issue 54

1 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, senate report, spot the spoof, letters.

*****************************************************

EDITORIAL

Every so often, in a burst of self-righteous but spurious hunt for efficiency gains, the University's committee structure is picked over for potential changes. Elements are pushed together or disaggregated, functions delegated, committees abolished or reformulated, and cross-representation reduced. Over time each revised structure relaxes a little, fissiparously breaks apart, acquires extra sub-committees or over-numerous working parties, and even creates new entities. The structure is then reviewed and the cycle begins again.

Rumours abound of a train-crash of urgent business for the current Senate. As well as business relegated to October, the pressure has resulted in the current committee structure, ostensibly under review for the past two years, reaching this week's Senate agenda in a less than fully developed form. It is said, for example, that proposals for the collapse of Undergraduate Studies, the Graduate School Committee, and the Learning, Teaching and Assessment Committee into a single over-arching body have been resisted by the faculties. As UGSC and the GSC are two of the main workhorses to safeguard quality of teaching, their continued separate existence seems justified.

Less welcome is the notion, stated axiomatically in a document about the committees, that the dissemination of information is no part of committee function. This cannot be right for at least three reasons. For every person on a committee, there are ten others who might serve, and whose views and involvement should be encouraged and welcomed. Second, every decision by a committee is made on behalf of staff and students across the institution, who have every reason and every right to be informed and preferably consulted. And thirdly, official communications at Lancaster, limited to 'good news' bytes, mean that debates on policy, academic and otherwise, can no longer take place, despite the responsibilities of staff and students to understand and contribute to them. Where, for example, can people express a view on whether plagiarism is primarily an educational or a disciplinary issue, or how research ethics are formulated and implemented? Yet both such items are on the current agenda for immediate approval. If senior managers dismiss the notion of information dissemination as a function of committees, subtext expects them to ensure that effective information flows are also restored as a matter of priority.

*****************************************************

NEWS IN BRIEF

Redundancy Committee: volunteering, not press-ganged

In the last issue of subtext, we said that we would watch the emerging membership of the standing Redundancy Committee with interest. This has now been revealed. The standing Redundancy Committee has been set up in such a way that it could not function without Senate-appointed members. It is a matter of disappointment (but perhaps not of surprise) that University managers have so readily been able to assemble a panel of ten academic and related staff to join the panel, from which two at a time will pass judgement on particular redundancy proposals. Furthermore, eight of the ten are professorial or equivalent, one is a current member of UMAG, with presumably a potential conflict of interest, and only one is a woman. Any sense of being judged by one's peers is absent from the outset.

******

Alexandra Square

Name just one place that every member of the University has in common, and that can only be Alexandra Square. Originally designed as the pedestrian route above an underpass that would take traffic across the centre of the campus without breaking pedestrian flows, it has become iconic in the University's life and history; a place of entertainment, demonstration, and retail shopping. Now consultative procedures are gathering in ideas about future preferences for its refurbishment, as well as the much-needed improvements to the Underpass. A temporary marquee briefly appeared for people to meet and give their views, and the level of interest immediately generated showed what a key concern this area is. subtext will be taking a keen interest in how these plans develop, and welcomes readers' views on the approach being taken.

******

Inaugural events

Given how few inaugural lectures are now offered by newly-appointed professors, subtext regrets that two were recently given on the same evening (14 May), both under-publicised. While Stephen Wildman of the Ruskin Library and Research Centre was giving an erudite, elegant and well-illustrated lecture on Ruskin and Durer, and the strange world visions of the latter, Michael Kraetke, the new Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies, was speaking on 'The meaning of crisis: how to make sense of a world in turmoil'. While it might be thought that staff at Lancaster are already too proficient in this area, Michael's range was, quite properly, more externally-focussed. He argued that we are faced with not one crisis but multiple crises - finance, over-production and the export-led model of growth, and ecological, moral and intellectual problems - that together are likely to coalesce into a single greatest world crisis for eighty years, with no viable way back to the status ante quo. It may, however, lead to another Great Transformation (cf. Karl Polanyi); radical changes in capitalism, bourgeois society, post-modern culture and state systems as we know them. You have been warned!

