| subtext | |
|
|
subtext
issue 48 5 February 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; words; university court; central administrative restructuring; stress; letters; corrections ***************************************************** EDITORIAL The subtext collective was recently visited by a former colleague who retired from Lancaster in the mid-1990s. The elderly scholar arrived by car in mid-morning and after a few confused circuits eventually parked his Hillman Imp on Southwest Campus. Rashly, he cut on foot through the buildings of Alexandra Park and got hopelessly lost, arriving at the subtext warehouse dishevelled and wild-eyed. We sat him down with a stiff drink, and when he'd recovered his wits, he managed to blurt out that he'd found Cartmel and Lonsdale Colleges. Yes, it's easy to forget that for many years these once-great colleges nestled opposite each other on the North Spine. And few now speak of the protracted and bloody feud that led to their banishment to the southern limits of Bail Rigg, and to the current debate over the future of the colleges. Indeed, despite the sterling efforts of the Honorary University Archivist, very few University members seem to have much knowledge of the history of our great institution at all. Now subtext can start to correct this sorry state of affairs, and fill in some of the gaps in the official account. See how many of these you knew already. 1) The original colleges - Bowland, Cartmel, Furness, Fylde, Grizedale, Lonsdale and Pendle - were founded on the summit of Bail Rigg in the fourteenth century, each by one of the seven great monasteries that had an economic and intellectual stranglehold on north Lancashire in the late medieval period. 2) The names for the North and South Spines derive from the old Cumbric word for a dry seasonal stream bed, 'spinas'. The two streambeds, only ever flowing during the winter months, were fed by the spring that used to periodically gush from the summit of Bail Rigg (it now empties into the underpass). 3) The colleges were built either side of the spinas, so that in the summer months scholars and their donkeys could use the stony stream bed to move around campus (then as now the grassy areas of campus were utterly impassable except for about one week in high summer). At Midwinter the occupants of the two sides of the spinas would play a game called 'Hunt the Dyrector of Hospytalyte'. The rules of the game are lost to us, but recently translated documents found behind a radiator in the SCAN office suggest that it involved a lot of shouting and finished with the (affectionate) burning in effigy of a popular figure of authority. 4) The spinas were progressively filled in, and the colleges expanded onto the new open area thus created, eventually forming the thin, partially covered passageway that we see today. 5) After the dissolution of the monasteries in the sixteenth century, the colleges were turned into independent student-run city-states, but until recently continued to brew all their own beer. Henry VIII spared the colleges on the understanding that his descendants would be guaranteed places at them in perpetuity. These places have yet to be taken up, but The Venue always has at least one swan in the freezer ready to roast, just in case. 6) Following an associated institutions agreement in 1830, an eighth college was founded at the north end of campus and named after the County of Yakutsk on the Lena river in Siberia. Fearing its neighbours on the North Spinas, The County College was built as a fortified castle with a moat (the Roundhouse was originally a flanking tower to its drawbridge, but seceded under Field Marshall McLuhan in the 1960s, and now houses LUTV). The subsequent infilling of the moat was regretted in the 1970s, when Bowland and Cartmel, temporarily united, mounted a successful incursion, resulting in the destruction of the ceremonial banners in the college's jousting arena, and a piano. 7) The curious shelter at the roundabout at the top of Bigforth Drive is a hangover from an ancient statute, according to which the youngest son of the High Sherriff of Lancaster is not allowed to drive northwards past Bail Rigg without giving a student a lift into town. However, the statute was overturned in a famous legal case in the late 1990s, just as the shelter was being refurbished, leaving it as a folly. 8) Alexandra Square was built in 1918 in memory of Alexandra Feodorovna, the last Tsarina of Russia, which was later to prompt the choice of our own Princess Alexandra as Chancellor in 1964 (the first choice had been the actress Alexandra Bastedo, later of ITV's The Champions, but she turned us down). All female babies born to Lancaster graduates have to be called 'Alexandra', or the alumna faces a day's imprisonment (a function presently performed by the Careers Office.) 9) Since 2004, in a lucrative promotional deal with Syco music, the square has been officially named after the current winner of the ITV talent show The X Factor. However, the student body has been strongly resistant to the commercial arrangement, and have refused to use the new names for the square (especially when it was officially called Shayne Square during 2006). Rumour has it that Alexandra Burke won the show in December 2008 only because of a Lancaster-based Facebook Group called 'Say-No-To-JLS-Square'. (Eoghan Square would arguably have been less contentious, given that 'Eoghan' is a Cumbric word meaning 'having-a-face-like-a-smacked-rice-pudding'.) 