| subtext | |
|
|
subtext
issue 34 21 February 2008 ***************************************************** 'Truth: lies open to all' ***************************************************** Every fortnight. All editorial correspondence to: subtext-editors [at] lancaster.ac.uk Please 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. For tips to prevent subtext from getting swept up into your 'junk email folder', see http://www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext/dejunk/. ***************************************************** CONTENTS: editorial; news in brief; masterplan; university partnerships programme; council; finance strategy; wallups's world; letters. ***************************************************** EDITORIAL As the subtext editorial collective sat throwing paper planes at each other across the warehouse the other afternoon, someone commented that we hadn't run a competition for some time. So this issue is more or less devoted to our first 'join the dots' competition. Which dots, you ask? Well, let us point them out for you. 1. The University's 'Masterplan 2007-2017', with an extremely ambitious
capital spend, involving major new infrastructural developments on campus. Sadly, because of the turbulent state of the global financial system, subtext is not in a position to offer a prize for the first person to connect all this together and decide whether the resulting picture is a little worrying or not, in the current climate. And anyway, isn't that the job of Senate? ***************************************************** NEWS IN BRIEF New Sports Centre This remains one of the University's key priorities and it is understood that it has reached the detailed planning stage, although some uncertainty still remains as to its likely cost and where the funding will come from. £20-21m is now the figure being bandied around, a slight reduction on previous estimates, but still a huge sum. 'Monumentalism' seems to be afflicting key officers of the University, although the term they would prefer is 'iconic buildings'. Situated on the site of the current sports pavilion, it will be a showpiece building in more than one sense. Apparently the Olympic-size pool is to be glazed on the exterior, which will permit visitors to campus a view of what's happening inside as they go past. The City is said to be supportive of this development, which will be approximately 2/3rds the size of the Infolab footprint (another iconic building). We understand provision will be made for some 80 parking spaces. Location is everything, as they say, but this particular spot may inhibit staff use. Certainly it won't be easy to get down there, exercise and then return within the lunch hour unless of course you drive down! **** Key Employment Policies Discussions are underway with the campus unions regarding six new and revised employment policies. These comprise: discipline, capability and grievance, and redundancy, redeployment and the management of fixed-term contract staff. The secretive Human Resources Committee is known to consider that progress needs to be made on these as a matter of urgency. Risk is at the root of this it seems, especially when set alongside the University's proposed Finance Strategy (see below). Some might see the apparent urgent need for a redundancy policy as one way of displacing the risks within the latter onto the staff. If it should go wrong then it will be easier to reduce staff numbers. **** The 3rd Staff Survey Your views are about to count again - unless you are a temporary or a sessional member of staff who it seems don't get included. Scheduled to run between 25 February and 14 March, it is understood to have been tweaked slightly to better reflect staff views on the University's relationship with and contribution to the local community. It is believed that there is some anxiety as to whether the response rate will drop again. This is likely to be influenced by whether staff feel that issues raised in the previous two surveys and subsequent focus groups have been addressed. Here the record seems patchy, to say the least. Bullying? Workloads? Stress? Have we seen actions and improvements? subtext will await the results with interest. **** Senate LANCASTER UNIVERSITY MASTERPLAN 2007-2017 The forty A3 pages of this copiously illustrated report, by the current site development practice, John McAslan Partners, contain an analysis of the current built and landscape areas of the university, and the plans for change over the decade 2007-17. The scale of the plans is enormously ambitious, and the brief taster in the recent Annual Report merely hints at their significance. The plans play to the strengths of the original design by Shepheard and Epstein and develop them further. The north-south axis will be retained, but will be better supported by east-west routes for pedestrians and delivery access that add porosity. The mixture of academic functions (teaching and research) and residential accommodation will continue within the perimeter road, and that characteristic, together with the intermingling of rather heavy science buildings with the more diverse accommodation of the other faculties, means that there will continue to be no particular congregation of monoliths. While individual buildings of particular merit are few, those we have, such as the Chaplaincy Centre, will have their surroundings upgraded. Furthermore, because the uses to which the whole of the area within the perimeter road are considered together, there will not in the future be further individual buildings that take no account of their neighbours or are inconsistent with the overall proportions of function and form. The heights of buildings