******

Central Services

As the wider University is exhorted to tighten its financial belt, eyebrows continue to be raised at the salaries being offered for senior posts within what used to be the central administration. The most recent post to be advertised is the Director of Human Resources at a salary/package in the region of £85k plus up to 10% performance related bonus. This time Hays Consultants are being retained to find the right candidate. The details make interesting reading and include the intriguing comment that previous experience of working within the education sector is not an essential criterion. Alongside this post we have also seen the posts of Director of Student-Based Services advertised at a salary of £75k and the Director of Marketing and External Linkages at £90K (both plus benefits). The latter post, not surprisingly, is said to have attracted around 100 applications, very few of which were from within the sector. It is not known whether there were internal candidates; in fact, the whole appointments process appears to have been somewhat secretive. It is understood that an offer has been made to someone (male) from a corporate marketing background, although final details of the package may still be subject to negotiation. If satisfactorily resolved the individual could possibly be in post by the end of the academic year, which is when the current Director of Marketing and Recruitment (John McGovern) is retiring. In the meantime, the post of Director of the International Office (also held by John McGovern) has been advertised at a salary of £65k - 75k plus benefits. It is hard not to conclude that the reorganization of the central administration is proving very expensive. Is this value for money? Only time will tell.

******

Lord Taylor of Blackburn

Last week saw the announcement that two Labour Peers were to be suspended from the House of Lords after being found guilty of offering to try and change the law in return for money. One of them was Lord Taylor of Blackburn whose association with the University goes back to its earliest years, (see issue 48). Though both he and Lord Truscott continue to deny the charges, the Lords agreed without a vote to suspend them for six months until the end of the parliamentary session. It is the first time since 1642 that peers have been removed from the Lords in this way. Another first for Lord Taylor was to be recently appointed by University Council as one of two founding members of a new class of life membership of University Court. It was a decision taken before the allegations surfaced in January of this year. Lord Taylor was quoted in the Guardian newspaper (15 May) as believing himself to be the 'victim of agents provocateurs from the Sunday Times'. He was further reported as having described himself to the Lords inquiry as 'a loquacious old man with an advanced degree of self-satisfaction, but one who is easily confused and who rambles on, not always to the point'. He said he had been 'made to feel like Malvolio at the end of Twelfth Night - exposed to the world as a knave and a fool'. Quite. subtext wonders if the University might now be regretting its decision.

******

UCU Ballot: cancelled or postponed?

All staff were recently informed by the University that the UCU ballot for industrial action had been cancelled. Although it may be a case of the union seeking to make the best of a difficult situation, the UCU message to its members is that the ballot has been postponed to the autumn term. If UCU are still in dispute then it will be run at an appropriate time. Unions are required to provide information on members to the employers prior to a ballot on industrial action. It now seems that there may have been a software problem with UCU's central membership records and this allowed many universities to threaten legal action against the UCU if industrial action was taken on the basis of the current ballot. The threat from 78 institutions was apparently real and UCU took the decision to back down, notwithstanding the embarrassment. The issues - job security and pay - remain unresolved and a negotiated settlement seems some way off. At their most recent meeting on 19 May all the unions in HE rejected the employers latest proposals on jobs and pay. UCU National Congress met last week and the situation may soon become a little clearer. For the moment, subtext is sure that students and staff will be relieved that action has been cancelled or postponed - take your choice.

For the latest UCU press release see: http://www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=3898

Lancaster management have provide the following link for more information: http://www.lancs.ac.uk/facilities/pay-negotiations.htm

*****************************************************

SENATE REPORT, 27 MAY 2009

It's official: attendance at Senate is inversely proportionate to the length of the meeting's agenda. So lengthy was last Wednesday's agenda that the meeting was nearly inquorate. Nevertheless, the poor attendance certainly did not do justice to the importance of the proposals in front of Senators.

