New tertiary education union challenges myth of inevitable cuts

The newly formed Tertiary Education Union (TEU) is challenging the myth that a global economic crisis and a new conservative government will mean cuts to public tertiary education.

“We Kiwis cannot protect ourselves from an impending economic storm by cutting down public education,” says Tangi Tipene, TEU Co-President. “If we are to survive the oncoming economic bad weather we need to invest in teaching quality, research, and accessibility. All New Zealanders need the opportunities that tertiary education can provide to weather the storm.”

TEU responded quickly to the challenge the Tertiary Education Commission’s chief executive, Professor Roy Sharp, laid down to it at its inaugural conference yesterday. Professor Sharp argued that the current economic environment means there will be no real extra money to go around and that institutions will need to get by on current budgets.

“Tertiary education is struggling from years of underfunding already,” says TEU Co-President, Associate Professor Maureen Montgomery. “Capping existing budgets in the face of current high inflation is effectively a cut. The new minister of tertiary education needs to act quickly to stem the economic crisis by investing in public services that can shelter us from this mess.”

“It is crucial that we see public education not as a cost to be trimmed but as a tool to solve the problem,” Dr Montgomery added.

Read More...

Summary only...

AUS General Staff Day

The Inaugural AUS General Staff Day debate Wednesday 10th of September was held in the Coppertop.

The two teams debated the proposition: “General Staff: Who needs them?”



The AUS branch committee team trying to figure out whether the answer was “Horton hatches the Egg” or “Sam I am.” L-R, Tim O’Sullivan, Sue Jackman, Jennnifer Middendorf and Grant Bush.


"The Tearoom Tarts" (L-R Wendy Groves, Marg Ingram, Diana Horne, Raylene Palmer and Debbie Breckon) in consultation over the quiz answers.


The team taking the negative side of the debate. L-R, David Round (Law Lecturer), Chris Gallavin (Law Lecturer) and Michael Goldstein (UCSA past-President).


The Affirmative team compare notes, somewhat un-awestruck by the performance of the negative team.


Dr Ian Town, magnanimous judge, unable to decide the merits of the preceding speeches.


Canterbury Branch Organiser, Gabrielle Moore and AUS National Secretary, Nannette Cormack, both enjoying the repartee.


Dr Cornelia Sears, with exhibit “a” (not a general staff member).


Helen Kelly, leader for the affirmative getting into action.


The Affirmative team relaxing in the afterglow of victory and in possession of the VC’s cup: l-r. Dr Cornelia Sears (Amst), Richard Till and Helen Kelly (CTU President).


Prize giving: Gabrielle Moore (Branch Organiser) awards prizes for the quiz.


Finale: Dr. Megan Clayton sums up the idea of General Staff as a crucial component of the academic endeavours of the University.

Read More...

Summary only...

EBS - Keeping you informed

We are pleased to advise that with effect from 1 March 2008, EBS Standard Plan Benefits have been reviewed and improved, with no extra cost to our members!!

Check them out: www.ebs.org.nz

Following a review by our actuaries, the EBS board voted unanimously to enhance EBS Standard Plan Benefits available to you.

• The Optical maximum benefit has been increased from $150 to $200
• Audiology costs are now included under the Complementary Medical benefit.
• The Hospital benefit has been increased from $600 to $700
• The Medical Appliance benefit has been increased from $250 to $300
• The Complementary Medical benefit has been increased from $300 to $375
• The Medical benefit has been increased from $700 to $750
• A stand alone benefit for CT, MRI and Angiogram diagnostic has been introduced as a separate benefit up to a maximum of $600, provided that subscriptions have been paid for six months prior to the date of the procedure.

EBS
www.ebs.org.nz
PO Box 11-045, Manners St. Wellington

Read More...

Summary only...