will also be controlled so that, leaving aside the existing errors of certain of the UPP residential blocks, almost nothing will be built above three storeys, often set back. Careful thought has been given around the perimeter to the movement of pedestrians, the location of parking spaces and the circulatory bus routes, and the extensive programme of refurbishment can take place alongside new developments. The possible downsides? Well, the predicted cost of £420 million seems an aggressive total, and it is to be hoped that each project will be required to justify itself as essential in the more detailed planning process. There will also be no let-up of the continuous building site conditions over the decade. Perhaps more significantly, the ratio of green space to built environment will alter radically. The argument to date has been that the density of building on the central plateau is balanced by the openness of the surrounding landscape. Now, within the perimeter road there will be some precious but tightly managed green areas, but the sense of rolling landscape beyond the hilltop town seems to be under threat, from a large sports centre alongside and to the west of Lake Carter, to a new conference centre spilling down the slope from Bailrigg Mansion. There could be a large Science Park to the north, outside the university campus but nevertheless intruding visually on it, and a massive sculpture park also makes a fleeting appearance. subtext welcomes the boldness and comprehensiveness of the designs, but wonders when the roadshows and the public presentations about these developments will really take place. The plans are far too important to remain in an elegant document seen by only a few members of the University community. ***************************************************** CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE: UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAMME Recently proposed plans to sell the remaining university accommodation to UPP (University Partnerships Programme - the private finance investor that owns the new student accommodation that has sprung up on campus in recent years) are designed to net the university c. £40m. The perceived benefits of selling the older residences are persuasive and attractive. On the one hand a number of costs currently carried by the institution (maintenance, portering and other staff, assistant deans) will be transferred away from the university's balance sheet. On the other hand a considerable financial risk, to which the university is currently exposed, will be ended. Currently complex agreements between UPP and the university leave the university open to 'fines' should any UPP accommodation not be filled in any particular year. Jettisoning such risk will benefit the university's credit-worthiness and it is envisaged that the institution will be able borrow c. £60m, supplemented by the profit from the sale of the residences, in order to invest yet a further c. £100m in the campus. However, two chief concerns have been raised by staff and student representatives in a number of fora over recent weeks. First, income from the residences currently pays for a range of services that are important to the colleges and the loss or reduction of such services places the social fabric of the university in jeopardy. Second, and of more direct concern to students, is the loss of influence which the University currently exerts over the setting of rents and the charging of students for damage caused to residences. Both issues centre on the desire of profit-driven companies, such as UPP, to drive down costs. At present each college, and the staff, students, and departments associated with it, is served by a team of four porters who are on duty round the clock. Doubtless this costly arrangement would be one which would come under scrutiny. Similarly each college has its own residence officer and it might prove tempting to reduce these officers in number (such an experiment was attempted in the 1990s and was so disastrous it was abandoned). Finally, also paid for from rent incomes, each college has a number of assistant deans (1 per 250 students). These college officers are responsible for investigating disciplinary offences and, whilst a reduction in their number (at a time when the university's disciplinary procedures are becoming more technical and difficult to navigate) would reduce the ability of colleges to keep good order in residences, it is certainly foreseeable that UPP might be tempted to revise the ratio of assistant deans to students upwards. To reduce any of these services would be to see their cost but not their value. The community spirit that exists on campus has largely to do with the efforts of these individuals working with residents and such efforts go a long way to explaining the low rates of crime and petty disorder on campus. Of greater financial concern to students must be the threat of charges for repairs to damage done to accommodation being decided wholly by UPP. That students should pay for damage which they have caused is not in dispute (indeed that has been policy for years) but by comparison even with the estates department's charges, UPP levy exorbitant rates on students. Nor are they so forgiving as the university. In one particular incident in the last academic year eight students were charged over £700 to pay for the costs of cleaning up effluent which leaked into their rooms from a blocked riser pipe. UPP's argument was that the students had blocked the pipe, thus causing the blockage, though when eventually challenged the company was unable to produce any evidence to this effect. In the end UPP rescinded the charge but only after a lengthy