| subtext | |
|
|
subtext issue 118 20 March 2014 ***************************************************** 'Truth: lies open to all' ***************************************************** Every fortnight during term-time. All editorial correspondence to: subtext-editors@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/. If you're viewing this using Outlook, the formatting might look better if you click on the message at the top saying 'Extra line breaks in this message were removed', and select 'Restore line breaks'. CONTENTS: editorial, not car parking, uss pensions, college principals again, historical interesting titbit, enacting the ethics, reflections of a newbie, strings concerts in the great hall, pay dispute again, letters ***************************************************** EDITORIAL The more eagle eyed subscribers amongst you will have noticed the demise of 'News in Brief' (NiB) in this issue. This was mainly because, inconveniently for us, news items which were worth reporting tended to be worth reporting at length rather than 'in brief'. If this doesn't persuade our outraged subscribers, we could always fall back on an adaptation of the excuse attributed to Blaise Pascal (and Mark Twain, and Cicero, and...): 'I am sorry to have wearied you with so long a letter, but I did not have time to write you a short one'. Nevertheless, subscribers might think that it is over-hasty to axe an entire section, as a knee-jerk response to a short-fall in eligible recruits. It runs the risk of disrupting the overall harmony of a university news service which aspires to universality: almost as if a similar pretext could be regarded as a justifiable reason to abandon the teaching of Music. As Shakespeare might have written if he had lived long enough to hear about the removal of NiB from our virtual pages: '...untune that string/And, hark, what discord follows!'. Notwithstanding these considerations, we feel that subtext can survive the sacrifice of NiBs; indeed, having discussed the matter within our newly-configured collective Senate, we are confident that subtext is more likely to leave a more profound global footprint as a result of putting this measure into place, going forward. We would like to mark the occasion by offering an editorial containing some one or two 'one liners' that provide some NiB style commentary on some issues that other University based communication organs fail to highlight. We offer these under the banner 'loyalty in staff' or 'goodwill in staff'. Nationally of course we have the ongoing pay dispute and the shenanigans surrounding the USS pension scheme – see below. Locally we have additional issues that subscribers may be aware of and others that perhaps have not received the coverage that they deserve. First up is the blatant managerial interference in the appointment of College Principals we reported on in the last edition and which we return to in this issue – see below. We also understand the heavy hand of management is involved in the 'stitching-up' of certain HoD appointments – don’t get us started on dubious promotions! We are witnessing the rise of external contractors. Reports from a number of readers highlight the level of confusion surrounding flexible retirement. Why did the VC personally interfere to prevent a UNISON recruitment event? What is the University doing using an enhanced redundancy scheme that is discriminatory towards externally funded research staff? We are aware that restructurings within the University are going ahead with no or minimal consultation with staff or their union representatives. In addition changes in job evaluation processes are underway without informing staff or the unions. A proposed redundancy and redeployment process is 'on the table' that resembles a 'hire-and-fire' scheme rather than a redundancy avoidance package. Are we the only University that employs all its catering staff all on zero hours contracts? ***************************************************** NOT REALLY ABOUT CAR PARKING At the very first subtext meeting, some time in prehistory, the collective took a vow, a self-denying ordinance, that we would never do an article about car parking on campus. Even though we knew we could do an article on car parking every week and never run out of material, even though we knew it would generate more letters than any other five subjects put together, we declared it off limits. So, what follows isn't about car parking, it's about safety. If you own a van, or one of those large cars (usually 4x4) with blank sides, could you reverse into the space please? Otherwise, when someone is parked besides you it's impossible for them to see if anyone is coming along the road towards you. Thank you. ***************************************************** THE USS PENSION SCHEME As readers will be all too aware, their salaries have not seen a real increase for a number of years and at the same time, their pension has been changed for the worse. Whilst this is not at all acceptable, pension