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

Read More...

Summary only...

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

Read More...

Summary only...

AUS Job Evaluation Survey Report

Summary

Job evaluation (JE) became formalised into the general staff employment agreement in 2001. This survey is the first attempt to monitor and assess its effectiveness since an audit in 2003. The survey was robust with a return representing 22% of AUS General Staff members. The key findings were:

• Position descriptions are not considered to be accurate by a substantial proportion of staff;
• The position description has become a barrier to staff applying for re-evaluation.
• Managers play a key role in how staff view the JE process and outcome.
• The JE Committee is not well known among staff.
• The process is perceived as being too slow.
• The process is perceived as being based on ambiguous criteria which makes it difficult for staff to understand banding decisions.
• Some staff are either unaware or ill-informed about JE.

To improve the JE, AUS recommends that:

• The position description should no-longer be required as an information source for re-evaluations.
• Staff should be better and more uniformly informed about how to apply for re-evaluation.
• A joint AUS-Management working party on position descriptions should be convened to consider the role and content of position descriptions in the future.
• Managers should be trained to a higher uniform standard to prevent inconsistencies in staff experience with the JE process.
• The JE Committee needs to be better promoted and its role better advertised to staff. The composition of the Committee should inspire confidence in its function.
• The JE process should include the required response times for each step.
• A working party should be convened to update band descriptors and set standards of feedback to staff.

Introduction

Job evaluation (JE) is a method for determining which salary band a position falls within. JE became practice at the University in 2001 after AUS members agreed to include it in the General Staff Collective Agreement. Since the initial introductory phase, job evaluation has continued to be used to evaluate new positions and re-evaluate existing positions, when required, to assess whether they are in the correct band.

The focus of this survey is the continuing application of job evaluation since the introductory phase in 2001. In particular AUS was interested in knowing how the process has been applied throughout the university and whether there were differences in its application between service units or occupational groups.

When analysing the results, we have highlighted aspects of the process which could be enhanced to improve the experience for our members.

Results

Survey forms (see appendix A) were sent to all 472 general staff members of the AUS. A total of 103 responses were received, representing 22% of the general staff AUS membership.

Demographic data was collected from respondents, in order to identify trends in particular occupational groups or college/service units. The breakdown of responses into these groups was as follows:

College/Service Unit	Number of Respondents
Arts	8
Engineering	13
Science	22
Other Colleges	3
ICTS	5
Library	25
SRDU	5
Student Admin	5
UC Opportunity	5
UCTL	5
Other Service Units	7

General Staff Occupational Group	Number of Respondents
Admin	28
IT	8
Library	26
Technician	28
Other	13

The response rate was such that it was not always possible to draw conclusions with high statistical certainty. However, clear themes did emerge as the survey responses were considered a whole and the survey was adequate to identify real trends.

Comments which were representative of the responses to each questions, or to issues raised by the questions are reproduced here. Some comments have been edited to remove identifying information; it has been indicated where this has occurred.

How accurately do you believe your current position description describes your current role?



50% of respondents reported that their position description (PD) was somewhat inaccurate, giving estimates of accuracy in the 20-80% range. A further 1% reported that their PD was less than 20% accurate. The remaining 49% reported their PD as being greater than 80% accurate.

Of those who reported that their PD was inaccurate the main reasons given for the discrepancy were that there were aspects of the role which they were performing which were not recorded in their current PD or that their PD had not been updated as their role changed over time.

“I didn’t have the opportunity to write it myself. Includes duties I don’t do. Doesn’t describe as clearly as I would like, what I do do.”

“Still contains accountabilities which I am not responsible for, and doesn’t highlight all those responsibilities I have.”

“My job has evolved and changed due to dept. procedure changes and responsibility levels”

Some respondents also commented on the time it took to have their PD’s updated.

“In process of getting a new PD created, this has taken over 3 years.”

“Been in the same position for more than [several] years but only got the 90% accurate position description a year ago.”

There were also some remarks about PD’s not being specific enough.

“Position descriptions recently changed to be very basic and generic. Could be said to describe anything.”

“It is so generic it would cover any [job title] person.”

Were you aware that the university has procedures for re-evaluating jobs to see if they are correctly banded?



Overall, 18% of respondents were unaware that the JE process existed.

The results indicate that the JE process is not equally well understood or implemented in all parts of the University. Library staff would appear to be more aware about JE than other staff and staff from the other service units and within the College of Engineering, seem to have the lowest levels of awareness. Results from the Colleges of Business, Education and Law have been excluded from this graph as the level of response was too low to draw significant conclusions.

Who might you/have you approached to obtain information about the job re-evaluation process? (respondents were asked to rank sources of information in the order they would approach them)



Just over 50% of respondents would approach their manager in the first instance when seeking information about JE. The HR website was the most favoured second source of information.

If you sought information were you able to find the information that you needed?

Of the 41 respondents who had sought information, 23% reported that they couldn’t find what they needed.

How could the information available to you be improved?

The two main ways which respondents felt the information could be improved were that JE should be more actively promoted and that there should be more information available on the process.

