Tag Archives: Executive

A small step for court perhaps ….. but GCU needs a giant leap

It’s far too early to tell, but the recent executive briefing by chair of court Tony Brian (see posting below) may be a helpful acknowledgment that things need improved in the governance of the university.   However, it was really too difficult to be certain, given this was a ‘briefing’ with the parameters set in a way that precluded any real debate on what has been clearly incompetent management by our university’s executive over a substantial number of years.
The staff survey clearly shows what the staff think and the unions have made their points on this so  we don’t want to belabour the points again here (though we are intent on achieving their resolution).

In passing however it needs to be noted that the totally disrespectful way it has been treated in The Caledonian magazine would be laughable if it wasn’t so disgraceful.

If court wants to see what is wrong in GCU in microcosm, they should consider the raw results as published, and then look at the spin put on them in this publication.

How to take the issues forward?

Firstly we believe there is a logical inconsistency in arguing (as the chair of court did), that changes need to be evidence based, and then arguing (as the university secretary did)  that the people who could provide exactly the evidence needed – the unions at GCU – are somehow out of the loop of discussions with court. This is complacency at its worst, and threatens to devalue any claim of the court that they are looking at GCU’s serious situation, in a serious manner.
Of course there are many stakeholders in the University… so we say why not speak to them all. Limiting yourself to the assertions of a group who less than one in 5 of our staff trust, is not serious governance and won’t be seen as such by the Scottish community. People including the press, are aware of what has been happening here and the general expectation in the Scottish community that meaningful change needs now to  happen at GCU should not be under estimated.

Some additional issues were raised where further dialogue is also needed. What is the role of staff governors? Do they ‘represent’ or just ‘voice’ views? The staff governors themselves are aware of the contradictions of their positions. This needs looked at.

According to the university secretary, the disappearance of the court minutes from the university web site, seemed ‘inadvertent’ and possibly linked to resourcing. We welcome that and look forward to their re-appearance, plus their availability in formats which are accessible to disabled members of our community.

Finally we were interested to see that there will be ‘external input’ into a review of the effectiveness of court. Whether or not  court will have the courage to publish the outcome of such a review (apparently under discussion), will be emblematic of whether the GCU is moving on from a ‘closed shop’ approach, to that of open governance.

GCU Court talks to (some) GCU staff – a welcome, but very small step

Tony Brian - newly elected chair of GCU Court - first meeting with staff

Some faltering steps which might lead to a more meaningful dialogue between GCU Court and university staff were taken when recently elected Court chair Tony Brian led an ‘Executive Briefing’ on ‘Governance and the role of Court at GCU’.

The organisation of the meeting left something to be desired, with only three working days notice being given to staff and the original time of the meeting clashing with teaching time – something resolved when Court Office were reminded what teaching hours were at the university. The final room chosen turned out to be too small for those present to be seated comfortably in but this did not prevent a first airing of views on some issues.

Disappointingly, the parameters on discussion were narrowly set by Tony to preclude any discussion on ‘revisiting decisions which may or may not have been made by court’ or ‘anticipating decisions that may or may not be made by court’. While quite happy to talk about governance around a decision, he did not think we should be ‘revisiting specific decisions’.

Quoting the Governance review panel definition of Governance as:

‘Effective Stewardship to secure sustainability’; safeguarding the mission and services to the public; the proper use of public and other funds; and ensuring stakeholder participation and accounting for institutional performance’ he suggested:

“Good governance if you break it down to its absolute essence is quite simply decision making and oversight by the right people with the right information at the right time”.

“It has the responsibility of offering constructive but robust challenge to the executive, and guidance, and the whole purpose of that is to hold the executive to account and improve decision making”. “Robust challenge is what makes the difference in decisions making in my view. We must have that for people to reach the right decisions”

Although the Court did not discuss the Governance report till the following week, he reported that the Committee of Scottish Chairs, were against moving to the election of chairs, feeling it could introduce a conflict of interest.