AUS Submission on the College of Arts Change Proposal

We will make a difference by…the inclusiveness and transparency we bring to our decision-making
University of Canterbury Charter, p. 3

Introductory Statement

The Association of University Staff (AUS) makes this submission to the review panel of the College of Arts Change Proposal without prejudice to any legal question or issues that arise in relation to the legitimacy of substance or procedural issues arising from the College of Arts Change Proposal.

The AUS represents the single largest voice of staff at the UC. A product of the trade union movement, the AUS is part of the constant advocacy and championing of social change. We are therefore not frightened of change nor resistant to it.

What appears to be change is sometimes just the opposite: the use of privileged positions within society or an institution to effect agendas held by a minority that are themselves not open to inspection of their views. In a university, such tactics are countered by the establishment of a Council that has the power to investigate management decisions and has an obligation to seek advice from a properly constituted Academic Board.

In the Vice-Chancellor’s letter to the AUS [6 March 2008. Addressed to AUS legal council Peter Cranney. Sharp: “I will be following my normal well-established process of taking those parts of the draft implementation plan which need Council approval to Academic Board and then on to Council.”], he makes two claims. We agree with one and disagree with the other.

The first claim is that Council is the ultimate decision-maker with regard to disestablishing academic programmes, namely in this case Amercian Studies (AMST) and Theatre and Film Studies (TAFS). We agree with this claim. In so doing, we think that the Vice-Chancellor has conceded the point that this consultation process is irrelevant and should only be being conducted at the request of, and by, the Council. How has the Vice-Chancellor established his right to engage in a consultation process on issues for which he is not the legal decision-maker?

The practical implications for this procedure are illustrated by the following example. The Vice-Chancellor, as the employer, presumably does not require Council approval to disestablish the positions held by those currently in AMST and TAFS and has indicated that he can act on this matter separately from Council approving aspects of an eventual implementation plan. However, should Council find that it has no desire to disestablish these programmes, the Vice-Chancellor would then have to re-appoint these staff, or appoint new staff. In light of the order in which these actions would therefore be taken, this action would appear, at worst, as a constructive dismissal of twenty-one members of staff, and at best as a counter-productive use of managerial time and resources with the consequence that Council might retrospectively approve the Vice-Chancellor’s Proposal to avoid the larger embarrassment to the University.

The second claim is that the Vice-Chancellor only requires Council approval of particular elements of an eventual draft implementation plan, and that he may carry the advice of the Academic Board to the Council. We disagree with this claim. How has the Vice-Chancellor established:

1. the right to initiate a consultation on a change to academic departments and programmes, when this type of decision is within the exclusive purview of Council, and
2. the right to initiate a consultation with Academic Board for advice to Council without such a request for consultation coming from Council?

We believe that this consultation process is invalid because it has evaded proper review by Council, and that this Change Proposal is an example of the unilateral decision-making produced by such an evasion. We interpret this proposal as management-initiated changes on academic matters rather than management-initiated changes to the number of established positions without affecting the delivery of an academic programme. We believe that only Council can lawfully initiate a Change Proposal where change refers to the disestablishment of academic programmes, and only they can conduct a lawful consultation.

Whole-University Solution
The AUS has consistently questioned the University management’s policy of financially isolating colleges from one another. In this respect, the AUS membership sees the current financial crisis in the College of Arts as at odds with the surplus in the wider University and holds firm to the belief that radical academic restructuring such as the Change Proposal puts forward is not appropriate when the University is in a healthy financial position. In short, members regard the Change Proposal as evidence that the current accounting model, called the contribution margin, is itself failing the University – by creating the appearance of a need for such extreme measures when no such need exists. We suggest that this Proposal is not a solution, but a symptom of a failed accounting tool.

Members express their sense of commonality and collegiality, and a desire to find whole-university solutions for problems that may affect specific colleges. The current process is contrary to how AUS members see themselves and their interconnectedness as colleagues working at the University.

