Wednesday, 8 July 2009
A memo obtained by Times Higher Education reveals Hefce boards lack of confidence in London Met's management.
"Hefce considered ‘nuclear option’ over London Met."
26 June 2009
By Melanie Newman
Dissolution was considered by funding chiefs as a ‘last resort’ Melanie Newman reports.
Funding chiefs considered plans to take the “nuclear option” and dissolve London Metropolitan University during the ongoing crisis engulfing the institution.
Times Higher Education has obtained copies of ministerial correspondence that show that the Higher Education Funding Council for England considered closure, albeit as the last resort.
The institution is being forced to repay £36.5 million paid to it on the basis of student completion figures that Hefce says were wildly inaccurate. A further £15 million has also been held back from its recurrent teaching funding.
Documents released to Times Higher Education under the Freedom of Information Act include a memo exchanged between two officials at the now-defunct Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills.
The author of the DIUS memo, whose identity is withheld, reveals that a Hefce-commissioned report provided by consultants BDO that scrutinised data handling at London Met was “extremely critical” of the institution’s processes and its governing body’s lack of oversight.
This report was considered so incendiary by London Met that lawyers acting for Brian Roper, its former vice-chancellor, and a number of the university’s governors threatened to sue Hefce for defamation if it was published, the documentation reveals.
The memo from the DIUS official, dated January this year, says the BDO report “will strengthen the [Hefce] board’s lack of confidence” in London Met’s management.
“What happens next is not entirely clear yet. The scale of the problem… is much greater than any precedent, so the ‘traditional’ solution of lining up some sort of merger isn’t in play.”
It says: “If all else fails, Hefce thinks that its only remaining option may be to ask the Secretary of State [John Denham] to dissolve London Met… Clearly this is a nuclear option… It would also be new ground for all involved.”
Another piece of correspondence details a Hefce board meeting in May 2008, stating that one attendee “was worried that Hefce would lose reputation if [London Met] stayed afloat”.
In the event, the “nuclear option” was not taken, and the university has agreed to pay back the money it over-claimed over the next five years. This will involve a restructuring exercise, including up to 550 job losses.
As late as January 2009 Hefce board papers were still noting that the “Secretary of State has powers to dissolve a higher education corporation”. The DIUS briefing responding to this paper said: “We do not have a HEC [higher education corporation] here. Hefce knows this.”
London Met is incorporated as a company rather than a higher education corporation and as such may be dissolved only under corporate insolvency legislation.
The documents also reveal that Hefce received legal advice saying that it could threaten to withhold funding from London Met unless Mr Roper resigned from his position.
An email exchange between DIUS officials shows that in December 2008, Hefce’s board concluded that it had “no confidence in [London Met’s] leadership”.
By January this year, the funding council was acting on legal advice to the effect that “there is a road that will take Hefce as far as being able to withhold funding until a named individual ceases to be [London Met’s] accounting officer”, a DIUS briefing note says.
The same month, John Denham, the then Universities Secretary, sought legal advice over whether he could direct the university’s governing board to remove Mr Roper, Peter Anwyl, the board’s chairman, or the entire board.
He was advised that this was impossible, but that Hefce’s powers over university funding could be used to “put considerable pressure” on the institution.
In the event, Mr Roper resigned as vice-chancellor in March 2009, although he will remain employed by the university until December.
The board of governors, including its chairman, remain in place. No other senior manager has been asked to leave.
Bob Aylett, deputy vice-chancellor, took up the role of acting vice-chancellor in the wake of Mr Roper’s resignation. In May, Alfred Morris was appointed as interim vice-chancellor.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=407156&c=2
Why the Policy Exchange report "Sink or Swim?" should worry everyone who wonders what higher Education will look like under a new Tory Government.
Photo taken from London Metropolitan University, Sir John Cass Department of Fine Art, Media and Design, Central House, Fine Art Studio Practice.
Policy Exchange, a conservative think tank group has written a report called "Sink or Swim? Facing up to failing universities" where they ask themselves whether Universities should be allowed to go bankrupt or not. The authors of the report Anna Fazackerly and Julian Chant, have particularly set their eyes on London Metropolitan University as an example of a 'failing university' that should be allowed to go to the wall.
Considering the influence Policy Exchange has amongst a Tory party in waiting and the way they influenced Boris Johnson's Mayoral campaign in London last year as well as being a continual influence on his ideological and political decisions in City Hall, this report should be read by everyone who is concerned about the state of higher Education in this country and how a new Tory government will regard the welfare of the University.
In the article "Think-Tank Doublethink", Cliff Snaith argues that Policy Exchange want to inflict a bankrupt ideology on London's students and communities. wall ("Bankruptcy should be a real option, argues think-tank", 23 April):
"Specifically, London institutions can be closed: by implication, London Metropolitan University is first in line. But I believe that the only bankruptcy exposed by Policy Exchange is that of the Right's higher education strategy.
