment
decisions;
it
is
not
something
they
have
at
their
bargaining
table
(D.
Sprenger,
personal
communication,
Nov
12,
2014).
In
fact,
Sprenger
predicts
that
UVic
would
argue
that
they
are
not
showing
fiduciary
responsibility
given
that
supporting
divestment
has
potential
to
negatively
affect
returns
on
investment
(D.
Sprenger,
personal
communication,
Nov
12,
2014).
CUPE
does
not
have
any
stake
in
UVic’s
endowment
fund,
but
they
do
have
the
ability
to
speak
up
and
support
more
ethical
investments
in
pension
funds.
This
could
be
achieved
through
political
means,
not
through
negotiations
(D.
Sprenger,
personal
communication,
Nov
12,
2014).
Another
potential
opportunity
for
staff
to
advocate
for
divestment
is
through
the
Office
of
Campus
Planning
and
Sustainability,
though
influence
is
limited
due
to
a
leadership
gap
(R.
Fromholt,
personal
communication,
Nov
13,
2014).
UVic
does
not
have
a
“sustainability
champion”
at
the
executive
level,
whereas
sustainability
issues
at
UBC
and
SFU
are
run
out
of
the
president’s
office
and
are
a
top
priority
(R.
Fromholt,
personal
communication,
Nov
13,
2014).
The
opportunities
and
strategies
to
advocate
for
greater
sustainability
leadership
is
in
need
of
further
research
(See
Appendix
Q).
UVic
is
already
well-‐known
for
sustainability
research,
but
missing
here
are
core
sustainability
values
embedded
throughout
the
institutional
structure
(R.
Fromholt,
personal
communication,
Nov
13,
2014).
Divestment
is
much
more
likely
to
resonate
with
various
bodies
of
influence
with
these
values
in
place.
Specifically,
without
embedded
sustainability
values,
donors
cannot
easily
supply
contributions
with
conditions
relating
to
goals
of
sustainability
(such
as
divestment)
(See
Section
8.00
of
Appendix
N).
Another
potential
constraint
is
that
the
Office
of
Campus
Planning
and
Sustainability
works
under
the
VP
of
Finance
and
Operations.
Though,
according
to
Fromholt,
the
VP
allowed
the
inclusion
of
vague
goals
surrounding
sustainable
investment
policy
in
the
2014-‐2019
Sustainability
Action
Plan
and
stated
that
this
is
a
huge
step
forward
in
seeing
more
ethical
decision
making
surrounding
investments
(See
Appendix
O)
(R.
Fromholt,
personal
communication,
Nov
13,
2014).
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4
4.9
Faculty
Faculty
have
similar
constraints
felt
by
UVic
staff
that
limit
their
potential
to
influence
investment
decisions,
but
arguably
have
more
power.
This
finding
is
largely
based
on
an
interview
with
William
Pfaffenberger,
the
former
head
of
the
Faculty
Association
at
UVic.
There
are
no
representatives
for
faculty
in
the
University
of
Victoria

1 7
Foundation
(W.
Pfaffenberger,
personal
communication,
Nov
14,
2014).
Pfaffenberger
posed
that
the
university
appointments
of
the
UVic
Foundation
Board
are
not
likely
to
back
divestment
as
it
is
a
political
issue
and
because
donors
involved
with
or
in
support
of
fossil
fuel
development
would
likely
be
upset
by
such
a
decision
(W.
Pfaffenberger,
personal
communication,
Nov
14,
2014).
Whereas
in
the
pension
funds;
the
money
is
invested
for
union
members
and
for
faculty,
there
are
not
any
external
stakeholders
(W.
Pfaffenberger,
personal
communication,
Nov
14,
2014).
Therefore,
an
internal
investment
policy
for
the
pension
funds
(divestment
from
fossil
fuels)
can
be
decided
upon
internally
with
majority
approval,
and
without
interference
from
donors
(W.
Pfaffenberger,
personal
communication,
Nov
14,
2014).
Faculty
autonomy
is
much
stronger
with
regard
to
pension
funds,
not
the
endowment
fund.
Faculty
voted
(66.38%)
on
the
motion
asking
pension
trustees
to
divest
from
fossil
fuels
as
well
as
supporting
divestment
of
the
endowment
fund
(UVic
Faculty
for
Divestment,
2014).
The
vote
was
conducted
through
a
mediator
between
faculty
and
administrative
staff
called
the
UVic
Faculty
Association
(UVic
Faculty
for
Divestment,
2014).
Despite
passing
the
motion,
faculty’s
limited
power
is
evident
given
the
lack
of
administrative
action
in
response
to
the
vote.
The
failure
to
create
change
in
the
pension
fund’s
investment
policy
(which
faculty
have
a
stake
in)
implies
that
faculty
have
negligible
direct
influence
over
investment
decisions
concerning
the
endowment
fund.
However,
faculty
are
in
a
unique
position
in
terms
of
challenging
the
university’s
institutional
structure
given
that
they
are
relatively
insulated
by
the
uniformly
understood
tenet
of
academic
freedom
(See
Appendix
M)
(W.
Pfaffenberger,
personal
communication,
Nov
14,
2014).
This
freedom
translates
into
the
freedom
to
actively
advocate
divestment.
In
contrast,
UVic
staff
do
not
have
this
luxury.
In
this
way,
faculty
shouldn’t
be
ignored
as
they
can
act
as
a
powerful
voice
in
support
of
fossil
fuel
divestment.
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4
4.10
Donors
Donors
have
slight
potential
to
wield
indirect
informal
power
over
UVic’s
investment
decisions.
That
is,
they
are
agents
who
endorse
UVic’s
reputation,
meaning
that
they
have
the
opportunity
to
leverage
their
financial
contributions
to
encourage
the
university
to
divest
from
fossil
fuels.
According
to
one
prominent
anonymous
donor
(named
interviewee
hereon
after),
this
opportunity
likely
will
not
be
realized,
as
donors
cannot
and
should
not
be
able
to
substantially
influence
decision
making
at
the
university
(Anonymous
donor,
personal
communication,
Nov
19,
2014).
This
is
because
donors
from
fossil
fuel
companies
could
leverage
their
power
over
the
university
just
as
environmentally
conscious
donors
could
(Anonymous
donor,
personal
communication,
Nov
19,
2014).
The
interviewee
believes
that
it
is
in
the
interest
of
both
the
donors
and