dispute with the college. Nevertheless, the incident is indicative of current practice. Whilst a mixed economy in charge-backs for damage currently exists, the university acts, for the time being, as a moderating influence. How will such moderation be exercised - either over charges for repairs, or rents - when such matters have been, effectively, privatised? What is, perhaps, most shocking is the lack of consultation that has taken place about these proposals, which appear to be being simply railroaded through University Council. That in times of a uncertain global economy the University is considering selling income-raising assets for a spend-once windfall; that management are seriously considering raising a massive loan on the back of such a sale; and that in times of growing student demand for services the implications for such services have not been properly considered must surely be a cause for concern. Chris Grocott, Dean, Furness College ***************************************************** COUNCIL REPORT The University Council met, in the Vice-Chancellor's absence, on Friday 8 February. The meeting began with a presentation from the Director of Research and Enterprise Services on the University's achievements in 'Business Interaction', meaning 'third mission'-style activities that contribute to economic development. Lancaster was ranked 4th in the country in the last HEFCE report on these, reflecting in particular the Management School's engagement with SMEs (Small and Medium-sized Enterprises) in the region. Council was told that a major aim for the future was to develop national projects, though regional activity will continue to be important in attracting funding. The Vice-Chancellor's report, which was received without discussion, mentioned without qualification that Senate had approved 'a new policy setting out the minimum standards for contact hours on different types of undergraduate programmes'. Neither here nor when the matter was raised again later in the meeting was there any indication that Senate had approved the policy subject to an assessment of its impact in terms of resources required and its effects on other academic activities. A possible interpretation is that for senior management the impact assessment is a mere formality: whatever the impact, the policy will be implemented. PVC Trevor McMillan, deputising for the Vice-Chancellor, gave a presentation on 'long-term trends', which consisted of a large number of slides comparing Lancaster with other institutions on a range of measures. The other institutions were listed as either 'comparators' or 'competitors', with ten in each group. The first group included Bath, Essex, Kent, Sussex and Exeter, the second the main universities in the north of England, plus Warwick. Comparisons that interested Council members included those on postgraduate student numbers (we could do with more); the percentage of students who are part-time (relatively high at Lancaster); number of overseas students (we were in the middle of the comparator table, so reasonably placed - the risks of over-reliance on overseas students in a volatile market were stressed); the percentage of new UK students from ethnic minority groups (we were near the foot of both tables on this); and the percentage of new entrants from low participation neighbourhoods (we do well on this in relation to our comparators, but this was said to be partly because of the 'green welly effect' - we recruit from enclaves of gentility in these postcode-defined neighbourhoods). The recurring worry over our entrants' A-level grades duly appeared, as did that over the percentage of students getting Firsts and Upper Seconds (going up but still low in relation to our comparators, and high only in relation to those competitors we don't really like to compare ourselves with). The employment rate could do with further improvement (though the differences among institutions are small in percentage terms). Financially Lancaster showed up quite well in both sets of tables, though we could (of course) do with increasing our research grant and contract income. Speaking immediately after a fluent presentation by LUSU President Tim Roca, the Finance Director Andrew Neal began by noting - gratuitously, it seemed to some - that three of the college bars were 'currently making a negative contribution' to the University's finances. The main financial issue, however, was the proposal to transfer most of the residences still owned by the university to UPP. The resulting income is to finance Phase 5 of the residences project, which will mainly involve refurbishment of existing stock rather than new construction. Andrew Neal set out the advantages of his proposal, which he said introduced no new principles and built on the experience of Phases 1-4. Some members of Council were cautious about the proposals; perhaps some remembered the University's financial problems in the mid-1990s, which were partly attributable to an innovative scheme for financing new buildings. Council agreed, however, that work should continue on the proposal, asking Andrew Neal to draw up a list of possible disadvantages as well as advantages, and to indicate why he was unhappy with the idea, proposed by a member, that Phase 5 could be implemented in stages. Council will consider a further paper at its next meeting. Andrew Neal also presented the usual Risk Register, which contained the usual risks. He stressed, however, the importance he attached to getting the proposed new policies on redeployment and redundancy in place before the end of this academic year. Some members drew the conclusion that redeployment and redundancy just might be in the forefront of his