Carleton seems to be talking out both sides of their mouths, still. Originally, according to the Canadian Press and other sources Carleton proported the deal was “improper” and,
the $15-million donor agreement for its showcase school of political management, fronted by Preston Manning, does not reflect the university’s academic policies and will be renegotiated.
Yet, in their press release around the same time, said it was “an excellent academic initiative” and,
An excellent faculty has been recruited, possessing the highest academic standards and practical experience across party lines to offer core courses and electives incorporating the cross-partisan dimension and strong ethical component which were two of the key design specifications for the program.
So, it’s of the “highest academic standards” and “does not reflect the university’s academic policies” at the same time, according to Carleton University. Yes, you’re read that right folks.
In the context of the annual review, Carleton, along with Mr. Riddell, also looked at provisions of the donor agreement that had caused some confusion – particularly as these pertain to the role of the Steering Committee. A revised clause of the agreement [Article 14] clarifies the role as that of strategic advisor. That is indeed the role that the committee has played from the outset, and we felt it was important to clarify the wording to avoid any misunderstanding.
Now there’s two ways to look at this. a) There wasn’t a problem at all, but Carleton is amending this to clarify that there isn’t a problem at all! Just a misunderstanding! Or b) there was a problem, the agreement was “improper”, but now Carleton is”fixing” the non-existent problem, because it wasn’t actually a problem! Just a misunderstanding!
If you’re confused, that’s natural. I doubt Carleton is really interested in making this clear, considering they’ve violated your right for information for over a year by attemping to keep this agreement secret.