News and updates from the Canterbury branch of the Association of University Staff, Christchurch, New Zealand, 2005-8.
The contact details for the incoming committee are now in the sidebar at right.
Thank you and farewell to outgoing committee members, Neville Bennett, Mary Cain, Eric Cox, Ian Sheppard, Laurie Anderson, James Oxnam, Peter Glassenbury and Bob Gordon.
You can read, below the fold, the text of John Freeman-Moir's keynote address at yesterday's AUS AGM.
Do We Still Work in a University?
John Freeman-Moir
School of Education
The question, ‘do we still work in a university?’ may seem to be either:
(a) An invitation to give what looks like the obvious answer, ‘of course we do’:
or
(b) An invitation to answer no and then to indulge in nostalgia about a time when all seemed to be well-ordered in the garden of higher learning, when students had few problems, collegiality was the measure of social relations and knowledge, not profit was the aim.
I have no intention of trying to construct a mythic golden past that we have apparently lost, though I do think there are things that have been lost, or are in the process of being weakened in university education. If the answer to the question is not self-evident, the thrust of the question certainly is. The question suggests that things central and fundamental to a well-ordered university are missing or being distorted.
A few weeks ago a colleague posed the question for me. In a conversation marked by disillusionment and disenchantment she wearily mentioned strikes over pay and conditions, the struggle for a MECA against NZVCC intransigence, the crisis of funding and the lack of consultation in the College of Arts, the dry managerial language of a recent briefing about university affairs, and the increasing emphasis on marketing. Her closing words were “I really wonder if I still work in a university?’
Since universities first emerged in Europe in the 12th century, some form of the question, ‘do we still work in a university?’ has been asked on many occasions, though not perhaps quite in the way my colleague asked it. Let me give 4 rather disparate, even eccentric examples:
From our perspective his approach to teaching goes to the very heart of university work. He argued passionately that teaching and research should doubt and question everything, that conclusions should be based on rational proof and that every scholar should watch out for error, even in the Holy Scriptures.
That may sound a bit quaint to modern ears working as we do in a thoroughly secular and scientifically based institution. But quaintness aside, Abelard clearly exemplified what it means to work in a university: free thought, rigour in method, and precision in expression. His standpoint put him offside with a number of his colleagues and with the authorities. I rather think that he came to doubt whether Paris was worthy to be called a cathedral school, in other words to be recognised as a school of higher learning. In the end his answer to my colleague’s question would have been no.
Hemmed in by the demands of compliance to Rome and the Chancellor of Paris, Rome’s local representative, they felt compromised in their work. 840 years later, in 2005, Dr Hood, until recently the Vice-Chancellor at the University of Auckland, and now the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, has been trying to wrest control from the academics, centralise administration in the hands of managers, bring Oxford under a more strictly business model and make the connection between the University and business much closer; all of which has more than a few staff at Oxford wondering if they are still working in a university. In their view the battle is over what a university appropriately is.
303 years later, in 2004, Lawrence Summers, the current President of Harvard infamously made statements that were widely taken to suggest that he doubts whether women really have the capacity to be first-rate researchers in the areas of mathematics and science, as well as attempting to ride roughshod over the academics in a bid to centralise power, tighten management and lessen the influence of a potentially unruly and undisciplined faculty.
Earlier this year, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences passed a vote of no confidence in Mr Summers. Some of the speakers at the faculty meeting wondered aloud if their President really had a grip on what it means to work in a modern university.
They catalogued a fairly long list of problems. Adequate finances, increased staffing, appointment of highly trained technicians, better resources and equipment, improved library facilities and recognition by administrators of the real meaning of a university must all be achieved if Canterbury was to become a university. ‘The two activities of the University, teaching and research’, they wrote, ‘should be co-ordinated and combined; and this fusion can, and should, be made a very natural one.’
These four examples have some common features that bring out what universities are centrally about:
Why? Well because we feel this vision every day in our contact with students and colleagues. One really well run class or laboratory is worth a thousand charters, profiles and solemn vision statements.
