| subtext | |
|
|
subtext
issue 56 25 June 2009 ***************************************************** 'Truth: lies open to all' ***************************************************** Every fortnight during term-time. 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. subtext does not publish material that is submitted anonymously, but is willing to consider without obligation requests for publication with the name withheld. 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; Centros inquiry; University Council; philosophy, politics and religious studies; CELT; Alexandra Square; Wallups's world; next life; letters. ***************************************************** EDITORIAL The early summer is a time of evaluation and appraisal in educational circles: anxious students waiting for their degree results; unhappy schoolchildren perhaps wishing that redaction applied to school reports as well as to grownups' expenses claims. We think that university bodies should also be held to account, on the basis of their performance over the year. Senate in particular has had some critically important business in recent months. How has it performed, and why was Lancaster selected by Sally Hunt (General Secretary of the University and College Union) as an example of institutions where 'current governance models allow those in charge to ignore academic opinions and freedoms', and where vice-chancellors increasingly seem 'to see staff and students as a nuisance stopping "the firm" carrying out its plans'? She was referring, of course, to the manner in which Lancaster's Council ignored the clearly expressed wish of the Senate about the need for the institution to take more time and care over the establishment of a standing Redundancy Committee. Worse yet, when Senate at its next meeting was confronted with Council having ridden roughshod over its clear position, most members passively allowed the matter to be buried, without protest, under a welter of other business. Few doubt that over the next two to three years Lancaster, along with other universities, will face some difficult times, and how we cope will determine the kind of institution this is in the decades to come. The student body and the campus unions will play their part, but they need underpinning from those people best placed to take a long-term view of the University - its Senate members. Recent experience, however, does not augur well. In the last nine months or so this publication has carried often lengthy reports of Senate meetings (see issues 42, 45, 50, 52 and 54) and amongst other things they have depressingly evidenced a continued acquiescence in the further dilution of Senate's powers and authority and members' readiness to hold the senior management to account. Unlike Council, Senate papers regularly arrive late. This is inexcusable, all the more so given that in the recent consultation on Senate Effectiveness the one thing that united many of those consulted was the repeatedly made request for papers to be circulated earlier. This does not seem to have been acted upon and often means HODs are not able to discuss the agendas with colleagues in advance of the meeting; or even end up skim-reading the papers after the meeting has already begun. The obstacles in the way of anyone, particularly new members, being able to make an effective contribution are many. The questions on notice to the Vice-Chancellor - scarcely a radical step - have not generated the directness of challenge to the top table that was intended. And, with some notable exceptions, to whom all credit is due, members of Senate have allowed themselves to be silenced by the top table, who treat meetings with apparent indifference, at times seemingly bordering on contempt, and who rely on the block voting of the all-too-numerous ex officio members. This growth of the 'payroll vote' within the centre and the faculties has not been helpful to discussion and engagement. Moreover, 'whipping of the vote' (in the parliamentary sense) now seems to be one of the functions of Faculty Deans, though some appear more enthusiastic than others in their eagerness to be seen and heard to support the top table. subtext, in signing off the summer, does so in an uncharacteristically
subdued fashion, reflecting on Sally Hunt's further observation that 'universities
must be run with the general consent of staff and students or they are
nothing'. Strong words, and a clear message to Senate that any evaluation
of the year just ending leads to uncomfortable questions for all who sit
as members about how they will act next year. NEWS IN BRIEF V-Cs' expenses: you're next - or is it 'nicked'? In the wake of the current revelations and furore regarding parliamentary expenses, it is understood that the Sunday Times has written to all universities requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act on Vice- Chancellors' and Principals' expenses. In response to this and on the grounds that colleagues should see them before an external body, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Derby, John Coyne, apparently wrote to all his staff to detail his expenses for 2007-08, including a £3.50 breakfast at Birmingham Airport on the way to a business meeting in Geneva. Within a few minutes of e-mailing all staff, he received a message from a colleague respectfully declining the invitation to scrutinise his financial affairs any further, (THE 11 June). Perhaps we can look forward to our own Vice-Chancellor following this lead? Universities