“Simplified. More on web site. Better idea of what really happens.”

“HR could make the option to be re-banded more widely available. (Have just looked at HR site-very easy to understand).”

“It should be pushed and made available from my manager. And time made available with support to do it correctly”

“Clear list of conditions to be met for re-banding and list of steps to take to apply. Should be independent of the manager supervisor.”

Have you ever sought to have your job re-evaluated? If not, please give reasons.

Of the 68 respondents who indicated they had not sought re-evaluation, 51% believed that either their current banding was correct, or that they had not been in the role long enough either to apply, or judge whether they should apply for re-evaluation.

Of those who didn’t apply for reasons other than those above, the largest reason cited (25%) as the barrier to them applying was lack of management support.

“I have never felt that I would get any support to do this. The feeling I get is that I would be stepping out of line.”

“My job description was changed last year […] and it was made clear that it was not a good time to make a fuss.”

If [you have sought re-evaluation] was the outcome satisfactory from your point of view?

Of the 28 members who responded that they had applied for re-evaluation 57% were satisfied with the outcome. A number did comment however on the time which it took to reach this outcome.

“It was re-evaluated and re-banded to a higher band but the process took too long!!! I’ve waited almost a year[…]”

“It took several years to have it re-evaluated to Band 2 from Band 1 when everyone else doing a similar job was already on Band 2.”

“It took almost a year to sort it out!! Far too long. Manager dragged the chain.”

The main reason stated for dissatisfaction with the outcome was the assertion that staff in similar roles were banded more favourably.

If [you have sought re-evaluation] was the process satisfactory from your point of view?

Of the 25 responses to this question, 56% reported that the process was not satisfactory. The main reasons given were a lack of management support, that it took too long to get a result (see above comments), that there was no explanation of the outcome and that the application process was difficult and time-consuming.

“Reluctant manager. Had to keep chasing up”

“Seemed resented by management. Had to insist.”

“A general lack of understanding by all parties.”

“For the amount of work me, my colleagues and managers went to to put it together-there was a one-line response with no justification whatsoever. This process surprised and disappointed everyone.”

“I was in the fortunate position that my manager was 100% behind me and the process was organised by him. The outcome might have been different if my manager was not in favour of re-evaluation.”

How could the process be improved?

The main area for improvement identified was the amount information available throughout the process.

“More information about job evaluation, plus sample of job descriptions of different band.”

“Keep informed of process.”

“More transparency, objectivity, direct involvement of the staff member.”

“My experience is fine however in general more input from staff and managers. HR has little/no practical experience of positions.”

Have you ever been told you are not eligible to apply for re-evaluation?

Of the 78 members who responded to this question, 17% had been advised they were not eligible to apply. However, 27% of library staff members who responded had been advised they were not eligible. This may suggest that library staff have been discouraged from applying in greater numbers than other occupational groups.

Respondents’ comments indicated that where staff had been advised they could not apply it has been by their supervisors/managers, not HR.

What do you think your manager or supervisor’s role is/was in the job evaluation process?
What do you think your role, as a manager/supervisor, is in the job evaluation process?



Both staff and managers identified the main role of managers in the process to be that of providing information and support to staff.

(For managers/supervisors) Have you ever received training in the job evaluation process?
If yes, do you think the training was adequate?
How could the training be improved?

Only four of the 17 respondents who identified themselves as managers or supervisors had received training in JE. Those who had received training felt that it was adequate, with one exception. Perhaps because so few had received training, there were only two responses to the question on how to improve training. One respondent commented that their training had not been recent and the other remarked:

“Some training of some sort for a start would be very useful! A general overview of the process, steps to follow would be good. When/how/under what circumstances etc.”

Have you ever needed further support from HR for the job evaluation process?
If yes, was adequate support available?

Only three managers who responded to this had required further support and all confirmed that the support received was adequate.

Further comments

Further comments received on the JE process can be broken down as follows:

Comment	Number of respondents
Don't trust JE system/no transparency	12
No career path/can't progress past top of band	8
Dependence on management support	7
Outcomes seem unfair/inexplicable	5
Experience/qualifications not recognised	5
Evaluators don't understand specifics of jobs	4
Problems with width/placement of bands	4
Problems with position descriptions	4
Other negative comments	16
Positive comments	3

Specific comments included:

“When my position did go through the job evaluation process, I was not involved in the process. Thus I don’t think the position description which resulted was very accurate.”

“Membership of the panel-crucial that the panel has the understanding, expertise and experience to know what band staff should be in.”

“In my experience it has been totally demeaning, unsatisfactory and badly managed by library management. It has resulted in lowering staff morale, and unfair inaccurate job descriptions and remuneration in more than one case. Please help fix this situation.”

“Although I have done well out of the job evaluation process I am still against it as it has placed us all into capped boxes with very little incentive to develop our careers.’