The Arbitrary Context of the Change Proposal
AUS has identified four main drivers and justifiers of the Change Proposal, each of which is arbitrary and none of which has been determined through consultation or justified to the University community in a coherent manner. These four arbitrary drivers and justifiers are considered in more detail in Section One; in Section Two their tangible influence – creating policy without consultation – is outlined; in Section Three they are viewed in the context of our more specific and/or philosophical objections to the Change Proposal; and in Section Four we make recommendations based on an understanding that these arbitrary drivers and justifiers have created the unnecessary proposals outlined in the Change Proposal.

Section One

Analysis of the change proposal reveals a series of drivers and justifiers of the proposed changes. These are all arbitrary, of dubious and unclear provenance, and have been presented to the University community without consultation or credible rationalisation.

• Contribution margins have created the appearance of a financial necessity or drive for the Change Proposal. However, as the AUS and others have consistently pointed out, the setting of the contribution margins within the University is not transparent, is apparently fluid from year to year and even within years, and appears to be not well understood even by those who are required to operate within this system. For these reasons, the contribution margins are met with deep suspicion by AUS members and are seen as a means by which management is able to effect de facto academic policies using financial manipulation rather than openly submitting to the governance of Council. Whenever it appears that academic policy is the consequence of the contribution margin and not the directive of Council informed by the Academic Board, the AUS believes that it has the legal mandate to oppose it.
  
  
• A major justifier for changes in the Change Proposal is a desired staff-to-student ratio (SSR) within programmes in the College of Arts. Again, this represents an arbitrary financial or ideological driver and justifier of the changes proposed. The intellectual justification for this ratio is unclear and groups the needs of different disciplines within the college as one, evoking a bogus idea of “fairness” that fails to take account of the manifold differences between disciplines and the other ways in which colleges and colleagues support one another. Furthermore, it is not consistently applied even within the same college. For example, the Change Proposal does recognise the need for one-on-one teaching in the Music and Fine Arts programmes. Whenever it appears that academic policy is the consequence of SSR targets and not the directive of Council informed by the Academic Board, the AUS believes that it has the legal mandate to oppose it, consistent with its belief in the invalidity of the Change Proposal.
  
  This policy also rides roughshod over the notion of there being inherent value in maintaining specialist areas of knowledge regardless of their immediate marketability. The establishment of SSRs as a basis for academic policy and staffing decisions is a dangerously short-sighted way to plan staffing at a university and creates a precedent for ongoing uncertainty and intra-institutional conflict. The membership is unconvinced that there is an internally consistent (ie non-arbitrary) rationale for this approach.
  
  
• Such concerns also inform the AUS members’ attitudes to the proposed ratio of administrative-to-academic staff, which appears similarly arbitrary, has been introduced without prior consultation, and does not take into account the particular needs of different programmes for different kinds of administrative support. Further, it does not take into account the actual number of casual and temporary academic staff, all of whom have administrative support requirements. Other significant measures not taken into account in this model include the ratio of postgraduate to undergraduate students or the number of courses. There is further concern about the role played by this new ratio in determining the composition of the proposed new schools within the College. Once again, the contention of the membership is that academic policy is being driven by the tools used by management and not the direction of Council. Moreover, these tools are based on arbitrary figures and ratios, and these have had insufficient consultation, transparency, and attention to the long-term impact of such policy. It is the opinion of AUS members that it would aid the decision-making process to include an administrator's perspective on the review panel, so a recommendation to this effect is made in Section Four, below.
  
  
• Finally, AUS members are particularly concerned by the rhetoric of “core” disciplines, by which the proposed programme and staff cuts have been justified. More than simply arbitrary, this notion can only reflect an ideological position on the part of management that is not only well outside their legal authority but is also outside their competence. It is in the first instance incidental whether a programme is or is not core, as the maintenance of other programmes also tagged as not core would demonstrate [For example, the VC describes Astronomy as not core to Physics in his meeting with AUS executives on 21 February, 2008. Furthermore, Ken Strongman, PVC of the College of Arts, described Mass Communication and Journalism as “not central to the arts” and Physics and Chemistry as “more basic than Astronomy” in an interview with bFM. (http://www.95bfm.com/default,186229.sm)]. It is in the second instance not the role of management to determine the fate of academic programmes, because the statutory power to do so is held by Council and then only under specified circumstances.
  
