Memorial University's Student Editorial(est. 1950)

This past week, the provincial Auditor General, Denise Hanrahan, released a report on the state of Memorial University’s facilities management, alleging severe negligence by Memorial’s administration, regarding the condition of campus infrastructure and property management.

While one of the main concerns observed was the poor utilization of property- the abundant presence of asbestos and mould drew wide attention from the public. 

Although these are not new revelations, the AG report found that MUN’s administration, in effect, ignored persisting maintenance issues while simultaneously spending Campus Renewal funds on items such as a tractor for the Grenfell campus in Corner Brook, and 196 laptops. 

Many of the noted issues confronted in the AG report include deferred maintenance, misuse of the campus renewal fee, negligent oversight of facilities maintenance expenditure, and more.

Failures could put student health at risk

Highlighting some of the ramifications of Memorial’s current infrastructure challenges and failures, the AG report stated the following:

“With the University’s outstanding repairs at $481 million (almost a quarter of the replacement value), the management of these liabilities and renewal of infrastructure is critical. Failing to address the infrastructure deficiencies negatively impacts student experiences and poses potential health risks, such as roof leaks, failing elevators, exposed asbestos, and collapsed ceilings.”

“Since deferred maintenance could include the abatement of asbestos and mold within the University’s buildings, if part of a planned project, addressing the outstanding repairs would decrease the risk to student health.”

AG Office statement on facilities management

“We found that Memorial University does not effectively or efficiently manage its capital portfolio. From a weak policy environment to poor space management practices to a questionable deferred maintenance procedure, it appears Memorial does not have the culture to manage its aging infrastructure.” 

Throughout the report, the office of the Auditor General raised a series of concerns about the state of neglect stemming from an inability to maintain significant portions of its property.

“Without significant effort to re-focus and re-define the management of its capital portfolio, Memorial will continue to face challenges in maintaining appropriate facilities. Any funding needed to tackle the significant deficiencies should only be expended when a reasonable plan, with appropriate policies and oversight, is defined and implemented – otherwise, it will potentially be an ineffective and inefficient use of taypayer [sic] and student dollars.”

“There is a lack of oversight throughout the organization, with many of the figures and information used for our audit being unreliable or questionable. Unfortunately, some of what we found in this audit was not new.”

Memorial responds to criticism, draws path forward

In a statement, Memorial responded to the AG report by accepting all nine recommendations, attempting to address concerns about deferred maintenance.

President Bose committed to not increasing the campus renewal fee, and says that the administration plans to relinquish portions of its space. Bose says that Memorial grapples with longstanding financial deficits, and may seek a loan from the provincial government to resolve deferred maintenance.

Recent AG observations in line with previous 2023 financial audit

This report adds upon previous audit revelations found in the performance report, published by the AG office in the fall of 2023. Among that report’s findings from the 2022 audit period, MUN was accused of “unreasonable” executive expenses (including $1,792 for custom-made chocolates), the highest level of executive pay compared to other Canadian universities, and $1.1 million spent on third-party recruiters. 

Furthermore, recent concerns about executive conduct have been called into question, with President Neil Bose facing questions about a conflict of interest over a senior administrative appointment.

Students and faculty “not surprised” by report of campus conditions

This report comes in the wake of recent FundMUN campaigning by the Campus Coalition, calling upon the provincial government to provide increased funding to alleviate crumbling infrastructure conditions.

Speaking in an interview with the Muse, set to air on January 27th, the Campus Coalition spoke on the frustrations with the provincial government and their refusal to meet with campus leaders from labour and student unions.

For accessibility, and to summarize the audit we’ve highlighted some of the notable figures, sourced from the Audit Overview in the following section:

Misuse of Campus Renewal Fee and Deferred Maintenance

• MUN was unable to identify eligibility for expenditures sourced from the campus renewal fees and no documents guiding said policy existed. Half of the maintenance documents in one sample were considered “inadequate.”
• The AG assessed a “lack of oversight of the allocation and use of [CRE] funding” despite 8 committees existing specifically for infrastructure.
• Despite the Marine Institute being allocated campus renewal fee funds, the MI’s buildings are leased from the government, which is responsible for maintenance.
• In one sample, 37 out of 62, found that 60% of expenditures used CRF funding in a way that didn’t align with the purpose of the fee. Of that total $2.5 million misused amount, 16 of the 37 expenditure samples were used for “furniture and equipment purchases…” which were totalled at $171,934. Six of those 37 samples totalled $1.3 million used for “computer equipment or software.”
• The $7.8 million annual revenue collected exclusively from students via the CRF was “the only dedicated funding source” allocated to the $481 million in deferred maintenance. The AG deemed this to be “insufficient to address deferred maintenance requirements.”
• One repair sourced from the CRF took place at an unnamed incorporated entity connected to the university- “which are not intended to avail of [CRE] funds.”
• Despite the Campus Deferred Renewal Plan deciding on a 1-2% annual reinvestment rate, the average annual rate since the CRF was introduced was a meagre 0.26%. The AG estimates that a further $20-40 million would be needed to meet annual targets.
• While the Board of Regents greenlit a financial plan in 2020, to borrow $100 million for the purposes of addressing deferred maintenance over eight years- no implementation had taken place as of the audit.

The Campus Renewal Fee, which is solely sourced from Students was placed on a temporary pause for the September 2024-August 2025 period. The CRE is charged at a differing rate depending on study status and course enrolment but was capped at a maximum $250 per student.

“Critical” Infrastructure Maintenance being deferred

• MUN’s facilities condition index was ranked as “poor and nearing critical” during the audit period. The AG noted, “It appears based on our audit work that this rating may be inaccurate and in worse condition than Memorial has stated.”
• From 2012 to 2024, deferred maintenance increased in estimated cost from $367 million to $481 million- approximately 31%, rather than improving over the 12-year period. Of this $114 million jump, $93 million was identified as “critical.” One sample found 27 out of 40 items as being beyond their recommended maintenance date– estimated at a cost of $22.1 million.
• Exterior light infrastructure was costed at $208,000 and was “37 years past its action date when it was removed through reassessment.”

Growth of population and land use

• Despite underutilized property, the AG estimates that MUN’s footprint accelerated from a size of 3.8 million sq ft in 2012 to 5.1 million sq ft in 2023; a 34% increase in land despite an estimated student population reduction of 1.4% for the same period. The AG also stated that the government freeze on MUN’s footprint “did not have a material overall impact on the University’s footprint growth.”

Classroom and Laboratory use

• Classrooms were only utilized 40% of available daytime hours, with laboratories only being utilized 22% of the available hours.
• MUN did not have standardized procedures for classroom scheduling.
• Faculties were permitted to refuse the Registrar’s space utilization suggestions.
• There is no identified committee tasked with monitoring classroom/laboratory scheduling.
• 19 courses with zero enrolment had space reserved for the 2024 Winter Semester.

A Tale of Two Science Buildings

• Only 49% of space in the Core Science Facility was actively occupied by academic units- while only 11% was occupied by Faculty of Science departments.
• Despite the $347 million CSF standing at twice the space of the older Science Building- no classrooms nor laboratories were shared, and the AG only measured a 16% utilization rate.

Space Management

• No space audits were completed, despite the need to do so, and a failure to schedule them by Facilities Management between the period of April 2022 and March 2024.
• Leased space management:
  • MUN is not aware of the amount of space it is leasing.
  • 35 of 68 leases (a total calculated at $2 million) from the audit period had no documentation of explored alternative space options prior to agreeing to the $1.3 million worth of leased property.
  • No agreements were found for two buildings leased by the Marine Institute, from the government.

The Muse will continue coverage as this story develops.