Wayne Mapp's 90-day Bill
Information and links can be found below.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Thursday, May 04, 2006
May Update 6: Open Letter to Warren Poh
In response to UCSA president Warren Poh's response to her previous inquiry, arts student Tanja Schwalm has written the following open letter:
Dear Warren
2 May 2006
Thank you for your considered response. I appreciate you taking the time to reply to all my concerns. I welcome, of course, that the UCSA executive opposes “the arbitrary reduction in staff”. And you are right to demand more information on the situation, and hope you will continue to push those sorts of issues in your capacity as student representatives.
However, I would suggest that if sufficient information has not been provided by now – the process, after all, has been going on for a rather long time – then something is clearly amiss, and the question is, is it enough to wait around until somebody bothers to give you all the information you would like. In fact, the only further information that will be forthcoming shortly is the names of the sacked staff members.
It is unacceptable that no adequate information and explanation that justify the staff cuts have ever been provided to students, who are, after all, paying for the services of this university. And we students are, of course, affected by the cuts, from the undergraduates who are missing out on courses, tutorials and the kind of broad education they could reasonably expect from this university, to the postgraduates who are missing out on valuable expertise in supervision, and on the opportunity to work as tutors and gain vital experience for their academic careers, for example. Furthermore, as I am sure you can appreciate, staff cuts reduce the intellectual value and qualitative output of a university, and certainly render it less attractive as a destination for prospective students and top quality staff from elsewhere.
Moreover, listening to the arguments brought forward by the AUS and staff members at the all staff forums and critics elsewhere, it is far from being a “utopian ideal”, as you suggest, to stop the staff cuts in the College of Arts immediately. It seems to me to be a very realistic option, in the absence of a deficit in the College of Arts’ earnings, and in light of the surpluses the university has achieved (without cutting any staff, I may add). Cutting staff should only ever be the very last resort. After all, the academic staff members are the reason we as students are here in the first place.
You suggest that the two Save Our Staff petitions are not enough to give you an indication of what students want, and that you need to confer with the rest of the over 15 000 strong student body. Even leaving aside the fact that the names of sacked staff members will be announced very soon and you hardly have time now to consult with such a large number of people, how are you ever going to expect to receive more than, say, three thousand responses if you are lucky? There is a reason why UCSA elections entice students with chocolate fish to vote. This is clearly unrealistic.
Therefore I would like to remind you that you do, in fact, have a strong mandate to act on exactly what the student petitions asked for. You suggest that out of the “over 15 000 students”, you not only represent the 2270 and 800 or so students respectively who signed these petitions demanding a freeze on the staff cuts immediately, but that you also represent those roughly 12 500 students who did not sign. (“This is not to say that we do not represent those students that signed, but rather we also represent those students that didn’t.”) This, it appears, would justify inaction on your part. (I note no elected student representative spoke up at the rally – presumably for this reason?)
In fact, if we followed that logic, is it not correct that at the last UCSA elections only 1 821 students voted for you personally, and if you were to represent, in the sense that you suggest in regard to the petitions, the over 13 000 students who did not vote for you, then should you not step back as president immediately, because over 87% of students did not vote for you? This is, of course, absurd. You have to go by the mandate that was given to you, by the majority of those who bothered to turn up for elections. And the mandate that was given to you by these petitions is in fact stronger than the mandate you were given to be president of this association. You have every right, and duty, to adamantly represent those students who signed the petitions, and demand an immediate freeze of staff cuts, and further to ask that a student forum be held, open to the media.
(Nobody bothered, I may add, to draft up a counter-petition. That surely gives you an idea of what the majority of students want.)
However, perhaps the most important point to me is that I do not accept what you describe as the necessary result of an open forum, that is “the lack of structure and constructive debate that a no-holds-barred question and answer section will create”. If you have ever been to a conference (or even a lecture!), you will know that in an academic environment this is common procedure. Academics respond to spontaneous, even controversial questions, all the time. After all, critical debate is what we do, what we are here for. A good chair would be able to facilitate this kind of discussion, and I would fully expect a senior academic such as Professor Roy Sharp to be able to handle this kind of situation well. In fact, an open question and answer session was part of the all staff forum. We could hardly accuse the staff members in the audience of displaying a “lack of structure and constructive debate”. What leads you to think that students’ questions would be any different? In fact, some very good points were raised at the staff forum that needed to be heard,
and which might not have been raised had all the questions been pre-prepared and filtered through a committee.
You write that your “anticipated course of action would be to construct questions that a number of people agreed with first via the UCSA website”. I find it very patronising that the UCSA deem it necessary to ‘filter’, or ‘define’ students’ questions, even to the extent that you “construct” them first and then ask people to agree to what you have drafted up. Pre-constructed questions with no open, free and significant question and answer time would certainly preclude students from responding to Professor Sharp’s answers there and then.
Instead of deciding for a ‘safe option’ of pre-selected questions and pre-selected answers, should you not be slightly braver and display some originality in relying on the reasonableness and intelligence of the students who voted for you (and of those who did not)?
You also suggest that “[s]ignificant question [sic] will be given, but only to questions that attempt to gather new information from the VC.” Who decides which questions, then, are ‘allowed’ to be asked (and answered), and which are not? It appears to me that, potential media ban aside, there is already an unacceptable degree of censorship in place. What may be old for some will be new to others, certainly in a climate where information is not readily forthcoming.
You asked in CANTA what kind of university our university is. I need to look no further than the mission statement of our very own university to tell you what kind of university I would like: “Our purpose within the international community of scholars is to advance knowledge by research; to maintain and disseminate this knowledge through teaching, publications and critical debate; [...] to serve as a repository of knowledge and expertise; and to act as critic and conscience of society.
Our purpose within the New Zealand tertiary sector is to contribute to a tertiary education system that is characterised by excellence, relevance, academic freedom and improved access for all; to work with others to enrich intellectual discourse, educational quality and research activity [...].”
(http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/piru/mission.shtml, accessed 28 April 2006)
Sadly, this is not the university I have been experiencing over these past few months. Not only are those aims, in terms of quality of teaching, research excellence and expertise, for example, severely compromised by the proposed staff cuts and the way this whole process has been handled, but may I suggest that a student forum without spontaneous questions and, very likely, without the media presence requested by 801 signatories, stifles critical debate and the dissemination of information to the wider student community (not everyone will be able to attend), and erodes the stated values of this university, and the kind of academic culture we as students should strive for.
Yet, if as representatives of a student body, by and for students, and independent of the university’s management, you do not facilitate open and critical debate, and instead your answer to “operat[ing] within the current system” is to organise a censored forum, then your question should be what kind of student association are you creating by this course of action?
A student forum censored to the mentioned degree should be boycotted, not facilitated by our student representatives. It would not be a good look for our university. In any case, whatever form it may take (I look forward to seeing the details in CANTA, as you say), it seems to me that it is far too late for such a forum, as it would most probably happen ‘after the event’. I am disappointed by the lack of leadership shown by the UCSA representatives so far, not to mention
compassion to those who so unfairly and unnecessarily lose their jobs. I sincerely hope you will re-think your role and position.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I speak only for myself, and this is about all I have to say in this matter, but I would certainly encourage others who have perhaps not yet done so to voice their opinions as well.
Regards
Tanja, Arts student.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
May Update 5: Official Information Saga
In order to examine the basic claim that the College of Arts as a whole, and particular parts of it in particular were not pulling their weight financially, the AUS asked for the financial figures for all parts of the university. Since the contribution margin model was promoted on the basis that it was not only more fair, but also that it was demonstrably so, we assumed that this kind of information would be readily available. It represents, after all, the core data for the financial comparisons which sustain the claim that redundancies are necessary in the College of Arts. What began as a simple request turned into a saga, which reveals interesting elements about the way the management of this university operates.
First Request
From: David Small
Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2006 1:06 p.m.
To: Ian Lothian
Subject: Financial information
Dear Ian,
Do you have at hand and, if so, could you please provide me with details of the following:
The contribution margins (in percentage and dollar terms) for each of the schools/departments in your College, as well as for the College as a whole for
1) actual 2004
2) budget 2005
3) actual 2005
4) budget 2006
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
David Small
First Response
On 3/14/06 5:42 PM, "Paul O'Flaherty, Director Human Resources" wrote:
Hello, David.
The College of Engineering has passed your request below on to me.
Is this request being made on behalf of the AUS?
In any event, can you please direct this and any other query of this nature to the Vice Chancellor in his capacity as employer.
Thanks and regards
Paul
Reply
From: David Small
Sent: Wednesday, 15 March 2006 12:53 p.m.
Hi Paul,
My request was made on behalf of the AUS, but I am not sure what the issue is here.
I wrote to each of the College Managers from Engineering, Science and Business and Economics seeking the same information. I assumed that, since this concerns big-picture numbers that are fundamental to the colleges and the university as a whole, they would be readily available and that the College Managers would be the people most easily able to retrieve them. This is the impression I got from the College of Arts in relation to this kind of information.
Could you please explain what you mean by "any other query of this nature". I would have thought that college-specific information would be most appropriately obtained from the colleges. Are you suggesting that we do not have direct dialogue with the colleges?
Regards,
David
Response
On 3/16/06 11:28 a.m., "Paul O'Flaherty" wrote:
Hi David.
The University prefers that the AUS directs its enquiries for information on University-wide issues through the Vice-Chancellor. In that way, it can ensure we have one clear line of communication between us.
I am assuming that, in this case, the information you are collecting pertains to the ongoing debate about the review in the College of Arts. This as a University-wide rather than a College issue.
There will be many other instances where you will have communication with individual Colleges and Service Units on issues pertaining to individual areas.
Regards
Paul
Reply
From: David Small
Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2006 11:50 a.m.
Hi Paul,
I do direct such enquiries to the VC. The only reason I approached the Colleges directly was because it was College-specific information. Surely, it is the nature of the information, rather than the issue to which it relates, that should determine what avenue of enquiry I should pursue.
Anyway, you have the requests now. Are they ones that you can meet reasonably promptly?
Regards,
David
Response
From: Paul O'Flaherty
Sent: Thu 3/16/2006 12:36 PM
David, you will need to make a formal request to the VC, including the reasons you are requesting the information.
Regards
Paul
Reply
From: David Small
Sent: Friday, 17 March 2006 11:12 a.m.
Sorry Paul. It doesn't work like that. I have asked for the information and, under the Official Information Act, I am entitled be given it. If you want to deny me access to it, the onus is on you to provide reasons for doing so.
Please provide the information requested.
David
Response
David,
I've sent the request to the Vice-Chancellor's office, from where a response will be coordinated.
Regards
Paul
VC’s Formal response:
The VC advised that “data at the individual departmental/school level is not being provided as the contribution margin target is to be met at the College level, allowing Colleges autonomy to internally manage department contribution margins and performance”.
Further he writes: “There is also a practical consideration in that it is not valid to compare the contribution margins of departments and schools across Colleges, as various Colleges use different means of managing College expenditure.”
He continues: “Nor is your question a simple one at the College level. Contribution margins are not readily comparable between years because of a number of devolvements that have taken place progressively over the last three years.”
David’s letter to the Ombudsman:
10 April 2006
Dear Sir,
I am writing to request an urgent review of the refusal (letter dated 7 April 2006) by the University of Canterbury to provide me with information which does exist and which I requested on 14 March 2006. The urgency of this request is that I require the information in order to prepare a response to a change proposal from the university to make eight academic staff redundant. The change proposal was released on 20 March and submissions close on 20 April 2006.
The information I seek is the following:
The contribution margins (in percentage and dollar terms) for each of
the schools/departments (academic financial units) in the Colleges of Engineering, Science and Business and Economics, as well as for each of those Colleges as a whole for
1) actual 2004
2) budget 2005
3) actual 2005
4) budget 2006
In refusing to provide this information, the university cited no grounds compatible with the provisions of S9 of the Official Information Act 1982. I enclose all relevant documentation.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Dr David Small
Canterbury Branch President, Association of University Staff.
Ombudsman’s Reply:
The Ombudman’s Office replied by email and letter. The key sentence is in a letter from the Deputy Ombudsman dated 26 April:
“Informal enquiries made with Professor Sharp have elicited the explanation that the information about schools/departments does not exist.”
After a conversation with the Ombudsman’s office, David sent the following email to all Heads of School/Department/Section
From: David Small
Sent: Monday, 1 May 2006 10:43 a.m.
Dear Head of School/Department/Section
I am writing to seek your assistance with regard to financial information and budgets related to your school or department. Earlier this year, I wrote to the College Managers outside Arts (since we already have the Arts information) requesting the contribution margins (in dollar and percentage terms) of their Colleges and each of the Schools within them for actual 2004, budget 2005, actual 2005 and budget 2006.
The requests were eventually referred to the Vice-Chancellor who refused to provide the information by school/department citing a concern that contribution margins could not easily be compared across Colleges.
I appealed to the Ombudsman, noting that S9 of the Official Information Act limits grounds for refusing to provide information to such things as privacy concerns, commercial sensitivity and national security. When the Ombudsman made inquiries about this matter, he was told by university management that the information that I sought did not, in fact, exist.
When the contribution margin model was introduced, it was presented as being not only more fair, but demonstrably so. I am, therefore, surprised that this information is so difficult to obtain, especially considering that the current plan to make academic staff in the College of Arts redundant rests almost entirely on inter-college comparisons of contribution margins.
In order to progress this matter further, I need to provide the Ombudsman with some evidence that the information I seek does exist.
I am writing to you to ask whether this sort of information exists in relation to your school or department. The identity of the department or school that provided this information would not have to be revealed. In making this request, I would reassure you that there is no whistle-blowing involved here, as the university is legally obliged to share the information that it holds.
If you would like to discuss this matter further, please call me in confidence.
Sincerely,
David Small
President
AUS Canterbury
This email elicited a number of responses from Heads affirming that the information that David sought did exist. It was also followed very closely by a call from the VC’s office advising that the information previously said to be non-existent would be provided.
The information was provided to the AUS President and Organiser at a meeting with the VC on the eveningin of Monday 1 May.
The AUS is now analysing the data provided.
May Update 4: Exploring UCSA's position on the College of Arts cuts
Below is the reply of Warren Poh, UCSA president, to an inquiry from UC arts student Tanja Schwalm, concerning the association's position on the proposed cuts in the College of Arts.
Dear Tanja,
Please excuse me writing the answers to your questions in-text. As there are a number of different questions I feel that this would better suit me answering them.
To begin I would like to acknowledge the time and effort you have taken to pose these questions, and I will answer them honestly and openly.
I have spent a significant part of my time working on this topic, and trust that you will find my answers adequate.
If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
Cheers,
Warren Poh
See text for answers…
Dear Warren
10 April 2006
I had a look at the UCSA website information regarding the UCSA executive’s stance on the College of Arts staff cuts, and as our elected student representative, I would greatly appreciate your comments and clarification on some statements published there. On the 21 March, this item was posted:
“Last Wednesday (15/03/06) the UCSA Executive passed a motion opposing all staff cuts in the absence of an academic strategic plan for the College of Arts. This motion was passed at a special Exec meeting in preparation for the Academic Board meeting held on the same Wednesday.” (my emphasis)
However, more recently (4 April), two statements were added to the UCSA website that seem to suggest that the UCSA is not opposed to staff cuts per se. These are:
“There is only information on the EFTS profile of the departments/schools in the College of Arts that are facing redundancies. We are interested in looking at the EFTS profile in all College of Arts departments and schools.
This would assure the UCSA that all schools and departments are treated fairly and that only departments and schools with truly declining EFTS would be forced to make redundancies.” (my emphasis).
“The non-specific reference to American studies (an interdisciplinary subject), in particular, highlights the difficulty in identifying which area of the programme will have staff cuts. This is not acceptable to the UCSA Executive, as the direction and strategy of the staff cuts must be sound, and relate to the overall direction of
the University.” (my emphasis)
These last two statements seem to suggest a shift from the first statement. It appears as though, in principle, the UCSA executive supports the market-driven model by which senior management run this university, and is not completely opposed to the proposed staff cuts, but would like to see some modifications within the system, based on EFTS numbers. Please clarify if this is not so. 1. The UCSA Executive does not support a market-driven model for a University. However, the UCSA Executive does acknowledge that this is the current system that the Vice Chancellors of the New Zealand Universities are forced to work with. Thus we are pragmatic enough to believe that while our utopian ideal of
a University system will never be realised, we must find a way that is fair to operate within the current system. Therefore we would like to see some modifications to the way the cuts were proposed.
How do you explain the discrepancy between these statements? 2. See above.
Is the UCSA executive opposed to all proposed staff cuts in the College of Arts, or not? 3. See above.
Does the UCSA executive now support staff cuts in certain areas of the College of Arts, if these areas have fewer EFTS than other departments? 4. We do not support staff cuts, what we want to see is data that will treat all departments equally if the staff cuts are to be based on EFTS numbers.
Even in the continued “absence of an academic strategic plan”? How do you know that an academic strategic plan, if put in place, would not provide for low or currently declining EFTS areas to be preserved, at least for the foreseeable future? 5. The University Council are the governing body of the University of Canterbury. It is their direction and strategic alignment that the Vice Chancellor must follow. This direction is also supported by the Government. An academic strategic plan would suggest that the University Council has considered the impact of cutting or keeping areas of EFTS decline. It is assumed that such a strategic plan will have the good of the University at its hear[t].
The statement seems to suggest that, based purely on EFTS, the UCSA executive finds it reasonable to “force” these areas to cut staff. Do these comments imply that the UCSA would like to have a say in which positions are cut, rather than vehemently opposing all staff cuts in the College of Arts? 6. I do not believe that our statements suggest that we find it reasonable to cut staff. And obviously it is your reading of these statements that would take it that we have “implied” that we would like a say in which positions are cut. We do not vehemently oppose all staff cuts in the College of Arts. It would be irresponsible of us to take such a stance when we do not know the full story of the matters. What we have repeatedly said is that we would like more information to be given on the situation, and that we oppose the arbitrary reduction in staff. An academic plan would prevent this situation occurring.
Is there any room, in the opinion of the UCSA executive, for low EFTS areas of the College of Arts to be preserved on the basis of academic merit? 7. If low EFTS areas are able to prove their contribution to the University of Canterbury under the criteria that I suggested in CANTA, then I am sure that all students will support the existence of these areas for their academic merit.
And finally, is the UCSA executive taking into account student opinion opposed to all staff cuts in the College of Arts as expressed by a great number of signatures to two Save Our Staff initiated petitions? Are you representing these
students who signed? 8. As you must well know, as representatives of over 15,000 students, it is our job to present views, and voice opinions that the majority of these students want. This is not an easy task, and often political and representative leaders attempt to direct and lead their constituents into a way of thinking that they think is best. I believe that in such an issue, that there needs to be widespread questioning by the student body of the issue. Students need to be informed about the issues rather than to be instructed. This is not to say that we do not represent those students that signed, but rather we also represent those students that didn’t.
Furthermore, in my opinion, senior management has thus far failed to communicate any plausible explanation to students that justifies the staff cuts in the College of Arts. I note that the UCSA executive is organising a forum “for all UC students and the Vice Chancellor” which “will give a structured environment where UC students can ask the VC questions about the quality of our education and our University” (your column in CANTA, 5 April 2006).
However, you go on to say that “[t]he UCSA Executive . . . will be there asking questions on behalf of all students” (ibid.). Could you please clarify whether “all students” will be able to address the VC directly, openly, and spontaneously, with their own questions in this forum, or whether the UCSA executive will ask “on behalf of all students”, or both? 9. I’m sure that you can appreciate the lack of structure and constructive debate that a no-holds-barred question and answer section will create. My anticipated course of action would be to construct questions that a number of people agreed with first via the UCSA website, and then to pose these questions to the VC first.
Also, will a significant amount of time be allocated to student questions? (At the all staff forum, Roy Sharp, after giving his power point presentation, only allocated a very short period of time to questions from staff, which was extended only after considerable pressure from the audience. Clearly, 15 to 20 minutes would not be enough.) 10. Significant question will be given [sic], but only to questions that attempt to gather new information from the VC.
I also note that the VC has rejected a petition with a staggering 800 signatures collected in the space of only one hour (you have to admit, a stunning result for Canterbury University!), which called for media to be present at a forum open to all students (“‘Save Our Staff’ to hold further protest”, CANTA, 5 April 2006, p.12). Clearly, students desire media to be there. Will the forum the UCSA is convening to discuss “the quality of our education” be open to media? And if not, why not? 11. At present we are still working through the details of this forum. Please see CANTA for more details as they become available.
I would be grateful if you could clarify these points at your earliest convenience. I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
Tanja Schwalm
May Update 3: A Member Submission on the Change Proposal, College of Arts
A submission by Dr. V. Nilakant, Associate Professor in the Department of Management.
SUBMISSION ON CHANGE PROPOSAL – COLLEGE OF ARTS
1. Introduction
This submission consists of three sections. First, I suggest that the present proposal for change outlined in the document of March 25, 2006 carries significant risks for both the College of Arts and for the University. Specifically, the proposal heightens the risk to the college and the university by ignoring: (a) the lack of critical mass in some subject areas, (b) the human costs of downsizing, and (c) the unpredictable consequences of downsizing interdisciplinary programmes. Second, I suggest that the present proposal is also based on a flawed mental model which assumes that: (a) enrolments are the same as demand, (b) students are interested in courses and subjects instead of qualifications, (c) academic staff represent costs, not strategic assets. Third, I make a case for positive change based on an alternative model and provide a tentative outline for meaningful change.
2. Risks associated with the Change Proposal
The present proposal seeks to build a “stronger College of Arts that better reflects student demand and continues to be nationally and internationally respected for the research of its staff.” It seeks to achieve this by reducing “ongoing academic staffing costs” in the following areas: (a) American Studies, (b) English, (c) Education, (d) History, (e) Chinese, (f) Russian, (g) Music, and (h) Religious Studies. In summary, the proposal seeks to build a nationally and internationally credible College of Arts by disestablishing eight full-time positions. It is argued that the staff cuts are necessitated by an increase in contribution margin (CM) from 36.5% in 2004 to 41% in 2007. Given the assumption of “little or no growth in EFTs in the short to medium term” coupled with increases in expenditure and the internal tax rate (CM), cutting staff costs seems to be an attractive and easy option to balance the budget. However, this strategy is fraught with three significant risks. First, growth of this college and the university requires a minimum number of staff in all subject areas for credible teaching and research. The proposed cuts will render some subjects/areas unviable, necessitating more cuts in the future. Second, there are significant human costs associated with downsizing. Organizations that ignore such costs are unlikely to achieve the intended aims of downsizing. Third, staff cuts in interdisciplinary programmes can have unpredictable consequences given the interdependence inherent in such programmes.
2.1 Staff Cuts Will Put Some Subject Areas below the Necessary Critical Mass
The over-all liberal arts programme at the University of Canterbury is small by international standards. To achieve research and teaching credibility both nationally and internationally, the various subject areas that constitute the College of Arts need to a have a minimum size that is often referred to as the critical mass. This is the minimum number of academic staff necessary to sustain a credible research and teaching programme. The present staff cuts will render most of these subject areas such as English (18th/19th century literature), Asian History, Chinese, Russian, and Religious Studies below the critical mass, making them non-sustainable. In the medium to long–term, the college runs the risk of closing down these areas permanently. The loss of subjects such as Chinese/Russian, Asian History and Religious Studies will render the qualifications that the university markets unattractive and uncompetitive. For instance China, Brazil, India and Russia will be among the ten largest economies in the next few years and in the top five economies (in purchasing power parity terms) by 2015. Together, these countries will also constitute the largest market for tertiary education. For instance, around 22,000 Indian and 70,000 Chinese students are enrolled in Australian universities, contributing about 15% of university revenue to that country. Therefore, staff cuts in these subject areas will not only not achieve the intended objectives but will also lead to further decline in demand as the programme will be seen as sparse.
2.2 The Proposal Ignores the Human Costs of Staff Reductions
Staff redundancies extract a heavy cost in human terms in organizations. As Cascio (1) argues: Employee morale is often the first casualty of downsizing, as survivors become narrow-minded, self-absorbed, and risk averse. Many firms underestimate the emotional damage that survivors suffer by watching others lose their jobs. In fact, a great deal of research shows that survivors often suffer from heightened levels of stress, burnout, uncertainty about their own roles in the new organization, and an overall sense of betrayal. In unionized environments, downsizing may be related to increased grievances, higher absenteeism rates, workplace conflict, and poorer supervisor-union member relations. In fact, survivors are looking for signals such as the following: Were departing employees treated fairly, and with dignity and respect? Why should I stay? What new opportunities will be available to me if I choose to do so? Is there a new business strategy to help us do a better job of competing in the marketplace?
In the present instance, the justification for staff cuts in the proposed areas is not particularly convincing. It is probably easier to justify cuts based on explicit criteria such as research productivity and quality of teaching. However, this hasn’t been done. The present proposal may be viewed as arbitrary and lead to resentment and mistrust between the staff and those in change of managing the college. Not only is the proposal silent on how these human issues would be addressed, it does not even acknowledge the high quality of scholarship and pedagogy that is displayed in many courses of the college. Failure to address the human issues would lead to lower staff satisfaction and productivity that will adversely impact on the quality of research and teaching. This would exacerbate an already sensitive situation putting both the College and the university at risk.
2.3 The Proposal Ignores the Effects of Staff Cuts in Interdisciplinary Programmes
The American Studies programme is an inter-disciplinary programme. Staff cuts in such a programme can have cascading effects on areas/subjects that make up this programme. The proposal is silent on how the reduction of one FTE will impact on other subject areas. Ignoring the effects of interdependence can potentially lead to unanticipated consequences in the future that will tie up significant managerial resources in dealing with unanticipated consequences.
2.4 Overall Impact of the Three Factors
Research in management suggests that most downsizing efforts fail to achieve their intended objectives, which in this case is long-term viability of the college. Based on a series of empirical studies of firms in the Standard & Poor’s 500 in the United States, Cascio concludes that: “We found no significant, consistent evidence that employment downsizing led to improved financial performance, as measured by return on assets or industry-adjusted return on assets.” (p. 40). Cascio argues that unless the downsizing effort is part of a broader business plan, downsizing can sometimes put an organization into a doom loop by eroding goodwill and trust that is so essential for high performance in organizations. What is missing in the present proposal is the broader business plan that underlies the staff cuts. In the absence of such a plan, the proposal can put both the college and the university at risk of long-term decline due to the three factors discussed above. The change proposal, though well-intentioned, is misguided because it is based on flawed assumptions. I discuss these in the following section.
3. Three Flawed Assumptions in the Proposal
The present proposal is based on three unsound assumptions. First, it equates enrolments with demand. The data indicate that enrolments in the identified subject areas have been more or less constant except for a significant drop between 2004 and 2005. The reasons for the change between 2004 and 2005 are not discussed in the document. Declining enrolments do not necessarily mean a decline in demand. Enrolments represent the sales or market share of the university in business terms. Just as no business firm would equate its sales with total demand or market size, it would be wrong for the university to treat EFTS as demand for the subjects/areas.
As the late Peter Drucker, regarded as the creator of the profession of modern management, so forcefully stated, the purpose of any business is to create a customer. In my view, the EFTS figures suggest that the university has failed to create a market for its Arts qualifications. Long years of relative community neglect coupled with insularity have rendered university education an unattractive option in Canterbury. It seems to me that academic staff are being penalised for what is essentially a collective institutional failure in building credibility for university education. This is partly due to the inability to understand what students are looking for in university education, which leads to the second flawed assumption.
There is a basic disconnection between what students expect and what the university offers as university education. In the present era of mass education, an average student expects the university to provide a marketable qualification and is less interested in individual courses or subject areas. The university, on the other hand, is almost exclusively focussed on courses. Academic staff are also partly to blame for this mismatch between student expectations and university offerings. Individual staff members are specialists in specific areas or disciplines and draw their identity as specialists in a specific discipline. Across the university, qualifications have evolved as a set of courses through a process of negotiation and accommodation between individual disciplines that constitute a subject area rather than through deliberate design. There is little discussion in any faculty about the overall qualification – its composition, structure and relevance.
A potential student who is currently faced with the prospect of investing almost $15,000 to $20, 000 in a qualification, needs assurance that the qualification will have credibility and value in the employment market. This requires crafting a qualification from available courses in a manner that leads to enhancement of marketable skills and capabilities in relevant areas for the student. It requires focusing on the output as well as the processes of pedagogy and scholarship. Unless the university as a whole is able to shift its focus from courses to qualifications, tertiary education at the University of Canterbury will continue to remain an unattractive option for both domestic and overseas students. However, this is a daunting task because academic staff are evaluated for their teaching and research in individual disciplines and have little incentive to collaborate across disciplines.
Crafting credible qualifications requires academic staff to work together collaboratively across sub-specialities and disciplines. They need to be motivated and committed to the task of making university offerings relevant. The current proposal’s third flawed assumption is a barrier to this need for collaboration and commitment. It treats academic staff as costs rather than strategic assets. Academic staff constitute the human capital of this institution. This capital needs to be nurtured and developed to ensure the future of the institution. As Cascio observes: “The downsizers see employees as commodities—like paper clips or light bulbs, interchangeable and substitutable one for another. This is a “plugin” mentality: plug them in when you need them; pull the plug when you no longer need them. In contrast, responsible restructurers see employees as sources of innovation and renewal. They see in employees the potential to grow their businesses.” (p. 43).
Cost cutting in a university setting needs to be at the administrative level, not at the academic level. Administrative overheads have to be kept at a minimal level. Since the university is in the business of developing and marketing qualifications, there must be a relentless quest to identify and eliminate bureaucratic procedures and practices that do not add value to a qualification. Till recently, this university had the unique distinction of having one of the lowest overheads among the New Zealand universities. Both capital and overhead expenses need to be closely monitored and managed for potential cost savings. It is not clear from the proposal whether this has been done.
4. Way Forward: A Positive Change Programme
It is clear from the proposal that there is a need for change. Colleges need to be financially viable in the long run. The CM model is intended to provide a framework to achieve financial viability. However, it can not be a substitute for a sound strategy for growth. What is missing in the present proposal is the contour of such a strategy and a roadmap for change in the College of Arts. I propose the following as an alternative change plan:
In the long run, the university needs to invest in staff to develop and deliver credible qualifications. With the recently announced shift in government’s funding policy, the university is faced with an opportunity to adopt an outcome-based approach to tertiary education by building on the teaching and research strengths of the College of Arts. The current funding crisis in the College of Arts presents the university with a tremendous opportunity to launch an outcome-based qualification that is rigorous and relevant. The way forward is appreciative change that identifies and builds on the strengths of the college. The process of change needs to be inclusive, transparent and open. A strategy, such as the present one, that seeks to impose an internal tax rate that is seen as arbitrary and unfair is not only risky for the college but has the potential to undermine goodwill and trust across the whole university.
Notes
(1) Cascio, W. F. (2005). Strategies for responsible restructuring. Academy of Management Executive, 19(4), 39-50; p. 44-45.
May Update 2: AUS submission on College of Arts change Proposal
FROM: Dr David Small, President, AUS Canterbury Branch
TO: Trish Appleyard, PA to Professor Ken Strongman
DATE: 3 May 2006
1. Introduction
This submission is being made on behalf of the Canterbury Branch of the Association of University Staff. The AUS represents the majority of staff employed at University of Canterbury and in the College of Arts.
In making this submission, we do not condone the change process of which it is a part. Indeed we believe that it is both unwise (as we explain below) and unlawful (as we will argue in a different forum).
We are disappointed at the actions of University of Canterbury management in rejecting AUS offers of co-operation in effecting change in the College of Arts. We are particularly disturbed by the University’s refusal to share data on contribution margins that is fundamental to the case that any improvement at all to the finances of the College of Arts is necessary. That refusal, which was not accompanied by any reasons that might render it lawful (see S9 of the Official Information Act 1982), is currently subject to review by the Ombudsman but has effectively deprived us of our right to fully engage in this consultation process.
In preparing this submission, the AUS sought independent advice from beyond the University. Specifically, we convened a panel of three people who spent two days analysing documentation and conducting dialogue with University staff, students and management. We believe that this group gained a unique and valuable perspective and would encourage the committee to invite a representative of the panel to meet with it. The three panel members were:
Associate Professor Lydia Wevers, Director of the Stout Research Centre for New Zealand Studies at Victoria University as well as a member of the Marsden Fund Council, the Humanities and Law Panel of the PBRF, Chair of the Kaitiaki of the Alexander Turnbull Library, a member of the Arts Board of Creative New Zealand, a Trustee of the Council for the Humanities and a member of the Arts Board of Creative New Zealand.
Mr. Dong Li, Senior Lecturer, Subject Convenor for Chinese and Programme Co-ordinator for East Asian Studies at Massey University. published by Tuttle Publishing.
Mr. Joey Randall, Co-President of the New Zealand University Students Association.
We would also recommend that all those who make written submissions in this process be allowed to address the committee directly. The AUS would like the opportunity to do so.
2. Academic and Strategic Plan
The Change Proposal claims that the redundancies are an “opportunity to consider the College’s future in terms of academic priorities at a time of financial stringency and [the change process] is designed to ensure a sustainable future for the College of Arts at the University of Canterbury. So, the aim is to make the necessary savings in a context of evolution and development.” However, it does not clearly identify the goals of change and thus fails to establish the process as necessary.
Change may be warranted from time to time, but the process in this case lacks vision and context because the academic goals and priorities of the College have not been expressed, derived through consultation and, finally, been presented in a way that invites staff buy-in.
The Change Proposal case is made:
The Change Proposal implies that an academic or strategic plan exists, but the plan is never articulated. We dispute the assertion that the proposal is being driven by the “context of evolution and development” claimed.
The academic priorities of the College of Arts cannot be identified without input from all staff of the College. However, there has not been a consultation process between staff of the College and the authors of the Change Proposal.
There has been considerable opposition to the plan to make staff redundant that has been expressed by authoritative academic bodies of the University, notably unanimous motions from the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, and from the Faculty of Engineering and Forestry, and serious expressions of opposition from Academic Board.
The Change Proposal seeks to continue a process of disestablishing entire academic programmes, adding Asian History and Islamic Studies to Buddhism. Such a process requires input from the University's academic authorities but this has not been sought.
By failing in its obligation to devise an academic plan for the College, the University may be causing a decline in the reputation and productivity of the College. A successful academic plan would make the University the obvious place for students to come. This makes the University complicit in how the College came to be seen as unsustainable.
It is impossible to come to the conclusion that the redundancies are necessary or even desirable for the evolution and development of the College, both because what evolves and develops is not explained in the Proposal and because the costs of that evolution are not presented in the Proposal.
The academic and strategic goals of the College must be known in advance so that a financial plan can be devised to achieve those goals.
It is not possible to sustain a claim that staffing cuts will contribute constructively to the evolution and development of the College in the absence of an academic plan that identifies what the University wants the College to evolve into.
3. Change Proposal, University Charter and Profile
As the Charter and Profile define the University, change should be linked to the goals and responsibilities of the institution as expressed in these documents.
The rationale for change through redundancies has not been reconciled with the Charter and Profile. Specifically, it appears that the authors of the Change Proposal have failed to address three key questions:
1. are the goals of the Change Proposal consistent with the Charter and Profile?
2. is the Change Proposal likely to achieve goals that are consistent with the Charter and Profile?
3. is the change process itself consistent with the Charter and Profile?
The Profile states a desire to “Attract, retain and develop high quality, motivated and enthusiastic staff at all levels who contribute to fulfilling the research, teaching, curriculum and administrative aspirations of the University.”
and
The Charter aims “To develop effective strategies to recruit and retain high quality staff.”
The environment created through forced redundancies could conflict with Profile aspirations. While change through redundancies might be managed in a way that did promote the Profile’s aspirations, there was no indication in the Change Proposal that this type of management was being practised, if even contemplated.
The University is obliged to consider that its actions might interfere with the stated objective to recruit and retain high quality staff. The Change Proposal should have indicated how this risk was being managed.
The Charter aims: “To strengthen the links between the University and Asia as they are expressed in our staff profile, student body, research and teaching programmes and our engagement with Asian communities in Christchurch and beyond.”
and cites:
“The University’s extensive array of language programmes – Mäori, Arabic, Chinese, Classical Greek, French, German, Japanese, Latin, Russian, Sanskrit, Spanish and elementary Italian – is one of the broadest on offer among New Zealand universities and contributes significantly to cross-cultural understanding within New Zealand.”
The emphasis that the Charter places on the University’s relationships with Asia and Asian communities, and the emphasis it places on the University as a repository of knowledge and expertise in languages, makes it particularly problematic that the University did not even attempt to address the risks associated with redundancies in Asian History, Languages and Religious Studies. The University has obligations to staff, the region and the nation, including a responsibility to maintain a diversity in its teaching and research capacity regardless of the financial vagaries of each organizational unit.
The Charter states “We are convinced that the purposes of the University will be best achieved by a partnership of all staff working together to make a difference in teaching, learning, research, administration and service. We seek to capture this in the notion of ‘parity of esteem within one university.’”
Consultation on a plan to manage the finances of the College of Arts can only be held if all know and understand the academic goals of the College and what is expected of the College by the University.
The University has failed to meet its obligations to adequately consult with staff on the case for financial difficulties and on the case that the best way to address those difficulties is through forced redundancies.
Adequate consultation would have required that the University make available to staff a detailed explanation for how the contribution margins set for the College were arrived at, how the minimum payment by Colleges to the University are arrived at, why some losses are centralized (eg, Canterprise loss of $523,000) while others are not, and why it considers the extremely similar EFTS figures from year to year to be indicative of a negative trend.
The current change process undermines the stated commitment to a partnership of staff and management, and is creating damaging divisions among members of the University community.
The Charter urges“… thatprogramme development takes place in a way that is coordinated with other New Zealand universities.”
The consultation required for establishing courses and programmes implies that an equal level of consultation is required when putting courses and programmes agreed to at risk, as may happen through forced redundancies. This is because the coordination of the tertiary sector is required to ensure that a certain capacity in teaching and research in areas of national strategic interest is not lost. The AUS has seen no evidence that the University properly considered how its actions would affect this coordination among the universities.
4. Humanities
The University of Canterbury has special responsibilities to consider the effects of redundancies on the humanities, because it has a special place among New Zealand Universities in the composite disciplines. The loss of expertise and flow-on effects on the University’s reputation could be very large and not recoverable in the short-term.
The implications of the proposed changes at Canterbury are perhaps more profound than the same changes at most other New Zealand universities because:Canterbury has enjoyed an unusually high respect in the humanities subjects including those that are targeted.
The role of humanities is central in any university. No aspect of knowledge, including the remotest research on the distant galaxies or the structure of atoms, is free of a human context or influence on human society. This context and the influence of research come to be understood through the disciplines that comprise the humanities.
The humanities are also closest to the immediate and rapidly changing events of our daily lives. For example, the recent emergence of the importance of knowledge of Asia in world politics and economy. As such, it is no surprise that there would be small fluctuations in student numbers year to year and subject to subject. The case made for a trend in student numbers, based on the EFTS figures provided in the Change Proposal, reads too much into the data. The University is unwise to make decision of such long-term impact, as redundancies may have, based on the short-term analysis of EFTS provided.
5. Financial case not convincing.
a. The financial model.
The Change Proposal indicates that University managers are confusing indicators of academic with financial health. A financially healthy but academically impoverished university is a nonsense. The financial health of the University is a strategic requirement in order to meet academic goals, but itself is not a goal. By fixating on its finances, the University makes it more difficult for the College to construct an academic plan that also raises revenues.
The University has not established a case for financial stringency, since the University is enjoying a revenue surplus ($9.2 million), over $2 million ahead of projections, and the College produces a gross surplus of over $17 million to the centre.
The AUS has reliable advice that the reported surplus is likely to be an underestimate. A change to accounting practices, which may be less controversial than are currently used by the University, which calculate depreciation only on assets that have lost value, for example, would significantly increase the surplus.
The College of Arts has the largest gross profit/surplus and is the third highest proportional contributor to the central University. Since it is producing a surplus, the perceived deficit arises after application of the contribution margin (39% in 2006 and 41% in 2007).
The University has not made available for scrutiny how the contribution margin is set. It is highly unlikely that the margin is set to an accuracy of 0.2%, to say 38.8% from 39%, a change that would eliminate the budget shortfall in 2006.
The Change Proposal fails to detail the effect of PBRF on revenue and how the targeted redundancies would affect PBRF standing.
The Change Proposal fails to take account of the loss to the University of having invested in expensive and extensive library collections that, without associated academic staff and programmes, will lose their value.
The Change Proposal has not established that the net change in personnel costs will produce a net positive change in University revenue. While resignations reduce staff costs, they do not increase revenue. In fact, they will likely lower revenue because forced and unintended resignations in the short-term will result in a lower overall capacity for teaching and research. Illustrated with budget 2006 numbers, a revenue of $41,769,000 and margin of 41% would be required to produce the same contribution to the University as the expected revenue of $43,911,000 and a margin of 39%. In other words, a 5% decrease in revenue would neutralize the gains of a 2% increase in the contribution margin. A detailed financial plan that illustrates the expected loss of revenue from decreased EFTS and PBRF income in a smaller College of Arts is necessary to justify the redundancies.
There is a strong argument to reconsider the timeframe of the Proposal. The case for urgency is weak. The Government is sending strong signals that it is about to make changes to tertiary funding. Unlike other times of change, the Government is indicating that the changes will increase funding stability over longer time periods. This direction is at odds with the Change Proposal, which is based on short-term trends.
b. Human and academic costs not adequately considered.