  Members strongly assert that the very notion of a core of disciplines is ill-applied in the arts. Arts research of the last thirty years or more contests the notion of a privileged core or a centralised body of knowledge supporting an expendable periphery, and considerable work in many fields has gone into exploring the ways in which the apparently peripheral orients and defines the supposed core. In the particular context of Aotearoa New Zealand, and given the Change Proposal’s citing of the “‘National Identity’ strand of the Government’s Tertiary Education Strategy” (p. 27), the introduction of core as a determinant of academic value at Canterbury University is alarming and suggests an ideology that is unnecessarily divisive, elitist, stifling to open academic discourse, and ignorant of current research practices within the arts. Ironically, the cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary nature of the programmes identified as not core (or expendable) by the Change Proposal makes them, in fact, true vanguards of arts research. While rejecting outright the notion of core disciplines in the College of Arts, the AUS further notes that any such evaluations can only be made through meaningful, long-term consultation with the entire academic community.

Section Two

AUS perceives that the four arbitrary drivers and justifiers of the Change Proposal outlined in Section One effectively position the University’s management to initiate and implement academic policy changes without appropriate directions from Council and without proper academic consultation. Such consultation, whereby the future research and teaching body of the University would be appropriately determined by the University community itself, requires that members of that community are

1. adequately briefed on current management thinking, and
2. able to contribute to the determination of figures relating to contribution margins, staff-student ratios, administration-to-academic staff ratios, and the identification of what programmes are essential at the University of Canterbury.

While submissions to the Change Proposal represent an opportunity to react to management decisions in respect to these questions, as long as the rationales for those decisions are not shared, only the decision-making outcomes – rather than processes – can be debated. This effectively leaves members of the community unable to engage in the debate because they are denied access to information that would make them informed.

Cycles of restructuring: financial and quantitative data
The AUS has experienced first-hand that each cycle of restructuring under the current management has been based on “shonky” financial and other quantitative data. Despite claims by management that by the time of the release of a change proposal all the data have been accurately assembled and thoroughly verified, we can recall no single example of a process that went unchallenged on these data and which did not require some retraction and re-figuring from management. This restructuring is no different. The cumulative effects of these inaccuracies is to undermine confidence both in management and their processes, and to create evidence that management is incapable of making accurate financial summaries, at the level of the colleges and below. In the view of the members, all this has the effect of invalidating the consultative process, because the time of consultation is given over to resolving these inaccuracies rather than providing staff the opportunity to consider proposed changes and make sensible counter-proposals in reasonable and sufficient time.

The outcome of this process is determined by a power imbalance, not a partnership. Furthermore, the consultation process has lost additional credibility because it is presented as a fait accompli. AUS members contend that it is reasonable to conclude that management has been acting to prepare for the implementation of this proposal during the consultative period. An example of this can be seen in the delay in registering PhD students in TAFS on the basis that there may not be the necessary staff expertise to support their studies. This goes well beyond the claim that students are only being advised that they may not be able to continue their studies in these subjects. This has the effect of lowering the financial health of TAFS, contributing to the basis on which closure of the programme was recommended. At a time when the figures for TAFS are also disputed, such effects make a significant difference.

In putting forward the Change Proposal, management has not provided any alternatives, or an evaluation of the merits of possible alternative actions. Since there is an asymmetry in access to knowledge about finances and spending priorities set by senior management, staff cannot be expected to provide alternatives that hinge on solving a putative financial deficit.

Furthermore, by constructing as unchallengeable the contention that the University has a financial problem close to $2.5 million that must be solved, management places staff in the invidious position of solving the problem on management’s terms: through some form of workforce downsizing. AUS believes that restricted access to knowledge about how spending priorities and contribution margins are set, and the fact that management’s estimates of staff-student ratios and finances are so mercurial, combine to make it impossible for staff to enter into informed consultation. As such, this process appears designed to force agreement rather than seek counsel on alternative solutions to problems perceived by management.