1 8
the
university
to
have
little-‐to-‐no
strings
attached
to
contributions
(Anonymous
donor,
personal
communication,
Nov
19,
2014).
While
the
act
of
donors
leveraging
their
contributions
against
the
university
to
support
a
particular
cause
has
been
found
to
be
a
questionable
strategy,
it
deserves
further
exploration
and
research
(See
Appendix
Q).
If
a
donor’s
goal
(such
as
divestment)
is
conflicting
with
the
values
and
priorities
of
the
university
(divestment
arguably
puts
fiduciary
duty
at
risk),
it
will
not
likely
get
approved
(See
Section
8.00
of
Appendix
N)
(University
of
Victoria,
2013c).
The
interviewee
suggested
that
donors
probably
demand
where
their
contributions
go,
but
one
shouldn’t
restrict
the
university
in
such
a
way
as
the
money
would
be
more
broadly
spent
without
extensive
conditions
(Anonymous
donor,
personal
communication,
Nov
19,
2014).
In
other
words,
divestment
could
increase
financial
risk
by
not
fully
taking
advantage
of
a
diversified
asset
base.
The
interviewee
also
believes
donors
are
going
to
be
increasingly
interested
in
donating
to
a
fund
that
considers
ESG
factors
as
they
want
to
be
associated
with
ethical
institutions
dedicated
to
higher
learning
(Anonymous
donor,
personal
communication,
Nov
19,
2014).
This
potentially
means
divestment
will
attract
additional
donations
due
to
UVic
showing
leadership
in
combating
climate
change
through
divestment.
Furthermore,
both
the
interviewee
and
Fromholt
believe
donors
could
influence
the
decision
to
Divest
UVic’s
endowment
fund
from
fossil
fuels,
but
that
the
size
of
the
donation
needed
to
affect
the
decision
making
process
of
the
administration
is
unrealistic
(Anonymous
donor,
personal
communication,
Nov
19,
2014)
(R.
Fromholt,
personal
communication,
Nov
13,
2014).
Donations
of
that
magnitude
are
under
the
approval
authority
of
the
BoG
with
recommendations
by
the
President
(See
Section
10.00
of
Appendix
N)
(University
of
Victoria,
2013c).
“The
university’s
fundraising
and
gift
acceptance
activities
shall
be
coordinated
in
a
manner
that
serves
the
best
interest
of
the
university
and
supports
the
university’s
priorities
to
the
fullest
extent
possible”
(University
of
Victoria,
2013c,
p.
2).
At
present,
the
university
has
not
prioritized
divestment.
Until
cores
sustainability
values
are
embedded
in
the
institution
that
would
allow
for
more
sustainable
investment
options,
donors
will
not
likely
go
out
of
their
way
to
support
divestment
(R.
Fromholt,
personal
communication,
Nov
13,
2014).
Donors
are
unlikely
to
make
their
donations
contingent
upon
UVic
divesting
its
endowment
fund
from
fossil
fuels
given
that
they
have
little
motivation
to
do
so,
and
that
they
do
not
want
the
responsibility
involved
in
the
process
of
divestment.
According
to
the
interviewee,
most
donors
tend
to
be
conservative
in
nature
and
simply
want
to
be
recognized
for
their
contributions
(Anonymous
donor,
personal
communication,
Nov
19,
2014).
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4

1 9
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4
4.11
Current
Students
Through
online
research
and
an
interview
with
the
former
UVSS
Director
of
Finance
and
Operations
(2013-‐2014)
and
UVSS
Resource
Coordinator
(2012-‐2013)
Matt
Hammer,
it
appears
that
students’
options
for
formal
avenues
of
influence
within
UVic
are
extremely
limited
(M.
Hammer,
personal
communication,
Nov
14,
2014)
(Hammer,
2014).
These
formal
avenues
of
influence
solely
exist
through
the
elected
student
members
of
the
UVic
Senate
and
BoG,
and
through
student
representatives
on
various
committees
(academic,
operational,
services,
and
hiring)
(UVSS,
2014a)
(UVSS,
2014b)
(M.
Hammer,
Nov
14,
2014).
As
student
representatives
remain
minorities
within
all
of
these
bodies,
they
have
a
limited
ability
to
influence
the
decisions
each
body
makes,
unless
they
are
able
to
creatively
leverage
that
power
and
form
allies
within
these
groups
(M.
Hammer,
personal
communication,
Nov
14,
2014)
(M.
M’Gonigle,
Nov
14,
2014).
Ingmar
Lee,
a
former
BoG
student
representative
in
2003
and
environmental
activist
in
the
UVic
Cunningham
Woods
tree-‐sit,
put
forth
that
he
found
his
only
effective
expression
of
power
as
a
student
within
the
BoG
was
to
disrupt
and
delay
the
proceedings
(I.
Lee,
personal
communication,
Nov
10,
2014).
As
UVic
owns
the
SUB
and
the
UVSS
oversees
operations
of
the
SUB,
the
UVSS
does
have
a
formal
relationship
with
the
administration
and
they
do
have
regular
meetings,
however
the
scope
of
these
meetings
is
limited
to
issues
regarding
the
SUB
operations
(M.
Hammer,
Nov
14,
2014).
As
there
is
an
existing
relationship
between
the
UVSS
and
the
UVic
administration,
they
are
able
to
lobby
the
administration,
and
do
so
when
students
vote
on
a
referendum,
a
tactic
Divest
UVic
recently
employed
(Frampton,
2014).
There
is
the
potential
for
informal
power
to
exist
through
relationships
between
departmental
student
societies
and
the
administration
(M.
Hammer,
personal
communication,
Nov
14,
2014).
However
these
relationships
are
negotiated
through
departmental
faculty
members,
and
are
contingent
on
a
strong
relationship
between
student
societies
and
their
respective
department’s
faculty
members
(M.
Hammer,
personal
communication,
Nov
14,
2014).
The
student
societies
that
have
the
strongest
relationships
with
the
UVic
administration,
and
therefore
hold
the
most
informal
power,
are
the
professional
student
societies
(commerce,
engineering,
law,
teaching)
(M.
Hammer,
personal
communication,
Nov
14,
2014).
This
is
the
case
as
up
until
2011,
these
student
societies
received
funding
directly
through
the
UVic
administration
rather
than
the
UVSS
(M.
Hammer,
personal
communication,
Nov
14,
2014).
Echoed
throughout
interviews
with
former
UVic
Sustainability
Coordinator
Rita
Fromholt,
as
well
as
with
Dr
M’Gonigle,
Matt
Hammer,
and
environmental
and
Cunningham
Woods
activist
Ingmar
Lee
is
the
idea
that
the
most
important
informal
power
students
hold
over
UVic
is
their
ability
to
leverage
the
reputation
of
the
university
(R.
Fromholt,
personal
communication,
Nov
13,
2014)
(M.
M’Gonigle,

2 0
personal
communication,
Nov
14,
2014)
(M.
Hammer,
personal
communication,
Nov
14,
2014)
(I.
Lee,
personal
communication,
Nov
10,
2014).
This
ability
eclipses
that
of
staff
and
faculty
as
individuals
in
these
groups
are
often
hesitant
to
act,
as
their
employment
and
standing
with
the
university
could
be
put
at
risk
(R.
Fromholt,
personal
communication,
Nov
13,
2014).
Also
echoed
in
these
interviews
was
the
idea
that
the
most
effective
way
for
students
to
leverage
this
power
is
through
attracting
media
attention
with
highly
visible,
relevant
direct
action,
accompanied
by
the
submission
of
press
releases
to
local
media
outlets
(R.
Fromholt,
personal
communication,
Nov
13,
2014)
(I.
Lee,
personal
communication,
Nov
10,
2014)
(M.
M’Gonigle,
personal
communication,
Nov
14,
2014).
A
potential
barrier
in
this
arena
exists
in
the
regulation
passed
by
the
UVic
senate
in
August
of
2011,
the
“Resolution
of
Non-‐Academic
Misconduct
Allegations”
(University
of
Victoria,
2011).
This
regulation
outlines
an
extensive
investigation
process
and
common
penalties
for
any
student
who
engages
in
“misconduct,”
including
“unauthorized
entry
or
presence
on
university
property,”
“disruptive...
behaviours,”
and
“other
activities
that
result
in
a
criminal
conviction
or
court
judgement”
(University
of
Victoria,
2011).
As
these
definitions
of
misconduct
encompass
a
wide
range
of
commonly
used
direct
action
tactics
(such
as
occupying
space
or
disrupting
day-‐to-‐day
operations),
and
as
this
policy
dictates
that
students
can
be
expelled
or
severely
penalized
for
participating
in
actions
of
this
kind,
it
is
possible
that
students
may
be
less
likely
to
participate
in
such
actions,
or
that
the
UVic
administration
may
exact
harsher
punishments
on
students
than
they
have
in
the
past
(University
of
Victoria,
2011)
(M.
M’Gonigle,
personal
communication,
Nov
14,
2014).
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4
4.12
Media
One
integral
informal
power
relation
of
note
exists
between
the
University
of
Victoria
and
local
and
national
media
sources.
As
UVic
relies
on
its
public
image
and
reputation
in
order
to
attract
potential
donors,
maintain
their
relationships
with
existing
donors
(and
prominent
alumni),
as
well
as
attract
prospective
students
and
faculty,
the
media
holds
a
lot
of
power
over
the
university
through
its
representations
of
UVic
to
the
public.
In
the
above
section
it
was
discussed
that
students
participating
in
direct
action
have
traditionally
attracted
the
most
media
attention,
and
that
this
is
possibly
still
the
most
effective
way
to
leverage
the
university’s
reputation
(R.
Fromholt,
personal
communication,
Nov
13,
2014)
(I.
Lee,
personal
communication,
Nov
10,
2014)
(M.
M’Gonigle,
personal
communication,
Nov
14,
2014).
While
the
effectiveness
of
this
tactic
was
strongly
emphasized,
none
of
our
interviews
or
conducted
research
uncovered
the
process
through
which
these
media
representations
inform
internal
decisions
made
by
the
UVic
administration.

