Uncharted Waters

It's that League Table time of year again. And it would seem that that top quartile aspiration for the University of Salford - Manchester in the standard league tables, is metaphorically speaking like the ever expanding outer reaches of the Universe with which is shares some important key letters - further away than ever. It appears that the University has once again dropped several places in the Guardian's University Tables 2012. Just to place this in some sort of context, the Guardian's tables show that in 2009-10 the university dropped seven places from 86 to 93, and in 2010-11 another seven places to 100. The current position of 109 is not good news. 

The bad news...

The University's own analysis of The Guardian's Good University 2012 table doesn't make for encouraging reading:

'In order to achieve the Strategic Plan aspiration of top quartile, the vast majority (around 80%) of subject level measures would need to score within their corresponding top quartile. At present this figure stands at 8%, with 34% of measures appearing within the corresponding bottom quartile.'(1)

The worser news...

Not wishing to heap opprobrium, which like dandelion milk and dog filth can leave a bitter aftertaste, according to the Times Good University Guide 2012, Salford has also slipped from its 88th place in 2011 to 91 in 2012. For the record, I'm no fan of league tables, standard or otherwise. And the reality is that if they ceased to exist tomorrow, Cambridge and Oxford would still be at the top of them. Nor do I root the cause of this slippage in the magnificent efforts of my former colleagues: the academic, non-academic and support staff. I take not the slightest pleasure in what is in my opinion, a lamentable state of affairs, the cause of which has to be located elsewhere. Yet any reasonable person can only conclude from these results, that a key part - probably the most important part - of the 'strategic plan' appears to be bearing little in the way of elevatorial fruit.

However, before I move on, I'd just like to put Ian Austin's, mind at rest, (Mr Austin sits on the Audit Committee of the University Council and acts for the University in his legal capacity in the libel claim lodged in the High Court University of Salford -v- Dr Gary Duke). It's highly unlikely that any of the writings of this Dr Gary Duke on blogs, or produced as satirical writings and exposes (known by some quaintly as 'pamphlets') since 2009 are responsible for this year's results (or any year for that matter). A cursory glance at the year-on-year results show that this general declination started long before a certain chap's quill was sharpened. Nor are the rumours correct that this bewhiskered ink-ed chap can influence the masses like a latter day Dr Joseph Goebbles without a limp.

Dr Duke: looks nothing like a former Nazi
propaganda minister

Some good news and then some more bad news...

Yet it's not all bad news. if we return to the Guardian's tables for a moment, they clearly show that Salford is in the top quartile, indeed in the top three at number three when it comes to the ratio of students to staff. Last year it was 18.7. This year it's 23.8. which suggests that that part of the 'strategic plan' which resulted in the laying off of over 200 members of staff in 2011 is certainly paying dividends.(2)

A chap called coincidence...

It's probably not a coincidence. Things rarely are. As a card carrying member of the Salford UCU branch, I receive internal bulletins from UCU Comms to members. As such I was informed yesterday there's quite a few more job losses (academic related) in the offing at Salford in March, which according to the UCU Committee and includes President Sheehy, could run into the hundreds and lead to '[e]xtensive course and module withdrawals'.(3) I tend to take this sort of news seriously as it wouldn't be distributed to UCU members willy-nilly (see below).(4)

A beginner's guide to improving the staff/student ratio

Now I'm no Einstein, but I do have a basic grasp of the mechanisms of reasoning and sums. And a couple of thoughts crossed my mind which regular readers of these 'dodgy' journalistic endeavours will know is nearly always a bad thing. They go something like this. If one reduces staff in absolute terms, and the number of students stays roughly the same, then relatively speaking, the staff/student ratio increases. Alternatively, one could reduce the number of students drastically - say by one half - whilst keeping the numbers of staff at the same levels and influence the staff/student ratio in terms of downwardness. It would mean that the institution would end up with a staff/student ratio akin to either Oxford or Cambridge instead of one akin to both top universities combined.

A reorganisation or two...

During my own time at Salford I witnessed one or two reorganisations: the shift from 'departments' to 'Schools', the changing of logos. More recently under the new 'Strategic Plan 2009/10 to 2017/18 has involved major changes with the loss of around 150 jobs in 2009 under project Headroom, over 200 in 2010-11 job losses (or more correctly role transformations), the 'transformation' from 'Schools' to 'Colleges', the opening of the flagship MediaCity campus and of course the ubiquitous changing of logos. I've done the sums and it would appear that the huge swathe of job losses since 2009 has done little to halt the general downward slide of the University in the league rankings. But to be fair, the new signs have only recently been erected.

This chap likes change too but doesn't have a Plan B

What if...?

As any specialist in hydraulics or indeed plate tectonics will tell you, there is a direct correlation between descent and pressure. I'll hazard a guess that in light of these results, there's one or two feeling the pressure at Salford. It would be interesting to know if anyone in the UCU branch leadership has pointed out to Martin Hall or his deputy Graves, as the loss of hundreds of staff hasn't managed to reverse the general trend downwards in the standard league tables, why should further job cuts do any better? Moreover, if the loss of hundreds of jobs appears to have increased the staff/student ratio, which speaking as a former student is hardly ideal, how then can the prospect of further job cuts decrease it?