This general mistrust in the credibility of the processes, procedures and determinations underlying the Change Proposal is of particular concern in respect to the AUS's more specific and/or philosophical objections to the Change Proposal. These objections are outlined in Section Three below.

Section Three

In this section we outline a number of specific and/or philosophical objections to the Change Proposal, with ongoing reference to the four arbitrary drivers listed in Section One.

• It is strongly asserted that the closing of programmes that were created under the direction of the then-Council following consultation with the Academic Board must only be undertaken after due regard to established academic processes and appropriate consultation. We have argued that the drivers and justifiers of the proposed programme cuts are arbitrary, have not been initiated by the Council and consulted on by the Academic Board, and now are being opened to a sham consultation processes with the wider community. The AUS is steadfast in its position that management has not established a prima facie case for this Change Proposal. These proposed cuts are a reactive and permanent solution to what may be short- or medium-term or even non-existent problems, and the scale, swiftness, and irrevocability of the proposed changes is imprudent.
  
  
• In addition, members are concerned that such dramatic policy decisions being made on the basis of arbitrary, debatable figures and assessments that may be ideologically driven creates an environment in which the possibility of other ideologically-driven decisions taken by this and subsequent administrations are a constant threat. It is not unprecedented for the ideologically-minded to curtail academic freedom through ambiguous threats (eg job insecurity). Given the failure of management to maintain a proper tenure system at UC, it is incumbent upon them to act in no way that could be perceived to undermine academic freedom.
  
  
• While AUS recognises the need for robust accounting systems, these need to be based on information that is transparent, rigorous, and internally coherent. In the current instance, members find themselves responding to policy initiatives that are driven by speculative and arbitrary information and feel that if these initiatives proceed it will create a precedent that is dangerous for the academic integrity of the University.
  
  
• Of widespread concern to members across colleges is the way in which arbitrarily-determined contribution margins focus on only one instance of the many cross-subsidisations that are characteristic of the operations of a university. This modular isolation of finances ignores the daily inter-college collaboration, subsidisation and mutual help that characterise the professional activities of our members. This cross-subsidisation exists between colleges, between colleges and service centres, and between service centres themselves. To isolate the College of Arts by characterising it as in unique financial crisis elides the financial, intellectual, and collegial connections that always exist, unquantified, between the College and other parts of the University.
  
  
• The timing of the Proposal’s release is also of particular concern to members. Coming close to enrolment, when students are engaged in course selection and staff are particularly busy with administrative duties, this timing is seen by many members as a strategy to limit the effectiveness of the consultation period. To begin the academic year by proposing the cutting of programmes and staff appears as a deterrent to students who wish to enrol in those programmes and also sends a particularly negative message to new students about the extent to which the university values its existing programmes and staff.
  
  
• Whereas AUS members accept that there is no ideal time of year for this Proposal, they simultaneously wonder whether reasons to avoid other times for this process relate to the University’s ability to implement the plan on a pre-determined timeline.
  
  
• There is scepticism among members over the arbitrary use of “international” models that appear in the Change Proposal as justifications for the merging of certain programmes. In particular, the assertion that “Art History is internationally more typically aligned with History than Fine Arts” (p. 15) is vague: in what international context? By what basis of comparison is this conclusion reached? Such a generalisation supports the rationale by specious means alone. A subsequent assertion that “Political Science and Philosophy are commonly aligned internationally e.g. Philosophy, Politics and Economics, Oxford University” (p. 18) is even more dubious: by such a rationale, should Economics itself then be moved from its college at Canterbury, the better to sit alongside those programmes with which it is joined at Oxford University? Moreover, a small amount of investigation reveals that Oxford University also boasts the Rothermere American Institute for American Studies, which is “an international centre of excellence dedicated to the interdisciplinary and comparative study of the United States.” [“Rothermere American Institute”, http://www.rai.ox.ac.uk/institute/index.htm] Here is an international model that the Change Proposal conveniently ignores. More generally, members are sceptical of the implicit notion that international models and overseas examples are “best”, noting again the Change Proposal’s inconsistency in terms of valuing national identity and contending that the University should organise its programmes and staff around models that best suit its people, time, and place.
  
