| subtext | |
|
|
subtext
issue 18 7 February 2007 ***************************************************** 'Truth: lies open to all' ***************************************************** Every fortnight All editorial correspondence to: subtext-editors [at] lancaster.ac.uk. Please download and print or delete as soon as possible after receipt. Back issues and subscription details can be found at http://www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext. The editors welcome letters, comments, suggestions, and opinions from readers. subtext reserves the right to edit submissions. CONTENTS: introduction, news in brief, University Court, Senate effectiveness, Study Group International, Council report, letters **************************************************** INTRODUCTION This issue has a governance theme running through it, with reports on
the recent meetings of University Court and Council. Alongside these,
we are also delighted to welcome the former Academic Registrar, Marion
McClintock, as a contributor to subtext. Her piece on Senate is typically
nuanced and very timely given the current review of that body's role and
effectiveness. Information on Study Group International and other similar
organisations continues to be sent to us (for which, thanks); as we comment,
concern now seem to be growing nationally regarding the spread of such
joint ventures. Finally, readers will observe there are no urban myths
in this issue. We haven't yet exhausted our fund of such tales but would
welcome more. NEWS IN BRIEF Keen observers will have noticed a recent report item on the University news site that we had recently hosted a CBI/QinetiQ conference, attended by 75 business leaders from blue chip companies. Held at the Leadership Centre, its theme was 'Business-University Partnerships: A Driving Force For Innovation'. Readers may know that Lancaster is one of 12 universities preferred by QinetiQ as a partner in collaborative programmes to apply new academic scientific and technological discoveries to defence, other areas of government and commercial sectors. The conference was chaired by the Pro-Chancellor, Bryan Gray (who is also the Chair of the NWDA), and included the Vice-Chancellor among the speakers. Given this was the same type of event as that which led to the George Fox 6 debacle, it is interesting to reflect on what the management may have learnt from that affair. Is it just to keep such events quiet until after they have happened? See http://domino.lancs.ac.uk/info/lunews.nsf/r/506a. ******* Recent developments at Pendle College appear to have become the latest flashpoint in relationships between the student body and senior management. The decision of the Budget Review Group (BRG) not to authorise a replacement for the current Pendle Bar licensee, who is leaving, without a clear case coming forward to BRG for approval, provoked a packed college meeting on 22nd January called by the JCR, and a subsequent protest outside of the University Court meeting. It was also one of the reasons for the spat between the LUSU President and the Vice-Chancellor at the same gathering (see below). BRG was acting properly, but is suspected of having its own agenda on this matter. The Vice-Chancellor issued a note, which was read to the Pendle College meeting; it stated that 'for the record, the college system is secure at Lancaster, there are no intentions to alter the colleges, there is no intention to close any college bar, and there is every intention to maintain and enhance the services and amenities within the colleges and elsewhere on campus'. The difficulty he faces is that given the perceived lack of understanding and appreciation of the college dimension to student life at Lancaster amongst senior management there are few prepared to believe him. ****** A recent research study has revealed the high stress levels in universities and further education colleges and that staff believe that management - far from addressing the issue - are contributing to the problem. The survey also revealed the problems seem more acute in the North West. The main sources of work related stress were heavily linked to demands for hitting targets and deadlines, long working hours, increased workloads and frequent changes of timetables or courses. Not being able to exert control over demands made - and being given responsibility without the authority to take decisions - also scored highly, as did feeling undervalued and lack of administrative support. For more on this see: http://www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=1991. Note: when alerted to the above survey, subtext on behalf of its readers sought to establish what had happened to this University's proposed stress policy. We can reveal there is one with supporting documentation on the Personnel web site. Apparently it appeared some time in the latter half of last year and makes interesting reading if only for the responsibilities it places on HoDs, Deans and UMAG. See http://www.lancs.ac.uk/depts/personnel/HoD/Docs/stress.htm. However, the following statement also appears: 'Please note that these documents are not approved or final but are included for the purposes of consultation. The documents will be subject to change following consultation.' We would be interested to find out where we are on the matter of consultation and when the draft will become final - and also whether it has benefited from the input of our internationally acknowledged expert on stress and Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Professor Cary Cooper. The Staff Charter (remember that?), issued in December 2004, tells us that staff can expect workloads that are realistic and achievable, that work-related stress issues will be addressed promptly and that health and safety policies will be actively communicated. Doubtless, readers will be feeling better already knowing this. ****** UNIVERSITY COURT Its 43rd annual meeting was held in the George Fox Building on 27th January.