“I am not sure how transparent the points counting process for (re)evaluation is. Some types of position seem to get a higher “value” than others e.g. HR admin positions seem to be at a higher banding that other admin positions. Yes they deal with “people” and that is “important to get right” but so do the rest of us and “financial” and “academic” accuracy is just as important. I understand too that the size of budget for the dept. is a consideration. Money is more important than academic/student functions??”

“I think the job evaluation process is so cumbersome it puts people off going through it[…]”

“After receiving this survey I was prompted to go to HR’s website and see what was there. Didn’t realise some of this info was available-more than I expected. I suspect a lot of staff aren’t aware/have forgotten about the possibility of JE, periodic reminders/publicity of the possibility would be good. I also get the feeling that job re-evaluation tends to be discouraged-although no one has come out and SAID that, but you do hear of cases where people are told things like “you might drop a band” or “they’re a lot tougher these days” which is off putting. Whether this is actually true or not is another matter.”

“Personalities are involved and if management do not support an employee then there is little chance of your position being re-banded […]”

“It just needs to be specific”

Summary and recommendations

Position descriptions

The results of this survey suggest that a large number of general staff in the university do not currently have a position description which is more than 80% accurate. Comments throughout the survey also suggest that it can be difficult and time-consuming to get an accurate position description or one which is not generic. Given that a position description is one of the information sources which are used for evaluating and re-evaluating positions this is of concern.

It is also worth noting that aside from job evaluation, inaccurate position descriptions can also have an impact on performance management and salary reviews.


AUS makes the following recommendations concerning position descriptions and their role in the job evaluation process:

1. The position description should no longer be required as an information source for re-evaluations, although they can still be provided as additional information if desired by the applicant. In fact, a position description was not a requirement in the original JE process which AUS agreed to. A position description questionnaire filled in and verified by their manager provides sufficient information to re-evaluate a role. Maintaining the position description as a requirement has become a barrier to staff applying for re-evaluation.
2. Staff should be better and more uniformly informed about how to apply for re-evaluation. As a start, they should be advised during induction that they are able to apply for re-evaluation after the first six months in a role. Currently this is not widely known. This is particularly important in the case of newly created positions which have only been evaluated against a position description which may prove to be inaccurate after some time spent in the role.
AUS suggests a joint working party on position descriptions be convened between university management and the AUS to consider the role and content of position descriptions in the future.

The role of managers in the JE process.

Managers were identified as the first choice for source of information on JE by staff. Yet, when asked only four out of 17 managers who responded had received training. Where training had been received, however, it was adequate.

Respondents also identified that support or lack thereof from their manager was vital in whether both the outcome and process were satisfactory to them.

Interestingly, both managers and staff who responded cited providing support and information to the staff member as the primary role of the manager in the process.

These facts make the lack of training of managers an issue of considerable concern to AUS.

AUS makes the following recommendations concerning the role of managers in the information process:

4. Training in the job evaluation process (not method) should be mandatory for all supervisors and managers. Refresher training should also be required on a regular basis.
5. Information and training from HR in the JE process needs to make it clear to managers and staff that only the job evaluation committee can determine whether positions are eligible for re-banding. Staff will need managers to verify what they have recorded in their application for re-evaluation but they do not require their permission to apply.
6. HR needs to create an effective monitoring process to ensure that managers are providing a uniform experience across the campus.

The role of the Job Evaluation Committee in the JR process.

Although the survey did not ask respondents if they were aware of the role of the Job Evaluation Committee, some responses suggest there may be confusion or concern about the role of the Committee. Some respondents clearly identified job evaluation as an HR process and did not seem aware of the existence of the Committee. Other respondents were aware of the Committee but were concerned about its composition and how this may affect results.

AUS makes the following recommendations concerning the role of the Job Evaluation Committee:

7. Information and training from HR in the JE process should include a description of the role of the JE Committee as the evaluators of all new positions and re-evaluations.
8. The composition and resourcing of the committee should be such that it ensures appropriate occupational representation amongst the evaluators when a position is being evaluated. Information on the occupational composition of the JE committee should be available to staff.

The speed of the JE process.

Many of those surveyed commented on how slow the process was.

Hopefully, recent changes to the administration of the job evaluation process will have improved this situation but there are still aspects of the process which warrant attention.

AUS makes the following recommendations concerning the speed of the JE process:

9. As per Recommendation 1 above, providing position descriptions should no longer be a requirement when applying for job evaluation.
10. The JE process should include the required response times for each step of the process. This must include maximum limits on the time to be spent by managers verifying the information to be supplied for evaluation and then forwarding it to the job evaluation committee.

Information and communication.

A number of issues were raised and suggestions made with regard to information and communication as it relates to job evaluation.

Respondents have commented that they would like more information on: what criteria need to be met to advance to a higher band through job evaluation; progress reports throughout the process, especially where there is a holdup; and why an application has been unsuccessful.

AUS makes the following recommendations concerning information and communication:

11. A joint AUS-University Management working party to be convened to update the now outdated band descriptors. The working party should also have input from Strategic Pay and the current Job Evaluation Committee members. Having relevant and current band descriptors may also make it easier to explain why an application for re-evaluation has been unsuccessful.
12. Progress reports must be provided to applicants if there is a hold-up in the JE process.
13. As per Recommendation 2 above, staff should be advised during the induction process about JE.