  
• As well as being arbitrary, the concept of a core in the arts – or any of the colleges – is antithetical to the raison d’être of intellectual inquiry in the modern university and imposes outmoded values on pursuits that are required to challenge old ways of thinking and that take knowledge into new ground. Perhaps in this regard it is not surprising that the areas being targeted are disproportionately composed of staff who are women and members of the Union.
  
  
• The Change Proposal is at odds with the claim in the University Charter that “The University’s strengths in the visual and performing arts, including the fine arts, music, theatre and film, contribute to the cultural vitality of the Canterbury region, to the construction and projection of New Zealand’s national and cultural identity, and to providing intellectual energy and content for New Zealand’s creative industries.” (p.9)
  
  
• Members further question the assumption that students unable to study in the disciplines and programmes targeted for elimination will simply take other courses. Removal of disciplines and programmes changes the overall character of the College’s course offerings, and AUS is not satisfied that students whose choices are affected by elimination of the targeted disciplines and programmes will not simply enrol at other universities (as those who are currently postgraduate students in affected programmes may presumably have to do). In addition to this, members question the effect of the proposed staff and programme cuts on students in other colleges who wish to cross-credit or take non-major subjects from the arts programme. It is not only the options of students in the College of Arts that will be affected by the proposed changes in this way. To remove whole programmes and disciplines is to change, permanently, the unique character of arts at the University of Canterbury.
  
  
• This Proposal has not considered the impacts on the AUS and the University’s obligations to the AUS. We have analysed the staff who are affected by this Change Proposal and note that one hundred percent of staff in American Studies and TAFS are members of the AUS and 84% of those directly affected by the proposals are members of AUS. This striking proportion is worrisome, particularly as at least two very senior members of the SMT have openly expressed antipathy to unions in general. We remind the Vice-Chancellor that he has signed an agreement between the Government, AUS and the University declaring that he believes in the validity of the Union and pledges to support a strong and vital AUS on this campus. We could find no analysis in the Change Proposal of the effects of this restructuring on his pledge to support a healthy union.

Section Four: Recommendations

The AUS recommends in accordance with our fundamental position that:

1. the current consultation process be stopped. If Council has a view that the academic programmes in this Proposal should be reviewed, then Council should minute its discussion on this matter, issue a directive for the matter to be investigated, and make it a priority to consult on the matter with the Academic Board. Proper consultation must also include the broader community and take into account the Tertiary Education Strategy and the national interest.

In accordance with the premise under which we are making this submission we make the following recommendations:

2. that management open its contribution margin model to our independent analysis, including providing sufficient information to make fully transparent how the various margins are set, which units are required to make contributions, and for what purpose funds are being ring-fenced away from directly supporting the colleges.
   
   
3. that student-staff ratios be fully discussed by the academic community, both within Canterbury and at the national level
   
   
4. that a departmental or school administrator from another College is appointed to the Review Panel
   
   
5. that there be consultation and discussion about the proposed general-to-academic staff ratio with particular attention to the differing administrative support needs of different programmes
   
   
6. that meaningful consultation and discussion take place concerning an epistemologically-appropriate model to determine which programmes within the College best serve the arts
   
   
7. that senior management provide alternatives to the staff cuts in the College of Arts and an analysis of the merits of these alternatives, including their impacts on AUS membership
   
   
8. that management have urgent meetings with Government to discuss special funding opportunities for strategically important programmes.

We agree to our submission being made available on the University of Canterbury internet for others to read

Professor Jack Heinemann
AUS Canterbury Branch President
on behalf of the AUS Canterbury Branch Committee and members

Read More...

Summary only...