In each of the examples I can easily imagine the staff instantly and sympathetically recognising the meaning of my colleague’s question, ‘do we still work in a university?’ Put another way, it is university staff who must give the lead in stating what a university is most essentially about.
Ministers of Tertiary Education, University Presidents, Vice-Chancellors, Pro-Vice-Chancellors and Deans can, at best, only make a secondary contribution to this ongoing work. Too often in history they have acted to hinder and stifle it.
In the modern university the quantity of administration required by competition, compliance to government legislation and edict, the pressure to make money and anxiety about marketing are all imperatives that push staff in departments to the margins of the bureaucrats’ attention. I recently attended a meeting convened by the Vice-Chancellor so that the AUS could express its views on the question of voluntary severance and redundancies.
One of the senior managers of this University expressed the view that it is the responsibility of management to manage, to decide the parameters of a problem, to establish the process, to make the decisions etc. In university administration, both here and internationally, this position is now taken as natural and is largely unquestioned, as the way things are and must be. But I don’t see why this should be the case at all. Academics and general staff have, effectively, been displaced from their historically more central role in the direction and administration of the university. There is no necessity about this, nor is it desirable.
Any association of university staff has a responsibility to challenge this displacement wherever and whenever it occurs. We should continue to worry that the centre of decision-making in the university is moving away from staff. Staffs at Harvard and Oxford are worrying about this, and so should we. Only staff can turn this around in the end, however unpromising the current terrain seems.
Any colleague who feels demoralised by the historical trajectory towards managerial centralism should be encouraged to play a part in the life of the union. Bureaucracy and management is always a potential menace to genuine education, which can only thrive under conditions of the utmost freedom.
As Popper and others put it in 1945, ‘University research should be free. It should be directed merely by the initiative of the individual worker, and by his [or her] enthusiasm for the…chosen problem.’ Anarchy, properly understood, is the goal towards which the staff of any university should aim. With the realisation of that goal I am confident that my colleague’s question will be answered in interestingly affirmative ways.
I think that our current structures diminish that sense of a free community that is the environment best suited to teaching and research. College competes against college, department against department, course against course and even teacher against teacher. In the new culture of university management everything becomes a cost unit to be priced and marketed. What sells is what counts and what does not sell is dispatched to the departure lounge.
The myriad pretty little posters that are pinned up all over campus, in every foyer, on each floor of the library, and in the cafes distract our attention away from a reality that is far from pretty. Forms of competition derived from the business world erode collegiality; and the sense of a university committed to the fusion of research and teaching is weakened as energies focus around competition within and between institutions. In a tiny nation like New Zealand competition between too many public universities is educationally undesirable. Within a single university it is simply mad.
One of the first reactions that Summers received in response to his statements on women in science was that he ran the serious risk of undercutting programmes in his own university designed to encourage more women on to the faculty in science departments, and thereby to encourage more students to study in these areas.
When I use the term teacher/researcher I am not merely referring to academics. Across the board general staff are heavily involved in teaching too, in libraries, in laboratories, on field trips and in the giving of advice and counsel to students.
The same sense of intimacy I have just noted is there by inference too in the statement by the group of teachers in the University of New Zealand in 1945. The lack of proper resources attenuates this relationship. In 1983 the staff:student ratio was around about 1:12, it now stands at around 1:19. The weakening of the most important relationship in this university, that between teacher and student is evident.
Add to this the further fact that around 2/3 of our students, at the undergraduate level at least, are engaged in up to 30+ hours of part-time work outside the university, all of which means that they spend less time on campus, less time in study, less time in interaction with each other, and less time with us.
The failure to maintain adequate staffing levels and adequate levels of remuneration, together with the burden imposed by student fees and the many additional costs that students must now meet all contribute to making life at university feel strange to us in a range of different ways. So strange in fact that the plausible and sobering answer to my colleague’s question, ‘do we still work in a university?’ is no.