And what if the new signage adorning the front of the Maxwell Hall fails to arrest this current freefall? Does Martin Hall have a Strategic Plan B?


Notes and References

(1) Sourced at http://www.planning.salford.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/33016/20110519-Guardian-Analysis-Web.pdf
(2) The Times Good University Guide shows Salford increasing its staff/student ration from 18.5 in 2011 to 23.8 in 2012 sourced at http://www.university-list.net/uk/rank/univ-10001.htm
(3) UCU internal communications to Salford UCU members dated Monday 20th February 2012.

(4) Dated Monday 20th February 2012


'From the UCUS Committee to all members.

Important Membership Survey – Make Your Views Known

Dear members.

Sadly we find it necessary to communicate with you again and to seek your views. It appears likely that employer has plans afoot that will threaten hundreds of jobs in March 2012. We have regrettably seen a succession of smaller redundancy exercises over the past year, but what is about to be inflicted will mean jobs at risk leading to redundancies and we fear demotions on a scale not seen at this University for over a generation. This is associated with:

• Extensive course and module withdrawals;
• Replacing lecturing with on-line study as part of blended learning so that the VLE becomes a partial substitute for a lecturer rather than a support to face-to-face tuition;
• Reduction of option choices;
• Consolidation of delivery into a smaller number of larger, more generic modules.

In the firing line this time are academic-related members in Schools (and possibly some student-related and professional service roles in central functions, related to Phase 2 of Transformation) as well as academic members in more than one college. One of our Committee members today witnessed the announcement in a well attended College meeting in ‘Health’ of a ‘Phase 3’ due to take place in September 2012!.

We call upon the Employer to deny that there will be a large scale threat of redundancy leading to substantial job loss and workload intensification later this year and before the assessment period. We ask that they refute our claim that Academic Related, Administrative, and Academic staff will be affected across the University.

We want to ask whether members are prepared to take industrial action to resist these cuts before we are so depleted that we lose our ability to defend ourselves. Industrial action will mean you making a significant financial sacrifice, possibly for your own immediate benefit if you are in one of the affected areas, but possibly for the immediate benefit of other colleagues. If you are in an area not immediately affected, remember that successful resistance now means you reduce the risk that your area will be in line for job cuts in turn.

Please let the Committee know your views - this is a democratic branch that aims to defend its members in line with their wishes. As ever these surveys are confidential and anonymous, so please do not fear that anyone will know if or how you voted. It is with regret we need to ask you to let us know what action you are prepared to take to protect the livelihood of those who do not wish to leave employment other than by genuine voluntary means. The intention of a strong message of willingness to take action is to persuade the Employer to draw back from their plans and consider alternative strategies.

The survey can be accessed from this link: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/UCUSRedundancyThreats. This link will be available off-campus, so members can complete the survey from their home machines if they prefer.

Thank you for letting us have your views at this time of grave threat to members' livelihoods.

Kind regards,

UCU Salford Committee.'

Usual disclaimer: This work is the opinion of the author and is produced in order to report current events that are of public interest and public concern. The reproduction and use of any documents herein is to provide accuracy in order to avoid civil litigation and claims of misquoting. In reporting current events they are used within the context of Fair Dealing. The author is happy to provide further acknowledgement if requested. To make any such request press here.

The author also suggests that before embarking upon expensive civil actions for libel, contact the author. We have reams of documentary evidence which we are happy to provide. A right of reply also operates. We are also happy to make corrections and if necessary provide an apology. So, to save £££sss please avail yourself of this opportunity if you really feel it necessary, which you can do by clicking here.

If one doesn't ask... one doesn't get

Listen my grey-feathered friend... you may be a UCU member but you're
not a member of the Business School so fuck off! 

Yesterday two identical bundles of documents were delivered to (i) a District Judge, and (ii) a Mr Ian Austin.  Mr Austin - formerly of Halliwells LLP now of Heatons LLP- is a busy man. For as well as sitting on University of Salford University Council as an independent member,(1) he is also acting under instruction from the University in the University's libel claim against my good self.(2) Mr Austin has kindly provided two signed witness statements to the Court so far.

Document disclosure #1 - The TCM Group Report

A letter was also included with the identical bundles requesting that the District Judge issue a document disclosure order for the full TCM Group report and its diminutive brethren, the TCM Executive Summary. Why? As many readers may be aware, I've asked on numerous occasions for the TCM Group report and a copy of the TCM Executive summary to no avail. Apparently it contains some interesting and rather juicy information on appointments and recruitment in the Salford Business School. It's been requested under Freedom of Information via whatdotheyknow by that Shannon chap and someone called Li Na where it's been both refused and in the case of Li Na's request, remains unanswered which according to the website means the University is in clear breach of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

I've requested it from the President of my union branch OGL (Sheehy), who neatly ducked what promised to be a particularly treacly issue, passing it rather deftly into the hands of the local UCU regional officials. I asked the regional official for a copy. The gentleman simply referred me to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Unwittingly, I'd fallen headlong into a bureaucratically manufactured autosynchronous feedback loop reminiscent of the bastard progeny of the most nightmare-ish episode of the Twilight Zone and Groundhog Day. The regional official was I believe largely ignorant to the fact that I've not had much in the way of luck with my previous FOI requests to the UoS. Nevertheless, I'm glad I've kept paying my monthly subscriptions to the branch.