2 1
Contact
was
made
with
various
members
of
UVic’s
PR
department,
as
well
as
through
the
department’s
general
email
address
in
order
to
attempt
to
gain
insight
into
this
process,
however,
all
requests
for
interview
were
declined.
Despite
this
setback
we
were
able
to
secure
an
interview
with
an
anonymous
Public
Relations
(PR)
officer
from
a
prominent
Canadian
university,
who
provided
some
insight
into
the
internal
processes
within
a
PR
unit
at
their
respective
institution
(Anonymous
PR
Officer,
personal
communication,
Nov
26,
2014).
This
PR
officer
explained
that
their
duties
included
distilling
information
from
news
articles
relevant
to
the
university,
determining
the
various
sides
of
the
issue
in
question,
predicting
potential
outcomes
to
a
situation,
as
well
as
determining
possible
solutions
or
courses
of
actions
the
administration
can
take
(Anonymous
PR
Officer,
personal
communication,
Nov
26,
2014).
They
explained
further
that
identifying
these
potential
courses
of
action
for
the
administration
often
involves
researching
how
other
Canadian
universities
have
responded
to
similar
issues
in
the
recent
past
(Anonymous
PR
Officer,
personal
communication,
Nov
26,
2014).
Therefore,
staying
abreast
of
the
ways
in
which
other
divestment
movements
are
unfolding
on
campuses
across
Canada
is
a
key
way
for
Divest
UVic
to
develop
strategic,
responsive,
and
defensive
strategies.
More
specifically,
staying
informed
on
how
higher
administrative
powers
of
various
universities
may
be
evading
the
call
for
divestment
can
inform
the
development
of
Divest
UVic’s
campaign.
While
the
anonymous
PR
officer
did
provide
a
glimpse
into
the
internal
PR
procedures
of
one
Canadian
university,
they
did
make
clear
that
these
procedures
may
vary
from
institution
to
institution.
They
also
made
clear
that
it
is
higher
level
PR
officers
who
attend
to
higher
profile
issues
in
the
media,
or
articles
that
paint
the
university
in
a
negative
light.
The
interviewee
was
unaware
of
any
specific
protocols
in
this
arena,
therefore
further
research
is
needed
in
order
to
fully
understand
the
way
media
informs
internal
decisions
made
by
UVic’s
administration.
4.13
Case
Study:
UVic
Cunningham
Woods
Tree-‐sit
and
the
Moratorium
on
Development
of
Natural
Areas
The
Cunningham
Woods
tree-‐sit
was
a
student-‐led
demonstration
in
the
Cunningham
Woods
on
campus
at
UVic
that
served
to
protest
the
proposed
development
that
would
result
in
the
felling
of
a
large
portion
of
the
woods
(M’Gonigle
&
Stark,
2006,
p.
4-‐5).
The
tree-‐sit
began
in
January
2003
and
continued
for
approximately
6
months
(M’Gonigle
&
Stark,
2006,
p.
5).
While
it
was
organized
independently,
by
students
in
the
UVic
Forest
Action
Network
club,
it
did
contribute
to
a
larger
campaign
that
had
been
going
on
since
2000
(I.
Lee,
personal
communication,
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4

2 2
Nov
10,
2014)
(M.
M’Gonigle,
personal
communication,
Nov
14,
2014).
This
larger
campaign
consisted
of
an
organized
effort
to
shift
UVic’s
policies
on
campus
development
towards
a
more
sustainable
approach,
involving
such
recommendations
as
developing
on
parking
lots
rather
than
natural
spaces
(M.
M’Gonigle,
personal
communication,
Nov
14,
2014).
The
campaign
was
spearheaded
largely
by
Dr.
Michael
M’Gonigle
the
Eco-‐Research
Chair
in
Environmental
Law
and
Policy
at
UVic,
with
support
from
students,
faculty,
and
the
UVSP,
and
involved
a
number
of
tactics
that
worked
in
concert
to
lead
to
a
10
year
moratorium
on
development
of
the
Cunningham
Woods
and
other
natural
spaces
on
campus
(M.
M’Gonigle,
personal
communication,
Nov
14,
2014)
(M’Gonigle
&
Stark,
2006,
p.
122)
(UVIC,
2003).
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4
Fig.
5.
A
map
of
the
UVic
campus
detailing
the
parameters
of
the
10
year
moratorium
on
development
of
the
Cunningham
Woods
and
natural
areas
on
campus
(Thiessen,
2013).

2 3
There
were
a
wide
variety
of
tactics
used
in
this
long
campaign,
and
it
is
clear
that
they
worked
synergistically
with
the
tree-‐sit
to
ultimately
influence
the
university
to
alter
its
policies
on
development
(M.
M’Gonigle,
personal
communication,
Nov
14,
2014).
The
most
effective
of
these
tactics
included
performing
research
and
writing
publications
on
sustainable
development
to
present
to
the
UVic
administration,
mobilizing
faculty
by
attending
departmental
faculty
meetings
(they
had
approximately
600
faculty
members
sign
on
in
support),
mobilizing
students
to
participate
and
perform
direct
action,
involving
unions
and
staff,
and
maintaining
a
high
profile
and
public
campaign
by
drawing
the
attention
of
local
media
outlets
(M.
M’Gonigle,
personal
communication,
Nov
14,
2014).
M’Gonigle
acknowledges
the
tree-‐sit
as
being
integral
to
attracting
media
attention,
as
it
was
a
highly
visible
and
longstanding
campaign,
that
had
the
benefit
of
a
charismatic
spokesperson,
Ingmar
Lee
(M.
M’Gonigle,
personal
communication,
Nov
14,
2014).
The
campaign
also
consisted
of
participating
in
ongoing
meetings
with
the
Campus
Development
Committee
(CDC);
the
BoG;
David
Turpin,
the
University
President
at
that
time;
and
Jack
Falk,
the
VP
of
Finance
and
Operations
(M.
M’Gonigle,
personal
communication,
Nov
14,
2014).
However,
both
M’Gonigle
and
Lee
agree
that
it
was
through
direct
action
and
effectively
leveraging
UVic’s
public
reputation
(by
writing
press
releases
and
attracting
media
sources
to
the
tree-‐sit)
that
the
best
results
were
achieved
(I.
Lee,
personal
communication,
Nov
10,
2014)
(M.
M’Gonigle,
personal
communication,
Nov
14,
2014)
Looking
at
the
extensive
media
coverage
of
the
tree-‐sit,
it
is
clear
that
the
bold
and
persistent
direct
action
performed
by
the
students
is
the
main
focus
of
the
articles,
and
that
most
media
sources
depicted
the
students
in
a
sympathetic,
positive
light
(Watts,
2003)
(Times
Colonist,
2003).
As
the
financial
and
professional
success
of
UVic
is
largely
based
on
the
reputation
and
public
face
of
the
university
(as
discussed
earlier),
it
can
be
concluded
that
the
extensive
media
coverage
of
the
tree-‐sit
played
a
significant
role
in
pressuring
the
university’s
administration
to
enact
the
ten
year
moratorium
on
development
of
the
Cunningham
Woods
and
other
natural
spaces
on
campus
(M’Gonigle
&
Stark,
2006,
p.
122).
5.
Recommendations
for
Divest
UVic
Drawing
from
the
UVic
Cunningham
Woods
tree-‐sit
case
study
and
research
performed
up
to
this
point,
many
interviewees
echoed
that
it
is
through
the
synergistic
relationship
of
multiple
tactics
and
strategies
that
success
of
student-‐led
campaigns
is
achieved.
Therefore,
the
following
recommendations
should
not
be
viewed
in
isolation,
but
should
be
considered
as
to
how
they
can
work
together
to
contribute
to
the
larger
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4