The further question is this: how do we change the illusions of those who think the answer to my colleague’s question is a more or less unqualified and uncritical yes? Answering this question is a responsibility we all have if the current trend away from communities of teaching and research and towards corporate culture is to be stopped and reversed.
In this most difficult of years the leadership of the AUS has shouldered this responsibility, and for that they deserve a resounding vote of confidence and thanks from us the ordinary members.
Meet Kari Bassett, incoming Status of Women Committee Rep.
Dr. Kari Bassett is an academic in the Dept of Geological Sciences and has lived in New Zealand for seven years. She does field research in both New Zealand and Antarctica as well as teaches the core sedimentology part of the Geology degree programme. She has been involved in Women's issues in the past as a representative for Women Science Postgraduates at the University of Minnesota and is eager to continue this role at the University of Canterbury as part of the AUS Status of Women Committee.
Tomorrow's AGM will be held in A4, not in A8 as initially advertised.
The building--Arts South Lecture Theatre--remains unchanged.
Meet Emma de Lacey, incoming Academic Support Sector Rep, and Tim O'Sullivan, former member-at-large and incoming Branch Secretary. Tim writes: I work in Lending services in the Central Library. I was a member of the AUS negotiating team in the early 1990s and a committee member for 2005. Picture (above) shows me receiving "Stirrer of the Year" award from the University Librarian (for 2004).
Emma de Lacey (at left) works in Desktop Computer Support in IT Services, is a part-time student and will soon be a parent of a student, so has all bases covered. She is always keen to protest, especially on a bicycle.
This year's Canterbury Branch AGM will be held on Thursday 27 October, 12:30 pm, in Arts Lecture Theatre A8 (bottom left of the linked map).
The keynote address will be by John Freeman-Moir (at left): "Do we still work in a university?"
You can read John's last address to members, from the strike on 4 August, here.
Tea, coffee and muffins will be provided at the AGM.
The newly elected committee includes David Small (President), Manja Pieters (Vice-President), Kari Bassett, Megan Clayton, Angela Davies, Emma de Lacey, Jo Diamond, Zane Gilmore, Jack Heinemann, Helen Kissell, Aditya Malik, Andrew Maples, Jennifer Middendorf, Tim O'Sullivan, Bill Rosenberg and Mike Shurety.
This is the first in a series of introductions to the new 2005/6 AUS Canterbury Branch committee, in its members' own words.
First up are Manja Pieters, our incoming Vice-President, and returning member-at-large Bill Rosenberg.
Manja (at left) is an ex professional beach bum (Coastal Geographer) turned professional bookworm (Engineering Library Assistant) and film artist (TAFS postgrad). She blew whistles, waved placards and beeped her car horn at the last few strikes. She also hung out at YUM camp and the Status of Women's conference in Wellywood. When she grows up she wants to be an Astronaut but a filmmaker would do.
Bill Rosenberg (at right) works in Information Technology Services and is a former National President of the Association.
Copies of this year's branch newsletters are now available as downloadable pdfs in the right hand menu.
More will be added progressively as further newsletters are produced.
Thanks to AUS National Office for hosting these.
Below the fold is the response from Ken Strongman, Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the College of Arts, to the submission on the College's Restructuring by AUS.13 October 2005
Association of University Staff
C/o Marty Braithwaite
Thank you for your feedback on the University’s consultation process with the AUS in relation to the College of Arts’ financial position and its impact on staffing. We appreciate the time and effort that you have invested and acknowledge that this is a stressful time for College staff.
This letter is our written response to your written feedback and other feedback provided at the meeting on Monday.
Over the past 4 months information has been provided, and discussion and consultation has taken place within the College of Arts with staff, Heads of School, Academic Deans, the Academic Manager, Management Accountant, College Manager and Human Resources staff. Much of this information, as you are aware, has been minuted and has been available to staff.