10) The Cartmel-Lonsdale War... well, we'd love to tell you all about that, but the full story is contained in bound volumes in vaults deep below Clougha that can only be opened on Midsummer's Eve. Patience, dear readers, patience. ***************************************************** Standing Redundancy Committee It came as no surprise to learn that the Vice-Chancellor has decided to put to Council, when it meets tomorrow, a proposal that Council should agree in principle to the establishment of a Standing Redundancy Committee, as allowed for under the existing statutes. Rightly, the paper goes in his name, rather than that of the beleaguered University Secretary, but it represents an important development for all staff on campus and one likely to have significant repercussions. The partial and tendentious rationale accompanying the paper may be enough to convince the lay members of Council, who are in a majority, but surely will not persuade the Senate-elected representatives. The Vice-Chancellor may comment that this is simply an act of prudent planning in an uncertain world, but it appears ill-judged and betrays a lack of understanding of the institution and how it has coped with very difficult circumstances in the past. It would also indicate an indifference to the impact on staff morale. If Council does approve it, more detailed work will have to be done to develop procedures, and Senate is to be given an opportunity to comment to Council on the proposal. Belatedly, the HR Director is now hurrying around trying to fix up a meeting with the campus unions to discuss the reasons behind the proposal before Council meets. The reaction of the unions is not known but one should expect this to run. subtext will be returning to it. ****** Lord Taylor of Blackburn Readers will know that Lord Taylor is one of four Labour peers at the centre of corruption allegations in the House of Lords. The Sunday Times newspaper claimed that he admitted to its undercover reporters that he had used influence to help amend legislation in exchange for payment from clients. The paper subsequently released extracts of the recorded conversation (http://tinyurl.com/d9znvq). All four peers deny wrongdoing. The matter is currently being investigated by the House of Lords and the Metropolitan Police. Lord Taylor was created a peer in 1978. His association with the University goes back to its earliest days, and included a period as Deputy Pro-Chancellor. Few would deny his work for and valuable contribution to Lancaster over a period of more than 40 years. Indeed, recognition of this came recently with his appointment by Council as one of two founding members to a new class of life membership of University Court. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, given the recent sleaze allegations he was not present at last Saturday's meeting (see below). The University decision was made prior to recent developments coming to light and it might now be seen as an embarrassment. Whatever the outcome of the investigation, it is clear that his external reputation is in tatters. Whatever his motivation, it all seems a very sad way for a life of public service to end. ******* Even the casual campus observer cannot fail to have noticed that there is an ongoing dispute involving the recent changes to the management of college bars. It is a situation complicated by other related changes and what many regard as the unwillingness of the University's senior management to acknowledge or understand that bars are regarded as more than simply drinking establishments (see the report below). The location of the space in the heart of each college and the ability to administer it is a part of each college's identity. As the dispute continues to escalate (see Scanews, 27 January) one individual and his actions, rightly or wrongly, has become the focus of student attention: the Commercial Director, who now has responsibility for bars and their budgets. It is rumoured that he actively sought this addition to his role but may now be regretting it as the student body exploit creative ways of publicising their case and poking fun. subtext drones, idly Googling during office hours, came across the following example - but be warned, it is not to everyone's taste. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKt1-4kc0pI ****** Saving the Colleges Campaign Around sixty people, staff and students, were in attendance at George Fox lecture theatre 1 on Tuesday 27 January to listen to the LUSU President, Michael Payne, outline his views on the future of the colleges, ask questions, and present their own views. Payne's opening remarks were prefaced by a report that he had just come from a heated discussion about the colleges and college bars with the Vice-Chancellor. The LUSU President went on to state that he believed that the question of who should control the college bars was, in itself, a 'red-herring' and sensibly suggested that 'arguing over the price of a pint will not win many supporters'. He went on to outline his belief that the real issues were to be found in the broader context of the colleges' activities such as the tutorial system, the involvement of staff in SCRs, and the question of college space. When the meeting was thrown open to the floor those present echoed these views. There was a lengthy debate on the college tutorial system. Stuart Powers, a tutor in County, commented that the colleges struggled to find members of staff to act as tutors. This view was supported by Jo Grady, a senior member of Furness College, who pointed out that there was little to encourage academics, who increasingly had less free time in their working days, to dedicate that time which they did have to college affairs. A number of students called for greater consultation and collaboration between JCR executives and college officers. Students also bemoaned the lack of channels through which they could make their voices heard by university management. The LUSU President drew the meeting to a close by asking the group to view the (then) forthcoming protest at University Court (see below) not as being one about bars, but rather as being one about the colleges more broadly. ****** Waste on campus It has come to light that many of the Fire Action signs pinned around the various campus buildings, usually close to entrances and exits, have been replaced. What was wrong with the previous ones is not clear. They did the job, as they say. True, the replacement signs are smaller; they are now multi-coloured (red, blue and green), which is nice but they no longer include advice on accidents and first aid. However, the difference in size has meant that remedial work has had to be carried out around each sign such as filling screw and other holes in the wall and repainting. Reliable sources estimate the additional cost of the signs as being in excess of £40k, installation and redecoration not included. If true, it is preposterous and clearly points to the need for greater scrutiny of how money is spent. subtext understands that after a confused debate the Safety Committee did approve the design of the new signs but who in Estates pressed for this unnecessary work to be done? Do readers know of other examples of such extravagant and wasteful use of the university's finances? Do let us know. It's time we named and shamed. **************************************************** No sooner does subtext make unkind reference (see last issue) to the rather nasty Alexandra Square orange hoardings and their ungrammatical and meaningless messages than they are torn down. Such is the power of the press. We have all been naturally agog with curiosity to see what has been hidden behind them for the last six months. What secret has been revealed? (A five-a-side football pitch? An altar for pagan sacrifices? A special builder's café called 'Second Breakfast'? A transit camp for illegal immigrants?) And now we know. What is it? Um ... nothing much, actually. Looks pretty much the same. Most of the covered way has been rather roughly torn off. That's about it. We reckon that took about a week. So that can't have been what the hoardings were hiding. Presumably there's still lots more building to do. Perhaps to hide the next phase of work a new set of panels will be erected, maybe in a new colour. The semiotics are interesting here. We favour bright green. Orange is so 'um, maybe' - green means 'Go! Go! Go!' And in keeping with this new spirit, new word messages will have to be concocted and written on the hoardings. 'None of your business.' 'Keep moving, please.' 'Nothing to see here.' New hoarding. New colour. New message. **************************************************** UNIVERSITY COURT ANNUAL MEETING 31 JANUARY 2009 Official: 'It's grim' As they made their way into the George Fox building last Saturday morning, Court members were greeted with a good natured and orderly student protest. Though later described by the Vice-Chancellor as organized and led by the University Labour Club and focusing on college bars, this misses the point (see the news item above). As became clear in the meeting, the continuing fuss over the bars is not about the price of drinks on campus, rather it's symptomatic of a broader concern, namely the perceived undermining of the Collegiate system at Lancaster and the difficulties the student body encounters in making its voice heard and having its concerns taken seriously, especially by the senior management. Deputy Pro-Chancellor Henig was in the chair and appeared rather anxious, possibly because the student representatives this year had forsaken their usual approach of sitting together to the left of the Chair's line of vision - which makes them easier to ignore when questions are sought or when discussion is being closed off. Scattered around the room, as they were, made them less easy to identify and who knows what they might be getting up to? Notable absences from the meeting were Sir Christian Bonington, the Chancellor, possibly because his reappointment was on the agenda. Also Lord Taylor of Blackburn was otherwise engaged, possibly having his appetite whetted (see above). Both had tendered apologies. We were invited to receive and note the Pro-Chancellor's report which began with a biblical reference (the Sermon on