mind. Bob McKinlay spoke about the university's performance against its KPIs (Key Performance Indicators). He returned to three issues mentioned earlier in the meeting: A-level grades, contact hours, and postgraduate - especially taught postgraduate - recruitment. He noted that we don't select our undergraduates in the way that we ought to be able to, given our international standing; that it was a good thing that we had moved quickly to set minimum standards for contact, since a national debate was beginning on this; and that our recruitment to taught postgraduate schemes was 'disappointing to put it mildly', because, he thought, too many Master's programmes had been set up on topics that interested academics, and too few on topics that might attract students. ***************************************************** UNIVERSITY FINANCE STRATEGY: A SENSE OF DEJA VU Last Friday (15 February) a revised version of the Finance Strategy 2008-13 was presented to the Finance Committee with the intention of it going to the next meeting of University Council. Though more circumspect and accessible in approach than earlier drafts, it remains an ambitious and risky set of proposals. An earlier draft (FO/07/111), discussed by Finance Committee in January, was high level, overly technical and seemed to exist in splendid isolation from the University as an institution whose prime objective is the pursuit of teaching and research. The bottom line, though, was an objective of funding additional investment of up to £100m over the next 5-6 years, with £40-50m of that investment being made in the next 3 years. If this is achieved it would bring our total investment over a ten-year period to around £500m, as if this is the key measure of our progress and activities (maybe it is to the Vice-Chancellor and the Director of Finance). We are told that our existing financial strategy is centred on generating a surplus year-on-year in order to be able to support sustainable capital investment, primarily in the Estate but also in IT and equipment. As we apparently drive forward for growth, with the intention of achieving a turnover of £200m by 2010-11 (for comparison, our total income for the year ending 31 July was £148.7m), it is acknowledged that it will be harder to achieve over the next five years but that our competitors (rather selectively chosen, it would appear, on what would seem to be the basis of whether they, too, are planning to invest large sums of money) are not standing still. So, one conclusion is that we should continue to aim for a historic cost surplus of 5% on turnover i.e. approximately £10m, and an EBITDA (Earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortization) of some £23m by 2010-11. For those readers who might not appreciate the significance of EBITDA, it is a measure used by organisations with significant long-term debt. It measures the capacity of the organization to service debt and generate cash at an adequate level to invest for the future. Nowhere in the document is there an adequate rationale or explanation as to why we might wish to enter into large long-tem debt arrangements, but it is pointed out that to achieve that target we have to confine growth in other expenditure, i.e. total payroll and non-payroll excluding interest and depreciation at a level below that of growth in income, otherwise the (financial) targets in the strategy would not be met. Although very much implicit, it is at this point that the Strategy connects to the apparent institutional need for undated employment policies, including redundancy, (see the Council report above). On behalf of our readers your editorial team have tracked down the latest version of this document which now exists in a shorter and more digestible form. The financial objectives remain the same, however, although an attempt has been made to connect the Strategy to our core activities. It comments that the University 'has no shareholders and any money it raises is used in one way or another for the benefit of ... teaching and research'. It goes on to say that the strategy seeks to strike a balance between our investment in people (by that it means facilities for people, not additional staff) and our investment in buildings, equipment and other academic infrastructure such as IT. So far, so good. But the document goes on to propose that the University needs to be somewhat more aggressive in pursuing growth opportunities. Why? Apparently, because the University now has the financial strength to do so and because 'we' believe not to invest in growth would entail significant risks and would limit academic development. Exactly who the 'we' are in the latter is not made clear. Surprisingly, the evidence for this assertion is not there in the paper, nor is there a summary of the risks and disadvantages attached to what is being proposed. Much of the technical detail of the earlier draft is now found in summary, tabular form, as are various issues to do with budgeting and reporting and finance processes. It makes the document easier to read but more opaque. It ends with a section on key challenges which will need to be met if the strategy is to be implemented. One of these is managing our cost base (pay and pensions) so as to ensure the strategy remains affordable. 