Conclusion

Job evaluation was introduced as a joint Union-University initiative and now forms part of the conditions guaranteed by our collective agreement. On-going co-operation between university management and AUS is vital for job evaluation to be a success and to continue to be acceptable to our members.

The results of this survey show that while there are many aspects of JE that work well, there are still important elements of the process which require urgent attention. Of particular concern is the fact that so many respondents viewed the system with distrust and considered it lacking in transparency. The above recommendations put forward by AUS, on the basis of feedback from our members, will help ensure a more robust JE process, with more staff buy-in.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to all AUS members who participated in the survey and particular thanks to those who helped in the construction of the questionnaire and analysis of the survey results. It is this kind of member participation which enables AUS to best represent its members concerns to university management.

---

For a printable copy of this report, or of the survey form included as Appendix A, please contact AUS Canterbury Branch.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Contribution Model: undermining governance through accounting

AUS understands that the contribution margin (CM) model of internal finance accounting and resource distribution as one of many possible methods for distributing income between different units of the University. Up to set targets, the surplus generated by some units is spent at the direction of the Centre on both vital services and new investments. Beyond those targets, income-generating units may use their surplus to achieve their own goals. Any method of resource distribution may cause perceived injustices between groups, and in that respect the CM model is not unique. However, we are concerned that the CM model is particularly prone to abuse by those who surreptitiously use it to effect de facto policies. We believe that the CM is used to effect ideologically-driven policies without stating those policies explicitly and thus allowing either Council or the Academic Board to properly consult.

CM targets are part practical, part ideological but without proper review
The CM thresholds are set by a formula which has never been subject to external scrutiny. The fact that these margins vary from year to year, sometimes within years, even for the same accounting unit indicates that the CM is fluid. Its secrecy and apparent arbitrariness lends it to being used to support objectives without having to fully articulate those objectives to Council and Academic Board. While this kind of use of the CM can only be speculated on at present, what is certain is that the extremely poor communication around how the different CM targets are determined has lead to significant staff unrest and ongoing morale costs to this institution.

CM is central planning masquerading as the market
AUS understands that the CM is meant to limit or eliminate financial cross-subsidisation within the University. This objective in itself is ideological, because those making the argument have adopted a particular view of how market forces should be applied within a university. They also have determined who is and who is not subject to this kind of market-driven responsiveness. The CM model is foremost a way to pay for units of the University that have no direct income generating capacity. Units such as the Library, IT, Registry, and Facilities Management are essential to the function of the institution, provide real services that are most efficiently delivered by their centralisation, and their value cannot be set by direct market forces. But the CM model has an inherent contradiction. While the Colleges must respond to market forces such as student trends and the priorities of external funders for their incomes, they rely on non-market central planning by management to set both the capacity of services available and the costs of these services which are necessary to deliver on their teaching and research missions. These costs also include any strategic investments made under the direction of senior management.

Hence, to call resource flow from colleges with higher profit margins to those with lower margins a “subsidy” while resource flow from income generating colleges to non-income-generating units “not a subsidy” is semantics. And of course this type of resource flow is legitimate and necessary. It would be absurd if every unit of the University had to generate direct income from the outside as the Colleges do, but it is equally absurd to suggest that the flow of finances between colleges is a kind of internal welfare system while the flow of resources from colleges to other units is not.

Cross-subsidies can never be eliminated. For example, the University put its case to the Press which reported: “[w]ith the ratio of lecturers to students in the arts standing at 19:1 against 34:1 in the College of Business and Economics, there is a related argument that this is about spreading resources more fairly.” [The Press, 11 March 2006.] Business and Economics benefits in other ways from Arts, just as all colleges and other units benefit from each other. For example, every student of Science that successfully completes a course in Philosophy will have learned to write critical essays necessary to both understand and then articulate complex concepts. How does the CM model measure this contribution? When a student advisor in the Science College Office directs a student to an Arts course, how does the CM measure that? In short, it doesn’t. In fact, the CM sets an incentive system that undermines good-of-the-institution behaviour at costs that management has never even attempted to measure much less report to Council.

The types of cross-subsidies measured by the UC CM model are arbitrary and narrow because they only focus on student:staff ratios and net income. Moreover, these measures are only relevant to certain kinds of units from which (e.g. Colleges) and to which (e.g. Registry) monetary resources flow. This type of narrow-minded accounting is similar to that which has dominated in marginalising the value of ecosystem services to economic systems. Not recognizing the costs of pollution and other degrading activities on the environment that sustains industry and agriculture has lead to their socialisation rather than their management. That kind of accounting does not lead to sustainability, a concept to which the University has committed itself. The accounting principles behind the CM simply socialize the costs not measured in the CM model. Those costs are almost invariably borne by students and staff, and will reveal themselves in the long-term destabilisation of the institution.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in University finances
The accuracy of financial measures seems to vary inversely with the size of the unit being measured. In no example of restructuring in the past few years that we can recall, has it been possible to get solid figures either on actual staffing levels or income. This latest restructuring has produced numerous new examples, with the Change Proposal reporting incorrect staff levels that lead to incorrect staff:student ratios, and with various managers producing different figures at different times. One manager wrote that the: “budgetary estimates have been developed from what we actually do know, but are not 100% accurate in areas such as depreciation, PBRF and overheads.” [Email to HOD in College of Arts from College Manager, 20 February 2008.]