"Klaatu Barada Nikto" should get you a copy

And witness orders...

I've even had the temerity to ask an Employment Tribunal judge for a document disclosure order for it. The response of the judge was quite characteristic of previous requests for document and witness orders; such as the witness order for the extensive list of emails between Head of School John Wilson and lecturer Xiang Li. Yep, refused. I previously asked that the Tribunal grant a witness order for Head of School Professor John Wilson to give evidence. Also refused. I asked they grant a witness order so that Ms Li also appear and give evidence. Refused but I've become rather familiar with the theoretical concept of refusal.

History depleting itself...

Prior to the Disciplinary Hearing last year (2009), I did write to Head of School Wilson and Ms Li asking that they appear and give evidence. After all, I was accused of bullying and harassing them. You would think that as neither HoS Wilson or Ms Li made an official complaint of bullying against me, or provided two definitive witness statements to the investigating officer Scott Mulholland at least outlining the extent of my lampoon-based delinquency, that they would both be keen to appear at the Disciplinary Hearing and astound the panel with compelling personal testament to bolster the allegations against me? Oddly enough, they didn't. Mind you, Harloe and Hall also refused my personal invitation to appear and answer questions. Apparently writing about a couple of Vice Chancellors in the same Newsletters isn't deemed to be bullying or harassment in this alternative universe.

The bastard will never find it down here

But it was the vigour with which the University's lawyers (Eversheds for the ET) opposed the granting of this order that got me thinking and that's usually always a bad thing. What on earth is contained in this report that has so many people working overtime metaphorically speaking in order to restrict access to it? The big question is why doesn't OGL release the Executive Summary widely to UCU and UNISON members and UoS staff more widely? What on earth is stopping her? It's clearly in the interests of staff across the university to know what's in it... isn't it?

Technology - it's great isn't it?

Then I thought, "maybe she's slightly busy?" But then I thought "it wouldn't take long to say make fifty or so copies of the TCM Executive Summary and hand them out to members would it?" Then I thought "I bet the branch is broke and can't afford the exorbitant costs of making fifty photocopies?" If that's the case then I'd be happy to dip into my own depleted pocket to pay for the copying. Then I thought "maybe they could eschew one or two pre-EGM light luncheons to pay for it?" I quickly self-corrected as this was patently silly. Light lunches are important and there is after all, a few bob resting in the branch account and I can't think of a more worthwhile use of the branch's sizeable financial resources. If money or time is the issue, maybe she could scan one copy and email it as a PDF to all committee members who can then pass it down in an antithetical non-sustainable business model sort of arrangement to all staff.

Yet, Christmas is very nearly upon us and I'm sure more people are concerned about what to buy their loved ones for Christmas Day. I'm concerned about the post over the holiday period. I worry about nationalised industries all the time. So I thought I'd hurry off in today's post to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, my appeal against the decision of the Employment Tribunal judge not to grant the requested documents. With any luck the elusive documents and emails may be disclosed prior to the Employment Tribunal in March. If not I'm sure they'll be disclosed prior to or during any forthcoming libel trial.

Another hearing in all things deem'd calumnious, defamatory and libellous....

The University of Salford

Versus

the irksome Dr Gary Paul Duke

2 o'clock promptly before Judge Smith at Manchester District Registry

Tuesday, the 21st day of December 2010,

Manchester Civil Justice Centre

One Bridge Street West,

Manchester

(1) University of Salford list of council members
(2)According to the University of Salford's own website, part 1.1.5 of University Statutes as approved by the Privy Council 21 July 2010 an " "Independent Member" means a member of the Council who is neither employed by nor a student of the University and who is considered by the Council to be otherwise independent and impartial."

• Article at Manchester Mule at  http://manchestermule.com/article/university-sues-sacked-lecturer-for-libel

You'll like this... not a lot!*

Cheer up chum. It could be worse... couldn't it?

Can't afford this

With reference to the minutes of the UoS Council meeting held on 8th July 2010, according to Watkinson the Executive Director of HR, the UoS can no longer be as 'generous' with their voluntary severance scheme:

'The Executive Director of Human Resources provided a brief oral report on the University’s current Voluntary Severance Scheme. He advised that the current Scheme, which had existed for several years, was no longer sustainable. The average payment at the University in 2008/9 was £38,000 or 90% of salary which contrasted with a recent, national CBI survey which found average payments of £12,000 or 50% of salary; the University’s scheme was amongst the most generous of those provided by other north-west universities. Council noted that annual voluntary severance payments (including early release of pension) amounted to £9.7 million in 2008/9.'

In light of this, University

'Council resolved that the current Voluntary Severance Scheme be discontinued and agreed that University management should enter into a period of consultation with the trade unions about an alternative, affordable severance scheme.'

This got the grey matter working overtime. Clearly the word 'consultation' is distinct from the word 'negotiation'. And what sort of 'consultation' can be conducted on the basis that University Council has already decided to scrap the existing scheme for something a whole lot cheaper (cheaper for the University, costly of course for those taking voluntary severance).