are in receipt of large amounts of public money and the case for disclosure seems unanswerable. However, the potent mix of accommodation and household expenses, travel, entertainment and other expenses which are a part of the role of any Vice-Chancellor may prove a source of embarrassment or even worse to some. Certainly it has happened in the past. ****** County College 40th Anniversary This year, The County College celebrates the 40th anniversary of the college's foundation. The college was unique in that it was funded by the County of Lancashire, rather than by the University, with the express intention of providing accommodation for students - without any academic or administrative departments. The main college building was architecturally distinct from the rest of the University buildings and the college buildings were opened by Her Majesty the Queen in 1969. The college is now considerably bigger than it was then, having inherited buildings and land vacated by the old Cartmel College. The Main Building has also been supplemented by a new piazza and a range of new residence blocks. Last Saturday, many members of the University gathered on the said piazza to celebrate the anniversary. Former and current students as well as staff and college officers enjoyed an evening of fairground stalls, bands, a hog roast and general merriment in the bar to mark the occasion. There was also a display of items from the College Archives, together with a narrative history, compiled and written by the University Archivist, Marion McClintock. It was a fitting time to celebrate for a college that has recently experienced considerable disruption due to extensive refurbishment and building programmes. An enjoyable time was had by all. ****** Redundancy Committee ****** More on pyres: Founders Weekend The weekend of 13/14 June welcomed again the 'Founders' Series of sporting and social events between the two founding colleges of the University, Bowland and Lonsdale. It also saw a number of members socialising by the light of a fire on the fields adjacent to Lake Carter. Unfortunately for them it seems they were spotted from the Croft, presumably the Vice-Chancellor once again on fire watch, and security were told to intervene with a request that the fire, which was not in a designated area, should be dowsed. It seems the request was met with incredulity and they were less than politely refused with the consequence that four fire extinguishers were located and put to good use. It is reported that a scuffle ensued during which a security radio temporarily helped fan the flames. Any further disciplinary action is not yet known. In more than one sense the new acting Head of Security is having a baptism of fire. ****** And on barbeques As the new BBQ regulations struggle to take effect, it seems that there are now fixed stone built sites in the new residences of the County and Grizedale colleges. This seems sensible but can only be galling for other colleges such as Cartmel who have recently invested in a gas BBQ and now find they are unable to use it without infringing the regulations. What makes it even more so is that they used to possess an excellent brick built BBQ provided for them as a goodwill gesture by Norwest Holst, the company who renovated Barker House Farm. What happened to it? They were told it would have to be demolished allegedly because it had been put up without the permission of the Director of Estates who didn't agree with the design. It was. Well, at least the University hadn't paid for it. ****** Back to the 70s If any further proof were needed that Estates seems to have too much money and needs to be much more closely scrutinized and held accountable for what it spends - and who decides - then try this. It seems that design consultants have been retained to provide ideas on how the college porters' lodges might be decorated. Doubtless a lick of paint might be welcomed and perhaps more appropriate furniture and fittings, but it appears that the proposal is to clad their lodges in white melamine. Wooden pigeon holes used for sorting the mail are to disappear. A pilot scheme in four lodges is to be implemented to test out this 1970s retro look, including at Barker House Farm where we're sure it will blend very well with the restored stonework characteristic of the building. Readers' suggestions as to other examples of equally ridiculous refurbishment initiatives would be welcome. Please let us know - a dossier is being compiled for submission to HEFCE. ****** Pro-Vice-Chancellor prepares to try out for the 'X' Factor One of the subtext drones brought the following to our attention. Who would be a PVC? Marks out of ten and comments on artistic interpretation to the editors please. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvHxmjeqLQM
Rewarding and Developing Staff A recent report from the University and College Union (UCU) has commented that the £1bn spent on the Rewarding and Developing Staff (RDS) initiative since 2001 may have been a bonanza for human resource consultants, but overall there's been little real benefit to show for it. A study, conducted by consultants Oakleigh, found that the hundreds of millions of pounds spent on the scheme since 2001 have dramatically improved universities' human resources departments. It was further noted that the gender pay gap had not improved, while levels of stress and bullying were consistently high. Are there any lessons here for Lancaster? For more, see http://bit.ly/the-hr. ***************************************************** COUNCIL PULLS OUT OF CENTROS INQUIRY In a surprise announcement yesterday morning, Lancaster City Council announced that it was withdrawing from the public inquiry into its plans with Centros to develop a large retail complex on the Canal Corridor North site near Lancaster City Centre. The Council had been left in the invidious position of having to defend the proposals itself, after Centros refused to appear. But as the inquiry proceeded, the Council and its barrister Paul Tucker seemed unable to answer many of the questions being posed to them by opponents and by the Inspector, Ian Gray. Things came to a head this week with a remarkably honest performance by the Council's Senior Conservation Officer, Stephen Gardner. Under cross-examination by opponents, and then by Mr Tucker, it became increasingly clear that Mr Gardner had not been properly involved in discussions around the plans, that the Council had never seriously explored ways 'to sustain existing uses or find viable new uses' for the buildings set for demolition (as was required of them by Planning Policy Guidance Notes PPG 15), and that in his professional judgement many of the vertical and horizontal parameters of the proposed new buildings were unacceptable. The course of the inquiry seems to have turned crucially on the planned pedestrian bridge across the one-way system which would link the development to St Nicholas Arcades at the site of the current Argos store. Claims from Centros and the Council that the development would attract more visitors to the existing town centre, rather than compete with it, depended crucially on flows of pedestrians between the former and the latter - flows which would clearly not be practicable without the bridge. However, construction of the bridge would involve not only the demolition of buildings at Stonewell, described by the Inspector as 'distinctly Lancastrian', but was also likely to require a compulsory purchase order against the owners of St Nicholas Arcades, who were opposed to the development. Then, in another twist, Mr Gardner agreed with the opinion of Eian Claws, the barrister for English Heritage, that the proposed bridge should have been a 'fixed' part of the application, but that such no application for the bridge had ever been made. At this point Mr Tucker applied for an adjournment to consult his clients, and the decision seems to have been taken that the Council could no longer continue to defend Centros's plans in the inquiry. In a statement made this morning, Mr Tucker said 'my client considers itself badly let down by the stance taken by Centros', adding that 'this has caused unnecessary expenditure to the council tax payers of Lancaster'. The Inspector responded to the Council's surprise withdrawal by saying that he would continue the inquiry in order to help him make his recommendation to the Secretary of State. He was particularly concerned that local citizens should have their say on the day set aside for them, next Tuesday; the submissions of the objecting parties, English Heritage, SAVE, CPRE and It's Our City, will also be presented, without cross-examination. Opponents of the scheme are likely to be disappointed that the much-awaited cross-examination of Andrew Dobson, the Council's Head of Planning and Building Control, will now not take place, because of his close association with the Centros proposals and what some have said was their surprisingly smooth passage through the Council's checks and balances. But the collapse of the Council's case will surely be regarded by opponents as encouraging, since it is hard to imagine that the Inspector is likely to recommend that the planned development should go ahead with so many questions remaining unanswered. Lessons learned by the Council will hopefully include the benefits of submitting major projects to the proper scrutiny of elected representatives and the wider population that they represent, rather than allowing them to be pushed through by an enthusiastic minority. ***************************************************** PHILOSOPHY, POLITICS, RELIGIOUS STUDIES Last Wednesday, staff of the departments of Philosophy, Politics and Religious Studies attended an Away Day at the Lancaster House Hotel to discuss the proposed confederation or merger between the three departments. The day was chaired by Emma Rose, the Associate Dean charged with responsibility for the implementation of the proposed merger. The day was well attended, albeit by staff who were disillusioned by recent instances of heavy-handed managerial actions which were not suggestive of a collegial and consensual process. By the time of the day itself, however, departmental representatives had made clear the extent of staff unhappiness, and Emma Rose repeatedly stated that she had no pre-conceived ideas as to how the new unit will be structured and organised, and that she was keen for such proposals to be generated from staff themselves. The morning was dedicated to discussions of research, identifying colleagues'
areas of specialism and possible areas of collaborative research. The
afternoon, during which academic staff were joined by administrative staff,
was devoted to a discussion of possible models of governance and internal
structures. The day was remarkable for the extent of unanimity manifested
by academic staff across all three departments. While many recognise the
potential for research collaboration and administrative integration in