To confirm issues raised during the discussion at Monday’s meeting:
The College of Arts has taken into account possible financial consequences of the partial PBRF round. While we hope to increase the College’s PBRF profile, the financial impact of an increased PBRF profile is unlikely to have a significant positive impact on the College’s finances given that the funding formula that applies to most Arts subjects is significantly lower than that for subject areas such as Science. Also, government funding for post-graduate students will decrease significantly again in 2007. At the meeting you agreed that the University was required to make decisions on factual information available and while consideration can be given to future possible sources of funding, presently these can be given little weight.
In general terms, while it would be helpful to factor positive political indications into future financial planning, as well as an optimistic view of the outcome of working committees such as the University Tripartite Forum, we have no concrete knowledge of any positive financial impact of these on the University’s and College’s funding. Hence, the reality is that the College of Arts is unable to meet its 2006 budget and any delay in addressing this situation may make matters much worse.
We wish to reassure you that staffing cuts are seen as a last resort and that other options have been, and will continue to be, explored. The College Manager, Management Accountant and Heads of School have worked hard to identify ways to reduce operating costs and minimise the need for staff cuts. It is important to note that the savings required for the College of Arts are of an ongoing nature and not on the basis of a one-off saving. The consequences of making cuts to operational budgets also have to be taken into account in this process. Academic standards and staff/student ratios will be among many factors taken into account when decisions are made in relation to reducing operating costs.
As was made clear on Monday, if there were to be a closure of a programme or qualification, the matter would be referred to the Academic Board.
While some cross-subsidisation across the College has occurred and will continue, we do not want negatively to impact on the growth areas of the College. We want to enable growth to occur and not place unfair burdens on teaching staff in those growth areas to further subsidise areas that are not in as much demand.
While allowance has been made for some impact on the 2006 budget from natural attrition, we do not have the time available to us to wait for the processes of natural attrition to occur over a longer timeframe. We are also mindful that it could well occur in the wrong strategic areas and not have the desired long-term impact. Likewise, we have indicated that the selection process for voluntary severance will be made on a strategic basis to ensure the academic viability of the College. Other alternative employment arrangements (such as reduced hours) are available to staff and can be pursued at any stage.
To progress, the voluntary severance process is re-opened forthwith and will close on Friday 21 October 2005. This will be communicated to all continuing academic staff in the College of Arts. There will be a termination date of 31 December 2005 for those staff whose application for voluntary severance is accepted. As well as satisfying the financial demands facing the College, this timeframe will provide some level of certainty to staff and minimise the impact on staff morale. It will also help us avoid the possibility of delays, which could make further cuts necessary.
Once decisions have been made regarding voluntary severance, we will undertake further consultation with staff and the AUS should further savings be necessary.
Again, may I thank you for your submission. May I also reiterate that this situation is unfortunate and a stressful time for everyone in the College.
Yours sincerely
Professor Ken Strongman PhD FRSNZ
Pro-Vice-Chancellor
College of Arts
University of Canterbury
You can read, below the fold, the text of AUS's submission on the College of Arts restructuring.
Association of University Staff - Submission
College of Arts - Financial position and effect on staffing
Introduction
This submission has been prepared following a mediated agreement between the University of Canterbury and the Association of University Staff (AUS) that there would be consultation and an attempt to reach agreement over current proposals to reduce academic staff numbers in the College of Arts. This submission is provided as a basis for formal consultation in terms of the obligations set out in the Academic Staff Collective Agreement and the Employment Relations Act 2000.
Our submission is guided by the general principle of protecting jobs and ensuring that front-line services and the academic standards of the university are maintained. Without adherence to such a principle there is a strong risk that the reputation of the College of Arts and University of Canterbury may be irreparably damaged.
In preparing this submission we have sought views from our membership and have incorporated a number of those. It is also informed by the fact that the University has already called for expressions of interest in voluntary severance from potentially affected staff and that, in itself, has created some expectation. Although the voluntary severance process has been suspended while consultation occurs, pressure remains because of advice that central funding available to finance a severance programme in 2005 would not be available in 2006. Thus, if the process is not completed by 31 December the financial situation will be compounded.