Try comparing apples and apples

Up the apples, down the pears

Moreover the above analysis compares apples with pears (average academic salary of £42,000 compared to average salary somewhere in the region of £24,000). It is assumed that the above figures would include many of the costs of voluntary severance under Project Headroom. On the surface, 90% of salary does appear 'generous'. However, this conceals the question of the long service and age demographic of many of those who accepted voluntary severance under PH. It is suggested that this is the major contributory factor in raising the overall level of payments during 2008/09 to £9.7million.

As the students are actively resisting the massive cuts in student funding and increasing fees which mean a huge cut in future earnings, this massive cut must be resisted by the campus unions at all costs. Why? Changes such as this are usually an auger for job losses. If not, why change terms and conditions of service? However, there is another very good reason why this should be stopped in its tracks.

Can afford this

Just immediately below this little gem, another piece of Council minutary almost leapt of the page. It concerns the progress of the IT Transformation Programme. It's well worth a large quote. It goes something like this:

'The Chief Information Officer introduced a progress and finance report on the IT Transformation Programme, which was attached as an appendix to the Vice-Chancellor’s Management Report. The report requested a further £2.5 million to complete the Transformation Programme; this request had been approved by the ICT Project Board and Strategic Leadership Team and had been built into the Annual Budget to be presented to Council later in the meeting. The estimated third party hardware cost of the programme was still subject to negotiation, although a prudent estimate was £6.5 million; this would bring the overall cost of the project to £9.3 million, an overspend of £2.7 million on the original estimated cost of £6.6 million. £2 million of this sum was a result of items not originally specified by KPMG in their cost calculations. After a tendering process, Unisys had been selected as the partner to work with the University to deliver the required solution.

It's an enigma

Members questioned the extent to which the overspend against the original cost estimate could have been predicted and whether best value had been obtained from the use of KPMG as consultants. The Lead Member for IT reminded members that, when Council had approved the implementation of the IT Transformation Programme, the potential requirement for some additional expenditure had been appreciated. Both the Chief Information Officer and the Lead Member for IT confirmed that it would have been difficult for KPMG to factor in the required additional expenditure into the original estimate; this was largely a result of an underestimate of the extent of institutional maturity and capability (both in terms of human and physical resources). As an example, the KPMG solution of outsourcing data centres had not been feasible given the current state of development and would have resulted in significantly increased revenue costs. University management expressed confidence that, barring anything currently unforeseen, the additional £2.5 million would be sufficient to see the project through to a conclusion. The reduction in operation and maintenance costs after the completion of the project was emphasised; the hardware was provided on a 3-5 year renewal basis and had 5 years storage growth built in.

The Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Registrar and Secretary advised that, as Chair of the Project Board, he would be commissioning a post project review and this would include a review of the use of consultants.

The Vice-Chancellor informed Council that the completion of the programme would provide a stable platform for flexible future delivery (taking into account the particular needs of Salford, given that the majority of students commuted to the University and were not residential) and any further requests for strategic IT spend would be included in annual budget submissions for Council approval.

Council resolved to approve the additional £2.5 million capital expenditure recommended in the report.'

Nothing of real concern here apart from a £2.7 million pound 'overspend' which is a hellofalotofmoney. Any guesses as to whose head will be on the chopping block for this little 'overspend'? If you'd like to send your answers you can do so by clicking here.

Might this not also provide an answer to the question as to why there's little money left in the coffers for the 'generous' Voluntary Severance scheme?

*Courtesy of Paul Daniels the magician

In the public domain

The Court Jester

Well. It's an interesting piece of logic... wrong but interesting none the less.

I've just (yesterday) been informed by Martyn Moss by email (Mr Moss is a UCU official for the North West region), that the UCU will not provide me with the TCM Group Report or the Executive Summary as requested. You may recall, I actually wrote to the President of the UCU Salford University branch and requested the documents from her.

The Report and Executive Summary deal with the issues of appointments and the appointment process in the Salford Business School. This of course is an issue that is directly pertinent to my Employment Tribunal tomorrow. I've asked my former employer via their lawyers for a copy of both to no avail. They seem a little less than forthcoming with all sorts of information these days including the TCM Report and this Summary.

What a fool believes

Of course my union, having received this damning evidence from the University would, you might believe, be tripping over themselves to provide this vital evidence to me on the eve of the Tribunal. Oh what a fool am I.

I have clearly been living in a parallel or some sort of inverted Carrollian netherworld populated by rotund twins and top-hat wearing rabbits with possible mental health issues. It is clear that I have got it completely arse-end upwards! How silly was I in thinking that when something is in the public domain it is actually in the public domain.

That Our Glorious Leader Chris Sheehy had had verbally delivered the ten page Executive Summary to UCU members at an Extraordinary General Meeting in the Salford Business School and UNISON reps who were in attendance, might suggest it is. That she had supplied copies of the same Executive Summary to reps that are available for viewing by UCU members, might suggest it is. Apparently not so.

