Notes for CoA submssion member meeting on 21 Feb

Meeting of AUS Members re College of Arts Change Proposals
21 February 2008

Below are brief notes from the meeting. They are posted here to inspire members with ideas for their own submissions. Andy Pratt suggested that members in different colleges coordinate submissions of the “like-minded” within their own colleges. Please consider being such a coordinator.


Hot Topics

The Never Ending Cycle of Restructuring – which group next time?
Who is measuring the performance of SMT? How are they measuring it?
What is the justification for axing these departments?
What are the criteria for ‘core’? Is it management’s right to decide what is core?
How and who is measuring research prowess?
Once a decision is made to axe a department – how should it happen/process
Absence of a business plan in the change proposals
Discrepancies between the $$ to be saved and the number of positions to cut
Misuse of contribution margin as policy instrument
Contribution margin affects employment but there is no way to influence it
Student/staff ratios as criteria for justification of cuts has not been discussed/ratified – nor has the ratio of one academic for 10 general staff
Minimum class sizes & student staff ratios – effect of these for all university
Lack of time for consultation – in effect 6 weeks for a department review
Implementation already being enacted – farce of consultation
Why are redeployed general staff being subject to additiona ‘Testing’?
Solutions or alternatives to staff cuts to put forward


Discussion Points around Hot Topics for Submission

Not way to ensure we function as a university – supported in research literature
Link to sustainability paper that was done
Is there an underlying grand plan? Can we expose this?

No process for evaluating managers; what are performance criteria; how are they evaluated
Collect public statements of VC, ProVC et al
Perception that staff other than managers subjected to more scrutiny
Shifting criteria – do ok in one area then told another is focus


What is the vision, plan, direction? Seems absent. Change could be accepted if seen as part of bigger plan for developing university

Should be dialogue re contribution margins

Why testing for general staff? why not talk to managers, peers etc.

What is the role of University Council?

Should College of Arts office come under scrutiny as well – for fairness, consistency?

In taking out American Studies TaFS – this is not taking out the ‘peripheral’ of Arts.

No clear justification for the departments to go – Press article ‘not core’ ‘low research output’ – illegal to make people redundant on basis of research prowess/performance -= other appropriate procedures to address performance

If criterion of ‘teaching quality’ were used, these people would NOT be made redundant – what about criterion of community service?

******* What are the real effects of the ‘College’ structure, pro VC etc especially in the College of Arts (This point to form part of legal argument?)

‘core’ is dangerous – any academic functioning as critic and conscience of society may be considered “not core”

No criteria, no numbers can be used to justify closing a department entirely.

What about the student breadth of choice?

Need to respond more slowly, take a longer term view – some departments had the ‘required’ SSR just a couple of years back - no need to make sudden changes/knee jerk reaction

If you really do have to cut – then how do you do it – what is good practice – won’t maintain high quality of university if you make people redundant

Possibility of cross-subsidisation to support people who wish to remain even if their department closes; allow for integration of courses into other departments

Positions to be cut do not equal the dollars supposedly needed; discrepancies in the figures $$ to be saved esp re TaFS – different figure each day

If TaFS closes, students go elsewhere – no analysis of this loss

Need to point out inconsistencies in change proposal – different positions in different parts of document

Proposal will not solve $$ burden of $$ must be addressed in another way

$6M surplus needs to be used now [note that as last Council meeting, the projected surplus is $12 million]

Cross-subsidisation occurs in all sorts of ways

Lack of intellectual credibility of proposal

Lack of confidence in financial model



-----------------------------------
Some questions raised and answered -

How has number of staff only decreased by 3 over period despite all previous cuts (Answer given that new positions been appointed over period)

Question re Investment plan – answered – submitted Profile

[point raised about lack of analysis of costs of computer, not put to same sort of scrutiny as College of Arts – response re problems with this type of comparison]

-----------------------------------



Suzanne McNabb