This kind of uncertainty on figures that are used to make absolutely certain decisions on staffing is unacceptable. It is also surprising given that the Colleges, and intra-college financial units, were ostensibly created at a time of financial difficulty to increase accountability. The only reliable figures that management seems to produce are the annual overall accounts provided to Council and the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC). These values are in overall surplus, indicating that the University is successful. More importantly, since financial measures below the University level carry very high error bars, no real case for cross-subsidisation appears valid.

Other ways to address resource imbalance
The AUS recognizes that intervention is needed to achieve an overall financially and functionally healthy university. When maldistributed teaching or administration loads erode research activity and external income, it is both unfair and detrimental to the primary mission of the University. Likewise, we accept that areas experiencing high demand might also be worth investing in, for the long-term value such programmes promise. CM, however, is a blunt and inappropriate instrument to achieve such balance. This is extremely well illustrated by a case the Press prophetically reported about American Studies lecturer Cornelia Sears two years ago: “Sears was hired in 1997 when the ratio in American studies was running at 27:1 as part of a drive to reduce it to 18:1. ‘So, I may well lose my job on numbers that were used to hire me.’” [The Press, 11 March 2006.] Cornelia’s prophecy is now reality. Here already is evidence of the failure of using CM to grow different areas of the University in the short-term. The University is a complex institution that requires more creativity and innovation in the strategies it adopts.

To achieve balance through socially-driven approaches requires management to deeply understand both the institution and the people they manage. Moreover, they must strive to earn the trust of those people. This is clearly at odds with the methods that have dominated at Canterbury [And perhaps at other universities as suggested by Malcolm and Tarling In “Crisis of Identity? The mission and management of universities in New Zealand” (Dunmore Publishing, Wellington, 2007).], where management appear to us to be trying to use job insecurity and economic carrot/stick approaches to create a low-maintenance, hands-off formula that will magically produce institutional stability. AUS calls for management to pursue other means to address workload imbalances and raise the overall productivity of the institution. We stand ready to work toward such methods.

Jack Heinemann
Branch President

Read More...

Summary only...

Student Sleep-over Protests Arts Cuts

Last night (February 27th) a group of determined students set up a tent embassy in front of the College of Arts and slept over, to remind the SMT they were awake to what the cuts mean.

They intend to stay all day, the last day of February, two weeks from the deadline for submissions. This is an encouraging display of radicalism that reminds staff that Generation X Y and Z have still got some of 1968 in their genes.

Please support them by calling by and congratulating the group - five of whom stayed awake all night for their teachers and for the integrity of Arts on campus.







Jeffrey Paparoa Holman
English

Read More...

Summary only...

Tetris tactics at Canterbury

Dear Fellow Unionists

We again face massive losses of both general and academic colleagues. I know that all members of this Union will join me in a sense of the sadness with the news of 21.5 forced redundancies effective 1 January 2009.

Unlike previous rounds of “change”, this round signals a new approach from senior management. AUS characterised the past change events as “decimations”. True to the word, staff were plucked from many places simultaneously creating both angst and frustration across campus. I would characterise the present approach as a “tetris tactic”, where entire blocks are being removed from the College in an attempt to not disturb the overall stability of the structure.


The rationale is again one of finance. We are asked to accept that finances are unchallengeable. Like laws of physics, they are not negotiable. As framed in financial terms, the Change Proposal requires that blocks justify their existence relative to other blocks. With tetris tactics, the workers are split against one another depending on which blocks they are a part of. Threatened colleagues are made impotent when they try to argue for their jobs because they in essence must nominate other colleagues for the same fate. AUS still believes that finances are challengeable. The University’s books should be entirely open to scrutiny.

The nuance of the latest change is that programmes to be axed are not “core”. Such terminology is distracting at best and destructive at worst. First, defining someone’s academic discipline as “not core” is waving a red flag to a bull. What is the core of the University, and how do you know when you’ve bitten into it? Academics especially will be tempted to spend hours fighting such characterisations. But even if argument were to prevail, it would still leave the arguer in a block v. block situation. Second, the language suggests that Colleges, which are THE CORE of the University, are composed of units that are and are not core. This is preposterous in an institution composed on the one hand of Colleges and their immediate supports, such as the Library, that perform the defining mission of the University, and on the other hand different units, such as technology transfer, that support other University activities (which may not be core, even if they are valuable). To elevate these latter units above the status of teaching and research units within colleges using this terminology is perhaps symptomatic of why such cuts seem to be necessary year in and year out.

it must be evident that senior management is not removing duplicate kidneys from the Uni- versity body, but is instead mining its stem cells