many areas, all who spoke expressed a strong desire that the clear identities
of the three disciplines be preserved. ***************************************************** CELT ***************************************************** ALEXANDRA SQUARE Subscribers will no doubt have made their way to University House last week to view the display of the three competing designs for the revamp of Alexandra Square (See subtext 55 for comments on these). We now move into the next stage, choosing between the options on offer. The method seems quite clear; the public (that's us) will have 50% of the vote, and a committee, presumably of the Great and the Good (that's them) will have the other 50%. All well, good and democratic. Except that some mathematically-minded colleagues have been wondering exactly how this will work. (Students of electoral reform will be familiar with much of the following.) We were asked to choose between 3 designs, on a first-past-the-post basis. Suppose for example that design 1 got 51% of the vote, design 2 got 44% and design 3 got 5%. If the committee vote is similarly divided along percentage lines as well, then that makes life interesting but also makes the committee rather pointless. Imagine that the committee decided to throw all its votes behind its collectively favoured proposal. So, if the committee decided that it liked design 1, no problem. If it decided it liked design 2, then design 2 wins by 44% plus 50%. If the committee likes the third option, then that design wins by 50% plus 5% - the design which gained very few votes from the public is nevertheless a clear winner. So, in practice, while the committee will no doubt take due note of the public vote, in practical terms it is irrelevant. To suggest that the vote is a simple one of a vote balanced between 50% public and 50% committee is at best ingenuous. This is not to suggest a conspiracy, but let us be clear what we are being asked to do. And another thing. Are these final designs, can the architects change them if they wish to after the vote, and does the University regard itself as being bound by the design that is eventually chosen? ***************************************************** WALLUPS'S WORLD MEMO: From Nigel Wallups, Vice-Chancellor, Lune Valley Enterprise University (LUVE-U) TO: All section heads, LUVE-U SUBJECT: Seminar in Passive Aggressive Management, 7 July, Sir Fred Goodwin Memorial Lecture Theatre Dear All, Passive Aggressive Management (P-AM) is the new thing in private sector management, and, as such and as always, it behoves the HE sector to follow in its footsteps. P-AM deploys tried and trusted communications techniques to deal with potential conflict situations in a way that leaves managers firmly occupying the moral high ground while leaving employees with the vague feeling that their problems are all their own fault. All senior managers are required to attend a one-day seminar to equip them to use P-AM on their employees. (Please Note: A number of junior managers are also being invited. Senior members who have never been in a room with junior managers should not be alarmed; only the most docile have been chosen, and they will serve a useful purpose. In order to show the usefulness of the P-AM techniques employed, they will be demonstrated live on the junior managers attending the course). COURSE PROGRAMME 10.00 Official Arrival and Welcome. Senior managers should note that they are expected to have arrived and be settled in by 9.30. When junior managers arrive, senior managers will be chatting comfortably, the biscuits will have been largely eaten and the coffee will be tepid. Nothing will be said directly, but senior managers should glance at their watches as the latecomers enter, and adopt tolerant expressions that indicate clearly to their subordinates that they have got it wrong and their professionalism is suspect. Should any of the junior managers ask you a question about the starting time, do not respond directly. Merely smile and mention 'The email'. By the time your subordinates have returned to their offices, ISS will have visited their Inboxes and changed the time. As can be clearly seen, in this way, before the meeting has even started, senior managers have their subordinates at a disadvantage. 10.30 'It has come to my attention ...': keeping subordinates on their toes. A tool-box of useful techniques, including the following: * Learn how to send emails around your department that make unspecified
accusations of misconduct, without naming anyone in particular, in an
area of work that is everyone's responsibility. This will both galvanise
the indolent and frighten the diligent. A good example is something like
'Letters are being sent through the University system which contain personal
items'. It is important that no names are mentioned, nor any facts given
about how the University knows this to be true. This is equivalent to
the primary school teacher who shouts 'Whatever you're doing, stop it'
