AUS makes formal challenge to college of arts restructuring

Dear Members

The AUS has formally requested that the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Roy Sharp, withdraw the College of Arts Change Proposal.

The AUS has taken legal advice which has concluded that a “Vice-Chancellor does not have plenary authority over academic matters at a University. The decisions in relation to such matters are matters for the University’s Academic Board, not for the Vice-Chancellor.” In other words, the VC may be the Chief Executive, but he is not the chief academic. This role is reserved for no individual, but for a properly constituted Academic Board.

It is our view that only the Council, after proper consultation with the Academic Board, can consider a change proposal that would disestablish academic programmes. According to the Education Act: “the University cannot establish, abolish, combine or sub-divide departments, centres, institutes, units, or other academic entities within the University unless the Council has requested the advice of the Academic Board, and considered any advice given by the Academic Board.” In presenting a proposal to axe two academic programmes and gut another, but not having received direction from a Council that has properly consulted with the Academic Board as to whether such programmes could be abolished, the AUS believes that the Vice-Chancellor has overstepped his statutory authority.

In so doing, the Vice-Chancellor has authorized activities that we allege are in conflict with our employment rights and would result in the unlawful removal of individuals from their positions.

The AUS is committed to defending this position if necessary. We hope, however, that the Vice-Chancellor will take time to reflect on the advice our members, both individually and as respected servants on formal University committees, have freely offered. We invite him to reconsider not just what the process is meant to achieve, but whether it can achieve what is best for the University and the public that it serves.

At this time, it is also important for us to work collectively and calmly for a resolution to these recurrent crises in governance. The staff at the University of Canterbury are advocates of change where there are agreed reasons and towards a commonly held vision to better the University’s ability to serve its primary mission of teaching, research and community service. The pace of change for executive expedience may possibly have been necessary during the budget deficits of years ago, but in the face of a projected $12 million surplus this year, it no longer is and the rationale for it is not clear.

The AUS is also cognizant that some members may wish to see a speedy conclusion of the consultation period and may desire the certainty of an implementation plan, however contrary such a plan may be to their desire to remain at the University. We will steadfastly support those members in their negotiations with the employer on the members’ individual timelines. Additionally, it is important to realise that the AUS did not create this allegedly illegal change process or generate this uncertainty for members.

The Branch also asks all members, directly affected or not by this action, to demonstrate their support for their colleagues. Continue to talk to each other. The 'College silo' does not extend its boundaries into cafés or across phone lines. Make your thoughts known on the members’ discussion lists and the blog (http://aus-canterbury.blogspot.com/). We are one University which must retain the CORE capacity to generate a ‘universe of ideas’. Fuzzy words such as “core” are based on no defined criteria by those without proper standing to make such judgments separately from the Academic Board. This language achieves only more marginalisation of staff, and alienation of staff and management.

It is abhorrent to consider that in the 21st Century the AUS may again have to establish the legal rights of the staff of the University of Canterbury through the courts. Council should be concerned that management has repeatedly lost such challenges. We believe that it should be the urgent business of the Council to openly debate the boundary between governance and management, and to openly discuss how it measures the performance of its managers.

Tomorrow (Friday 29 February) a delegation from the Union will meet with local MPs Tim Barnett, Lianne Dalziel and Ruth Dyson and discuss the issues leading to the situation in the College of Arts.

our Rights our Union our Voice

Jack Heinemann
Branch President