Equipment Quagmire By Jonathan Lander Drawings by Erin Gillgannon 1. Why are Film/Video students still using editing and sound equipment that was outdated long ago? 2. Why do 68 photo students have only 3 SLR medium format cameras to share between themselves and other audio-visual equipment borrowers? 3. Why, near the end of term, can’t stu- dents find computer booking time slots? Some answers to these questions will become apparent after you look at Emily Carr’s Equipment Shopping List (see below right). Emily Carr Institute is committed to an expensive curriculum. Many departments rely on high tech, high cost equipment to accomplish the objectives of their curriculum. Emily Carr’s current capital equipment budget amounts to significantly less than the amount needed to satisfy its equip- ment needs. This is due to government funding cutbacks, increased demand for expensive equipment, and higher enroll- ment. Emily Carr received only $173,000 of government funding for capital equip- ment for 1996-97, after requesting $832,220 worth of equipment deemed necessary to sustain its mandate. [See Shopping List] How does Emily Carr, a school tradi- tionally not associated with emphasizing practical vocational skills, cope with a Ministry of Education that frames its poli- cies in terms of hard-core job skills? Who can we turn to when government contin- ues turning its back, budget-wise, on culture and the arts? These dilemmas have led some people at Emily Carr to take a close look at indus- try as an alternate to government funding. Computer Animation instructor Dennis Vance is one faculty member who has made unsolicited initiatives to get more funding. Dennis has been wooing corpo- rate bigwigs for donations, and has been doing so for several years. As a result of Dennis’ efforts, huge corporations (Microsoft and Autodesk) as well as smaller companies have donated hardware and software to the Animation Department and have offered jobs to Emily Carr students and graduates. According to Dennis, none of the cor- porate donors he has dealt with expect anything specific in return for their gen- erosity. Both students and companies benefit from establishing personal relation- ships, and from training and job skills indi- Tyla Bolte First Year Rep. rectly acquired through industry-donated equipment used in course-based projects. Few members of the Emily Carr com- munity are as pro-active as Dennis in pur- suing corporations as benefactors for their departments. One major internal change affecting Emily Carr’s handling of the issue of fund- raising is the hiring of our new chief exec- utive artist, Ron Burnett. Ron is a veteran at fund-raising for educational institutes (McGill University in Montreal, La Trobe University in Melbourne, etc.) He explains that Emily Carr’s passive stance on fund- raising is a consequence of the institution not being pressed on funding issues until very recently. Ron feels that the entire Emily Carr community, including administrators, faculty, staff and students, must help out wherever possible to connect us better to private industry. All sectors of the school must involve themselves in referring indus- try contacts to the school and need to run their own fund-raising campaigns. “This has to be a community effort,” explains Ron. CONSEQUENCES OF PRIVATE FUNDING Many people at Emily Carr are con- cerned with the potential implications and consequences that go with cultivating partnerships between corporations and schools. Dean of Media Jim Breukelman raises a general concern that we should be wary of donors who insist, ‘We won't give you anything unless you do this for us,’ as a condition for giving money to the Institute. “Obviously,” says Jim, “there has to be some give and take, but we have to be careful that any agreements we enter into are positive for the school and don’t compromise our general goals.” A different, more optimistic view- point is that of Tom Becher, Dean of Design: He sees linkages between Emily Carr and industry as “not particularly compromising to our intellectual or aca- demic freedom,” but rather as a chal- lenge “to perform at a level where we show benefits back to industry.” Linda Szasz and Jen Eby are two student repre- sentatives on Emily Carr's Board of Governors, the ultimate legal decision- making body at the Institute. Both concur that Emily Carr needs to look elsewhere than gov- ernment to make up for funding deficits, but arrive at their conclusions from very different starting points. Linda feels that the public nature of the post-secondary education system requires that it be funded entirely through the tax continued on next page, see “Paying The Price For High Tech” Erin Gibbs First Year Rep. October 1996 / Planet of the Arts 5 Ron Burnett, Chief Executive Artist: “We are going to need everybody’s support in the Emily Carr community to develop a completely different mindset with regard to fundraising.” Bryan Langlands, 1995-96 Board Rep: “If your thinking is in line with ours, 4 then we can work together. We will not change for you.” (Bryan's proposed pitch to corporate donors) Ss CURRICULUM CAPITAL EQUIPMENT REQUEST SUMMARY 1996/97 Amount eo Audio Visual 19,150.00 ine [5550835 media DY Leemeti - Photography 27,669.00 @ Swadio studio - Computer Resources Part-Time Studies Design 45,685.00 Computer Animation New systems to serve the CA, Animation, 1D, ECD Curricula Computer Resources /wmw ip.96 cAdocs\clifford\curequip- April 25, 1996 Emily Carr’s Equipment Shopping List (summary) Emmanuel Ho Joe Worley First Year Rep. First Year Rep. 1. Why ate FimyVideo students sti sing editing and sound equipment that was futdated long ago? 2. Why do 68 photo students have only 3 SLR medium format cameras to share between themselves and other audio-visual equipment borrowers? 