|Technology is the key. This'll bring the average cost of chauffeur's down quite|
drastically and adds real value to the overall student experience
Just to confirm that the University of Salford were not always as reticent as they appear to be today with regard to answering the odd Freedom of Information request. Below are a few interesting statistics sent to an associate under an FOI submission on the 10th of November 2009. The figures were provided by the irrepressible Mr Matthew Stephenson, Head of Information Governance.
Follow the money
Annual amounts each year the University has paid to settle disputes with staff in the last four years
Period Oct 2005-Sep 2006 = £223,200
Period Oct 2006-Sep 2007 = £ 87,143
Period Oct 2007-Sep 2008 = £227,921
Period Oct 2008-Sep 2009 = £ 87,360
The amount paid in each case to reach a settlement
October 2005-September 2006
Case 1 £ 15,000
Case 2 £104,100
Case 3 £104,100
October 2006-September 2007
Case 4 £ 15,084
Case 5 £ 3,054
Case 6 £ 36,000
Case 7 £ 33,005
Total £ 87,143
October 2007-September 2008
Case 8 £ 28,761
Case 9 £ 39,160
Case 10 £ 68,500
Case 11 £ 91,500
October 2008-September 2009
Case 12 £ 18,360
Case 13 £ 25,000
Case 14 £ 24,000
Case 15 £ 20,000
Total £ 87,360
Sub Total £625,624
Mr Stephenson also suggests that 'it is feasible to say an average of £1000 legal costs are incurred per case in settling the agreement and drawing up the legal paperwork.' Although this might seem a trifle on the low side, if it emanates from the realms of management at UoS then it must be as incontrovertibly true as the idea is patently false that the Earth revolves around that fiery ball in the sky. So for fifteen cases as set out above, we might therefore expect legal costs to be somewhere in the region of £15,000. That brings our grand total up to a very grand £640,624
In addition... or subtraction?
|Artists's impression of a decent settlement:|
the future of 'affordable' student accommodation
This author notes from recent published data on AcademicFOI.com that UoS among many other HE institutions, have replied to several questions regarding Employment Tribunals, settlements and the associated costs.
When asked 'over the last three years how many current or former University staff have submitted claims to the employment tribunals service?' UoS answered six staff. According to UoS, five were settled and five had a non-disclosure clause inserted in terms of the settlement. The total sum paid out in these settlements was according to the UoS £142,295 and the total costs of legal expenses in relation to the above disputes was fixed by UoS at £167,334. This would provide a total of £309,629 which is a princely sum.
An assumption or two
Looking at the two sets of figures, there are a multiplicity of ways in which they might be interpreted. One might simply add the two sets of figures together and reach a total just shy of one million pounds -£950,253. This scenario is suggestive... suggestive of a heck of a lot of disputes.
Comparing and contrasting the two sets of figures presents problems. If we add the figures for the same years from the Stephenson figures, it gives a total of £402,424. It clearly exceeds the University's own stated figure of £142,295. Even if we add in the University's admitted legal costs of £167,334 this only raises a total £309,629.
What's wrong with this picture?
However this second scenario presents a problem. Yes, you guessed correctly. It's the Stephenson figures, particularly his reference to associated legal costs. In reply to the initial FOI in November 2009, Mr Stephenson, god bless his beleaguered soul, was less than specific on what type of 'settlements' he included in his figures. His reference to 'feasible' and 'legal' and 'average' costs of £1,000 per case suggests that the legal costs he speaks of are vastly different in quantitative terms from those referred to by AcademicFOI - £167,334 - which far surpasses his £1,000 average for the twelve cases 2006-2009 which would amount to a rather derisory £12,000.
|The author in a pensive mood|
It is wise to hazard caution at this juncture and not to simply shit oneself with glee as this may be nothing more than an extremely expensive oversight that could easily be corrected by the University sums people overseen by Director of Finance Mr Attwell before he retires from this extremely buoyant fiscally sound metaphorical ocean dweller. Nor can Mr Stephenson be castigated for the fragmentary qualities of the detail in supplying the above figures. He has no doubt had to try and weave the most delicate of statistical sows ears from a packet of of extra bristly top-shelf pork scratchings well past their agreed sell-by date.
This apparent inconsistency could be cleared up quite easily if not for the fact that UoS are less than obliging when it comes to answering FOI requests from certain staff, former employees, and former students among others. It is a policy destined to fuel further confusion, suspicion, unnecessary conjecture and poor adding up.
Time to break ranks or wind?
Maybe the second-in-command Registrar Dr Graves who has taken a keen interest in Freedom of Information requests,* could elucidate? Might the esteemed Registrar break ranks and publish in entirety, the full costs of all cases that have gone to or stopped short of an Employment Tribunal. he might include all sums expended on settlements including legal fees and other associated costs (such as the legal costs in preparation of grievances and mediation). In addition might he also for the sake of full transparency (and ultimately full accountability) publish the full costs of all settlements that have not gone to a full-blown Employment Tribunal including all associated legal costs and costs for grievances. For the sake of not wishing to be portrayed as too picky, we might agree to settle on the period between 2005 - 2010.