We understand that we have been provided with the information upon which decisions taken to date by the College and University management have been made.
Background
We understand that, after accounting for operational savings negotiated with Heads, a projected deficit of $1.3 million for the College remains. The University administration has agreed to absorb $300,000 of that deficit, leaving $1 million still to be found within the College.
In general, the situation presented by the College appears to be:
On this basis, a decision was taken to achieve savings of approximately $1 million through a reduction in academic staffing numbers, initially by seeking expressions of interest in voluntary severance. This amounts to about fifteen staff.
We understand this decision has been made in the absence of any:
We also note that there is no current proposal to cut academic programmes until there has been an assessment of the voluntary severance process.
Observations
Current budgeting is based on EFTS forecasting, yet there are significant variances in EFTS figures which have been supplied.
The initial 2005 budget was predicated on EFTS of 3,851, with the May revision presumably altering this to 3,363.8. The July actual figures show 3978. Thus there is a difference of more that 600 EFTS. Taking account of EFTS transfer and BTL EFTS, the variance may be around 400 EFTS, representing an income of approximately $4,000,000. Accurate analysis is hampered by such variance.
The 2006 Budget is based on a forecast of 4011 EFTS, expected to generate government grants, tuition fee income and BTL contract fees of $39,151,777. We note that this is a higher figure than the BAC parameter. Income projections are predicated on an increase of 3.2 percent increase in tuition fees, although these have not yet been set by Council for 2006.
The 2006 budget is based on returning an operating surplus of $17,037,782 (or 38.8 percent) of income over expenditure. The level of return, or contribution margin, is determined by the central university administration.
The 2005 average academic staff to student ratio in the College is 1:22.5, with a variation ranging between 1:38 and 1:09.9. The national average is 17.5. The University of Canterbury has the second worst staff to student ratio at 1:19, with four universities (including Otago and Auckland) having a ratio of less than 1:16.
The median staff to student ratio in 110 UK universities is 1:16, while the figure in the Australian G8 universities is 1:17.8.
PBRF income to the College is set to increase from $883,385 in 2005 to $2,353,224 in 2006, a net increase (when allowing for the decrease in tuition subsidy) of $700,000. The PBRF income is budgeted to increase to $4,149,124 in 2007, and more beyond, but there has not been any analysis of the net benefit.
The University is currently preparing for the interim round of PBRF assessment. We are unaware of any analysis or projections on the impact this may have on the College budget.
There are also ongoing and collaborative interdisciplinary research programmes and initiatives that transcend college boundaries, hence changing staffing levels in the College of Arts could not only affect current relationship but also the University’s potential for future funding and growth.
Principles
All decisions relating to reduction in staff numbers and/or academic programmes should be based on long-term planning, not just for 2006, and on academic reviews of individual programmes.
Cutting staffing levels should be a last resort when acting to alleviate the University’s financial position. Other areas of saving should be considered before staff numbers are reduced.
All decisions to reduce staff numbers should be consistent with, guided by, and tested against the University Charter and profile.
Account should also be taken of likely future funding, particularly given the establishment of the University Tripartite Forum which has, as a priority, the task of considering and resolving salary and funding issues. Account should also be taken of the decision taken by Government to move funding from areas of low-quality and low-priority provision to areas of high strategic relevance.
Relevance is defined in the Tertiary Education Strategy as including: ... a comprehensive tertiary education system that contributes to the development of New Zealand’s cultural and intellectual life, while also playing a crucial role in helping build and sustain an inclusive and vibrant society.
... national goals of ... economic transformation, social cultural and intellectual development
The proposed changes to the funding regime are outlined clearly in the Government’s Statement of Tertiary Education Priorities 2005-07.The Government will continue to invest in tertiary education to support its contribution to New Zealand’s development ... we are emphasizing, and will place funding priority on, the quality and relevance of New Zealand Tertiary Education ... Where the teaching, learning or research is of poor quality and where it has relevance to New Zealand’s needs, it will be challenged.
Any decision to reduce academic staffing levels (and/or courses) should be approved by a sub-committee of the Academic Board and not by University or College management alone. It is important that Academic Board rather than University management determine the academic direction of the University.
Attention is drawn also to s182 of the Education Act 1989 which prescribes that the Council shall consult with and board or committee in determining policies of the University and shall not make any decision or statute in respect of any academic matter referred to it unless it has requested the advice of the academic board and considered any advice given by the academic board.
Any formula used to cut numbers in academic departments should not be solely EFTS based. Account should be taken of the value of the academic discipline to a fully rounded education and of individual staff members’ contribution to the University’s research capability and overall profile.
If a final decision is made to reduce the number of staff, we believe this should be achieved, in the first instance, by attrition, then by examining alternative employment practices, and then by enhanced voluntary severance or (early) retirement. Compulsory redundancy should be avoided.
Any process adopted to make and implement a final decision should be designed to avoid reducing staff morale.
The selection process for voluntary severance or retirement should be made on a strategic basis to ensure the academic viability of the University. Clear guidelines should be agreed for the selection process and negotiation needs to occur to determine the form of enhancements to supplement the standard severance or retirement options.
Alternative forms of employment, such as reducing from full-time to part-time work, should be actively considered, although care needs to be taken to ensure that staff working reduced hours have reduced workloads rather than the University simply paying them less for the same amount of work. Care also needs to be taken to ensure that an establishment of full-time continuing staff forms the basis of the University workforce.
Where reduced hours or part-time work is agreed, affected staff should have the option of returning to full-time duties should circumstances permit. Pro-rata severance arrangements could be entered into where this occurs.
Conclusion
In 2004, the University returned an operational surplus of $6,095 million, well ahead of budget and which, at 4.8 percent of income, is at the high end of TAMU guidelines which recommend a return of between 3 and 5 percent. The Chief Operating Officer is currently forecasting an even larger surplus for 2005 of $8 million according to the UC Diary of 30 September 2005.
It is our submission that the decision to reduce academic staff numbers by around fifteen has been made as a result of an immediate crisis caused by the requirement to return a contribution margin of around 40 percent to the central University administration. The level of contribution margin is an administrative decision which can be amended in these circumstances.
The current crisis has, therefore, resulted from an operational decision rather than an actual financial crisis. Any decisions should be based on long-term projections. Our recommendation is for five and ten year forecasting.
There also seems to be an assumption that staffing levels should be cut in programmes that are not meeting contribution margin requirements. Balanced against this assumption should be a measure of other values including the academic merit of the programme, the PBRF achievement and potential in the programme, the value and benefit of library collections, the value of national and international academic links and reputation and the wider benefit to students of a broad range or offering of subjects upon which to base degree courses.
It should also be noted that, while we do not have a benefit analysis, the costs of establishing and maintaining the bureaucracy of the College diverts funding away from front-line academic services.
Attention is drawn to the broader negative effect of the contribution margin requirements. Where an impression exists that the University takes a significant proportion of external income derived by individuals, there is a disincentive to generate such income, especially if staff have no influence over the spending decisions of management. Our advice is that consultancy incomes and external grant applications have reduced in some areas of the University as a result of precisely this form of discontent.
We also understand that a contribution margin remains at the predetermined budgeted level, even where the School income does not meet budgeted levels.
Given that the Government, unions and the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee have embarked on a process to alleviate the funding crisis, it is our submission that any move to reduce staff numbers, particularly without any analysis on the academic consequences, is premature. The university has sufficient flexibility through its projected surplus to avoid short term actions which may later be regretted.
The current offer of voluntary redundancy has raised expectations among some staff. If a decision is ultimately made to proceed with the voluntary redundancy process, we suggest that moves to continue the process are suspended until all long-term planning has occurred.
We also believe that more time should be taken over this process. The deadline of 31 December to have the process completed in order to receive central administration funding for severance purposes is an arbitrary one and we do not accept there is any impediment to the preferred course of carrying this funding over to 2006 or beyond. It should be noted that there are significant taxation implications if individuals receive a voluntary severance payment towards the end of a financial year, in which earnings will already be attracting the maximum tax rates.