According to Mr Moss who now speaks exclusively on behalf of OGL with regard to matters concerning my good self, informs me that access to this document is conditional and that 'it is not in the "public" domain'. Mr Moss also closes by suggesting that I 'should seek disclosure of pertinent documents from your former employer using the tribunal disclosure procedures.' Mr Moss also now considers 'this correspondence closed'.

I thought it wise to ask Mr Moss to elaborate on why he believed it's not in the public domain and I eagerly await his response.

A two-tier form of disclosure?

Now, forgive me Ms Sheehy and Mr Moss, but I feel the teensy-weensiest bit discriminated against by my own union. Why? Well it would appear that certain lay members of the UCU (those in the Business School) have privileged access to these document and while other UCU members do not. Do all our members have the right to know is the question here?

Now it doesn't look very good does it? Never mind, it'll all come out in the wash over the next few days.

Employment Tribunal

Dr G Duke v University of Salford

10:00am Wednesday 29th & Thursday 30th September

Alexandra House

14-22 The Parsonage

Manchester

Freedom of Information

It might seem a little perplexing to any Camusian outsiders reading these words. Yes it appears very peculiar indeed. What is at the root of this peculiarity? Well does it not strike one as a little odd that the full contents of a very important review into appointments in the Salford Business School (SBS) remains at the time of writing this piece, undisclosed to staff? 'What's the problem here' you may ask? Well the Gus John Report in 2005 was made public as was the follow up GEM Report of 2008, which largely confirmed that few of the recommendations in the Gus John report had been implemented.

Hmm.. I shouldn't have called him Freedom of Information...
I shall however keep on flogging him

Many believed rightly or wrongly that the above mentioned review conducted by the TCM Group and supported by Vice Chancellor Martin Hall would be made public on completion. From recent conversations I've had with former colleagues in SBS and UCU, I believe this was also the understanding of many of those who attended the meetings and gave evidence to the TCM Group review.

What's in a review

The review itself was conducted earlier this year against a background of marked disquiet among the rank and file in the Business School, brought to a head by the suspension and disciplining of a member of staff in the School. In addition, staff in SBS were concerned with the manner in which full time lecturing posts among other positions were apparently being distributed in a less than fair and transparent manner to close friends and relations of other staff members.

What bullying and harassment... where?

The above is confirmed by a letter from Head of School John Wilson to staff in the Business School in December 2009 where he makes it clear that there is much discontent among staff around three specific issues: appointments to academic positions, bullying and harassment and communications with the professoriate in the Business School.

In his letter of July 2010 after the review had been conducted, Martin Hall asserted that the TCM Group report 'concludes that all appointments within the scope of the review were appropriate.' He then goes on to say that 'Specific recommendations include processes for shortlisting candidates, the selection and training of interview panels, resolving potential conflicts of interest, and the internal communication of staff recruitment and selection.' Slightly contradictory perhaps and continued rumblings in SBS suggest that staff are not entirely happy with the conclusions the Vice Chancellor has drawn.

Like the mythical unicorn...

What is feeding these rumblings is that few people have set eyes on the report. I for one do not believe it has been written on invisible unicorn horn-based parchment, and is therefore only visible two days after a full moon to those of pure heart who partake regularly of white vinegar and colonic irrigation. Obviously Martin Hall has. Seen the report I mean. It's assumed that HoS Wilson has had one. It does after all deal with allegations that directly concern his School of which of course he's the boss. It's inconceivable that Dr Graves has not had one and pored over its content. Again for clarity, I refer here to the report, not colonic irrigation. As it concerns appointments, I would have thought that Keith Watkinson as Executive Director of Human Resources of Human Resources (HR) would have had one. I've been told that UCU president Chris Sheehy has a copy of the ten page Executive Summary. I haven't got one... yet!

I finished it ages ago... your VC has a
copy so I believe does the President of your Union

It does beg the question that if the situation in the Business School is so rosy and the suggested recommendations are merely peripheral, why then hasn't the Vice Chancellor Hall disclosed the findings of the TCM Review in their entirety?

They shoot FOI requests don't they?

I have it on good authority - my own - that the University are rather reticent when it comes to disclosing certain items of information. I say this with complete certainty as I await the findings of the Information Commissioner regarding around eleven or so Freedom of Information requests I have made that the University have either flatly refused to answer or are still awaiting an internal review (I may add months after the statutory deadline for fulfilling the review has passed). According to University Head of Information Governance Matthew Stephenson, the requests they have refused are 'vexatious'. This is I might add, from a man who pronounced with absolute certainty that a particular set of handwritten notes promised to us by the Chair of the Appeal Panel Mr Simon Atwell, were no longer available (destroyed apparently by Mr Atwell) only to be undermined by Mr Atwell. The document was in good health contrary to Mr Stephenson's initial claims and was supplied forthwith.

Dr Duke's naivety knows no bounds

My own FOI requests deal with claims contained within the satirical Vice Consul's Newsletters. So one might think that the University would be keen to ensure that these requests are processed, and any information that is likely to prove or disprove my case against them would be made available.