Information items were few, but interesting. A number of personal matters were reported. The Vice-Chancellor of Sunway College (one of our partner institutions) will retire at the end of the month and was given profuse thanks by his opposite number at Lancaster. Closer to home it was announced that Professor Derek Seward is to step down as Director of Regional Outreach and is soon to retire. Finally, and somewhat amazingly, it was reported that Professor Chris Park will, upon finishing his term as director of postgraduate studies, be stepping down from Senate after serving upon it for 22 years - surely a record?

The Vice-Chancellor then gave an update on funding issues with specific reference to HEFCE. In dark tones he informed Senate that a total cut in funds of £180m for the next calendar year will be made by HEFCE, of which £65m worth of cuts will fall in the present academic year. More worryingly, because research funding has been largely ring-fenced, around £160m worth of cuts will have to come from teaching or widening participation budgets. Presently there has been no official notification of what the details of these cuts will be, but worry not - the Finance Committee of Council has already produced a revised budget that will be presented at the Council's next meeting.

Next, the University Secretary updated Senate on pay negotiations and informed Senators that both pay offers made by university employers (the first 0.3% and the second 0.4%) have been rejected by UCU. The matter has now gone to ACAS for arbitration but the sticking point is the question of producing a national redundancy plan for universities, something that UCEA refuses to do on the basis that it believes such plans are for individual universities to produce.

The Pro-Vice-Chancellor for the Student Experience introduced the new 'Lancaster Award' designed to recognise the extra-curricular work of students. She reported that employers were prepared to support the scheme and that it would involve a number of requirements, including undertaking work experience. Senators seem preoccupied with how much time students would have to dedicate to achieving the award and this remained unclear. Nevertheless if the take-up figures from other universities are to be believed - 250 at York, and 2,500 at Exeter - the Lancaster Award could soon become a central part of the University's student experience.

Finally on information items, the usual suspects of PQR (Environmental Sciences this time) and the rolling schedule of business were dispatched quickly. With no questions on notice to the Vice-Chancellor, Senators turned to the meat and drink of the affair.

First up were the inaptly named 'minor changes to Statutes and Ordinances'. These changes included: removing the librarian from the list of officers of the university; removing the terms and conditions of officers from statutes to ordinances; allowing council to remunerate its own lay members; moving the responsibility, from Senate to Council, for approving the Students' Union constitution; and altering statute 21 (student appeals to the Vice-Chancellor). As Mr. Joe Thornberry pointed out, not exactly minor. The acting-university librarian made an impassioned plea for the librarian to remain a named post in the new ordinance covering officers of the University and, turned the tables, by citing the 'this is how it is at comparator institutions' defence at the University Secretary. The answer? A metaphoric, though not literal, 'tough'. Other members of senate, including Fr. Hugh Pollock and Dr. Keith Davidson, raised concerns about Council remunerating some of its members, especially in the light of current expenses scandals that had figured in the national press. The University Secretary explained that the Council felt that it would be useful to have an 'enabling clause' which would allow Council to compensate those who might miss out on a day's pay by attending Council (leading a student member, in private, to wonder if he could claim back money missed from being in Senate rather than working behind his college bar). Not happy at this explanation, on the grounds that it was open-ended, badly timed, and open to abuse, Dr. Chris Grocott proposed (seconded by Mr. Joe Thornberry), that the specific proposal to pay Council members be struck from the overall proposal. The amendment was carried 25-18. The amended proposal was then approved. subtext has opened a soup kitchen for any disadvantaged Council members.

Second on the agenda, 'review of Senate committees', created a veritable minestrone of committee soup. subtext will here give the short version to spare the reader a bureaucratic headache. Put simply, many committees of the University deal with the same issues - thus, it was proposed, there should be a rationalisation. For example, rather than have a separate committee for each collaborative venture undertaken by the University, one committee will now review all such collaborations. All of this seemed to make enormous sense to Senators. The only hint of concern was from Professor Chris May, who asked why the Committee for Chairs and Readerships was being moved from Senate to the HR Committee of Council. The University Secretary informed Senators that this was merely putting into practice what already happened - Senate had not, they were told, received the committee's reports for years and given that appointments were in Council's, rather than Senate's, preserve it was appropriate to move the committee there. The proposal was put, and passed.