Recommendation
That consultation occurs between College management and AUS, based on the principles above, with the objective of alleviating any prospect of reductions in staff numbers within the College of Arts.
Association of University Staff
10 October 2005
From an email from the Branch Organiser, today:
The following nominations were received for the positions below. As there were no further nominees the individuals are declared elected.
President: David Small
Vice President: Manja Pieters
Secretary: Tim O’Sullivan
Treasurer: Andrew Maples
Academic Sector Rep: Jack Heinemann
Academic Support Sector Rep: Emma de Lacey
Admin Support Sector Rep: Jennifer Middendorf
Library Sector Rep: Angela Davies
Professional & Education Policy Committee: No nomination
National Council Rep: David Small
Services Sector Rep: No nomination
Technical Sector Rep: No nomination
Industrial Committee Rep: Zane Gilmore
Status of Women Committee Rep: Kari Bassett
Te Kahurangi Whaaiti Rep: No nomination
Health & Safety Rep: No nomination
Committee Members (up to 6): Jo Diamond, Megan Clayton, Helen Kissell, Aditya Malik, Bill Rosenberg, Mike Shurety
As there were no nominees for the Professional and Education Policy Committee, Service Sector, Technical, Te Kahurangi Whaaiti, or Health and Safety representative, nominations for these positions will open again at the Annual General Meeting on Thursday 27 October, at 12 30pm in Arts A8.
The AUS's lead advocate in the recent industrial campaign, Jeff Rowe, writesAs of midday today all agreements have been ratified. The final ratification closed at noon today and resulted in Lincoln members overwhelmingly agreeing to the latest offer.
An article on students' response to proposed redundancies in the College of Arts was featured in this week's edition of Canta.
Author Leith McLean writes that The concern among staff and students has boiled over into legal action by the staff union, and the first grassroots student campaign in several years. ...
Student organiser Leon Adams takes issue with the way that budget was decided. “You’ve got a funding and thus a budgeting model based on bums on seats, and somehow this is meant to infer the success of the course.” Leon, and a group of about twenty other students, have started a petition against the staff cuts and gained over 1500 signatures in their first week. The Save Our Staff campaign is calling on the University to use a budget model that takes into account more than just financial gain and student enrolments, and instead focuses on long-term academic excellence.
...
While the budgeting and redundancy process is stalled in consultation, more and more students are finding out about the issue. For the first time in many years, teachers and students are mounting simultaneous campaigns. In large part this is because it was sparked by staff going directly to their students. Students very rarely hear much about how the University is run, and this news moved the campus’ discontent into visible action.
The full article can be downloaded as part of the latest issue from Canta's website.
The branch AGM will be held on Thursday 27th October at 12.30pm, at a venue to be confirmed. This post is not the official notice--this will be sent to members at a later date. All members are encouraged to attend.
Nominations are invited from current financial members for positions on the AUS University of Canterbury Branch Committee for 2005/2006.
The positions open for election are:
Nominees for a position representing a sector or specific group must be a member of that sector or group constituency. Where these positions are contested, a postal ballot will be held amongst the relevant group.
Nominations for other positions are open to all members, and where any position is contested a postal ballot amongst all members will be held.
Nominations must be seconded and include the consent of the nominee.
Nominations should reach
The Returning Officer, AUS Canterbury Branch
(through the internal mail system or delivered to 37 Creyke Road)
by 5.00pm, Wednesday 12th October 2005
Members are welcome to use a print-out of the nomination form below.AUS Canterbury Branch Committee 2005 - Nomination Form
We wish to nominate
…………………………………………………………………………………
for the position of
…………………………………………………………………………………
Nominated by ……………………………………
Signed ………………………………………
Seconded By ……………………………………
Signed ………………………………………
Acceptance of Nomination
…………………………………………………………………………
(Signature)