“The chair has the responsibility to act impartially across all of the university and all of the Stakeholders….. Many other people have stakes in the Universities – people funding universities, public or private; local communities, businesses who use our services; public services that use our services, the third sector that use our services”.

He went on to say that he felt any change needed to be evidence based.

In contributions from the floor, it was pointed out that the report recommended an enhanced role for the Trade Unions in university governance, and it was therefore suggested there should be a meeting with representatives of Trade Unions to look at issues of mutual concern.

Tony’s view was that its was too early to say – he hadn’t had a chance to talk to court about this at all and didn’t know what court’s views were on any of these issues, bar the election of the chair, and therefore would have to go through that process.
A direct answer was that he couldn’t comment as he simply didn’t know what courts’ view was. “I couldn’t say yes or no to that at the moment – I would have to see how things evolve.”

Jan Hulme - Staff representatives on court already play a full part.....

He suggested Jan Hulme was the point of contact for all governance issues and if there was a request made it should be made to her.

On this point the university secretary suggested that the issue was really about the mechanisms that were already in place for the unions to engage with the university, which was the JCC… She acknowledged there were discussions and there would be future discussions about how well that operates, and how it can be made to operate better, but at present it was the formal and court approved mechanism for the university to engage with the unions on campus. Anything else would be unusual, atypical and there was not a process for that. So she thought the short answer was that there wasn’t a means for doing that.

She also raised the fact that there were staff representatives on the court, who play a full and active part in the court as well. So to that extent too, the court was informed about staff views, staff perspectives as well. If it was suggested there should be another mechanism then that opened up a whole other discussion and debate that would have to be reviewed. ….  “we might want to pause and reflect before we invented any other piece of machinery.”

A discussion then ensued about the role of staff governors, and what part they played in relaying staff concerns to the court, and whether they represented the people that elected them.

According to the chair of court they gave court their view of staff feelings, views, whatsoever “and we listen to that”.

There were then some points of view given by individual staff members of court including the difficulties they had – being ‘unable to canvass views’ beforehand as court business was confidential, but hoping that they still put over a range of staff views:  “if there’s a decision to be taken on court, I see my role as judging what the academic members of staff would think of that, and then convey it…. It’s not a fully representative role”

One suggestion was that ‘representative’ was perhaps not the correct term, but a better one might be ‘voice’ of staff.

At this point the university secretary argued that responsibility as charity trustees meant that “people have to step back from whatever constituency they feel they know best and who might have elected them and they have to put on the hat of the collective good of the university, weigh things up, on balance and act actually as part of the corporate body.”  To that extent it was not like being a trade union representative who can say straightforwardly ‘this is what my members believe…..’  It was a role that demanded skill and experience, and she believed court were well served.

Brian Pillans: "Staff reps are not accountable to their constituency..."

Brian Pillans, talking for the UCU said the terminology was a problem – ‘staff reps were not accountable to their constituency…..’

Nick McKerral, joint union convener turned to the three pronged structure of governance previously outlined by Tony and suggested there was a clear benchmark of respect for senior staff to be found in the recent staff survey. The Executive had an approval rating of 18% and in some schools it fell to 8% which meant Nick Clegg has a higher rating in Scotland.

Nick McKerrell: "NIck Clegg has a better approval rating in Scotland, than our senior management.."

It was obviously very worrying that such a big prong of university management is held in such scepticism by staff of the university. Turning to the role of court and the fact they had been in discussions with the executive over the decisions that they have made over the last 5 years in the university, NIck asked that given this fact, did the chair of court think court was a successful body just now and that it had done its job well over the last 5 years?

Tony declined to talk about the staff survey as it would be dealt with the following week but suggested Governance had been working well…….. “if you look at the sector as a whole, the HE sector in Scotland is one of the most successful sectors we have…..”

Governance had played a significant role in the successes of the sector. He also stressed that any changes should only be made where there was evidence that they will improve things. “I’m not closed to changes, but they have to be evidence based improvements”. On being pushed on whether he thought governance was working at GCU, he believed “it absolutely was”.