On the day members were greeted not just with tea and biscuits but a polite
protest outside from the Pendle College student body. Next came the Vice-Chancellor's report. It elaborated upon his written review found in the latest glossy and excellent University Annual Report and Accounts. Financially we have achieved a surplus of above 4% for the ninth year running, academic infrastructure projects such as LEC III are coming to completion and new developments are planned (the relocation of ISS and a new indoor sports centre). Phase IV of the residences project is moving forward with a report going to the February Council meeting (see below). Generous donations have been made to the University as part of its fundraising campaign and in part these have enabled investment in academic developments, for example, LICA (the Lancaster Institute for the Contemporary Arts). International collaborations and links were highlighted, including those with Sunway University College and Study Group International (SGI). Readers will know the latter has been of particular interest to subtext and continues to be (see below). If the Vice-Chancellor has any reservations about this he certainly wasn't going to share them with Court. For him our relationship with SGI would help widen our international links and offers the possibility of 'backfilling' in our international student numbers. The parade of good news rolled on and members were seen to close their eyes but, in fairness, there are many good things happening and we are now receiving important external recognition for these and other developments, such as the revised strategic plan. With hindsight, though, the Vice-Chancellor might have thought better about his remarks on the new regime of student fees. Whether consciously or not, his citing of technical and privileged information seemed to be sniping at the later Students' Union motion on variable tuition fees. Some wondered whether it might come back to dampen his day. Overall though it was the kind of polished and assured presentation we have come to expect from the Vice-Chancellor. The resulting questions (and plaudits) were handled equally well but there was a hint of growing unease. Andrew Neal, the Director of Finance and Resources, took the meeting through the key features of the audited accounts for the financial year, and once again the message was good. Our underlying performance remains satisfactory and key financial indicators such as current assets to current liabilities continue to show improvement. We compare well with the sector, face the challenges other institutions do but start from a stronger position than many. So far so good, and still no obvious sign of any cloud that might rain on the parade. We turned to the annual report and accounts from the Students' Union. Introducing them the LUSU President announced she was going to offer some 'home truths' to Court and in her own inimitable style proceeded to do so. Her review of the year ranged far and wide but rarely seemed to be describing the same institution as presented by senior officers. The bottom line seemed to be that yet again the University was not listening to students' opinions or consulting with them. The University's approach to issues she asserted was economic (financial) whilst LUSU's was moral. One example quoted being the 'choice' supposedly offered LUSU between additional resources for mental health issues within the University and funding to create student employment opportunities. Both are equally important she insisted. The tirade then turned to the colleges at Lancaster and in particular the difficulties which appear to have been inflicted on Grizedale College with the demolition of most of their residences in July last year, as a part of the residences project, without any agreement in place that they would be replaced. Questioning how this could have come about it was made plain that there was little faith in what the University said publicly about its support for the colleges at Lancaster, given how it appeared to treat them in practice. It was in this vein that recent developments involving Pendle College Bar were raised (see the news in brief item above). The final flourish came with her response to the Vice-Chancellor's earlier, pre-emptive remarks on student fees and, in effect, Court heard the speech she would have given when moving the LUSU motion later in the agenda. Not surprisingly questions and comments came in from the floor. Responding to these appeared to bring out the worst in the Vice-Chancellor, as he relapsed into his aggressive and defensive mode. Further, he proceeded to criticize one of the College Principals, referring to an e-mail of which he had not been a recipient. Many felt this to be unacceptable and unworthy, and also raised questions as to how the e-mail in question had reached him. It was also misleading. The storm clouds had broken and the parade had stumbled to a halt. The final two agenda items came as something of an anticlimax. One might have expected to see more heated argument but generally Court seemed to welcome the University Secretary's proposal to establish a working party on Court effectiveness. Indeed, following the meeting she received at least ten names offering to serve on it. And so there will be an election in due course, at least for the Court members. The LUSU motion on variable tuition fees which recommended that University Council should form a working party to investigate the impact of tuition fees on the University and its surrounding region also found favour. When asked what Lancaster is doing about influencing and shaping future decisions on fees the Vice-Chancellor indicated that it is not for individual institutions to challenge national policy and that this motion was likely to create 'busy work' for the University, but Court passed it anyway. The Chancellor brought the meeting to a close at 1.15pm, some forty five