the Mount; he is a member of Liverpool Cathedral Council), and went on to compare the University to a beacon of light on the hill in an uncertain and increasingly gloomy world. Presumably we were meant to find this comforting but it was hard to do so. Still it's good to know that the welfare and wellbeing of those who live and work on the hill is part of the remit of Council. As we go forward to meet the challenges, one of which is payroll expenditure (a message which recurred throughout the meeting) it is important to remember we are built on excellent foundations. Given all the new construction on campus one would certainly hope so. The sombre mood deepened with the Vice-Chancellor's report. Notwithstanding an excellent year financially (9.4% growth in income year on year and an underlying surplus for the year of 4.9%) and other important achievements and successes, the message was that the deepening economic recession and the global financial turmoil meant the future was not Orange. Rather, 'It's grim!' The impact on Higher Education had yet to be properly felt but we would not escape and we had to plan for a period of restraint and retrenchment, possibly lasting until September 2011. The buzz words and phrases rolled off the tongue: we would have to keep our 'discipline' and 'focus', be 'selective' and so on; the 'world is a different place' and for those who might be thinking of engaging in special pleading his advice was 'don't bother'. Who knows what the new members of Court must have thought of this, particularly the 6th form representatives from local schools? A glance around the room revealed one or two members nodding approval, others winced. There were signs that some might be losing the will to live, which might prove helpful given the repeated concern about payroll expenditure. Fortunately, he then turned to review the 07 - 08 year, commenting upon many of the University's achievements during that period. It helped revive our spirits and we can report that Lancaster will go into the economic downturn in its strongest position ever. Questions came in, as usual, and were handled calmly and with relative ease. On such occasions, his command of detail is impressive, though one of his more lengthy responses would seem to betray an obsession with the college bars and a less than accurate understanding of what has happened. It was a relief of sorts to move on to the audited accounts where the news is good. The chair of the Finance Committee, Rick Turner, not known for fulsome compliments, made reference to the 'exceedingly competent' job done by Andrew Neal, the Director of Finance and Resources, (which translates as excellent), in difficult times. However, whilst the continuing financial performance is a source of strength the damaging threats are there, particularly the growth in operating costs which in his view are 'unsustainable'. He has of course been saying this for some years now. Reassuringly, he felt Lancaster was up for the challenge, although he didn't specify what this is. Maybe it is 'retaining our shape by getting rid of staff', as the Vice-Chancellor put it. As Andrew Neal took his turn on the podium his message, unusually for a Finance Director, was relatively more upbeat and offered a contrast to that of the Vice-Chancellor. Lancaster's situation is one of relative strength compared to many of the 94 Group of universities. There are reasons to be cautious but we enter a difficult period from a better position than most. People started to feel better. The power of suggestion! With time running out, the meeting moved on to the report from the LUSU President, Michael Payne. Taking change as his theme he launched into an excellent address which from the body language of most of the officers at the front was not to their liking. In a wide ranging review, delivered in a measured way, he gave credit where it was due but made it clear that in many important respects senior management were getting it wrong in terms of their approach to student involvement and they were tired of having their concerns ignored. In his opinion, what is needed is a new spirit of cooperation, more trust and less secrecy. It is a message which always seems to come as a surprise to many external members of the Court, often because it jars with what senior officers present as the image and successes of the student experience at Lancaster. Those more familiar with the approach to decision making and the management of change over the last few years understand what is meant, as many of them said after the meeting. It is a complaint which keeps surfacing and not only from the student body. However, it is likely that his call for communication, consultation, collaboration and compromise will continue to fall on deaf ears. As the student placards at the earlier demonstration signified, they may be heard but they are not listened to. With lunch beckoning, the Court approved the recommendation of University Council that Sir Christian Bonington be reappointed as Chancellor for a further period of five years from 1 January 2010. The vote was overwhelming and offered a suitably positive note on which to close the meeting. ***************************************************** CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE RESTRUCTURING Disquieting news about the reorganisation of the central administration continues to reach subtext, particularly about the treatment of individuals. Since it is easy to become lost in a morass of detail, some wider reflections are perhaps more helpful, and we therefore focus on five key areas of potential concern. In due course subtext will review these, to see whether the concerns were justified, and whether the changes were beneficial or not. The first issue concerns the distancing of the central administration from the academic work of the university, which is apparently to be devolved wholesale to the faculties. Not only is CELT (Centre for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching), a relatively new grouping, to be fragmented between Human Resources, ISS and the faculties, but the means by which faculties share any common forum will in future be restricted to two central bodies, Undergraduate Studies and the Graduate School Committee. Since the bedrock of national academic quality control, for which there is a visitation to Lancaster in March, is about the institution as such having responsibilities in this area that it cannot delegate, this move seems to create new and needless risks around a fundamental activity. Surely Senate should have a view on whether this is wise? Secondly, the deliberate separation of governance from programme delivery is at best perverse. In an institution with sound governance, the principles and precepts should surely pervade all its business, without exception. Governance in isolation from the work of the university, to state the obvious, is not meaningful; it cannot exist for its own sake. Rather, the aim must surely be to make governance part of the university's daily consciousness. Will this dislocation be recognised and remedied? Thirdly, while academic-related business is to be delegated to the faculties, central services such as Finance and Estates remain categorically centralised. Perhaps the new COO (Chief Operating Officer) feels more comfortable managing at first hand what he knows best. Yet, if the faculties do not have command of the monetary and physical resources that match their academic programme responsibilities, they cannot discharge their new duties. The very use of the term central services raises further doubts. A hallmark of Lancaster's administration has been the ability of staff and students to receive first-hand advice and support from intelligent and proficient professionals. Are there to be the administrative equivalent of rows of vending machines in future from which impersonal services will be dispensed? Any reorganisation, however tangled the root causes for its initiation, should at least be for positive ends. In particular, an opportunity is open for a redefinition of the relationships between the faculties and the centre, with agreed and documented procedures that lead to clarity and mutual understanding for all parties. Instead, there appears to be an implicit scaling back of the centre and an enhancement of the faculties without any apparent thought for the staffing and training needs of the latter or for liaison with the former. How are staff and students to know in future how to negotiate between them, and how will both form a clear view of their respective roles? Finally, there is the paradox of Lancaster, as a university that promotes independent learning and critical thinking to equip its graduates for their careers, apparently at the same time believing that it is sufficient to inform highly qualified and motivated central staff something of what awaits them, but without either giving them a complete picture or allowing them any say in their own futures. Surely that approach is not a recipe for effective future working? All in all, it seems that opportunities have been wasted. The jury is out, but the evidence of benefit and improvement is not plentiful. Nor is it obvious how two stages of implementation, one in March and another at some later date to be announced, will ease the process. subtext would welcome views from members of the university who use the new central services about how transparent and efficient they actually are. ***************************************************** STRESS Until recently, the effects of stress at work (notably absence and lowered performance) were treated in the same way as an illness like flu. However, a few years ago stress became a Health and Safety Executive (HSE) matter, which had the effect of reversing the legal situation. It used to be that an employee diagnosed as suffering from the effects of stress had to prove that their problem has been caused by their employer's negligence; it is now up to the employer to prove that they put reasonable procedures in place to prevent it. An important distinction. Put that next to Gail Kinman's stress and work-life balance report from 6 years ago which revealed that universities have stress levels far above those of most other professions, and it all starts to look like trouble waiting to happen. Does anyone feel life has got less stressful in the last 6 years? The University's attitude to the effects of stress amongst its employees has always been somewhat confused. (In fairness, this is not a problem