It then being suggested by Brian Pillans that this answer was something that would have been said by the banks 6 or 7 years ago, and perhaps the complacency on the part of the governance of the banks had seen them go where they had, Tony conceded that it didn’t necessarily mean that in the new world what had happened in the past would be adequate. It was one of the things they had to look at – “is governance today sufficient for what we will have tomorrow and the day after tomorrow”. He didn’t want to say that what we had today was perfect, but things needed to be evidence based – ‘there was no point in doing things that will make it worse’.

The question of scrutiny and transparency was raised from the body of the meeting when it was pointed out that the minutes of the court meetings were no longer available to the public – they had been taken off the university website. The question was asked how people were to find out what court was deciding? Court regulations of lodging one copy in the library was totally inadequate – and particularly questionable in terms of disabled access. The question was raised why this decision had been taken.

On this the chair confessed he hadn’t been involved at the time and handed the question to the university secretary who first suggested the decision had predated her, but when it was pointed out this wasn’t correct, suggested that it was possibly inadvertent – a point welcomed in the meeting.

She also suggested that she didn’t think the court web presence was as good as it should be or as informative, or as helpful and that as much as anything it had been a resourcing issue.

She continued to say that it was something that she really thought had to take priority now. Colleagues in the Court office would agree that it was very much a priority – that it was high on the agenda, and very much part of the work plan that they were doing. So she hoped this would address some of the issued that existed.

“The fundamental point as to how court communicates its work is a very fair one, that I think we’d recognise and one we’d very much like to address”.
Tony Brian also agreed it was something that should be looked at.

One of the two last issues raised was on how the University would avoid ‘crony committee-ism with regard to the composition of the court – on this the university secretary welcomed the possibility of having a chat with the member of staff who had made some constructive points in the discussion.

John Biggam - 'We don't seem to see what you are doing...'

Finally UCU membership secretary John Biggam asked what the measure of the court’s effectiveness was, and how it was measured and challenged if the court was found to be ineffective. He asked if there was a role for a staff survey regarding court.

Tony Brian’s view was that judging the court by the standards laid down by the committee of university chairs was the way it ought to be done. On John querying whether they should be judging themselves, Tony replied that they increasingly used external people to come and ‘kick our tyres’ and give that external perspective.

John suggested that the Court’s own procedures made it difficult to judge the effectiveness of court. “We don’t seem to see what you’re doing.  There’s the continuing issue of the difficulty of operating as a staff rep…. but collectively it sounds very discouraging about court – what do you think? … you can’t tell us…….. you might put minutes up….. you don’t know if a survey would be effective….  to the point where, to me it is depressing.”

Tony expressed his disagreement with this, asserting that the effectiveness review would be done with external input to make sure that it was suitably robust….

The meeting finished with a member of staff asking whether this would be published to which Tony Brian answered…. “there are discussions around that kind of thing”.

Independent review calls for shake up of university governance

An independent review of Higher Education Governance in Scotland today called for fundamental change in the way universities are governed.

Amongst its recommendations:

  • Governing bodies need to better show that they observe principles of good governance, regularly reviewing their own performance.
  • Meetings of University Court should normally be held in public.
  • There should be representatives of academic unions and of support staff unions on University Court (in addition to directly elected staff members)
  • At least forty percent of the Court membership should be female, and membership should also reflect principles of equality and diversity more generally.
  • Senior managers other than the Principal should not be Court members, nor attend unless for specific agenda items where their attendance is deemed necessary.
  • Chairs of Court (which should now be an elected post) should work closely with Principals, but be independent of them.
  • University Principals’ performance should be appraised by external governing body members, staff and students. Their method of appointment should be reformed.
  • Remuneration committees should include staff and student members.

The panel looking into change also recommended that the role of trade unions in university governance should be enhanced.