Like Mr Kipling, this author would be exceedingly interested to learn the full costs of his own trek through the wrist-slapping esoteria known as the Disciplinary Procedure and associated Grievance Procedures up to date. They could if the fancy took them, provide details of the costs of procuring legal services in defending the University's case so far prior to the imminent Employment Tribunal. If they were feeling in particularly generous spirit, they might provide the costs of any expensive letters sent to those who are said to reside thorn-like in the side of UoS, particularly the cost of those letters provided by a now defunct partnership of Manchester lawyers.
|There is no 'web of collusion' honest guv'nor...|
Why are there so many costly disputes at UoS?
Putting to one side questions related to pantomime for one second, there are very serious questions that have to be asked of a public authority that devotes large sums to settling disputes. Clearly any employer the size of UoS is bound to have internal employment disputes. That so many appear to be resolved through the use of a form of what might be described as 'fiscal easing' might also suggest that the mechanisms for mediation are far from utile. The UoS Equality and Diversity Report undertaken by Professor Gus John and released in August 2005 highlighted many issues which it would seem have yet to be taken seriously. This author knows of one new claim to the Employment Tribunal against the UoS on the grounds of race and discrimination.Some of the issues raised in the Gus John Report are worth repeating here:
'Over representative number of internal and Employment Tribunal complaints on grounds of 'race' relative to number of BME staff. Perception amongst black and white staff alike that University more interested in "covering its back"/"safeguarding its image" than in dealing with the underlying causes of those complaints' (Pg39)
'The approach of management to complaints lodged in the Employment Tribunal is generally one of two things: Buying off - "come let's settle" or Facing Down - "we'll clobber you". It learns nothing as a result of either, especially if it succeeds in clobbering you. It is then just not interested in the reasons why the matter reached the ET in the first place.' (BME sample) (Pg 24)
'The way the University deals with the outcome of complaints, especially complaints to the Employment Tribunal, makes it very clear that no sanctions are imposed for non-compliance with anti-discrimination legislation. The attitude seems to be: 'protect our managers at all costs, irrespective of what they are found to have done, even by an employment tribunal'. I know of no situation, for example, where the University has launched its own internal investigation after a tribunal hearing, win or lose, to see what lessons could be learnt about how it got itself into that situation and what management practice or attitudes might have been responsible.' (BME sample) (pp24-25)
The intrinsic value of the University of Salford
In contrast of the Registrar's claims that the writer of this piece is involved in a 'wider campaign against the University',** the author feels a genuine sadness and concern about this ongoing state of affairs. Having worked below decks stoking the allegorical furnaces, - in teaching and providing International Students with a service above that considered payable by salary - and having received in return substantial support from those students in opposition to the disciplinary policies of the University, principled, committed staff are seen by students as a real boon and pivotal to the future of Salford. Moreover, it is clear that UoS continues to provide students, many from poorer backgrounds, with opportunities to flourish intellectually, to develop skills and be taught by committed and conscientious staff. Yet for Salford to flourish, it is these staff who in turn must feel valued by managers and those above if they are to play their own pivotal role in collectively lifting Salford up to effectively compete with the well-resourced and prestigious Russell Group universities.
Thus in answer to the Vice Chancellor's question of last week, the value added by the University is the staff. A good teacher or lecturer will not only teach but will impact on the student in multifarious positive ways that a new building can never do. Their positive influence and the knowledge they transfer, will remain with the student long after they leave the University. These lasting impressions are the best type of recruiter for the University.
Yet the GEM report conducted three years after the Equality and Diversity Report, largely reconfirmed the findings of Gus John. Since then UoS has a new Vice Chancellor in Martin Hall. Yet the most recent external report conducted by Frances Greene for the TCM Group demonstrates that things are far from ship-shape aboard HMS Salford. This most recent report will be explored in more depth over the coming weeks.
The human costs
The costs in terms of the impact it has on those individuals who have reached the stage of a settlement or those internally prosecuted under the disciplinary procedures are far more difficult assess. These costs cannot be framed in a simple FOI request or replies such as those above. The fear that the threat of disciplinary action and suspension instils among wide layers of staff is tangible. It also has wider costs in that it does little to slow down the decomposition of trust among layers of staff, to say nothing of the creeping demoralisation it imbues among this valuable committed collective human resource. Should a university of all places, that institutionally promotes enlightenment ideals and values, be a place where rule by fear is ever deemed acceptable?
Sadly, at this juncture, the signs are not encouraging. Is it the case as is inferred in the Gus John report, that the spending of vast sums on settlements and legal costs is seen as a means whereby the University senior management team divest themselves of those seen as serial complainers or troublemakers? Is this viewed by the University as an effective way of investing in the future? A more astute strategy must surely be to invest these not insignificant sums in ensuring that valuable staff, many with considerable skills in administration, as well as those with teaching and researching talents, and of course the concomitant vast repositories of experience and knowledge vested within these people, were retained for the benefit of learners, educators and for the prestige of the University itself.
It might also in the medium and longer term, save the University a few quid.
*Email from Dr Graves to K Watkinson, Cc'd to Matthew Stephenson, dated 8 Nov 2009, timed 08:31am, subject: FoI Request (Ref:091103-431). After an FoI and Data Protection Request from this author, Dr Graves asks Matthew Stephenson to keep his 'office informed of any (his emphasis) FOI requests that the University receives'.
** Letter from Dr Graves to GPD dated 18 March 2010 in response to a letter of a complaint against Professor C Pine for bullying behaviour in a meeting.