AUS Media Release: Time to review funding arrangements, say university staff

The inadequate level of Marsden research funding in New Zealand highlights the need for major new investment in publicly funded research, according to the Association of University Staff (AUS).

More than four hundred scientists and researchers sent an open letter to the Minister for Science, Technology and Research this week, asking that the amount of money made available for research through the Marsden Fund be trebled, to $120 million, over the next few years. The Fund, which currently distributes around $40 million annually, is one of the few New Zealand sources for the funding of undirected basic research and is well-known internationally for its high productivity per dollar and its role in value creation.

AUS National President, Associate Professor Maureen Montgomery, said that the inadequate level of the Marsden Fund serves to highlight the broader issue of funding for research in many sectors, not just within the sphere of the sciences. “In the tertiary education sector, AUS has consistently lobbied for levels of support and funding for research to be increased across all disciplines,” she said. “The overall objectives for New Zealand as a country and the tertiary education sector in particular will, in our view, be difficult to achieve if they are not sufficient supported to explore new knowledge areas as well as maintaining and improving upon the success of current programmes.

Associate Professor Montgomery said that, while New Zealand research has a significant impact internationally, only about 10 percent of Marsden applications received funding and that this was a barrier particularly to young and emerging researchers.

Read More...

Summary only...

College of Arts - Briefing Paper

The following information identifies key points that are of concern to AUS members. These may assist members who wish to make a submission on the College of Arts Change Proposal.

Association of University Staff – Briefing paper

University of Canterbury – College of Arts

• On 23 January 2008, the University of Canterbury released for consultation a Change Proposal for its College of Arts.
• The proposal states as the imperatives for change the need to modernise the BA degree, giving greater choices to students and to reducing spending/increasing income by $2.5 million by 2009.
• The Change Proposal recommends that the College reduce from eleven to eight schools, closes two programmes, namely American Studies and Theatre and Film Studies, reduces staff numbers by 21.5 equivalent full-time positions and proposes that student to staff ratios be increased.
• A Review Panel has been established to hear submissions, which close on 14 March. The Panel will make final recommendations which in turn will be subject to the approval of the Vice-Chancellor.
• An Arts Future Project, from which the Change Proposal evolved, has been under development by University management for a period of sixteen months.
• The Association of University Staff and other members of the University community will make submissions to the review. Legal implications of the proposal are also being examined by AUS.

American Studies

• This is the only free-standing American Studies programme in New Zealand. It has 7.5 academic staff and one administrator.
• In 2007, there were 149 equivalent full-time students. Staff teach into other programmes, including English, Gender Studies and Cultural Studies, and currently supervise eight PhD students and four MA students.
• The programme provides its students with the critical thinking skills both relevant and necessary to negotiate a world in which the effects of US unilateralism and cultural hegemony are inescapable.
• Academic staff members have received teaching awards and routinely received among the highest student teaching evaluations in the University. They have also brought in over one million dollars in external research income and have the potential to bring in more if they are able to proceed with the establishment of a research centre in American Studies, which has been under development.
• The effect of closure will remove the opportunity to establish an affiliation with the new and growing Spanish programme and develop a major in Comparative American Studies.
• It will also halt an initiative to establish linkages with US universities and colleges that will bring American students to the University of Canterbury as part of their study abroad programmes and have them study an American Studies course in which they would learn how their country is perceived overseas while contributing their insider knowledge to NZ students;
• Academic staff have been involved in international efforts to globalize the field of American Studies. Such internationalisation of American Studies is predicated on an acknowledgment of the value of critical analyses of US culture, society and politics conducted from outside the US’s own borders. International practitioners of American Studies serve to protect the discipline from its historic tendency within the US toward parochialism.
• Canterbury’s programme constitutes a vital component in this international endeavour and ensures that a New Zealand perspective is part of the ongoing debate.