2 4
goal
of
divestment
at
UVic.
The
following
recommendations
are
organized
by
the
topic
or
targeted
group
in
question,
and
are
not
ordered
by
importance.
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4
5.1
Students
Mobilize
student
population.
Many
interviewees
commented
that
they
believe
the
student
population
should
be
mobilized,
both
in
that
they
have
the
ability
to
be
more
radical
than
staff
and
faculty,
and
in
that
they
also
tend
to
attract
more
media
attention
and
therefore
have
more
impact
on
UVic’s
public
reputation.
Act
quickly
and
pass
the
torch
to
committed
students/individuals.
If/when
support
for
divestment
is
expressed
by
UVic’s
governing
bodies,
the
logistical
process
of
divestment
is
likely
to
take
a
considerable
amount
of
time.
Executive
administrators
are
aware
that
students
tend
to
be
on
campus
for
only
4-‐5
years,
which
is
about
half
the
length
of
most
executive
position
terms.
In
order
to
avoid
the
abandonment
of
the
issue,
it
is
important
to
secure
the
continuation
of
Divest
UVic
by
gathering
support
from
committed
students
or
other
individuals.
Inform
students
of
their
power
to
elect
student
representatives
within
the
Senate
and
the
BoG.
As
student
representatives
within
these
bodies
can
advocate
for
divestment,
educating
students
of
the
importance
of
their
vote
could
create
a
further
push
towards
divestment
within
the
university.
5.2
Financial
Research
and
Understanding
Recruit
students
and
other
individuals
with
economic
backgrounds
to
Divest
UVic.
This
would
ensure
a
better
understanding
of
UVic’s
finances,
and
therefore
Divest
UVic
would
be
able
to
perform
research
to
bolster
their
arguments.
Research
the
changing
values
of
UVic’s
fossil
fuel
investments
over
a
period
of
years
and
create
a
web-‐page
to
present
this
research.
Demonstrating
that
the
value
of
these
investments
has
dipped
in
the
past
would
strengthen
the
argument
that
continuing
to
invest
in
fossil
fuels
potentially
violates
the
Foundation
Board’s
fiduciary
duty.
Perform
two
risk
assessments
to
present
to
the
Foundation
Board.
A
source
from
Financial
services
has
suggested
that
if
the
Foundation
Board
was
serious
about
divestment
they
would
create
an
assessment
of
increased
risk
from
loss
of
diversity
in
their
holding
and
total
possible
losses
from
the
portfolio
change.
If
the
Foundation
Board
is
not
currently
in
the
process
of
doing
this,
we
recommend
that
Divest
UVic
perform
two
risk
assessments:
one
assessment
to
show
the
increased
risk
and
total

2 5
losses
from
the
University
of
Victoria
Foundation
divesting
from
fossil
fuels
and
from
distributing
the
divested
money
among
the
existing
portfolio,
the
other
to
show
the
increased
risk
and
total
losses
from
divesting
from
fossil
fuels
and
reinvesting
in
more
environmentally
responsible
stocks.
Produce
a
report
that
evaluates
the
potential
risk
of
divestment
on
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4
scholarships.
Divest
UVIC
can
influence
the
Foundation
Board
to
consider
divesting
from
fossil
fuels
by
providing
them
with
a
report
that
evaluates
the
risk
of
divestment
in
terms
of
the
number
of
scholarships
it
will
affect.
This
report
should
include
an
analysis
of
the
restrictions
and
freedoms
of
the
foundation
board’s
fiduciary
duty.
It
has
been
argued
that
the
fiduciary
duty
of
endowment
trustees
can
extend
beyond
maximizing
financial
gains.
Fiduciary
duty
is
meant
to
protect
the
long
term
best
interest
of
its
beneficiaries;
therefore,
it
could
be
argued
that
the
board
members
are
violating
their
fiduciary
duty
because
of
the
long
term
financial
and
ethical
risks
posed
by
the
carbon
bubble,
stranded
assets,
and
the
ethics
of
climate
change
(refer
to
Appendix
E).
Perform
research
on
investment
alternatives
to
fossil
fuels.
Researching
investment
alternatives
to
fossil
fuels
with
the
University
of
Victoria
Foundation
in
mind
can
bolster
the
campaign
by
having
tangible,
relevant
literature
to
present
to
the
UVic
administration.
5.3
Faculty
Garner
more
faculty
support.
Faculty
are
uniquely
insulated
in
that
they
are
able
to
express
support
for
and
research
divestment
without
risking
their
employment,
due
to
the
tenet
of
academic
freedom.
Therefore
faculty
are
a
key
group
from
which
to
gain
support.
One
way
this
can
be
done
is
by
attending
faculty
departmental
meetings
to
gather
support
from
large
numbers
of
faculty
members,
as
was
an
effective
tactic
used
in
the
campaign
to
save
the
Cunningham
Woods.
5.4
Staff
Explore
CUPE’s
ability
to
support
divestment
through
broader
coalitions.
For
example
through
CUPE
BC
and
the
CUPE
International
Solidarity
Committee.
Through
collective
action,
union
coalitions
will
pressure
the
university
to
a
greater
degree
by
being
significantly
harder
to
ignore
than
if
it
were
just
one
union
group
advocating
for
divestment.
Despite
being
inhibited
to
influence
the
endowment's
investment
decisions
directly,
staff
and
unions
supply
a
powerful
presence
in
conjunction
with
other
bodies
of
influence
such
as
students
and
faculty.