'Investments will need to be targeted and not all areas of the University will be able to grow strongly'. Another is the acknowledged need to communicate the strategy to the wider University community. Given this, it is unfortunate that Senate will not have an opportunity to comment on the document, so that its views can be conveyed to Council when it next meets on 14 March. Is this deliberate or an oversight? We let you decide. What is being proposed will have vital implications for the future shape and academic well-being of the institution; priorities are being assumed which need further discussion and review. The assertion that academic development will be limited if we do not adopt this kind of borrowing strategy is far from convincing and needs testing and justifying. Other options need to assessed, including ones that offer more flexibility, should circumstances change, and all seem to agree on the increased level of risk, uncertainty and volatility within the current environment (see Guardian article 'Who will weather financial storm?' on the level of indebtedness in universities - http://tinyurl.com/2ehjmh.) Longer-serving members of staff remember the financial crisis of the mid-1990s at Lancaster and the painful recovery which ensued. They might now be experiencing an acute sense of déjà vu. The report of the review committee which investigated what happened and why (the CRILL Report, May 1997) has continued relevance for us here. Its recommendations were accepted and endorsed by Council and Senate. Two, in particular, seem especially pertinent. It was recommended that all key strategic issues to be decided by the Council are first brought to the Senate so that the views of that body may be brought to the attention of the Council. Second, it advised that the Council should always be presented with options, including carefully worked-out appraisals for each, depending upon the nature of the issue. These should always include a status-quo option. These remain timely reminders, perhaps, for our senior officers and managers, but at present they seem to have been ignored. ***************************************************** WALLUPS'S WORLD MEMO: Nigel Wallups, Vice-Chancellor, Lune Valley Enterprise University
(LUVE-U) Roger, It's coming up to a year since we introduced our new internal charges at LUVE-U, and I think we all agree they've been a great success. However, I've just spent another happy weekend on the U-Switch website swapping my utility suppliers around, and it's set me thinking. Despite all our modernising initiatives, LUVE-U still feels a wee bit twentieth-century to me - a cosy little miniature welfare state with its municipal powerplant, NHS health centre and army of cleaners tidying up after everyone and keeping everything running. The recent survey of stress on campus by Gary Grant confirms my suspicion that stress levels are not high enough. How can we be a dynamic, thrusting enterprise if people are happy, contented and fulfilled? So I think it's time we thought more radically, and extended the cleansing power of the market into more corners of our business. Let me run a few flags up the old flagpost, and see if you feel like saluting any of them. Picking winners - If LUVE-U is a country, then perhaps it's France with all those uncompetitive farmers and long lunches. So, just like Sarkozy talks about diverting state support away from uneconomical industries and towards the cutting edge knowledge-economy, we ought to do the same with our departments. What's the point of a department that doesn't produce commercial product? LUVE-U should be a science park with a university attached, not the other way round! Fees - we should consider following the cut-price airlines and breaking down our student fees into optional elements. For example, we could charge a basic fee of say £500 per year for a guaranteed undergraduate degree. That will attract the punters! Then, once they've got half way through applying, we can hit them with optional extras - £200 for lectures, £100 for tutorials, £50 for a personal tutor, and so on. Portering - we really ought to put this out to contract. Group 4 could do a great job - their work at HM Prison Luneside and in Palestine has shown that they'll be more than up to handling a few students! Maintenance - how come we employ a team of maintenance staff to wander around on campus fiddling with everything? We should contract this out too. Why can't we have someone come down from Cockermouth to change a lightbulb, or up from Crewe to fix a leaky pipe, like every other modern business? Internal Mail - come on, don't tell me you haven't thought it's all a bit 'Boy Scout' as well! OK for Christmas cards, but not for memos to have amateurs wondering around dropping envelopes everywhere. Out to tender! Departments can have their own scales so they put the right stamps on. Library - the whole idea of a library seems a bit socialist to me. What about replacing it with a regional Amazon depot? The students could to get some gainful employment there, too, so they could afford the books! Lecturers - if students are unhappy with their marks they should be able to switch lecturers or courses with a single click of the mouse. Maybe we could then change our name to LUVE-U-SWITCH! Yours, Nigel ***************************************************** LETTERS War on terror Dear subtext, I read your piece on universities and the war on terror with interest. Readers interested in further pursuing the issues you raised, including the ESRC-funded research programme on 'radicalisation' and anthropological involvement in counter-insurgency, might be interested in recent, critical discussions on the blog of the Association of Social Anthropologists of the UK and Commonwealth (ASA - see http://blog.theasa.org/). An international version of a pledge against involvement in government counter-insurgency programmes is also available on the blog. Best wishes, Nayanika Mookherjee, Sociology ***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: Sarah Beresford, George Green, Gavin Hyman, Bronislaw Szerszynski and Alan Whitaker. |