3, Why, near the end of term, can't stu dents find computer booking time slots? Some answers to these questions will become apparent after you look at Emily Carr's Equipment Shopping List (see below right). Emily Carr Institute is committed to an expensive curriculum. “Many departments ely on high tech, high cost equipment to accomplish the ‘objectives of thei curriculum, Emily Car's current capital equipment budget mounts to significantly less than the amount needed to satisfy is equp- ‘ment needs, Ths is de to government funding cutbacks, increased demand for expensive equipment, and higher enrol ‘ment. ly Car received only $173,000 ‘of government funding for capital equip- ‘ment fr 1996-97, ater requesting $832,220 wort of equipment deemed necessary to sustain ts mandate [See ‘Shopping Us) How does Emily Car, a school tradi tionally not associated with emphasizing practical vocational sls, cape with a Minty of Education that frames its pol es in terms of hardcore jo sls? Who an we tin to when government contin= tues turning its back, budgetwse, on culture and the at? ‘These dilemmas have led some people at Emily Carr to take a close look at indus try as an alternate to government funding, Computer Animation instructor Dennis Vance i one faculty member who has made unsolicited inatives to get more funding. Dennis has been wooing corpo ‘ate bigwigs for donations, and has been Going 50 for several years. AS a result of Dennis efforts, huge corporations (Microsoft and Autodesk) as well 5 smaller companies have donated hardware and software tothe Animation Department and have offered jobs to Emly Car stodents and graduates ‘According to Dennis, none ofthe cor porate donors he has dealt with expect anything specific in return fr their gen- ‘eroity- Both students and companies benefit fom establishing personal relation- ships, and from training and job kil in October 1996 / Planet of the Arts 5 Equipment Quagmire By Jonathan Lander ‘equipment used in course-based projects i Few rerbers ofthe Ey Cat co fi q ‘munity are as pro-active as Dennis in pur- \ | ii ‘ing Corporations ss benelacs or he departments. One majrintera change affecting Emily Cars handing of the se of ured ‘ating the biting ef our new che exec Ate ara Ron Buel on veteran St undaing for educational sues {cil Universty in Mores 2 Tobe Unies in Melbourne te) He explains that Emiy Cars pase tance on nd ring consequence othe insttution tt being pressed on funding ies un et hom fe thatthe entire Emily Carr commun, ining administrators fal sa and dens, mt help oot winereverpoble to connect us eter to rate nd Al sectors ofthe school fut ive theses neering ins ty contacts tothe schol and meet un {he own funding craig “Tis fas tobe scone er epkins fon ‘CONSEQUENCES OF PRIVATE FUNDING. Many people at Emily Cart are con: ‘ered with the potential implications and Consequences that go with cultivating Parinerships between corporations and Schoo. ‘Dean of Media jim Breukelman raises 2 ‘general concer that we should be wary SOA yan Langlands, 195-96 Board Rep: {of donors who insist, We won't give you "We ae going to need everybodys BDI 21 your sinking isin Snything unless you do this for us’ a a suppor in the Emly Cart | work ogee, We wil ot Condition for giving money o the ‘run drt a compet Institute, “Obviously” says lim, “there has stare oe to be some give and take, but we have to be careful that any agreements we enter into are postive forthe schoo! and dont Compromise our general goa ‘A dtferent, more optimistic view. points that of Tom Becher, Dean of Design, He sees inkages between Emily Corr and industry as "not particule compromising to our intellectual or aca demic freedom,” but rather as acral Tenge "to perform ata level where we show benefits back to industry.” ‘Unda Szasz and Jen Eby. are two student repre- Sentatives on Emily Cas Board of Governors, the ‘uluimate legal decision. making body atthe Insitute, Both concur that Emly Core ‘needs to look eiewhere than gov [coer nteaies oo 4 [new stem snes CA Aman DEED CSE tomate up fortunding des, but rive at compas one thek concen rom very diferent 4 rOrAL $arting points Lind fel tat the public nature of the postsecondary education system requires om that tbe funded entirely hough the tox pera) “coRnICULUM CAFTTAL EQUIPMENT REQUESTS SUNDUARY 19697 So rr tea Emily Carr's Equipment Shopping List summary) Tyla Bolte Erin Gibbs Emmanuel Ho Joe Worley First Year Rep. First Year Rep. First Year Rep. First Year Rep.