The UC’s present financial surplus overall comes from two factors. The first is the new government funding for salaries under the AUS-lead tripartite agreements. I’m quite secure in asserting that this money was not going to come to us as a consequence of any Vice-Chancellor’s Committee strategy of the day. The second is the cannibalisation of the University itself. Over these past few years, senior management has been converting salaries into “savings”. This short-term approach to creating surpluses is illusory because, in the long-run, the University earns its keep through teaching and research, activities that only staff and students can do. The strategy is also unsustainable. We cannot predict the future and therefore the University must be diverse enough to adapt to the interests of students and the strategic needs of the nation. The future has a way of making currently unpopular disciplines indispensable. Surely by now it must be evident that senior management is not removing duplicate kidneys from the University body, but is instead mining its stem cells.

Perhaps it is time for a new approach to budgeting. How could it be worse than this slow but methodical starvation? One model might be for senior management to propose budgets that are reviewed and ratified by a central senate composed from an amalgamation of the faculties. Such a system could improve buy-in, priority setting and increase understanding of the institution’s finances. It may be time to open a debate on governance at this level.

How can we end this vicious spiral of cuts? First, senior management must finally articulate a clear and inspirational vision for what this University is about and where it is going. We deserve it, the public should expect it, and the University Council should demand it. I believe that our membership would get behind a shared vision that was truly world class. Second, we should see the senior management in the public arena, duly inspiring the public with their vision and the value of the University. That arena should take them to the steps of the Beehive, where we witness them being effective at bringing new money into the sector. After all, AUS created the platform for the tripartite agreements, the first to bring in any sizable new money for staff salaries. Senior management drank at this trough, but now it is time for them to help fill it.

Submissions on the Change Proposal must be completed in the next few weeks. I encourage members from other Colleges to take an active role. It is sometimes easier to serve in support roles, such as editor, when it is not your job on the line. Why not ring a colleague in Arts today, and make an offer of support?

AUS Action
The AUS Canterbury Branch will host meetings over this period to facilitate member-initiated submissions. In addition to one or more “AUS submissions”, members can organise into programme/department groups to make submissions, and submit as individuals. Information sharing might be helpful to all types of submissions, so for this purpose please make use of the blog (http://aus-canterbury.blogspot.com/) or the email lists, as well as more private communication channels when necessary.

For more information and assistance with coordination, please contact:

Suzanne McNabb
Association of University Staff
Phone (03) 364 2485
Mobile 021 995 013
Fax (03) 364 2733

Let’s make the future of the Arts a shared one.

Jack Heinemann
Branch President

Read More...

Summary only...

Abdullah Muhsin - Iraqi trade unionist

Hear
Abdullah Muhsin

Iraqi trade unionist

Abdullah Muhsin is the International Representative of the General Federation of Iraqi Workers and a former student-union activist who fled Iraq in 1978 to escape Saddam Hussein.

Abdullah Muhsin will be speaking about the courage and dedication of Iraqi teachers and trade unionists in their attempts to reconstruct that country’s education and social system in spite of violence, sectarian interference, international terrorism and the failure of internal Iraqi political forces to work together in reconstructing civil society.

Date: Thursday 29th November 07
Time: 7.00 pm
Venue: TUC (1st Floor 199 Armagh St)
Refreshments will be provided

Abdullah Muhsin is the International Representative of the General Federation of Iraqi Workers, formerly known as the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU), whose 200,000-strong membership is drawn from a wide range of ethnic and religious communities organised throughout Iraq’s core industries.

A former student-union activist, Abdullah Muhsin fled Iraq in 1978 after Saddam Hussein waged his campaign of terror against that country’s civil-society organisations independent of Ba’athist control, including trade unions, student groups and women’s organisations. After spending a few years in Italy, Muhsin moved to England, where he has lived ever since.

From exile, Muhsin was active in the Workers’ Democratic Trade Union Movemen (WDTUM), an underground organisation that resisted Hussein’s Ba’ath Party until its collapse. The WDTUM, a collection of trade unionists, intellectuals, liberals, communists and civil-society activists, collected information on Hussein's crimes against humanity and publicised them to trade unions around the world.

At a recent Education International Congress in Berlin, Abdullah Muhsin spoke of the courage and dedication of Iraqi teachers in attempting to reconstruct that country’s education system in spite of violence, sectarian interference, international terrorism and the failure of internal Iraqi political forces to work together in reconstructing civil society. He criticised the failure of the Iraqi government to effectively address education and other social issues and told delegates of the personal hardship and suffering experienced by teachers, students and ordinary families in their struggle for survival and to establish reasonable living standards.

Abdullah Muhsin has co-authored a book on the history of Iraqi unions, Hadi Never Died: Hadi Saleh and the Iraqi Trade Unions. At it’s launch in July Mushin described Iraq’s economy as pulverised by Saddam’s wars, bled by sanctions and further devastated by the invasion, looting and rampant corruption. He said that Iraq’s economy needs emergency investment and widespread reconstruction, adding that free and independent unions will play an important role in making sure investment in Iraq provides quality jobs and decent public services.