2 6
5.5
Financial
Governing
Powers
Foster
positive
relationships
with
high
level
administrative
powers
who
are
also
key
decision
makers
on
the
Foundation
Board.
Actions
should
be
aimed
to
influence
the
key
decision
makers
behind
investment
policy.
It
may
be
beneficial
to
focus
on
individuals
who
wear
many
hats
in
the
financial
governance
of
UVic
by
sitting
on
various
boards
and
participating
in
different
administrative
roles.
Some
of
these
individuals
include
Jamie
Cassels
(the
President
of
UVic)
,
Gayle
Gorrill
(VP
of
Finance
and
Operations),
and
Murray
Griffith
(Executive
Director
of
Financial
Services).
Fostering
a
positive
relationship
with
these
individuals
allows
for
a
continued
dialogue
on
divestment
through
repeated
contact.
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4
5.6
Board
of
Governors
Increase
open
conversation
of
alternative
outlets
for
UVic
investments.
With
the
implementation
of
policy
#1480,
members
of
the
UVic
community
are
entitled
to
propose
that
the
University
engage
in
forms
of
social
activism
regarding
social
responsibility
and
UVic’s
investments
in
the
Short
Term
Investment
Fund.
Students
can
send
requests
to
the
Executive
Director
of
Financial
Services,
Murray
Griffith
(refer
to
Appendix
p)
and
request
open
forums
to
discuss
social
responsibility
and
UVic’s
short
term
investments.
Open
forums
discussing
socially
responsible
investments
and
divestment
within
the
university
would
ensure
both
opinions
at
an
executive
and
student
level
are
heard
and
would
create
a
push
towards
the
demand
for
ethical
investments.
6.
Conclusion
Our
approach
to
expose
who
has
power
to
influence
investment
decisions,
and
what
institutional
barriers
they
might
face,
has
been
multi-‐pronged.
This
is
due
to
the
many
players
involved,
the
complex
institutional
organization
of
the
University
of
Victoria,
and
the
variety
of
ways
to
directly
or
indirectly
affect
UVic’s
investment
decisions.
We
found
these
avenues
of
influence
to
be
both
formal
and
informal
in
nature,
with
some
bodies
of
power
holding
both
formal
and
informal
power.
The
University
of
Victoria
Foundation,
in
response
to
the
demand
for
socially
responsible
investing,
has
signed
onto
policies
that
can
be
considered
a
facade
for
more
thorough
action,
including
updating
their
ESG
policy
and
signing
onto
the
UNPRI,
both
of
which
have
often
been
deemed
“toothless”
by
those
in
the
financial
realm
(Horwitz,
2010).
The
BoG
has
also
stated
they
are
willing
to
explore
alternative
investment
options
but
currently
do
not
support
divestment
due
to
the
lack
of
consultation
at
an

2 7
executive
and
student
level
(Maltese,
2014)
(B.
Cranwell,
personal
communication,
November
12,
2014).
Due
to
the
above
insubstantial
motions
the
UVic
administration
is
taking
towards
addressing
the
call
for
divestment
from
fossil
fuels,
it
is
evident
that
Divest
UVic
has
a
key
role
to
play
in
advancing
this
issue
further.
Through
our
research,
we
have
found
that
the
conditions
needed
to
successfully
prompt
the
University
to
divest
from
fossil
fuels
exist,
although
the
avenues
of
influence
are
spread
out
and
are
unequal
in
power.
What
is
needed
are
strategies
that
make
use
of
each
avenue
of
influence
through
appropriately
prioritizing
and
delegating
resources
to
each
according
to
their
level
of
power.
Ignoring
one
body
of
influence
may
significantly
reduce
the
chances
of
success
despite
that
body
having
relatively
little
influence.
Each
avenue
of
influence
must
be
pursued
in
a
way
that
they
work
together
synergistically,
and
in
a
way
that
targets
multiple
institutional
barriers
present
at
UVic.
Prioritized,
collective,
and
targeted
action
has
great
potential
to
break
down
these
barriers,
thus
building
momentum
and
a
broader
base
of
supporters
within
UVic
and
the
wider
community.
With
an
appropriately
focused
campaign,
divestment
from
fossil
fuels
is
within
the
grasp
of
Divest
UVic.
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4

2 8
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4
7.
Works
Cited
Financial
Governing
Bray,
J.
(2005).
University
of
victoria
Foundation
Act.
Retrieved
September
2014,
from:https://www.uvic.ca/universitysecretary/assets/docs/obfoundations/UVic_
Foundation_Act_2005.pdf
Fossil
Free.
(2014).
Divestment
Commitments.
Retrieved
November
2014,
from:
http://gofossilfree.org/commitments/
Horwitz,
M.
(2010).
The
implementation
of
United
Nation’s
Principles
of
Responsible
Investments
among
Swedish
Investors.
Stockholm
Resilience
Center.
Retrieved
November
2014,
from:
http://www.diva-‐
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:417193/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Hill,
L.
(2014).
University
of
Victoria
Annual
Report.
University
of
Victoria.
Victoria:
University
of
Victoria.
Land
of
Free.
(2012).Murray
Griffith
.
Retrieved
November
2014,
from:
http://canada.landoffree.com/employee/Murray_Griffith
Mohr,
E.
(2014).
Executive
Compensation
Report.
University
of
Victoria.
Victoria:
University
of
Victoria.
Responsible
Endowments
Coalition.
(2014).
Endowment
101:
A
Play
in
Three
Parts.
Retrieved
November
2014,
from:
http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/endowmentethics/pages/39/attachmen
ts/original/1381957316/Endowments_101.pdf?1381957316
Richardson,
B.
(2014).
Legality
of
Socially
Responsible
Investing
(SRI)
by
University
Endowment Funds.
Retrieved
November
14
2014,
from:
file:///private/var/folders/41/lj_8kvgd2hb6ldw0gr75h4s80000gn/T/TemporaryI
ems/Word%20Work%20File%20D_809148836.html
Thackray,
C.
(2002,
November
27).
New
Canadian
Foundation
Assists
Students
From
Hong
Kong
and
China.
University
of
Victoria
Media
Release

2 9
The
Canadian
Encyclopaedia.
(2014).
Law
of
Fiduciary
Obligation.
Retrieved
November2014,
from:
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/law-‐of-‐fiduciary-‐obligation/
The
Canadian
Encyclopaedia.
(2014).
Law
of
Fiduciary
Obligation.
Retrieved
November2014,
from:
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/law-‐of-‐fiduciary-‐obligation/
University
of
Victoria
(2014a).
Financial
Accounting.
Retrieved
September
2014
from:
http://www.UVic.ca/vpfo/accounting/services/financial/index.php
University
of
Victoria.
(2014b,
August
6).
The
associate
vice
president
financial
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4
planning
and
operations.
Retrieved
September
2014,
from:
http://web.UVic.ca/vpfin/financialplanning/avpindex.htm
University
of
Victoria.
(2014c,
May
20).
University
of
victoria
foundation.
Retrieved
September
2014,
from:
https://www.UVic.ca/universitysecretary/otherbodies/foundations/UVic/
University
of
Victoria.
(2014d,
March
31).
Foundation
for
the
University
of
Victoria.
Retrieved
November
2014,
from:
https://www.UVic.ca/universitysecretary/otherbodies/foundations/forUVic/inde
x.php
University
of
Victoria.
(2014e,
March
31).
U.S
Foundation
for
the
University
of
Victoria.
Retrieved
November
2014,
from:
https://www.UVic.ca/universitysecretary/assets/docs/obfoundations/Portfolio%
20Holdings/2013_2014_Portfolio_Holding.pdf
University
of
Victoria.
(2014f).
University
of
Victoria
Hong
Kong
Foundation.
Retrieved
November
2014,
from:
https://extrweb.UVic.ca/pages/annual-‐giving/university-‐of-‐victoria-‐hong-‐kong-‐
foundation-‐limited
University
of
Victoria.
(2014g).
Vice-‐
President
Finance
and
Operations.
Retrieved
November
14
2014,
from:
http://www.UVic.ca/vpfo/home/Vice-‐
president/index.php