The University Secretary then updated members of Senate on the proposals to monitor attendance at the University - with specific emphasis being placed on overseas students as a result of new immigration requirements. As always, the good news is that the software currently exists to record this information. The bad news - quite apart from any concerns that University members may have about doing the work of the UK Border Agency - is the amount of time it will take to enter the information onto LUSI. One Management School HoD reported that in his department such data entry was taking 7.5 days of person time per term. In addition to this concern, much was made of the possibilities of introducing some method of electronic registering of students at lectures and seminars. Dr. Reuben Edwards informed the committee that he had even gone as far as to order some sample equipment from China to test whether the idea was feasible (which got a laugh but, folks, he was serious). Despite a lengthy discussion the answer is simple: start uploading LUSI onto your desktop because you're going to have a lot of data entry to undertake next year.

The Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research then reported on what preparation should be put into place for the REF. His message was a simple one - on the basis that trying to guess what the new system will be is going to be very difficult and that, therefore, playing the system will be nearly impossible, the best thing to do is simply to produce large quantities of world class research: a simple, and one suspects, effective plan. Interestingly, research culture is thought likely to feature more prominently in the REF than it did in the RAE. This will make completion rates for PhD students a more salient issue. Worryingly, we were informed, the University had come very close in the past academic year to being punished by the ESRC for not reaching stipulated targets relating to completion rates (subtext can also reveal that the History Department was recently black-listed by the AHRC, so whilst the University as a whole might be narrowly escaping the ire of the funding councils some departments are certainly not dodging the bullet). The Dean of the Management School complained that the short length of staff probations at Lancaster meant that, compared to institutions in the US, it was difficult for new staff to 'aim high' and be ambitious (and conversely of course, though Professor Cox didn't say this, more difficult to sack people who turn out to be duffers five years down the line). Finally, Professor McMillan informed Senate that the reality is that the REF will look more like the RAE than had hitherto been thought. Bibliometrics were out of favour with HEFCE and so they would inform peer review panels, rather than replace them (as had been previously anticipated).

Senate then turned its attention to more committee re-structuring, with a proposal coming from the PVC for Research that the faculties establish their own graduate schools. In addition a new role - Dean of Graduate Studies - is to be created. This dean is to be advised by a group from within the central Graduate School. Sensibly Michael Payne requested that there be more student involvement with that body than the proposed one student member (an idea that was accepted), whilst Frank Wareing suggested there might be a role for an alumni member on the panel (an idea that was quickly pooh-poohed).

Now flagging, members of Senate willingly approved the new plagiarism framework and then turned their attention to the University Secretary's proposed contingency plan for possible disruption to examinations and assessment. Citing a number of worrying statistics about the number of cases of swine flu globally, and in Britain nationally, one would be forgiven for feeling ill simply thinking about the proposal. Crucially, however, Ms. Aiken noted that the proposal would also prevent UCU disrupting examinations through strike action (a comment that was greeted by an audible 'hear hear' from several members of Senate). On the basis that swine flu was a bad thing, and industrial action yet worse, Senators happily voted to approve the plans.

And so Senate ended. But wait, there was more. Prior to the meeting Dr. Chris Grocott had requested of the Vice-Chancellor that a proposal contained in the report items of committee of senate 'academic membership of the panel for the redundancy committee' be brought forward for discussion. Thus student representatives were ejected and the meeting continued. Dr. Grocott told Senators that he had asked for the item to be brought forward because he felt that it was important that members of Senate take responsibility for the redundancy committee by voting their assent or otherwise to the proposal. He argued that members of Senate had been told earlier in the meeting that there was to be no national policy on redundancy, and it is known that there is no local policy either. Members of Senate had an assurance that there are no plans for major redundancies but they had also heard earlier in the meeting that there were dire financial straits ahead for the institution. Dr. Grocott also cited the restructuring in FASS, and the fear of redundancies such restructuring had caused there, as well as the report in the previous subtext that one member of council had suggested cutting staff costs if the annual surplus were not met, as examples as to why the ground on which the University's original proposal was shifting. On these grounds, Senate was asked not to approve the appointment of members to the redundancy committee by voting 'no'. A quick rejoinder from Professor Chris May, who declared that there are no intentions to make anyone redundant in FASS, ended the discussion. In the vote that followed only three Senators took the opportunity to express their disapproval.