Abdullah Muhsin has an Honours degree in Sociology and Masters in Politics and Government, and has taught Trade Union Studies at University London Metropolitan.

The emerging signs of vibrant civil society, such as organisations of women, trade unionists and students, present a real opportunity to end the occupation and isolate the forces promoting sectarian, communal and religious violence.
Abdullah Muhsin,- ‘We are nobody’s pawns’, Guardian, 23 October 2004

Read More...

Summary only...

Remits for National Conference

There are now eight remits to be presented to the National Conference.

• Remit 1, Union Density
• Remit 2: Union Fees
• Remit 3: Status Differentials
• Remit 4: Academic Titles
• Remit 5: Intellectual Property
• Remit 6: Freedom of Association
• Remit 7: Terrorism
• Remit 8: Scholars at Risk.

Conference papers are available on the AUS website, including Remit papers, National Budget, Proposed rule changes, Amalgamation paper, and PBRF policy paper.

Read More...

Summary only...

Submission by the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions – Te Kauae Kaimahi on the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill 2007

SUBMISSION

by the

New Zealand Council of Trade Unions –

Te Kauae Kaimahi

on the

Terrorism Suppression Amendment

Bill 2007

1. Introduction
   1. The NZCTU is the internationally recognised trade union body in New Zealand. The CTU represents 39 affiliated unions with a membership of over 350,000 workers.
   2. The NZCTU is opposed to the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill 2007.
   3. In particular, the CTU has 4 concerns with this Bill:
      • There is no need to make committing a terrorist act a crime in its own right.
      • Removing of the High Court’s role in the extension of designations by the Prime Minister compromises the natural checks and balances in the New Zealand political system.
      • Removing protection for advocating democratic government or human rights in terms of financing and making property available is counter-productive and undermines legitimate political activity.
      • The broadening of the definition of participation to negate the need for intent is unusually punitive.
   4. The NZCTU was opposed to the Terrorism Suppression Bill in 2001, the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill in 2003 and the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill in 2005.
   5. The NZCTU continues to believe that these laws, in the name of fighting terrorism, have eroded fundamental human rights and civil liberties. The NZCTU also continues to believe that vigorous democratic societies are the best way to counter terrorist threats and that the struggle against terrorism is one part of a larger struggle for global social justice.
   6. Following from this, the NZCTU is opposed to this Bill because it tries to further place issues of terrorism and its definition beyond the scope of New Zealand’s sovereign decision-making and/or outside the normal checks and balances of the New Zealand constitutional system.
   7. This bill extends a crude and increasingly wholesale definition of terrorist entities and their supporters. It ignores the politicised reality of the term “terrorism” and the blurred lines, within organisations and over time, between legitimate activities of protest and resistance and illegitimate acts of violence.
   8. This is not to say that illegitimate acts of violence do not occur, just that this categorisation does not help to counter them. As Labour MP Jill Pettis noted during the first reading of the Bill, “yesterday’s terrorists are sometimes today’s heroes… what constitutes terrorism is different for different people, and events that occur can be viewed as terrorist activity in some people’s minds but not in the minds of others.” (Hansards, Thursday 29 March 2007)
2. Creating the Specific Offence of a Terrorist Act
   1. The NZCTU is not convinced that there is any need to specifically define a terrorist act as an offence above and beyond any offences that already exist under New Zealand law.
   2. As the NZCTU’s submission in 2001 on the original Terrorism Suppression Bill noted, the definition of terrorism is not as clear cut as advocates of greater powers to “combat” terrorism would like.
   3. In that submission, the NZCTU pointed out that there have been numerous legitimate protests, demonstrations, acts of civil disobedience and direct action in New Zealand – as well as internationally-applauded resistance and liberation movements overseas – that could fall within the definition of a terrorist act under New Zealand law.
   4. As examples the NZCTU cited:
      • The New Zealand Waterside Workers Union demonstrations in 2000/2001.
      • The Maritime Union of Australia demonstrations against Patrick’s Stevedoring in Australia in 1998.
      • The 1981 Springbok demonstrations.
      • The mass demonstrations which preceded the collapse of Eastern Europe.
      • The mass “anti-globalisation” demonstrations which accompany World Trade Organisation meetings, G5 and APEC meetings throughout the world.
      • The CTU transport boycott against Fiji in 2000.
      • Attempting to cut down the tree on One Tree Hill.
      • Damaging the America’s Cup.
      • The anti-apartheid movement in South Africa.
      • The independence movement in East Timor.
   5. That the state has the power to suppress such activity already still concerns the NZCTU. Allowing such legitimate activity to be criminalised – and incur a maximum penalty of life imprisonment – raises further questions about the protection of fundamental rights in New Zealand.
   6. While the Law Commission specifically excluded implications in relation to terrorism from its recent consideration of sedition, there are clear parallels that could be drawn with this Bill. In their recently tabled report, the Law Commission noted, “seditious offences… are overly broad and uncertain. They infringe on the principle of freedom of expression, and have the potential for abuse – a potential which has been realised in some periods of our history, when these offences have been used to stifle or punish political speech.” (New Zealand Law Commission, “Reforming the Law of Sedition: Consultation Document”, October 2006; p8) The Commission’s findings – that undue breadth, threat to political freedom, disuse and other more appropriate laws mean sedition should be removed from the statute books – equally apply to this Bill. Is the definition of a “terrorist act” a 21st Century’s version of sedition – destined to become an equally outmoded and abused in the near future?