3 0
University
of
Victoria
Foundation.
(2013,
May
23).
University
of
victoria
summary
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4
of
investment
beliefs.
Retrieved
September
2014,
from
University
of
Victoria:
https://www.UVic.ca/universitysecretary/assets/docs/obfoundations/Summary
OfInvesmentBeliefsMay2013.pdf
University
of
Victoria
Foundation.
(2014a).
The
University
of
Victoria
Foundation
Statement
of
Investment
Objectives
and
Guidelines.
Retrieved
November
2014,
from:
https://www.uvic.ca/universitysecretary/assets/docs/obfoundations/Statement
_Investment_Objectives_Guidelines_May_2014.pdf
University
of
Victoria
Foundation.
(2014b,
March
31).
University
of
Victoria
Foundation
Schedule
of
Investments.
Retrieved
September
2014,
from:
https://www.UVic.ca/universitysecretary/assets/docs/obfoundations/Portfolio%
20Holdings/2013_2014_Portfolio_Holding.pdf
UNPRI.
(2014).
About
the
PRI
initiative.
Retrieved
November
26
2014,
from:
http://www.unpri.org/about-‐pri/about-‐pri/
Senate
University
of
Victoria.
(2014h).
University
budget
framework
for
2014/15.
Retrieved
October
3,
2014
from:http://www.uvic.ca/budgetplanning/home/budget-‐
framewor
k/index.php.
University
of
Victoria.
(2013b).
Senate
committee
on
university
budget
terms
of
reference.Retrieved
October
10,
2014
from:
https://www.uvic.ca/universit
ysecretary/assets/docs/scommittees/UniversityBudgetTORDecember2013.pdf.
University
of
Victoria.
(2014i)
Senate
committee
on
university
budget
terms
of
reference.
(2013,
December
6).
Retrieved
October
10,
2014
from:
htt://www.uvic.
ca/universitysecretary/assets/docs/scommittees/UniversityBu
dgetTORDecember2013.pdf

3 1
University
of
Victoria.
(2012,
September).
Short-‐term
investment
policy.
Retrieved
Oct
2014,
from:
http://www.uvic.ca/universitysecretary/assets/docs/policies/FM5
200_1480_.pdf
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4
Alumni
Divest
UVic.
FAQ.
Retrieved
October
3,
2014
from:
http://divestuvic.org/2014/01
/29/divest-‐uvic-‐faq/
University
of
Victoria.
(2014j).
Corporate
Relations-‐
Demographics.
Retrieved
October
10,
2014
from:
http://www.uvic.ca/external/corporate/corporate/sponsor/demographics/index
.php
Board
of
Governors
Maltese,
Senica.
The
Martlet.
(2014,
October
3).
UVic
board
of
governors
meeting
summary:
sept.
30.
Retrieved
September
30,
2014
from:
http://www.martlet.ca/news/uvic-‐board-‐of-‐governors-‐meeting-‐summary-‐sept-‐
30/
University
Act:
[RSBC
1996]
Chapter
468.
(2014,
September
10).
Retrieved
October
10,
2014
from:
http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_9646
8_01.
University
of
Victoria.
(2002)
Policy
on
social
responsibility
and
uvic
investments.
Retrieved
October
10,
2014
from:
http://www.uvic.ca/universitysecretary/assets/docs/policies/FM5215_1790_.pd
f
University
of
Victoria.
(2014j)
University
of
Victoria
Board
of
Governors
2014-‐15.
Retrieved
November
13,
2014
from:
http://www.uvic.ca/universitysecretary/
assets/docs/membership/BoG2014-‐15.pdf.
University
of
Victoria.
(2014k)
University
Secretary.
Board
of
governors
–
welcome.
Retrieved
October
10,
2014
from:

3 2
http://www.uvic.ca/universitysecretary/governors/
University
of
Victoria.
(2014l).
University
of
victoria
board
of
governors
draft
agenda
–
open
board.
Retrieved
September
30,
2014
from:
http://web.uvic.ca/~webcoop/usec/Open%20June%2023%202014.pdf.
University
of
Victoria.
(2014m).
University
budget
framework
for
2014/15.
Retrieved
October
3,
2014
from:
http://www.uvic.ca/budgetplanning/home/budget-‐framework/index.php
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4
Staff
and
Unions
University
of
Victoria.
(2014n).
Sustainability
action
plan:
Campus
operations
2014
2019.
Retrieved
from:
http://www.uvic.ca/sustainability/assets/docs/SustainabilityActionPlanBooklet2014
_WEB.pdf
University
of
Victoria.
(2014o).
University
of
victoria
board
of
governors
2014-‐2015.
Retrieved
from:
http://www.uvic.ca/universitysecretary/assets/docs/membership/BoG2014-‐15.pdf
Faculty
University
of
Victoria.
(2010).
Framework
agreement.
Retrieved
from:
http://www.uvic.ca/vpacademic/assets/docs/resources/framework/Framewor
Agreement2008Revised2010.pdf
UVic
Faculty
for
Fossil
Fuel
Divestment.
(2014).
UVic
faculty
for
fossil
fuel
divestment.
Retrieved
from:
http://uvicfacultyfordivestment.wordpress.com/
Donors
University
of
Victoria.
(2013c).
Fundraising
and
gift
acceptance.
Retrieved
from:
http://www.uvic.ca/universitysecretary/assets/docs/policies/ER4105.pdf

3 3
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4
Current
Students
Frampton,
Stephen.
(2014).
UVSS
agm
exceeds
quorum,
divestment
goes
to
referendum. Retrieved
Nov
14
2014
from:
http://www.martlet.ca/news/uvss-‐agm-‐exceeds-‐quorum-‐divestment-‐goes-‐to-‐
referendum/
Hammer,
M.
(2014).
Matt
hammer.
Retrieved
November
2014
from:
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/matt-‐hammer/2b/34b/9b8
University
of
Victoria.
(2011).
Resolution
of
non-‐academic
misconduct
allegations.
Retrieved November
2014
from:
http://www.uvic.ca/universitysecretary/assets/docs/policies/AC1300.pdf
UVSS.
(2014a).
UVic
committees.
Retrieved
November
14
from:
https://uvss.ca/governance/uvic-‐governance/uvic-‐committees/
UVSS.
(2014b).
UVic
governance.
Retrieved
November
14
from:
https://uvss.ca/governance/uvic-‐governance/
Media
Dwyer,
M.
(October
30,
2013).
Measuring
excellence:
Details
of
how
Maclean’s
ranks
49
Universities
Each
Year.
October
10,
2014,
from:
http://www.macleans.ca/education/unirankings/measuring-‐excellence-‐2-‐2/
Case
Study:
Cunningham
Woods
Tree-‐sit
and
the
Moratorium
on
Development
of
Natural
Areas
Thiessen,
E.
(2013).
10-‐year
moratorium
on
campus
deforestation
to
expire.
Graphic.
Retrieved
November
1,
2014
from:
http://www.martlet.ca/news/10-‐year-‐moratorium-‐on-‐campus-‐deforestation-‐to-‐
expire/
University
of
Victoria
(2003).
Campus
plan.
Retrieved
September
2014
from:
http://www.uvic.ca/campusplanning/assets/docs/campusplan2003.pdf