managers are also using the current economic climate to ensure our retirements are not what they should be. (Remember, your pension is the salary you have foregone today to be paid tomorrow.) Perhaps you think this isn't so bad: after all, we're all in it together. However, if we're all in it together, why is it the majority of VCs the length and breadth of the country have left the scheme? Until recently, the USS pension scheme was one of the most financially stable arrangements in the country. Now it has a sizeable deficit (where its liabilities exceed its assets). On the face of it, this appears in urgent need of attention, but in reality, the deficit (measured in £billions), will be wiped out when returns from the scheme's unit of measure (Government Gilts) increase to 1.5%. The trustees, together with our employers, have been slow to mention this. What they have not been slow to do is change the structure of the existing scheme to create the considerably worse second (Career Revalued Benefits) scheme. Are these changes the reason behind so many VCs' leaving the USS scheme or might there be something else? A search for another reason leads one to look at tax regime changes introduced in April 2011 in which the annual allowance for tax relief on pension savings in a registered scheme was reduced to £50,000? (This figure includes contributions made by anyone else into the pension such as the employer. It is set to reduce to £40,000 from April 2014.) Pension savings exceeding this amount give rise to a sizeable tax charge on the individual. Now this seems more plausible. It also means that VCs were making annual pension contributions in excess of £50,000 per annum. Put in other terms, they are saving more in their pensions than the majority of staff earn per annum! And if most VCs have left the USS scheme, what incentive is there for them to take any interest in the scheme that will keep us when we stop work? ***************************************************** COLLEGE PRINCIPALS AGAIN We wrote in the last issue of subtext about the appointment - although it turned out to be a non-appointment - of the next Principal of Bowland College, to serve for the three years 2014-17. It was a non-appointment because, although a search committee was set up for the single duty of recommending to the college Syndicate the name of the next Principal, the committee failed to discharge this duty. Readers will recall that the present Principal, Joe Thornberry, was eligible and willing to serve for a further three years, and that he enjoyed the strong support of the College Syndicate. Yet, after interviewing him and two other candidates for the post, the Search Committee set up by the University did not recommend the appointment of any of the three candidates. A brief study of these events raises some questions. 1. How was the membership of the search committee determined? The constitution of Bowland College sets out that the search committee shall be 'chaired by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Colleges and the Student Experience)', and that it 'shall include in its membership two senior members of the college elected by the Syndicate, and the college JCR President or an elected member of the JCR Executive'. However, there is a University formula that adds another college principal, a Senate rep, and a Council rep. Were they elected, or were they appointed? By whom? How were they chosen, and on what basis? 2. Were these people all appropriate to serve as members of the search committee? The aim of the selection process is, we presume, to procure a good appointment for the college - of a person who will provide leadership of the college, work with students and senior members equally, and preserve the uniqueness of the college. As with any selection process, the members of the panel must be, and must be seen to be, impartial. In the case of the membership of the search committee for the Bowland Principal post, there appears to be some doubt whether this was the case. 3. How should the search committee reach a decision on which candidate to recommend? Members of appointing panels for paid staff positions are generally required to score the candidates against the person spec for the post. Did that happen in this case? The procedure to be used by the search committee should have been settled at the outset, but it appears that it wasn't. 4. How could the search committee recommend no appointment, when it had interviewed three candidates, at least one of whom was clearly appointable? A committee of reasonable people can usually reach a consensus on a matter before it, especially when there is only one question, as in this case. Time has to be allowed for enough debate and discussion so that this can be reached, but it can be achieved in the end. But in this case, the discussion appears to have been over quite quickly, no decision or outcome was reached, and no one seemed to know at the time whether a decision had to be unanimous or by majority vote.