restricted to Lancaster; most HE institutions are still, shall we say, busy formulating their responses to the new situation.) However, the HSE does not stand still. Their latest report, which was given to the University before Christmas, is highly critical of the University. The report concludes with a list of 10 specific shortcomings to be addressed by the end of January. (So, they will be already sorted by the time you read this. There's a relief.) The University would like Heads of Department to do the necessary stress audit for their areas of responsibility. HoDs point out that they are as yet untrained in this function, and that it is a highly skilled job. Even if this were not true it is unclear what other responsibility would be removed from HoDs' already cripplingly busy schedule in order to free up the time to perform this time-consuming task. (For it cannot be true that they will just be expected to shoulder this additional responsibility, can it? Say it ain't so.) A lot of people are keeping an eye on this, for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile the HSE taps its foot and looks at its watch. More news here as it breaks. Coda: As one might expect, Prof Cary Cooper has very sensible things to say about the sources of stress for employees at Lancaster. (For, as we can all agree, it is one of his undoubted areas of expertise.) He says that 'The talk about mergers, the downsizing, the restructuring, the 'take more students' demands are all putting stresses and strains on people. Too much change can be the move-maker for someone who's struggling' (Guardian, 16 November 2008 - see http://tinyurl.com/c75mbr). By golly, he knows what he's talking about, eh? Surely something must be done. ***************************************************** LETTERS Dear comrades So, no letters in subtext 47? OK, here's one for 48, which refers back to previous correspondence comparing The County College environment with Siberia. Whoever initiated the debate obviously has no knowledge or experience of living in Siberia - a much maligned, resource-rich, spectacularly beautiful, scientifically advanced part of the world, covering one-twelfth of the planet's land-surface. It has the largest timber stand on earth, contains a whole alphabet of mineral deposits from antimony to zinc, is the world's largest producer of oil and natural gas, and has a rich, idiosyncratic native culture distinct from that of the European Russians who originally invaded, exploited and colonized it from the mid-16th century. It does have a deserved (though routinely misunderstood) reputation for extremes of climate, long bitter winters, steel-shattering sub-zero temperatures, and as a place of exile and punishment for criminal and political pariahs and opponents of successive mediaeval Muscovite, Russian imperialist and Soviet governments. But, equally, it has also been traditionally regarded of a land of freedom, economic opportunity and escape from central officialdom, bureaucracy, serfdom and religious persecution. I myself have spent many happy weeks and months in various Siberian academic institutions, historical archives, industrial cities and native wigwams (complete with reindeer-steaks and vodka) in the convivial company of distinguished and hospitable friends and internationally known scholars. I could go on, but won't. Sufficient has been said, I hope, to demonstrate that the facile, uniformed and ignorant original comparison between The County College and Siberia was totally misplaced (apart from the distinguished friends and scholars), and does no service to either our university or Siberia. It is also unfortunately symptomatic of the general ignorance in the west of such a vast, important territory of global significance which should not really occur in our own academic community. Finally (and not many of subtext's readers will know this), Lancaster University's former Department of Russian and Soviet Studies hosted the very first conference of the British Universities' Siberian Studies Seminar back in 1981. The 25th Jubilee conference took place in 2006 in the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Vladivostok. Warm thanks were expressed at that conference for Lancaster University's pioneering work in the study of Siberia. Obviously not all of that has got through. Alan Wood ***************************************************** CORRECTIONS It has been drawn to our notice that the Indian education provision company to which we referred in subtext 47 is in fact called Goenka, not Golinka; the latter is a town in Poland. Also in the last issue we said that in RAE 2008 Lancaster's Sociology Unit of Assessment was smaller than that entered into RAE 2001; a helpful reader has pointed out that it was in fact larger. The collective have discussed these errors and decided that in the current climate of financial uncertainty we have no alternative but to release those drones responsible and restructure. We feel sure this shake-up will enable them to pursue other career options and others to learn the lessons of the need for total quality. Redundancy, after all, is an opportunity . ***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: George Green, Gavin Hyman, Bronislaw Szerszynski and Alan Whitaker. |