The report (copy here) has already been welcomed by university unions. We expect that it should be welcomed by our University Court in the interest of good governance.

University unions would welcome a real discussion with representatives of the Court on this document as well as on the shocking revelations of the staff survey. This should of course be of a more serious nature than ‘staff listening’ events – which it appears even the Principal’s office is now recognising do not work.

We have also written to Principal Gillies’ representative asking that the Principal attend meetings of the Joint Consultative Committee (as was standard practice with previous Principals). We will report back on her response to your staff representatives.

Scottish Press reports criticism of Senior Management at GCU

A hard hitting article by the Herald’s Education reporter Andrew Denholm has brought the shocking results of the recent GCU staff survey into the public’s gaze.

Stating that “A survey of staff at Glasgow Caledonian University  found just 19% said principal Professor Pamela Gillies and her management ‘lead the university well’ “, Denholm’s report goes on to outline the devastating statistics which have emerged from the management-initiated survey.

Within the article,  Dr Nick McKerral, convener of the university’s combined union committee expresses the point that “although they are obviously committee to their job within the public service of higher education, the figures show that ordinary staff feel ignored by highly paid senior management who have carried through many controversial plans, including attempting to make 95 compulsory redundancies last year”.

Nick is also quoted as saying  “The unions on campus will be requesting a meeting with Court, the governing body of the university, to ask what they plan to do about the failures of GCU management reflected in the survey.”

Denholm goes on to report that “Prof  Gillies who earns £211,000, pointed to many positives within the survey in an e-mail to the staff. She said the survey results show that staff are generally positive about the university, with 92% saying they are interested in the university and it is more than just a job.”

The full report can be found here on the Herald’s website, and on this blog’s Media Coverage page.

GCU Court needs to act NOW on shocking findings of Staff Survey

Fact. The GCU Trade Unions were not consulted about the contents of the survey nor questions within it.

Fact. The survey was issued after a long period of senior management  minimising real consultation with the unions at GCU.

Fact. The result of the survey is a damning indictment of long term inept management at the university which is clearly linked to the practice of ignoring the views of staff and their elected representatives.

If this was the business community, boardroom changes would have taken place long before now.

Fact. It is about time University Court did something about this and proved they act in the interest of the university community, its staff, the students who we serve, and the Scottish people who deserve more from a publicly funded and top class higher education establishment.

How the staff feel:
While 84% feel valued by colleagues, only 34% feel valued by the University.
Staff feel proud of what they do but despair at how they are treated
.

Only 19% agree that senior management manages and leads the university well.

Only 14% agree to any extent that senior management listens to and responds to the views of front line staff.

Only 43% – less than half – of senior management agree to any extent that they themselves set out a clear vision of where the university is headed.

This can only be described as an abject failure of leadership.

Perhaps this is reflected in the fact that a higher proportion of senior management (21%) than staff across the board (19%) are actively seeking to leave the university. Lets hope that this 21% includes the 7% of senior management that isn’t particularly interested in the university – it’s just a job!

The chaotic process that was restructuring
Very few staff agree to any extent that the changes brought about by restructuring were ‘about right’ (17%), ‘well planned’ (19%) ‘well explained’ (28%) or ‘managed well’ (22%).

Even senior management wouldn’t admit to the effective planning (29%), explanation (36%), or managing (36%) of change.

Fact: Senior management admit they are not doing their job effectively.

In spite of these fundamental issues of concern, 71% of staff agree to some extent that they feel inspired to do their best work every day. Most (70%) still think that GCU is a good place to work and 85% do claim to enjoy their work.

What the staff opinion survey shows is that GCU can celebrate its staff – but not its leadership.

Any inaction on these statistics would discredit  GCU Court as much as senior management seem discredited in the opinions freely given by university staff, – union and non-union members – alike.

For more information on GCU governance see our blog page here


GCU Unions – Management do not have a monopoly on wisdom

The trade unions at GCU note that Court endorsed the Executive proposals on restructuring at their meeting yesterday.