I also await the disclosure of an email that had an important name and information redacted by the University. This should have been supplied to me in an unredacted form in a Data Protection Request of November 2009. I wish to enter it into evidence for the Joint Bundle of Documents for the Employment Tribunal. Mr Stephenson has felt the need to discuss the release of this document with Registrar Dr Adrian Graves for reasons that have not been made clear to me. As such I haven't received it...yet!

In my unadulterated naivety I made the obvious error in assuming that the release of information through the FOI and DPA was the exclusive role of Information Governance not the office of the Deputy Vice Chancellor. Buffoon-like and with obvious regard to my own requests as I cannot speak for others, it would appear I erred in thinking that a public authority such as the University of Salford, would have eagerly wished to abide by the general principles of the above legislation. Other public authorities such as the BBC seem to have no problem. There is a silver lining on the horizon. It fills me with a certain perverse warmth to know that Dr Graves is taking such a close personal interest in continuing with his hands-on approach to my case. Nevertheless, and with a certain sense of melancholy, I have felt the need to inform the Information Commissioner about this disregard for certain legal provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998.

What has this to do with a certain person's impending Employment Tribunal?

It may be unrelated but I heard only last week from two sources that the contents of the ten page Executive Summary which has yet to see the public light of day, are 'dynamite'. Might this explain why the findings have not been released?

Now for any of you who read the satirical Vice Consul's Newsletters (and emails that I have received under my Data Protection request in November of 2009 show that many of you were disseminating them across the University) the issue of nepotism and how certain staff members in the SBS were appointed was highlighted in the newsletters. Apart from other issues such as profligacy, the Newsletters also dealt with what I saw were pertinent issues concerning bullying, harassment and victimisation of staff in SBS.

You may recall that for simply satirising these issues was deemed by the University to have constituted bullying and harassing the aforementioned Professor Wilson and the now recently appointed full-time member of staff Xiang Li. For the University, with clause twelve of the Charter of Statutes emblazoned boldly across the front of its corporate cuirass, a clause that professes to encourage dissent in that any Academic staff employed by the University shall have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges... in contrast to this wholly laudable aim the mere act of putting pen to paper and highlighting such inequities according to the Disciplinary Panel, constituted bringing the University into disrepute. This carried a penalty of dismissal for gross misconduct. The ghost of Johnathan Swift turns in his grave at the imprecations of Vice Chancellor Hall, Dr Graves et al.

A horse is a horse unless of course....

I find it rather interesting to note that HoS Wilson has alleged rather publicly in his letter to SBS staff of 11 February 2010, that the 'posters' (it would appear that even at this late stage the clear and qualitative distinction between a 'poster' and a Newsletter is quite lost on the good Professor) 'were seriously defamatory of a number of University colleagues...' I also note that the Professor makes this allegation without providing one shred of evidence to back his assertion.

I was however curious to know how he scaled this 'seriousness'. Was it on a scale of one to ten? Did he run them through SPSS?

As a victim myself of unscruplous, defamatory and potentially criminal remarks (more later along with the documentary evidence) from some of those close to Professer Wilson, I find the Professor's unsubstantiated remarks typical of a form of persecution more familar to historians of Stalin and Joe McCarthy.

I have quite naturally read and re-read the decision of the Disciplinary Panel in preparation for my appeal and for the Employment Tribunal and I can find no mention of the Newsletters as being defamatory. If they were defamatory HoS Wilson knows what he can do!

With over ten years intensive training in researching and analysis at an undergraduate and postgraduate level, if there's one thing I'm quite adept at it's checking my mailbox every morning. And I observe that I continue to not receive a summons from Professor Wilson's lawyers to appear in court answering to allegations of defamation or libel over the authorship of the Vice Consul's Newsletters. I haven't received the same from any of his 'University colleagues' nor have I received similar from any other University staff for that matter. At the time I received this email, I asked myself what was Professor Wilson's rationale for publicly proclaiming that the 'posters' were defamatory? A thought occurred to me. The thought was 'haven't I been here before?'

Deja Vu - it's not merely a Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young album

 Let me see... firstly make allegations... say of being bullied or harassed. Secondly do not make a formal complaint. Thirdly do not back up the allegation by providing a witness statement to this effect. Finally, refuse a request to appear personally and deliver evidence at a Disciplinary Hearing as to how being the focus of a satirical lampoon equated to being bullied. The more cynical amongst you will conclude that in this way the accuser might avoid any embarrassing questions as to their own behaviour in respect of bullying, harassment, victimisation, nepotism and questionable relationships, such cynicism is surely misplaced!

Forgive me for having a soft skin - I am a southerner after all - but I do find Professor Wilson's pronouncement of defamation to staff in SBS as particularly ill advised. He is perfectly aware that I have no right of reply to this public allegation. There are of course places where HoS Wilson could air his opinion on the defamatory nature of the 'posters'. And to this end an invitation from myself to him to appear at my forthcoming Employment Tribunal and give evidence was treated much the same as the invitation to appear at the Disciplinary Hearing. It was flatly refused by the Professor. 'Why' I ask?  What has he got to hide? I mean surely the truth cannot hurt him?