3 4
Times
Colonist.
(Jan
31,
2003).
"Tree-‐sitters
happy
with
moratorium".
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/docview/345902664/BC7B90
F19074440PQ/5?accountid=14846
Watts,
R.
Times
Colonist.
(Jan
14,
2003).
"Protesters
set
up
tree
camp."Retrieved
from:
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/news/docview/345912804/C
62563F4A68A4770PQ/21?accountid=14846
Appendix
Cadboro
Bay
Residents
Association.
(2011).
Response
to
uvic
request
for
community
feedback
post
september
8
2011
uvic
open
house.
Retrieved
October
10
2014
from:
http://www.cadborobay.bc.ca/current_UVIC_parkade_response_20110908.pdf
Cadboro
Bay
Residents
Association.
(2014).
About
cadboro
bay
residents
association.
Retrieved
October
9,
2014
from:
http://www.cadborobay.bc.ca/about.htm
Dwyer,
M.
(October
30,
2013).
"Measuring
excellence:
Details
of
how
Maclean’s
ranks
49 Universities
Each
Year.”
October
10,
2014,
from
http://www.macleans.ca/education/unirankings/measuring-‐excellence-‐2-‐2/
Maclean's
Magazine.
(October
31,
2013).
"2014
university
rankings:
Comprehensive
results".
October
10,
2014,
from
http://www.macleans.ca/education/uniandcollege/2014-‐university-‐rankings-‐
comprehensive-‐category-‐results/
University
of
Victoria.
(2012).
Strategic
plan:
community.
Retrieved
September
2014
from:
http://www.uvic.ca/strategicplan/community/index.php
University
of
Victoria.
(March,
2014p).
2014-‐2015
Planning
and
budget
framework.
(ijk)
Retrieved
October
9,
2014
from:
http://www.uvic.ca/budgetplanning/assets/docs/PlanningBudgetFramework_M
arch_2014.pdf
h t t p s : / /www. l i n k e d i n . com/ p u b /ma t t -‐
h amme r / 2 b / 3 4 b / 9 b 8
University
of
Victoria.
(2014q).
Demographics.
October
10,
2014
from:
http://www.uvic.ca/external/corporate/corporate/sponsor/demographics/index
.php
University
of
Victoria.
(2014r).
“UVIC
factbook
table
24
−
undergraduate
headcounts
by
previous
institution
attended
-‐
BC
highs
schools
(fall
terms).”
Retrieved
October
8,
2014,
from:
http://www.inst.uvic.ca/factbook/Factbook%20Table24.pdf
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4

3 5
8.
Appendix
Appendix
A:
List
of
Acronyms
BoG:
Board
of
Governors
CDC:
Campus
Development
Committee
CUPE:
Canadian
Union
of
Public
Employees
ESG:
Environmental
and
Social
Governance
MOU:
Moratorium
of
Understanding
PEA:
Professional
Employees
Association
PR:
Public
Relations
SUB:
Student
Union
Building
SRI:
Socially
Responsible
Investment
UNPRI:
United
Nations
Principles
of
Responsible
Investment
UVic:
University
of
Victoria
UVSP:
University
of
Victoria
Sustainability
Project
UVSS:
University
of
Victoria
Student
Society
VPFO:
Vice
President
of
Finance
and
Operations
Appendix
B:
Financial
Services
office
and
the
endowment
This
is
an
excerpt
from
the
University
of
Victoria
Foundation’s
statement
of
investment
objectives
and
guidelines
explaining
the
responsibilities
of
UVic’s
administration
concerning
the
endowment
funds.
This
document
can
be
found
here:
https://www.uvic.ca/universitysecretary/assets/docs/obfoundations/Statement_Inve
stment_Objectives_Guidelines_May_2014.pdf
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4

3 6
Appendix
C:
Active
Foundations
UVic
currently
has
4
different
endowment
foundations:
The
University
of
Victoria
Foundation,
The
Foundation
for
the
University
of
Victoria,
and
The
U.S
Foundation
for
the
University
of
Victoria,
and
the
University
of
Victoria
Hong
Kong
Foundation
(University
of
Victoria,
2014cdef).
These
foundations
are
split
up
for
the
purposes
of
types
of
donations,
and
types
of
investment(M.
Hammer,
personal
communication,
Nov
14,
2014).
The
University
of
Victoria
Foundation
was
created
in
1954
and
is
the
largest
foundation
at
UVic,
holding
more
than
300
million
dollars
1100
different
funds
(University
of
Victoria,
2014c).
The
Foundation
for
the
University
of
Victoria
was
created
in
1978
by
the
University
of
Victoria
Foundation
to
manage
mostly
physical
assets
such
as
land
and
art
(University
of
Victoria,2014d).
The
U.S
Foundation
for
the
University
of
Victoria
was
created
in
1997
to
attract
donations
from
the
United
States
of
America
to
“Encourage
and
foster
an
appreciation
by
the
American
public
of
the
work
being
conducted
by
the
University
of
Victoria
in
various
educational
disciplines
deemed
to
be
of
interest
to
the
American
public(University
of
Victoria,
2014e).”
The
University
of
Victoria
Hong
Kong
Foundation
Ltd.
was
created
in
2002
to
provide
scholarships
to
undergraduate
and
graduate
students
at
UVic
from
Hong
Kong
and
China(University
of
Victoria,
2014f).
These
foundations
are
created
as
separate
entities
of
the
University
of
Victoria,
meaning
that
they
have
independent
governing
bodies
that
create
and
enforce
the
expectations
of
the
foundation(Anonymous
Financial
Services,
personal
communication,
Nov
11,
2014)
.
The
University
of
victoria
administration
and
financial
services
interacts
with
these
foundations
by
completing
administrative
and
accounting
tasks
for
the
foundations(Anonymous
Financial
Services,
personal
communication,
Nov
11,
2014)
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4

3 7
Appendix
D:
List
of
Endowments
and
Governing
Bodies
(University
of
Victoria,
2014c,d,e
&
f)(Thackray,
2002)
Appendix
E:
What
is
Fiduciary
Duty?
Fiduciary
duty
is
the
legal
responsibility
of
the
fiduciary
to
the
beneficiary(The
Canadian
Encyclopaedia,
2014)
.
Fiduciary
responsibility
can
occur
in
any
relationship
where
the
beneficiary
is
more
vulnerable
than
the
fiduciary
because
the
fiduciary
carries
some
type
of
power(The
Canadian
Encyclopaedia,
2014)
.
Fiduciary
duty
protects
the
beneficiary
by
ensuring
that
the
fiduciary
cannot
act
in
his
or
her
own
best
interest(The
Canadian
Encyclopaedia,
2014).
In
the
case
of
an
endowment,
the
board
members
have
an
obligation
to
act
in
the
best,
long
term,
interest
of
the
beneficiaries
(Richardson,
2014).
For
most
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4

3 8
endowments,
the
legal
beneficiary
does
not
consist
of
a
specific
stakeholder
(Richardson,
2014).
In
fact,
Endowments
have
several
beneficiaries
including
alumni,
faculty,
staff,
donors,
and
students
(Richardson,
2014).
The
trustee’s
of
the
endowment
are
only
liable
to
the
Attorney
General,
other
trustees
on
the
board,
and
sometimes
donors(Richardson,2014).
Employees
and
students
at
UVic
have
more
of
a
contractual
agreement
with
the
university
that
does
not
allow
them
to
legally
dictate
the
way
that
the
endowment
portfolio
is
composed
(Richardson,2014).
Appendix
F:
Key
Players
in
the
Endowment
(Bray,2005)
(University
of
Victoria
Foundation,
2014a)
The
simplified
responsibilities
of
these
bodies
that
deal
directly
with
the
UVic
foundations
endowment
investments
are
as
follows:
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4
The
Board:
hire
and
monitor
all
of
the
service
providers
below,
establish
amend
and
reinforce
policy,
evaluate
the
ESG
procedures
of
the
managers,
consider
ESG
in
own
practices,
monitor
investment
performance,
and
approve
investment
reports
Investment
Managers:
monitor
investment
performance,
allocate
assets
in
compliance
to
the
foundation
board’s
policy
and
the
investment
managers
agreement,
create
reports
about
investment
strategies
and
investment
performance,
meet
with
board
when
required,
advise
board
on
investment
policy.
The
Finance
Office:
keep
records
of
investments,
prepare
financial
statement
for
audit,
liaise
with
all
service
providers
except
the
custodian
Investment
Consultant:
assist
in
the
development
and
monitoring
of
investment
policy,
implementation
of
the
policy,
monitor
the
performance
of
the
managers,
meet
with
the
board
to
discuss
policy
change
Investment
Custodian:
hold
custody
of
the
funds,
invest
the
funds
in
accordance
to
the
requests
of
the
investment
managers,
keep
records
of
investment
performance
Auditor:
annually
review
the
financial
reports
regarding
investments
to
ensure
legal
standard