minutes later than anticipated. Lunch was waiting: perhaps a good opportunity
for him to chat with UMAG members about whether what he chose to diplomatically
characterize as 'niggles' within the meeting were in fact more significant
matters. THE SENATE: NOTIONAL OR REAL AUTHORITY? [This week (Monday) the Senate Effectiveness Working Group (see subtext 17) will meet for the second time. Its first meeting was in late November but since then focus group discussions have been underway. Four such groups met: academic staff, colleges, students and, somewhat unusually, administrative staff responsible for servicing Senate sub-committees. These have now reported and the main group is to consider the next steps. The likelihood is that they will be considering the role of Senate, its size and membership, its structure and relationship with other bodies, including its sub-committees and Council, how meetings are organised and how Senate appointments are made. In a later issue subtext intends to examine more closely the work and recommendations of the group which is hoping to be in a position to report to the next Senate meeting this term and then Council in April. For the moment we are pleased to publish a piece by the recently retired Academic Registrar, Marion McClintock. We can think of no more respected and experienced person to offer authoritative comment.] The review of the effectiveness of the Senate naturally raises questions about its role and functional relationships that tempted me to accept the invitation, as university archivist and historian, to ponder aloud about them. The model statutes offered to all the new greenfield universities in the 1960s by the Privy Council had been drawn up in part to address perceived deficiencies at other, longer-established institutions, especially the big civic universities of the late 19th century. The primacy of the academic voice was one key issue and had been the subject of representations. Forty and more years later, however, when these 'new' institutions are larger than the 'big' civic universities were then, how should Lancaster regard its current Senate? As so often, it may be helpful to proceed by pushing the argument to its extremity. Originally the Council and the Senate were presented as equal partners: while the Council is however now defined as the supreme governing body of the university, the Senate retains its place as a primary creature of the Charter (Section 13) that the institution is required to have. In this it differs, for example, from the faculties, for which the Charter is permissive (Section 16) but carries no requirement, and from the Senate's standing committees, none of which have statutory force. If the Senate were to be removed, as Charles Carter once briefly proposed (unicameralism in place of bicameralism), the sole remaining source of authority would be the Council. There would be a radical removal of academic authority, and in contemplating this prospect, the Senate should never underestimate its own significance and authority. Alternatively, the Senate might decide to rescind all its standing committees and take back to itself all the delegated actions they now perform. It might then reinstate them in a form of zero budgeting, by examining the value each adds. At the same time it could call on the faculties to demonstrate that each of them is wielding its wide authority in ways beneficial to the institution as a whole. The Senate might also assert its statutory position in relation to the Council: for example, in the extent to which it fulfils its function of reviewing major alterations to the duties and terms and conditions of academic staff (professorial salary scales) (see Statute 12(g)) or advising the Council on estates matters and the welfare of students (the final stages of the residences project) (Statute 12 (i) and (j)). While the Senate is in practice unlikely to revert quite so sharply to first principles, it might nevertheless scrutinise its agenda to see whether the business represents fully the responsibilities it carries, and whether its standing committees and the faculties that undertake business on its behalf are sufficiently accountable to it. It might ask itself, including through its steering committee, whether the overall policies that are being shaped are coherent, well related to the strategic plan that it has helped to shape, and are creating the profile, standing and ethos that it wishes to see Lancaster present externally. Indeed, it could seize the initiative in choosing how Lancaster might challenge some of the received wisdom about the place of higher education and become an institution that leads the national agenda in this vexed area. In short, the Senate potentially has much to gain from the review for its future function as the locus of Lancaster's academic leadership and development. Marion McClintock, 1 February 2007 *************************************************** THE CREEPING PRIVATISATION OF UNIVERSITIES: MORE ON SGI Issues 16 and 17 of subtext carried articles raising questions and concerns about the commercial agreement the University has entered into with Study Group International (SGI). Among the questions raised was one as to whether this amounted to a further step in the privatisation of universities. Clearly others would seem to agree with us. The Vice-Chancellor may be sanguine about this new initiative, as reflected in his remarks to University Court (see above), but recent national developments indicate there is growing concern about such ventures that goes way beyond the complaints of a group of academics in a provincial university. We