A feasibility study

Maybe I should make an official complaint against Professor Wilson for bullying and harassment. Hmmm.... the problem is I've been here before. I'll save this interesting episode concerning a lying and bullying  Dean of Faculty (not denied by the University's solicitors) and a very senior manager for later. But it's too late. I've been engulfed by a wave of less-than-enthusiasm and I now have little confidence that Professor Wilson would be suspended pending an investigation into this matter. But your thoughts on a postcard please to.....

Pen-centric penannigans of the defamatory
kind according to a leading Head of School...
and the author's wearing those damnable rose tinted specs

Now, cynicism is not something that comes naturally to me. I'm an eternal optimist. I'm so optimistic, I wear rose tinted spectacles to bed at night even with the lights out. But a rather cynical thought impregnated my natural anti-sceptically inclined deoxyribonucleic acid during the 'wee small hours of the morning'. I wondered if the University were simply sitting on the report and would make it available after the Employment Tribunal? What would the benefit of this be to University chiefs? Well many of you like myself may find it odd that such a severe penalty of dismissal can be apportioned for simply writing about something that is widely spoken about in the corridors and restaurants around the University and just might be confirmed by the Vice Chancellor's own independent review.

Now as the University (the Respondent) hasn't made this document available to me I have had to write yet another letter to their solicitors and ask that they provide a copy for inclusion in the Joint Bundle of Documents as evidence for the Employment Tribunal. I have also asked UCU branch president Chris Sheehy to provide me with a copy. It would be quite a sorry state of affairs if my union branch president had in her hand information that backs my claims in the Vice Consul's Newsletters, and refused to make it available to myself and the Tribunal wouldn't it? Gambling's never been my forte so we'll have to wait and see which side comes through first.

Oh and finally if you have any information that you can legally share be my guest. Email me at garypaulduke@gmail.com

Nothing will be treated in confidence but shared with everyone. After all the truth doesn't hurt does it Professor Wilson?

Employment Tribunal

Dr Gary Paul Duke -v- University of Salford

10:00am prompt

29th - 30th September

14-22 Alexandra House

The Parsonage

Manchester (near the Tax Office)

The Psychology of Suspension

It was close to this time last year that I heard the very welcome news that a member of staff in Salford Business School, who was at the time suspended (unfairly in my own view and that of many others) had attended his graduation ceremony where he received his award for successfully completing his PhD. I know that many of his work colleagues were at the ceremony to support and congratulate him on completing his studies which I think was a real triumph against the worst kind of adversity.

It was the worst of times... it was well, the worst of times!

Over the past year I have also faced circumstances that to say the very least have been testing. Of all the events of last year concerning my suspension and dismissal, I consider the events surrounding my suspension as a student as particularly petty and nasty. I'd like to take this opportunity to look at the process of suspension as it relates to my case, and try as objectively as I can, to give a taste of the impact it had and rather perversely, continues to have on me.

The long and winding road... to submission

I was suspended as a member of staff at the University of Salford in May 2009 for authoring a satirical newsletter or two critical of management. I was also suspended a second time in mid June 2009 as a student ostensibly for the same thing. At the time, I was finalising my PhD thesis in anticipation of submission in July 2009. I was sacked in August after a disciplinary hearing. It was a very worrying time as I also stood to lose the fruits of several years of hard work as a post-grad. Being suspended as a student with no prospect of gaining my PhD also meant that I was denied the immediate opportunity of applying for work as a lecturer at other universities. The long process of winning the right to submit and be awarded my PhD has taken almost a full year. Throughout these particularly stressful months, senior managers used the Code of Conduct for Students 2008, postponement of my case combined with continued suspension to deny me access to the University grounds,postgraduate library and IT facilities. A year on, despite the dropping of all proceedings under the Code of Conduct for Students in May of this year, I find I am still denied access to University premises, events and services including my graduation ceremony. Their justification for this? That I am taking the University to an Employment Tribunal in September/October 2010!

The psychology of suspension

Before I deal with what I think are some very serious issues, let me start by saying that suspension is a terrible thing. The most deleterious aspect of suspension is the isolation that it immediately instils in the individual. No longer can one meet with colleagues in the workplace. You are removed from the students whom you have taught for the past year or so, who value you and your expertise. You are removed from the very job you have been training yourself to do for many years. You are neither employed or unemployed. You are in limbo. The everyday socialising that is taken for granted - a cup of coffee with friends and colleagues in the cafe or the office - the Cappuccino Effect to borrow a phrase - is gone. More psychologically debilitating is the feeling that you are in this on your own. How on earth does one build support among colleagues if you can't even meet with them? Further, suspension is a little like having been passed the black spot by Blind Pew. Colleagues and students feel that in associating with you, that they may also fall under suspicion of managers. Many people have related this fear to me over the past year. You become the white elephant not in the room! Suspension is an act that I would argue both inhibits the individual and instils wider collective fear. Hardly the best recipe for employer-employee relations.