Theatre and Film Studies

• The Department of Theatre & Film Studies is recognised nationally and internationally for the way it integrates theory and practice, and works between theatre and film, at all levels, from stage one to PhD. The four academic and three general staff work together with students as artists and scholars, producing essays and books, but also performances and films.
• Its postgraduate programme is especially successful, with nine thesis students currently enrolled.
• Te Puna Toi (Performance Research Project) provides a platform for bicultural projects and contributes to the Department’s high international profile.
• For more than 25 years, the Department’s producing wing, Free Theatre, has made a remarkable contribution to Christchurch’s cultural life.
• Theatre & Film Studies was consistently assured it was meeting the financial targets set for the Centre for Music and Theatre and Film Studies in 2007, and that any cuts would be too small to be significant. Yet a higher target was secretly set for Theatre & Film Studies, without notifying the Department.
• The Department has demonstrated that instead of saving $300,000, the College stands to lose over $200,000 by disestablishment, and that the staff to student ratio in the Change Proposal is wrong. The response from the College management was that this is not purely a financial decision.
• The judgment that Theatre and Film Studies are not “core” disciplines clearly contradicts the standards set by other universities worldwide and the Government’s educational policies.

Internal factors

• The Proposal presents neither a business nor an academic case for the proposed closures.
• The financial rationale is based on estimates of income and expenditure (not actual data), shifting financial targets and an incomplete analysis of the net savings/cost of making staff redundant, discontinuing courses and degrees, and turning away students.
• No academic criteria have been provided; nor have academic processes been engaged in to date.
• The financial rationale does not take into account the costs of the University’s continuing obligation to provide expert supervision, facilities, and resources (including technical support) for thesis students.
• References are made to the University’s “core” programmes upon which recommendations have been made, yet there is no definition of “core” nor are other academic criteria presented.
• The proposal is predicated on a financial model which requires around 42% of College income being returned to the University’s central administration. This figure is arbitrarily determined by senior management without consultation or with those departments having any ability to influence the amount.
• Not taken into account is the long-term effect of increasing student to staff ratios to a level which are in some cases much higher than national averages. This will, in the first instance, result in the non-retention of academic positions when vacated, a crucial loss of expertise and a detrimental effect on providing adequate coverage of the curriculum in the vast majority of programmes in the College.

External factors

• The University proposes to close the American Studies and Theatre and Film Studies programmes in apparent isolation from the Government’s Tertiary Education Strategy and the national interest.
• These programmes have strategic national importance, yet there is no evidence that the University has discussed the proposed closures with the Tertiary Education Commission nor sought funding through the Investment Plan process to maintain the programmes - if indeed there is a question of financial viability.
• The University has taken actions which give rise to the conclusion that the proposed change is a fait accompli. For example, students are being told to “find other Majors”; administrators are having to participate in a job comparison exercise which precedes redeployment; MA students are not being allowed to enrol part-time on the basis that there will not be experts to supervise them after 2008; PhD students enrolling now are being made to sign waivers; and currently enrolled PhD students are being told that they may have to cancel their research if they do not accept whatever substitutes the College gives them after this year. It is also clear that intending undergraduate students are affected by negative publicity and the lack of assurance from the University about continuation of programmes.
• Decisions of this nature should not be the sole domain of vice-chancellors or of management, but subject to widespread community and stakeholder consultation.

Conclusion

• The proposal is based upon flawed data and has been prepared without reference to academic processes.
• The proposal has not been subject to, nor is there a particular process for, broad community consultation.
• The proposal has been prepared in isolation to the Tertiary Education Strategy and the national interest.
• A moratorium should be placed on proposing staff cuts to allow proper consultation and for the Government have the opportunity to be involved in any decision.
• Also, the impact of increasing staff to student ratios is a matter of national concern particularly with regard to the Humanities and Social Sciences and needs to be addressed at a national level.

Further information or facts and figures to support these points are available on request. Please contact:
Maureen Montgomery
National President
Association of University Staff
Phone 0275 841 677
Email maureen.montgomery@canterbury.ac.nz

Read More...

Summary only...

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...