More on communications and media professionals.

 A while back campus and community planning tweeted out a praise tweet on their campus vision 2050 plan. In it they mentioned a community connectors program. When I followed the link provided I could find nothing but a glossy pamphlet talking about their engagement but nor substantive explanation of the program. So a tweeted a reply. 

Silence.

So I tried a less public approach and sent a direct message.

"On community connectors - I would like to learn more, the link you provided in your tweet does not directly or obviously connect to anything that says community connector program. I have so many questions and would really like to learn more - not about your 'consultations' but about this 'unique' program you profiled in your tweet."

They responded"

Thanks for the question and appreciate your interest in the Community Connectors pilot initiative. We recently released the Engagement Summary Report for the draft 30-Year Vision, which is what our social posts were linking to. On page 12 of that report, you can learn more about the Community Connectors pilot initiative. A list of all the groups we connected with through our engagement (including through the Community Connectors pilot initiative) is available in Appendix 1 of the report. Links to both the report and the appendices can be found here: https://campusvision2050.ubc.ca/engagement-summary-30-year-vision… In response to your other question about how we determine historic underrepresentation, we are guided by definitions from UBC’s Equity & Inclusion Office: https://equity.ubc.ca/resources/equity-inclusion-glossary-of-terms/…

I asked for further clarification.

"Thanks for this, the one paragraph summary and the reference to an appendix doesn't really say much. The social media post implied more details than provided - but that's okay, I understand that. However, I would be intersted if there were any differences in what people said, between these 'historically underrepresented' and historically over represented, where there there was any difference within groups as well, etc. Also what was involved in the 'training' and where the trainees historically overrepresented or under? Etc."

They advised they'd bump it up a level and passed it to someone higher up to comment.

Then I got this email from a communications person:

Hi Charles, 

 

Thanks for the follow-up questions about the Campus Vision 2050 Community Connectors pilot program. We’re happy to share information about this new approach to engagement.

 

With the Board Secretariat’s protocols for Board member engagement in mind, it would be helpful to understand if you are seeking this information to support your role as a Board member, for your blog or as a curious community member? Once we have this info, we can direct our response appropriately.

 

Many thanks…

No where did I say I was speaking as a governor - my twitter account is really clear about it being personal and not reviewed by UBC. 

I replied:

"Thank you for answering,

 

For this inquiry, please provide only information that supports your public statements and/or public documents. 

 

My initial comment on twitter (which I trust you have reviewed) noted that the public tweet highlighted the community connectors program, but the link connected only to the glossy engagement report with little to no info on the cc pilot.

 

There was no information, aside from the phrase ‘community connectors’ (that I could easily locate), about what was involved. Nor was there any empirical data that substantiated who might be historically underrepresented and how such folks were being identified.

 

I share the specific dm’s from twitter below for reference.

 

I may be interested in writing a story for my online newspaper, A Campus Resident, but at this point in time am simply curious about something that was promo’d without any clear background.

...

 

With warm regards,

 

Charles

 

PS, You will know very clearly if I am asking as a member of the board of governors as I will say so explicitly and I would do so via the board secretariat, not over twitter.

 

They thanked me for the clarification and said they would prepare a response. Next message I got came from the Board Secretariat explaining the protocols for communication with the administration.

Such is life.