The case of University coffers - v - empty pockets

Although an elected UCU officer, my own union would not officially represent me in defending myself in response to the allegations made by the University against me. And what were these allegations? That in writing the satirical newsletters, I had bullied two members of staff and brought the University into disrepute which I categorically denied. I had to defend myself with little in the way of resourcing. However, since my dismissal, I have had the opportunity to wade through hundreds of documents supplied to me by the University under a Data Protection Request. It's been an enlightening process. It's very clear that the University had secured expensive legal advice at many stages of the process in order to ensure that their case against me was airtight. Other documents show that they had even secured the services of a freelance Public Relations person to ensure they received positive press during the process. I assume that these services do not come cheaply. At the time I was oblivious to all this. I'd never been suspended or disciplined in my entire life. Having glimpsed what was going on behind closed doors, I now realise that I could not match the sums the University were spending on their advice. For the duration of the staff disciplinary process I was suspended on no pay. Being on a part-time hourly paid contract that ended in May the month of my suspension, meant that in contrast to full-timers who would automatically be suspended with full pay, I wasn't entitled to this. Thus I argue, at the most basic level, the disciplinary procedure discriminates heavily against some of the most vulnerable employees - those in what we might describe as precarious employment.

Does the disciplinary process discriminate against employees?

There is however something far more invidious regarding the use of suspension, which was particularly pertinent to my own case. The current Disciplinary Procedure states that:

"Suspension should only occur in exceptional circumstances i.e. where it is deemed necessary to suspend the individual to allow the investigation to be carried out. Any such suspension would be on full pay, for as short a period as possible, and would not constitute disciplinary action nor be prejudicial to the process." (12.1, 2008 Disciplinary Procedure, University of Salford)

In accordance with this part of the DP and wishing to put together a half-decent defence, after the investigation had been completed in June, I asked that the suspension now be removed. I was told that I would continue to be suspended on an ongoing basis because of the serious nature of the allegations made against me. Again, I am of the opinion that the decision of the University to continue the suspension, had a detrimental impact on my ability to conduct a defence. I was suspended as a staff member up to the day of my dismissal.

Further obstacles to a fair hearing

The scheduling of the disciplinary hearing also weighed heavily against fairness, as it had been scheduled during summer recess. I informed the Dean of Faculty and HR Link Officer with regard to this matter but my concerns were not taken seriously. By any standard, any organisation which wanted to ensure a fair procedure would have considered this incongruity, and have ensured that the hearing was rescheduled to allow me the best possible access to colleagues and potential witnesses. At least two of the people I wished to call as witnesses were out of the country over the summer recess. Although I was told that I would be allowed reasonable access to prepare my case (access to witnesses etc in line with the provisions of the DP) this 'access' became increasingly contingent, to the point where the Dean who had suspended me, asked me to provide him with details of where, when and whom I was planning to speak or meet with. I was not prepared to provide any names because of the the very real fear expressed to me by colleagues of recriminations. This caveat (note - not part of the official DP) was not exactly conducive to interviewing potential witnesses to build a defence. My dismissal in August thus came as no real surprise.

You have the right to join a union... but you may be denied access to your branch when you most need it

The decision to take the University to an Employment Tribunal wasn't taken

lightly.Preparing for an Employment Tribunal is a huge and complex undertaking. Without any funding, access to the UCU branch offices in order to photocopy vast numbers of documents in duplicate or triplicate is essential. Providing these documents are a statutory requirement as part of the ET. What I hadn't factored into this equation was the ongoing denial of access to the UCU branch offices and facilities. Their reasoning was impeccable. According to the University, as I was no longer an employee, I had no automatic right of access to University premises. As the UCU offices were on University grounds, I therefore had no right of access to them! Moreover, I was still a student, albeit one who was suspended. The University were in no hurry to progress the student disciplinary process postponing the process time and again. Their argument for not progressing this case rested on conflating my status as former employee and that as a student. To me, the two were completely separate. I was student long before I had been employed by the University. Yet despite the recent dropping of student proceedings against me, the reality of this logic is that I am still barred from University grounds and union branch offices, to which I still contribute my subscriptions every month. The overriding question here is does this seem in the least bit fair?

A year on - what lessons have been learned?

What has become increasingly clear to me over the past year is the role suspension plays in weighing the disciplinary process heavily in favour of the employer. When we consider that in addition, the University as the employer has at its disposal vast financial, infrastructural and human resources to draw upon, the chances of the employee having a fair hearing within the internal procedure is in my view very slim indeed. In my case I had only the very welcome help and support of my family, a few friends and the invaluable support of a very good and long-time friend who has helped build and shape my case with me.

Again I can only speak in my case but suspension and long-term suspension inhibited terribly my ability to gain access to vital witnesses and facilities in order to prepare for and conduct a decent defence. It has had a massive impact upon my own mental health. For the first time in my life I was prescribed anti-depressants. I know it has had similar or more devastating effects on others employees at Salford who have similarly fallen foul of managers using this nasty piece of the disciplinary procedure.

This is a serious issue and together the campus unions need to address it head-on as well as other glaring anomalies within what I see is a disciplinary procedure that is far from fit for purpose. If not, how will our unions be able claim that they independent from management when the disciplinary procedure allows senior managers the right to use suspension, or ambiguities and misinterpretations of the procedures to veto access of trade unionists to our branch offices. We must fight to ensure that long-term suspension is only ever used in the most serious of cases and that the authority to suspend once again becomes the preserve of the Vice Chancellor and not the Vice Chancellor's designates.