into a room as he walks past the door. * Practicing useful phrases, such as: 'I'm sorry, but ...' (you aren't, but it makes you sound pained rather than angry); 'With respect ...' (it's with anything but respect, but it sounds polite while actually intensifying the impoliteness - nice!); 'You're entitled to your opinion' (though saying this makes it plain how misinformed, fatuous and facile your opinion is - and anyway, you aren't entitled to one, only I am, and so on). * Using mixed messages, with particular reference to the three page email demolishing every aspect of a colleague's performance, which is then signed off 'Kindest regards' and a smiley emoticon. 13.00 Buffet lunch. This will be University Brown Food, bland and rather uninspiring. Junior members will be encouraged to go first and to help themselves liberally, as there is lots more food to come. When they have piled all the food onto their plates, the catering manager will appear and, looking crestfallen, announce that there has obviously been a mistake, the food was intended to be enough for all. Senior managers will refuse all offers to share the junior managers' food, and the VC will announce that the senior managers will withdraw to the Hazel Blears Expenses Suite to carry on working while the junior managers 'enjoy their well-deserved lunch'. While junior managers eat their unappetising food thinking of their bosses working hard, senior managers will repair to the HBES where a 4-course silver-service lunch will be served. Senior managers will re-emerge at around 3pm, looking tired and hungry. 15.00 (or thereabouts) Procrastination Workshop. Details to follow. I look forward to seeing you all there. Don't be late! ***************************************************** NEXT LIFE 'I rest my case.' ***************************************************** LETTERS Dear subtext, You guys just don't get it. The purpose of my original letter (subtext 54) was to chide you for all that self indulgence - swigging claret, swanning around the high tables of Oxford etc. - rather than getting on with the job in hand. Now we are told of a couple of hours' computer play, boys' games like throwing sticks at an electric fence, 'my word's dirtier than your word', and cyber ping-pong with the rival gang off the other estate. You've already been told, boys. I shan't tell you again. Alan Wood P**S: I'm only taking it. [Eds: thanks for the email. For the benefit of our Cumbrian colleagues, let us just say that we found your comments ******* ********, and suggest that you ***** them up **** ****.] ****** Dear subtext 'Luckily the University has put the refurbishment of the square out to tender, with work to be completed by summer 2010' (You're so Square, last issue). I was wondering if subtext would notice an implication of this end-date that I noticed. If the venerable sages of subtext did notice it, it doesn't seem to have been mentioned ... It will be completed 'by summer 2010'. This presumably means that work on it will have to begin before this. Now, there's no specific date, so they could be planning to do it during another vacation, but this at least implies that it will be done *before* 2010's summer vacation, and presumably that there's no current plan to do it *this* summer, leading one to assume that the intent is to do it at some point *during* the 2009-2010 academic year. Won't that be fun? Sam Barnett-Cormack, Student on MA Educational Research (Part-time) & Project Assistant, KBC ****** Dear subtext, In your previous newsletter you mentioned the abolition of the department focussed on higher education (DIUS), and its merging with the Department for Business, Skills, and Enterprise. The government's reasoning for doing this being that it 'puts the UK's further education system and universities closer to the heart of government thinking about building now for the upturn'. You reported that the UCU union had a response to this, and I've read that the civil service didn't think much of the decision, and so they had something to say about it, but was there an academic response? Surely by merging with a business department, there is an assumption that the entire purpose of the higher education sector is assist with the expansion of business - as referred to in the quote above about the hoped-for upturn. So if, for example, you were an environmentalist who felt that the expansion of business was unwise because of climate change, or an economist who felt that the expansion of business will soon become impossible because of the lack of resources to do it, what place would you have in a British university whose purpose it is to assist business? I looked around on the internet for articles by the academic community on this strategic move by government, but couldn't really find any. Is there a response that I didn't find, and if not, is this a satisfactory state of affairs? Michael Cowie ****** Dear subtext, I note my good friend Alan Thompson's long service in Senate and can't
match it, sadly or otherwise. I was elected Board C (Board What?) representative
in 1975, splitting the respectable vote (much to the irritation or alarm
or embarrassment, not sure which, of Alec Ross, who complained about it
to Harold Perkin and dangled a less onerous and less responsible job before
my eyes as compensation). I resisted Alec the tempter, and did my three
years' duty for Board C, and then served ex officio as Grizedale principal
for 15 years. That comes to 18. At that point, I was asked, informally
of course, if I wanted a way to be found for me to continue on Senate
(by 1993 I was director of American Studies and some thought it should
be represented), but I decided to give Senate a break and trust American
Studies to the will and doom of the three cooperating departments, English,
History, and Politics. Never was trust better lodged. Bob Bliss Dean, Pierre Laclede Honors College, University of Missouri-St Louis ***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: George Green, Gavin Hyman, Bronislaw Szerszynski and Alan Whitaker. |