3 9
Appendix
G:
Visual
representation
of
Endowment
Procedures
The
image
below
illustrates
the
internal
processes
and
procedures
that
occur
in
the
creation
and
implementation
of
investment
policy:
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4

4 0
Appendix
H:
How
Endowment
Funds
Work
An
Endowment
is
a
charitable
trust
fund
that
holds
donated
capital
in
perpetuity
in
order
to
contribute
to
a
specific
cause
(Responsible
Endowments
Coalition,2014)
.
Endowment
donations
are
allocated
into
what
is
called
the
“Principal
Fund”
(Responsible
Endowments
Coalition,2014).
The
principal
fund
is
meant
to
be
held
in
perpetuity,
meaning
that
it
money
should
never
be
moved
from
this
fund
for
purposes
other
than
investing
(Responsible
Endowments
Coalition,2014).
The
Principal
fund
is
invested
into
a
diverse
portfolio
of
holdings
(Responsible
Endowments
Coalition,2014).
The
more
diverse
this
portfolio
is,
the
lower
the
risk
of
loss
of
capital
is
(Responsible
Endowments
Coalition,2014).
Changing
the
asset
allocation
of
the
portfolio
will
change
the
risk
profile
of
the
fund
(Responsible
Endowments
Coalition,2014).
The
majority
of
the
return
from
these
holdings
pay
for
specific
purposes,
scholarships,
bursaries,
and
awards
(Responsible
Endowments
Coalition,2014).
A
portion
of
the
returns
is
often
given
back
to
the
principal
fund,
creating
a
continuous
growth
in
investments
and
returns
(Responsible
Endowments
Coalition,2014).
The
fund
managers
hold
the
power
to
vote
on
the
allocation
of
the
funds
in
the
best
interest
of
the
beneficiary
(Bray,
2005).
The
board
can,
however,
take
back
this
voting
power
in
particular
situations
(Bray,2005).
Endowment
funds
are
regulated
under
3
main
sources
of
law
the
Common
Law
(explaining
the
trustee’s
fiduciary
duty)
the
University
Act
sections
27,
19,
and
57(explaining
the
powers
of
the
board)
and
the
Trustee
Act
sections
15.1
and
15.6
(Explaining
the
powers
and
duties
of
a
Trustee/
board
member)(Richardson,2014).
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4

4 1
Appendix
I:
List
of
Board
of
Governors
University
of
Victoria
Board
of
Governors
2014-‐
2015:
-‐
Erich
Mohr,
Chair
&
Order-‐in-‐council
appointee
-‐
Beverly
Van
Ruyven,
Vice-‐chair
&
-‐
Murray
Farmer,
Chancellor
-‐
Jamie
Cassels,
President
and
Vice-‐Chancellor
-‐
Nav
Bassi,
Elected
staff
member
-‐
Helene
Cazes,
Elected
faculty
member
-‐
Ida
Chong,
appointee
-‐
Bradley
Cranwell,
Elected
student
member
-‐
Kayleigh
Erickson,
Elected
student
member
-‐
Peter
Gustavson,
appointee
-‐
Michael
Kennedy,
appointee
-‐
Lindsay
Leblanc,
appointee
-‐
Isobel
Mackenzie,
appointee
-‐
Ana
Maria
Peredo,
Elected
faculty
member
-‐
Tracy
Redies,
appointee
Appendix
J:
List
of
Senate
Members
2014-‐15
Senate
Committee
on
University
Budget
Members:
Susan
Lewis
(Chair),
Faculty
of
Fine
Arts
Doug
Baer,
Faculty
of
Social
Sciences
Neil
Burford,
Faculty
of
Science
President
Jamie
Cassels,
Chair
of
Senate
Beatriz
de
Alba-‐Koch,
Faculty
of
Humanities
Bruce
Kapron,
Faculty
of
Engineering
Cathy
McIntyre,
Convocation
Senator
Esther
Sangster-‐Gormley,
Faculty
of
Human
and
Social
Development
David
Scoones,
Faculty
of
Graduate
Studies
Cory
Shankman,
Student
Senator
Cassbreea
Dewis
(Acting
Secretary),
Office
of
the
University
Secretary
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4

4 2
Appendix
K:
Preliminary
Research
Appendix
K1:
Community
Associations
Community
associations
exert
strong
reputational
power
over
UVIC.
As
an
institution,
UVIC
has
made
strong
commitments
to
civic
engagement
and
to
the
service
of
communities
locally
and
around
the
world.
UVIC
is
located
in
the
district
of
Saanich
(Cadboro
Bay),
as
well
as
the
district
of
Oak
Bay.
In
UVIC’s
Community
Strategic
Plan,
it’s
stated
that
“our
goal
is
to
establish
UVIC
as
a
recognized
cornerstone
of
the
community,
committed
to
the
sustainable
social,
cultural
and
economic
development
of
our
region
and
our
nation”
(2012).
Mutual
understanding
and
consideration
of
the
surrounding
communities
is
not
always
guaranteed,
however.
For
instance,
in
recent
years
the
Cadboro
Bay
Residents
Association
(CBRA)
expressed
strong
disapproval
of
UVIC’s
construction
of
the
Centre
for
Athletics,
Recreation
and
Special
Abilities
(CARSA)
and
a
seven
story
parkade
as
from
their
perspective,
UVIC’s
CARSA
project
has
been
“inappropriately
transferring
social
and
environmental
costs
to
the
surrounding
communities”
(Cadboro
Bay
Residents
Association,
2011).
Moreover,
their
influence
was
felt
when
UVIC
was
forced
to
hire
a
consultant
to
restart
the
community
consultation
process
as
it
was
initially
ineffective.
While
investments
in
fossil
fuels
may
not
pose
a
direct
threat
to
the
surrounding
communities,
the
mission
statements
of
community
associations
often
prioritize
sustainability.
For
example,
the
CBRA
states
that
the
purpose
of
their
organization
is
to
“promote
the
maintenance
of
the
character
of
Cadboro
Bay
based
on
its
harmony
with
the
natural
environment”
(CBRA,
2014).
Local
communities
have
a
history
of
taking
action
against
UVIC
when
university
plans
compromise
the
integrity
of
those
communities.
UVIC’s
investments
in
fossil
fuels
arguably
compromise
that
integrity.
Appendix
K2:
Media:
Maclean’s
One
aspect
we
have
focused
our
efforts
on
is
analyzing
the
Maclean’s
University
Rankings
that
are
published
annually
by
Maclean’s
magazine.
UVIC
was
awarded
first
place
in
Maclean’s
“Comprehensive”
category
in
2014,
meaning
it
is
considered
the
best
Canadian
university
when
it
comes
to
a
well-‐rounded
range
of
programs
and
a
“significant”
degree
of
research
activity
(Maclean’s,
2013).
The
rankings
in
this
category
are
based
off
a
number
of
measures,
the
most
relevant
to
Divest
UVic
being
that
20%
of
the
weighted
grade
of
universities
is
associated
with
the
reputation
of
the
university
(Dwyer,
M.,
2013).
This
grade
is
solely
based
on
surveying
education
professionals,
including
high
school
guidance
counsellors
and
student
recruiters,
and
asking
them
how
they
rate
Canada’s
universities
in
three
categories:
“highest
quality,
most
innovative,
and
leaders
of
tomorrow”
(Dwyer,
M.,
2013).
T h e
S c h o o l
o f
S t u d i e s
UV i c
2 0 1 4

ES 480 Divest UVic THEFINAL

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to ES 480 Divest UVic THEFINAL

Similar to ES 480 Divest UVic THEFINAL (20)

ES 480 Divest UVic THEFINAL