Either the search committee gave up the struggle too easily; or else some of the members were not acting reasonably. 5. One of the unsuccessful candidates was told immediately afterwards by the chair of the panel that, in the event of the post's being readvertised, he need not reapply because he would not be appointed. On what basis? If the selection process following readvertisement is properly carried out, no one can know in advance whether a particular candidate will be appointed. It would seem to have been improper for the chair to have said this. Looking at this appointment process as a whole, it appears to have been badly handled. The procedure to be adopted by the panel was not agreed in advance. The candidates do not appear to have been scored in an objective way, as is usual in appointments to the staff of the University. It was not clear whether the decision of the panel should be reached by simple majority, or by consensus, or whether it was required to be unanimous - likely to be a difficult requirement to meet in a panel of six disparate individuals. The chair and the panel didn't try very hard to reach an agreed appointment: they seem to have given up after a few minutes and agreed to make no appointment at all. The chair then told at least one of the candidates that, in the event of a readvertisement, he would not be considered. Perhaps most damning of all, there is some doubt whether all of the members of the panel were impartial. If there is any such doubt, the decision of the committee - not to appoint any of the three candidates - should properly be set aside, and a new panel should be set up with entirely different membership. PS since these events, it has been announced that Joe Thornberry is to be made redundant from October. PPS a similar panel interviewed the candidate for the Principalship of Lonsdale College. The operation of this panel raises similar elements of disquiet. ***************************************************** HISTORICAL INTERESTING TITBIT (HIT) This HIT is that Lancaster City Football Club (LCFC) acquired its seats and floodlights from Leicester City Football Club (LCFC) when Leicester left its old ground Filbert Street to move to the Walkers Stadium (now the King Power Stadium, also known as Filbert Way). subtext is not known for its predictions but we share this HIT feeling quietly confident that LCFC (the Leicester one) will be playing in the Premiership next season. ***************************************************** ENACTING THE ETHICS We need to be ethical. We need to know and undertake good practice. We try. However, there are occasions when the right hand of the University does not know what the left hand is doing. It has come to the attention of subtext (again) that the guidance staff are given by the University does not have appear to have the systems to back it up.
Recently a member of staff, a very experienced researcher, started a new piece of work that involved visiting people in their homes. She has been doing such work for over 20 years and has always aimed to have effective safety systems in place. The prompt to remember good practice and a link to a relevant document was welcomed but then she noted that an ID card was required. In her search for such an item everyone referred her to the next person. Quickly tiring of the run around she approached the University secretariat for help and thankfully they responded (thank you for that). It always pays to start at the top. However, her card is unique. She cannot be the only one University member of staff visiting people in their homes and going to places that request identification. Although the use of the library card in lieu of any other University related document is OK, in these days of high security the fact that you may be a member of a library should not really suffice. subtext is certainly not advocating security or identification cards for all. The fact that the University does not have these, in our opinion, adds to the friendliness of the campus. Nevertheless when we do venture off campus and engage with the wider world, it would be useful to be able to prove that you are a member of the institution without becoming unique. ***************************************************** REFLECTIONS OF A NEWBIE Imagine spending eight months living on a rollercoaster; this is the metaphor that springs to mind when reflecting upon my journey as a newbie lecturer here at the University. An experience characterised by frequent, and unpredictable ups and downs, feelings of panic, anxiety and lack of control; not to mention unexpected twists and turns, a relentless pace and enormous highs. Foolishly, I was uncharacteristically confident at first, founded upon previous experience of working as an associate lecturer both here at Lancaster, and at other Universities. 