Whilst happy with the removal of the threat of 95 compulsory redundancies, which was made by the Executive on 18th May, the trade unions are disappointed that none of the suggestions and alternatives to the management driven structures have been taken on board either by the Executive or the Court.

Staff in many support clusters took time and energy to put forward viable alternative models for many of the clusters both through their trade union reps and individually. These have been dismissed either with cursory comments or in many cases no comment at all.

Thus many front line services will be lost and senior management posts have been created without a full explanation of why alternatives were not considered.

The Unions are aware that although the threat of compulsory redundancies has been removed many staff who possibly do not have positions within the new structures will feel vulnerable.

Just as your Unions forced management to withdraw their ill conceived plans for compulsory redundancies, we will also ensure that all staff at GCU will be fully protected and not forced out the back door in the restructuring process.

Meanwhile a reminder – celebrate VE day – Victory in Education Day, and the withdrawal of the compulsory redundancies. Friday 10th June 5pm till late. Dows Bar, Dundas Street Glasgow.
We’ll see you there!

Scottish Parliament hears the case for reform of University Governance

A packed committee room heard reports of university governance 'not fit for purpose'

A packed Committee Room 1 of the Scottish Parliament heard calls for bringing democracy to the present system of University Governance – widely seen as ‘not fit for purpose’, in the view of university staff from the majority of Scotland’s universities. MSPs from the governing SNP, and from Labour and the Greens were clearly disturbed by the reports given to them about lack of serious governance by respective university courts from staff across the sector, following the lobby, organised by the UCU and EIS on 25th May.

The anger amongst those who are beginning to find out about how governance is exercised was shown in the intervention in the discussion by Nationalist MSP Bill Kidd who had visited GCU and spoken to staff several times over the past year. Stating his opinion that  “I don’t think these people are fit to be in charge of the University”, he went on to call for  “a complete overhaul of the governance of universities and colleges.”  Clare Baker, Labour’s shadow spokeswoman on Education stated to the meeting  “You have made a very strong case for the need to look at governance and we will support moves towards this”. This was echoed by Green Party leader Patrick Harvie who added “Management need to act as leaders of a community, not as CEOs of a business”

Brian Pillans from Caledonian UCU updates MSPs, flanked on his left by Clare Baker, Labour Education Spokesperson

Representing the unions at GCU, Brian Pillans updated those present on the victory achieved by the unions at GCU. This had shown what was possible, and he thanked parties of all colours for their support and their  pressure on management. This support had also come from the students, the media and the wider community, without whose support the victory would not have been won.  This victory had been at great and needless cost to staff however, due to the totally unnecessary actions of senior management who had followed a flawed strategy from the beginning, rather than working with the unions.

On the question of future changes to governance, Brian suggested that those who argued for universities to be run as a business could not ignore the accountability which was was now built into private sector governance following necessary reforms. Some serious work needed carried out on practical mechanisms which would continue to guarantee academic independence of the sector, but also ensure that the use of public money was always transparent and those using it were accountable to the wider community.

Cupcakes, illustrated Principals' salaries (excluding pensions and other benefits!), including our own Principal's at £182,000

During the meeting MSPs were clearly surprised at the level of salaries being paid to senior management and to university principals, details of which are downloadable here.

Eyebrows were also raised at the number of senior staff at GCU earning more than the First Minister of Scotland, and indeed, more than the Prime Minister David Cameron.

Outside in the lobby, the media had been interested in the cupcakes representing the salaries of University principals. These included the salary of our own at £182,000, not including pensions and other benefits.

Strathclyde University Students whose course is threatened by cuts

As well as the cupcakes providing sustenance, Liam Burns, outgoing NUS president offered support and students from the threatened music course at Strathclyde University entertained the crowd (as did a mysterious ‘fat-cat’ who members may also recall seeing at similar events at GCU).

Further photos can be found on Caledonian Union’s flickr site here

A university fat cat with a crisis of conscience?