And so, for another year, that's all folks.

*****************************************************

CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE: SPOT THE SPOOF

Dear Hector,

I promised you a quick note from my new institution, so here it is. First off, let me say that the University of Mugsborough is really quite excellent.

The senior management team has some real stars amongst it. The University Secretary, Mr. M. T. Head, dazzled Senate a few months ago. He argued, and I'm sure you'll agree, that management posts should not be elected because democracy was such a perverse and unfair method of appointment. All members of Senate agreed and, better still, and in order not to sully the proposal with their votes, proposed that the Vice-Chancellor simply carry out the abolition of academic involvement in management appointments via chair's action.

Our head of Estates is really quite the shrewd operator. I'm led to believe by one of my colleagues, Professor Ostrich, that the building of our new residences, some years ago, was achieved at nearly half the cost of Watermouth's developments. Apparently Mr. Grinder ensured that the labour was imported from eastern Europe - the supply was plentiful and if the clerk of works, Mr. Sweatem, had any labour troubles he simply sacked the present lot and employed new hands. More often than not the new ones would accept lower rates!

Everyone here is dedicated to ensuring the management of the place is Bristol-fashion. Why, even Father Foolem, the Catholic Chaplain, has had a recording device placed in his confessional, and a little camera, kindly provided by HR, records the identity of the penitent. All mis-deeds are promptly and, in confidence of course, reported to the Vice-Chancellor for action.

On the subject of the Vice-Chancellor, he had a splendid victory at our last Senate. On the recommendation of the HR committee, chaired by Mr. H.D. Hunter, a redundancy committee was established (the only vote against the proposal came from Professor Weakling - I'm sure you remember him from your Oxford days). So many academics volunteered for redundancy - and at the statutory rate - that we had to pick lots as to who would go. Oh - and did I mention that we're about to open a new £20 million wildlife reserve? As the VC, Professor Didlum, himself said; when those rows of ragged robed academics march to the dole-queue their hearts will swell with pride to see that their sacrifice has not been in vain.

I do hope you enjoyed this brief note - I'll be sure to write again soon.

Yours, and with apologies to,

Robert Tressell

*****************************************************

LETTERS

Dear subtext,

We live in a time and work in an institution over-laden with acronyms, the latest TLA to come to FASS is PDR.

Is it true that PDR stands for 'Personnel: Development or Redundancy', and that it is to be built around SMART objectives: Specific, Measurable, Achievable (and if you don't there's a) Redundancy Threat ...

I understand that there's no new staff development budget associated with the D of this process, but there is a new (and much-covered by subtext) redundancy panel incoming to help clarify the 'R'.

With regard to said panel perhaps, given the current low morale permeating much of the institution, the redundancy committee could incorporate this approach to improving it as part of their training: http://www.despair.com/demotivation.html

If the subtext collective could help me check that I have understood those acronyms correctly I would appreciate it.

Yours,

Steve Wright

**********

Dear subtext,

Isn't our respected editorial 'kollektif' getting just a tad self- indulgent? First (subtext 53) we are regaled with stories of bibulous claret quaffing (the bubbly having mysteriously evanesced) at editorial meetings, and then entertained by one of the team's seemingly endless wining and dining by distinguished cognoscenti among Oxford's ivory towers. Good to know that some of the latter have belatedly discovered something approaching a political, social and moral consciousness to talk about while guzzling and toping. Oxford University is a rich, well endowed academic institution, and its 'dons' (a quaintly feudal appellation) enjoy a number of generous perks (dining rights, sets of rooms, college servants etc) which make some of the expenses claimed by our egregious MPs seem rather frugal. Come on, comrades, it's time to cut the crap and stir the shit.

Alan Wood

******************************************

The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: George Green, Gavin Hyman, Bronislaw Szerszynski and Alan Whitaker.