   7. Already, the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 gives the executive arm of government sweeping powers, most of which operate outside the scope of parliamentary or judicial review. That those powers could be attached to a sweepingly-broad, politically-defined “crime” is all the more disturbing.
   8. Beyond any activity that is already legally defined as a crime and that may occur concurrently with a legitimate protest or action, advancing an ideological or political cause with the intention of forcing a government or an international organisation to do or abstain from any act, which may cause serious damage to property or interfere with an infrastructure facility (to use the language of the act), is not – and should not be – a crime.
3. Reviewing the Designation of a Terrorist Entity
   1. The CTU believes the current law requiring the High Court to review terrorist designations made by the Prime Minster after 3 years is an appropriate check on a significant power. Equally, changing this to allow self review by the Prime Minister is insufficiently robust.
   2. The NZCTU’s submission on the Terrorism Suppression Bill in 2001 noted that: “To empower the Prime Minister of the day to exercise a discretion as to whether or not to designate as “terrorist” a person or organisation or group (and the potential criminalisation of large numbers of people) is an extraordinary move which requires rigorous justification. To the extent that it is proceeded with, such a power must be as minimalist as possible to achieve legitimate objectives, and must be consistent with the maintenance of a free and democratic society governed by the rule of law. It is not a step to be taken lightly and certainly is not a decision that can be rushed.” (New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, “Submission of the NZCTU on the Terrorism Suppression Bill”, December 2001; p 11)
   3. As advocates of stronger anti-terrorism measures in New Zealand have noted, the Prime Minister has not yet used the power to designate a terrorist entity. Given the power is so little-used, there is no evidence or justification for such a reduction in necessary process.
   4. As Green MP Keith Locke noted during the first reading of this bill, “We see an almost universal revulsion at the treatment by the United States of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, where due process has been very limited. A common concern of the critics has been that the executive branch of Government has been given excessive power to determine whether people or groups are terrorists, with little judicial constraint or due process.” (Hansards, Thursday 29 March 2007)
   5. Requirement for the High Court to consider such extensions is a sensible step in the process. It is recognition of the constitutional importance of the separation of powers in our system of government and an affirmation of New Zealand’s sovereign rights.
   6. Equally, it is not enough to point to the option of judicial review within the current law. This is not as likely to be as effective, because it is not a formal requirement of the process, there may limits on the information available to a judicial review (in terms of classified information) and, possibly being seen as a potential terrorist, a person seeking the review may have had their assets frozen.
4. Financing and Making Property Available to Terrorist Entities
   1. The CTU also believes it is wrong to remove sections 8 (2) and 10 (2) of the current Act and the protection that an offence is not committed where funds are provided and/or property is made available when intending that they be used, or knowing that they are to be used, for the purpose of advocating democratic government or the protection of human rights.
   2. Rather than resolving an area of ambiguity, as advocates of the bill have clamed, it places the legitimacy of collecting funds for advocating democratic government and the protection of human rights in doubt.
   3. As this submission has already suggested the definition of terrorism and the designation of terrorist entities are already contested and political rather than clear-cut or administrative acts. In this environment it is counter-productive to assume that there will not be instances when funds and/or property have been made available with entirely legitimate intentions. Such action is not – and should not be – a crime.
5. Participating in a Terrorist Group
   1. The NZCTU also opposes broadening the definition of participation in a terrorist entity. The additional of “or being reckless as to whether” in the test of knowing a group or organisation is a terrorist entity, is unnecessarily punitive.
   2. In this test, the definition of recklessness will be an unknown variable. With heightened public fear about terrorism, there will political pressure to make this threshold artificially low.
   3. Equally, given this submission’s earlier discussion about legitimate protest and resistance, it is important that law in this area is specific about intent. The threat that you could be convicted as a terrorist when you were intending to promote democratic government and human rights is an unacceptable threat in a free and open country like New Zealand.
   4. The experience of individuals who have been detained without trial in the name of combating terrorism – most notably in Guantanamo Bay – show how this kind of expanding definition creates greater opportunity for oppression of individual rights with limited reduction in terrorist activity.
6. Conclusion
   1. The NZCTU opposes the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill 2007 for a number of reasons. These include the unnecessary definition of terrorist acts as a crime in their own right, the concentration of power in the Prime Minister in terms of designating terrorist entities, the removal of explicit protection from prosecution for supporting democratic government and human rights, and the excessively broad definition of participation in a terrorist entity.

Read More...

Summary only...

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

Read More...

Summary only...