'What could possibly go wrong?' was my mantra; after all, this is the place where I qualified at MA level, I know the Department, and I'm familiar with what might be thrown at me. Even I was surprised by my own naivety. Retrospectively, I was utterly unprepared for what lay ahead. Luckily, this self-delusion has now abated, giving way to a new-found clarity of the monumental task that awaits me. As the fog clears, I am beginning to understand why I have been sentenced to five years' probation. I have narrowed it down to two possible options. However, what worries me is, I am as yet no further forward as to which of the two options awaits me; either 1) the task at hand is unachievable, or 2) it is achievable, provided I work 23.5 hours a day, including evenings and weekends, for five years (for starters). So filled with a cocktail of contested emotions, I have accepted the reality of option 2, and embarked on a mission to achieve it. Thankfully, I am propelled on my journey by excellent colleagues, a passion for my subject, passion for our students, and passion to leap over the hurdles set before me. Consider me a work in progress; I am sure I will eventually become successfully indoctrinated in the mysterious, labyrinthine ways of the University – or will I? ***************************************************** TWO STRINGS CONCERTS IN THE GREAT HALL Last Thursday's concert in the University's International Concert Series was given by the brilliant period-string group Brecon Baroque, led by violinist Rachel Podger. Remarkably, their programme was entirely of music by Antonio Vivaldi: eight concertos, drawn from two of his collections, L'estro Armonico (opus 3) and La Cetra (opus 9). In the manner of his time, Vivaldi scored the concertos in these two sets for a variety of combinations: two of those played were for solo violin, three for two violins, two for four, and one for two violins and cello. Many of us will be familiar with another group of concertos by Vivaldi, The Four Seasons. These have been rather overworked in recent years; despite their originality we may be getting a bit tired of them. But the groups of concertos played last Thursday are, as the programme note said, miracles of invention. A whole evening of works by certain composers could easily be monotonous, but these concertos by Vivaldi kept us riveted. The musicians of Brecon Baroque play standing up - even the player of the continuo organ remained standing, leaving only the cellist on a chair. The performance of these pieces, using instruments with traditional gut strings and period bows, was of a very high standard. It was most enjoyable. This concert was preceded the week before by an evening of music for two solo violins, played by the duo Retorica (Harriet Mackenzie and Philippa Mo). The programme ranged in period from the Baroque to the contemporary. It included the first performance of the sonata for two violins by Gabriel Prokofiev, the grandson of the better-known Prokofiev - the composer of this new piece was present in the Great Hall. Alongside the solo line, the second violin provided the harmony most effectively, sometimes double-stopping, sometimes playing an Alberti figure, so that the overall effect was often of full harmony. Both members of this duo are fine players. They often appear as soloists in their own right, but in the Great Hall they played together very sympathetically. A bonus from hearing unusual groupings, as with the two violins on this occasion, is that we get to meet music with which we are unfamiliar - on this occasion we could single out the sonata in C for two violins by Prokofiev (Sergei, not Gabriel), and the Etude Caprice op 18 no 1, by Wieniawski, as being of special interest. ***************************************************** PAY DISPUTE AGAIN The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has just published its latest report on the financial health of the English higher education sector – see link below. HEFCE's overall judgment on the financial health of the English sector is even more upbeat than it was previously. The collective surplus for 2012-13 stands at just under £1 billion and it is projected to rise above £1.1 billion by 2015-16. Overall the sector reported operating surpluses of £956 million (3.9 per cent of income). Universities do have the money to pay their staff more – they choose not to. The ongoing dispute about pay has the potential to take a particularly ugly twist with the forthcoming action by UCU. Lancaster management is worrying quietly about the forthcoming marking boycott. Students and staff are expressing concern and meetings are being convened to address the issues that may arise from the intended action. In contrast from the centre not a word about the boycott due to start on April 28th. Older subscribers may remember last time we were faced with such a situation - various contingency plans were introduced as a way round the marking boycott. Such plans included the awarding of degrees with incomplete sets of marks, the use of non-experts to set and mark exams and the bypassing of proper scrutiny by exam boards with expertise in the areas assessed. Such plans included the awarding of degrees with incomplete sets of marks, the use of non-experts to set and mark exams and the bypassing of proper scrutiny by exam boards with expertise in the areas assessed. Thankfully it never came to that. Subtext understands this is an item for discussion at Council this Friday. We await the outcomes of the deliberations. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2014/201402/name,85561,en.html ***************************************************** LETTERS Dear subtext, I would like to add to the item on payment of top dollar for 'talent' as published in subtext 117. If we are already paying top dollar for 'talent' then might I suggest we're wasting our money as evidenced by the state of the country. To remedy this situation, can I suggest we cut, by a considerable margin, the pay given to the so called 'talent' and take our chances on it getting worse. I'll wager it won't, and we'll save a tidy sum. Andrew Lucas, ISS
|