also understand that staff in Linguistics and English Language have yet to receive a formal response to the concerns they raised in their open letter. Perhaps senior managers just think they will go away. Recently the joint general secretary of the University and College Union (UCU) sent a letter to all members, drawing attention to the growing threat of privatisation within universities as private companies such as Study Group International, Kaplan and INTO offer to provide educational services in language teaching, vocational training and information technology. It points out that in many cases this is work that would normally be done by academic and related staff employed by the university or HEI, and raises important questions about the threat to quality and standards as well as terms and conditions of employment. The union has written to Universities UK and to HEFCE raising their concerns and is launching a national campaign against what it terms 'creeping privatisation'. For more information go to http://www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=1994. Information on such arrangements continues to be communicated to us, and we repeat our earlier request for more. For example, it seems that the University of East Anglia (UEA) may also have entered into a partnership of the SGI type. We understand the private sector partner is INTO and the intention is to build a facility on the UEA campus which will provide teaching, living, eating & social space for approximately 350 international students. The students will spend a year at INTO getting used to the British university system and culture before hopefully entering the University system at UEA. *************************************************** UNIVERSITY COUNCIL, 2 FEBRUARY The two agenda items that took up most time were the Vice-Chancellor's report on long-term trends and, especially, the presentation by the Director of Finance and Resources on Phase 4 (Grizedale and County) of the residences project. The relevant long-term trends were those that allow the university's performance on a number of measures to be compared with the HE sector as a whole. This was illustrated in a number of not very detailed graphs, in which Lancaster tends to appear as a mid-range university on measures such as percentage of students who are postgraduates and number of international students. It also looked reassuringly mid-table on measures of financial well-being. Lancaster has a relatively high percentage of part-time students and a relatively low percentage of mature students. It has been recruiting students from low participation areas relatively well, but doing less well in recruiting students from social classes 4-7. The biggest relative change in Lancaster's position, when the year 2004-05 is compared with 2003-4, was in expenditure on premises per FTE student (excluding residences). The VC acknowledged in passing that it would be more helpful to compare Lancaster with similar universities than with the sector as a whole, since this includes small and specialist institutions as well as the Open University. He hoped that data allowing for a more like with like comparison would become available. Andrew Neal gave a detailed oral commentary on the substantial written report included in the Council papers. He said that Phase 4 was informed by the principles of sustainability, variety, and lower price, and described the complicated financial and contractual relationships between the university, the project company (UPP Lancaster Ltd) and the bank. He explained the refinancing of the residences project and the reasons for wishing to extend the lease term and concession to UPP from 38 to 48 years. He described the relationship between the university and UPP as one of 'creative tension': both carry an element of risk (related to demand for the accommodation), and both have incentives to make the accommodation attractive and to provide services efficiently. After some discussion both of the details of the proposal (from those who understood it, including the Deputy Pro-Chancellor, who chaired the meeting), the Council agreed to support the proposals and to delegate detailed management of the project to a smaller group. The presentation of the issues was detailed and the discussion of them pertinent and well informed, so we can reasonably hope that a relationship between the university's senior officers and the Council now exists that has some in-built safeguards against serious financial mistakes (which have not been unknown in the history of the university). *************************************************** LETTERS Dear subtext, One of my colleagues wrote into LUText last week, complaining that although she pays a lot of money each year to park here, because she has childcare commitments, and arrives after 9am, she has difficulty finding anywhere to put her car. The letter, as presented in LUText re-affirmed my faith in the importance of subtext. After her letter in that other journal, the University had to add a couple of lines in order to show that it was right and that she was wrong and undermine her complaint. Actually it said that there wasn't a problem because there were always about 300 spaces available, usually in Alexandra Park, the student accommodation area, half way to Galgate. As it happens, I agree that it's good not to park too close to the office; it's nice to have a good stroll in the morning after driving in, in fact, it should be mandatory for all staff who drive, regardless of status. However, why must LUText snipe at other peoples' letters? It's a bit like having a persistent heckler at the back of a hall that you can't make shut up because they own the building. Michael Cowie ***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical |