Branch President’s Report, AUS Canterbury Branch AGM, 25 October 2007

Colleagues,

2007 was the “almost year”. This year we almost achieved our wage targets for academics and general staff through the Tripartite process. We almost completed an amalgamation between AUS, ASTE and TIASA. We almost joined hands with the Senior Management Team (SMT) in a Department of Labour-facilitated project under the Partnership Resource Centre programme.


The almost year comes after a decade of declining wages in real terms, and eroding working conditions. All in all, the ‘almost year’ has been a good year for the Association. And on the local level, we have progressed in some areas and not in others.

In some ways, 2007 was not so different from 2006. Unfortunately, we still seem to be struggling with SMT’s contribution margin mechanism for distributing resources around the University. For some, it appears to be a way to concentrate wealth into a surplus which may be spent without much consultation with the university community. As the margin shifts from year to year, new and different units come under financial stress.

The College of Arts seems to have lost that lottery two years in a row and its financial viability was again threatened in 2007. But unlike the Campaign in 2006, this time we were working with a new Governance Group composed of many staff from our ranks, and infused with a desire to consult. The College of Arts was joined by the College of Science in calling for a need to trim its budget and signaling possible redundancies. Members in that College accepted a rationale for review, but considered the most important element of that review to be decisions made at the very top of the management structure. So far, that consultation process has not gone quite as well. In the next few months, members will have to keep a close eye on the College of Science Review.

A legacy of the 2006 College of Arts Campaign was a stronger working relationship between the AUS and the students. We protested side-by-side on the library steps in 2006. The Branch executive has been meeting regularly this year with UCSA president Belinda Bundy. Together, we are breaking the old management tactic of pitting student against staff, with any proposed increase in student fees being blamed on staff demands for fair wages, and any decrease in student fees used to threaten staff with redundancies. UCSA and AUS are forming very similar views on the draft IP policy, too. It has been a joy to work with Belinda and the Branch looks forward to working closely with the next student administration.

The legacy is also a lesson for us as a community of staff. We must continue to work across arbitrary college and unit boundaries. The cost of poor management in one section of the university will be paid by all of us. Do not yield to the divisions that isolate and weaken us as a collective force.

At management’s initiative, the Branch entered into 3-way negotiations to participate in a Department of Labour Partnership Resource Centre programme designed to create a space for unions and management to work toward a common goal, learning more about working together. Hopefully, the project would help us to learn how to avoid any unnecessarily destructive behaviour in our interactions. Talks have been ongoing for about a year. We agreed to work together on staff professional development issues. But only days from the launch of the project, Senior Management withdrew, at least for now. The Department of Labour has not given up on the project, and neither has the Branch, so we have again stated to SMT our willingness to enter the project, provided that they understand we enter as equals.

The year is far from over. We have before us for discussion the draft policies on intellectual property and study leave. Perennial issues dog us, such as the effect of the banding system on general staff.

Following this meeting, there is a staff forum on IP. I encourage you to attend. You will know from the series of meetings, emails and papers on the blog that IP is an issue that affects each and every one of us. Intellectual property can arise from innovation in any work assignment, so this policy has implications for both general and academic staff. It also has profound implications for students.

The AUS position on the draft IP policy is now very clear.

• We believe that staff and students with entrepreneurial interests should have the option to transfer their IP rights to others, including the University, but on terms that are negotiated.
• We believe that anyone who profits through exploitation of IP developed through a contribution from the public purse should be obligated to return a fair proportion of the profits back to the public, via the University in this case.
• All staff and students, whether entrepreneurial or not in their goals, should also have the option to not transfer their rights to anyone. To not have this final option is to remove a fundamental entitlement of academic freedom, and to undermine the effectiveness of the academic as critic and conscience of society. Thus, this policy in our view and the view of our legal team, is contrary to the principles of the Education Act 1989.

Allied with the students, we should be able to move SMT’s position on IP to one that is both fair to inventors and far more effective at achieving financial rewards that might flow from IP. This position would continue to recognise and properly prioritise the public mission of teaching and research above all else while also facilitating select commercial objectives.

While the issues I’ve been recounting involve our employer, some changes to our community are also from within. Nationally, our AUS colleagues have stated a strong preference for amalgamating with our colleagues represented by the unions ASTE and TIASA. ASTE has also made this decision but TIASA voted against amalgamation. Your Conference next month will chart a course for how we proceed from this result. Conference delegates will be looking for your guidance on this issue. We will be holding a meeting on 15 November for members to discuss Conference amongst other issues.

Before I conclude, I’d like to make a few personal comments and observations.

First, I would like to thank all of those who have contributed in so many ways to the work of the AUS at Canterbury over the last year.

I’d like in particular to thank those who have served on the branch committee and are now stepping back: Angela Davies, Jo Diamond, Philip Ferguson, and Karen Morgan.

I thank all those who have agreed to join or continue their involvement in the branch committee.

I’d also like to thank AUS staff who have made our life at the local level so much better – Carol Grant, Marty Braithwaite and especially our organiser Matthew Fitzsimons. This has been a busy year with a constant stream of reviews and, in addition to the usual number of personal cases the organiser works on, many more cases of negotiating severances. We are lucky to have someone of Matthew’s experience, and someone who is such a talented strategist. Matthew has also made tremendous contributions to recruitment both personally and by facilitating the engagement of Kevin Aitken, who has been traveling from branch to branch to meet with potential members. I could not hope for a better organiser and, as Matthew will tell you, I am very much in need of organization. Thank you, Matthew, for work well beyond expectation and at considerable personal sacrifice.

We have all lost valued members of our collective over the year. Regardless of the causes, each and every one was valued and is missed. We wish you all the best in your lives beyond the university, and in some cases, beyond this earth.

Second, I want to say how proud I am to have served this year as the Branch President. The Canterbury campus is the most densely organized branch in the AUS. We are union people and we prove that the union is compatible with the greater interests of society that we serve.

But we have something else. From our ranks we have produced yet another National President – Maureen Montgomery. Also joining the national executive will be Helen Kissell as Library Vice President. Both of these women are dedicated over-achievers and I thank them both for choosing to donate their talents and time to the collective. Please join me in congratulating Maureen Montgomery and Helen Kissell. These two and others not mentioned demonstrate our depth and maturity as a Branch of the AUS.

For my part, I will help our new co-presidents to transit into their roles. I’ll serve out my term through April, and then Aditya Malik and Emma de Lacey will lead the Branch further and faster than I ever could.

Finally, I would like to mention a person who has been a mentor to me, a rock during my time as president, and a steadfast friend of the AUS. When I took up the call late last year, I was hesitant. I wasn’t ready. It wasn’t the right time to take on the job. All the normal insecurities and excuses. Generously, immediate past president David Small agreed to share the transition to make it easier for me. Our co-presidency was a split term, with me in training till April and taking the reigns from then. This generous spirit characterized David’s history as president. He shared the position with Tanya Grant before continuing in the role as president for two more years. He lead the Branch through some of its most tumultuous times: the industrial action of 2005; the College of Arts Campaign and College of Education merger in 2006; over 20 restructuring proposals in 2006; and the contentious amalgamation with ASTE that also began last year.

As you know, David was also a candidate for national president. Both David and Maureen showed us through their campaigns how deeply committed they both are to AUS and their colleagues, how passionate they are to serve. One of the things I hate about this process, though, is that those who do not pick up the national office they seek are lost for the national executive altogether. David vacated his seat as Academic Vice President to run for President. But it would be a tragedy for us to lose David’s energy, brash independence and fortitude on the national level for long. David, I hope that you will have a well deserved rest from the spotlight, but this is not the time to consider retirement! The vote was large and vindicating for both candidates. What you have proved is just how much talent we have at this Branch. You still have much you can achieve through your leadership of AUS in positions still to come. Please join me in thanking David Small.

This has been a good year, not an almost good year. Let’s celebrate what we have achieved together. Remind your colleagues that the collective functions best through unity and participation, so encourage them to come to meetings and be active. Thank you for the support you have shown my office and the Branch, and the very best to you over the summer.

Jack Heinemann