By fixating on a limited financial model (provided by the contribution margin), the University may not be recognizing all the relevant costs of its actions and not making appropriate comparisons when rejecting alternative choices (including the choice to not pursue change through wholesale forced redundancies). In ignoring these direct and indirect costs of change through wholesale redundancies, the University achieves a false economy.
The AUS believes, and is informed by the experience of those who have weathered redundancy exercises in other academic institutions within New Zealand, that the immediate and long-term effects of redundancies has not been engaged by the University; at least the engagement is not apparent in the analysis provided in the Change Proposal. The AUS is concerned that the process, which is being conducted in the absence of any clear academic rationale for the College, is or may cause a damaging spiral effect on staff and students.
The perception by students that the College of Arts is a failure is likely to curb enthusiasm of current and potential students from pursuing their degrees at Canterbury. That perception is being driven by a management who portray the College as inefficient, unpopular and unsustainable; the reasons for such characterization being to justify the redundancies in the short-term. The long term harm may be that students and potential academic recruits come to accept this characterization as well. The perceptions of students and the depth of their feelings with regard to these cuts can be clearly seen by the level of activity and demonstrable support (petitions and rallies) of student groups such as Save Our Staff. We believe that senior management is underestimating the impact of the change process on generating negative student perceptions.
This effect is not limited to the Arts students. All students want to know that their chosen university is academically strong and respected.
Moreover, even transient disruptions to departments can have long lasting effects on the curriculum and student perceptions. Replacement staff joining an unhappy department, or starting up a new programme, or reviving a decimated programme, have a much greater challenge. That challenge takes its toll by increasing the chance of dissatisfaction, low productivity and turnover.
The process is causing an avoidable and undue level of stress because it is being conducted in a way that the critical thinking and analytical academic community can find no clear logic in (in the absence of an academic plan). The stress is expected to further demoralize staff and erode morale.
The flow-on effects of plummeting morale will be to make it more difficult to recruit replacement staff and retain highly productive staff.
Thus, the current process may be particularly qualified to undermine the expressed goal of making the College sustainable.
6. Alternative Proposals.
Attrition coupled to performance management would be a better way to effect change.
The Attrition Model
To protect the University’s responsibility as an employer of staff who act as critic and conscience of society, positions should be made redundant only after stringent planning and then supported until vacated by retirement, death, serious misconduct, failure to perform or voluntary resignation. Redundancies should not be used to correct hiring decisions made without proper planning.
We are conscious of the argued short-comings of the attrition model, specifically that attrition is not targeted to under-performing staff or areas, and that it is too slow and is “difficult” to get right.
In reply, we would argue that, if under-performing staff were also in under-performing areas, attrition allows change to be effected without causing increased stress and workloads for performing staff. Moreover, we note that active performance management can replace under-performing staff with more productive staff. Thus, the University gains even if it still carries the same number of staff salaries, and workloads are distributed more fairly among motivated employees. Finally, it is the responsibility of management to manage, regardless of how difficult it may be to do performance management correctly.
Past failures of management to actively manage performance is a cost that should not be borne by the College, and certainly not by individual members of academic staff. There is enough time and enough money to allow an attrition model to be imposed and work. In any case, the Change Proposal provides no evidence to the contrary.
We note that the managers of neither the College of Arts or the University as a whole have never approached the AUS to discuss performance management. We are also aware that performance management matters have been raised with College of Arts management by at least one Head of School and met with an unsatisfactory response.
7. Conclusion.
The University is in danger of forgetting that its principal asset is people. The Charter, in fact, defines the University only in terms of people. “The University of Canterbury comprises its staff, students, graduates and alumni” (Charter). The ways in which the Change Proposal has been framed provide insufficient justification for redundancies, and it probably has underestimated the human, academic and ultimately, productivity costs of its proposed mechanism of change. Long-term costs of this mechanism likely outweigh short-term benefits to the College and University. External (new directions in Government funding policy) and internal (change in the minimum annual contribution in the contribution margin model) changes or relevance to the College’s financial position are compelling developments that warrant a respite in the University timeline to effect change.
The affected academic community would likely provide alternative strategies for Change, but they are limited by an arbitrary timeframe for consultation (one month during a major national holiday), access to the necessary data, and by a planning vacuum because there is no College academic plan. The University has failed in its Charter obligation to create an environment of parity esteem and dialogue with staff and thus should reconsider how it manages this consultation.
The over-riding weakness of the Change Proposal is that it does not articulate academic or strategic reasons for redundancies.
What makes it all the more disappointing is that management has spurned early and repeated AUS offers of cooperation by our members in developing a change proposal for the College of Arts. In making this offer, we have not insisted on a position of no forced redundancies. We accept that institutional change is normal and warranted to enhance the mission of the university and the effectiveness and careers of our members. Our only condition was that the unnecessarily short time frame for achieving the change be relaxed in order to allow the space for the development of a change proposal that is consistent with the Charter and Profile.
The AUS offer of cooperation remains. We hope and trust that this submission, along with others from within the University of Canterbury and the wider community to whom the university also has obligations, will lead to the suspension of the current process and the launching an alternative, superior process that gives genuine effect to the Charter and Profile.
May Update 1: National’s "get-the-sack-in-90 days" Bill
A fact sheet from the PSA.
A member’s bill from National Party MP Wayne Mapp introducing a 90 day probationary period of employment for new workers has passed its first reading in Parliament. It gained the support of National, Act, NZ First, United and three Maori Party MPs. Labour and the Greens voted against it and attacked the Bill as undermining the rights of workers to fair treatment at work.
The Bill has gone to the Transport and Industrial Relations Select Committee where unions will be making submissions about what an unfair piece of legislation it is and calling on MPs to stop it going any further.
What would the Bill mean for New Zealanders if it became law?
Who will be affected if this Bill becomes law?
What is the experience in Australia?
What ability do employers currently have to use probationary periods?
Why are Wayne Mapp and the National Party promoting this Bill?
What are unions doing about this Bill?
What you can do to stop this unfair bill
Check the Branch weblog for notices about upcoming events and activities relating to the campaign against the Bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)