The think-tank notes that there are a high number of higher education institutions (42) in London, but they serve the most diverse, densely packed and demanding demographic in Europe. Contrary to its opinion, the students and courses of a university such as London Met cannot be easily decanted to other institutions.
For example, London Met offers degrees in subjects as diverse as musical- instrument technology and furniture design, silversmithing and polymer science, low-energy architecture and aviation, community-orientated modules in human rights and Caribbean studies (currently threatened), and vocational qualifications in shortage areas such as social work, community nursing and early-years teaching. I could go on.
Policy Exchange's philosophy is "by the market live or die", but it is the state that primarily funds university degrees and the expertise that sustains them. This is just as well. The market currently gets those skills cheap. Where private institutions offer courses equivalent to those in state-funded universities, they often charge considerably more.
Arguably, the primary mission of London's post-1992 universities is to provide diverse and flexible academic and vocational opportunities to international and domestic students, most of whom must work and learn simultaneously in a city that rarely sleeps. Their primary aim is not to make profits or to satisfy auditors.
Policy Exchange chose London Met as a soft target and rightly identifies the problems witnessed from its inception. Its financial difficulties have been well aired, not least by Times Higher Education, and cry out for independent inquiry. In the University and College Union's view, it has always been too managerial. For example, there are now no elected academics on its academic board.
The UCU will welcome dialogue with the incoming interim vice-chancellor over institutional reform, the reversal of proposals to cut jobs, and persuasive reasons why the Higher Education Funding Council for England should reinvest in the institution. However, by focusing on which university should close first, Policy Exchange is diverting attention away from more fundamental funding questions.
Even it does not propose an end to state funding, merely that the market should enjoy a share of it. It proposes amendments to the Higher Education Act 2004 to permit private bodies (now granted degree-awarding powers) to bid for Hefce money directly or indirectly - so not fewer providers, merely different ones. This exposes a common right-wing doublethink: a demand for tight public sector fiscal accountability coupled with an insistence on hiving off public service to an unaccountable market.
Right-wing orthodoxy perceives no doublethink because the self-regulating market would, in its view, eventually achieve progressive and creative "goods" beyond those measured simply by economic advance or profit. The think-tank no doubt would argue that capitalism is protean and can always reinvent itself in a crisis. Having failed in the provision of financial services, it wants to move on to exploit a market that cannot so easily disappear - London's students.
Tellingly, the think-tank's report, Swim or Sink, states that "it is a broadly accepted fact that for a market to be successful, there must be an element of failure". Is this broadly accepted? Market failure has never been so visible, so where is the record of success that justifies Policy Exchange's market-orientated agenda? In higher education we need planning, not chaos.
The past year has exposed the bankruptcy at the heart of free-market ideology. But Policy Exchange would inflict the same ideas on universities and the communities they serve."
Postscript :
Cliff Snaith is a lecturer and UCU secretary for London Metropolitan University and the London Region.
This article was published 21st of May in Times Higher Education.
Tuesday, 7 July 2009
The Unions address the imbalance in accountability by inviting the Chair of LMU's Board of Governors to fill in his own Redundancy Selection form.
Students and staff lobbied the Chair of London Met University's Board of Governors the 2nd of July, to protest against the job cuts. The protest was aimed at Peter Anwyl, Director of International Student House, who has consistently refused to meet or talk to the unions.
London Met Board of Governors approved the plan to make 550 redundancies in June, refusing to consider union proposals to ease the damage done to the staff at London Met.
Members of staff at London Metropolitan has received a Redundancy Selection form they have to fill out as part of the plan to make 550 Full Time redundancies.
The Unions addressed this extreme imbalance in accountability by inviting Peter Anwyl to complete his own Redundancy Selection form:
Submission of Supporting Information by Governors
(Insert additional rows where necessary)
| Name | |
| Role on board (if any) |
- QUALIFICATIONS
List all your current qualifications (include Academic and
Professional Qualifications). Please do not include honorary awards, knighthoods, OBEs, etc.
| Qualification | Where attained | Year attained |
2. JOB DESCRIPTION
Review the University's Mission Statement and list the activities you currently carry out which
contribute to meeting them, and indicate frequency (Regular “ Frequent “ Occasional or Never).
| Activity | How utilised in current role | R / F / O / N |
| Providing and sustaining high standards of educational provision and knowledge transfer | ||
| Achievement and maintenance of externally-benchmarked | ||
| Investing in staff and students so that the University's commitments can be delivered sustainably (NB: providing | ||
Devising robust ways of identifying and enhancing the University's 'value-added' contribution in terms of economic, social and | ||
| Offering educational opportunities to all who can benefit, to fair access, and to | ||
| Rigorous analysis of the quality and standards of academic and | ||
| Developing modern corporate | ||
| A commitment to continuous growth, refreshment and innovation in the academic portfolio, | ||
| Commitment to the professional development of its staff, in the |
Review the code of practice for Governors and indicate what you have done of relevance and the
extent to which you consider that you have met each of the criteria (Fully “ Basically “ Not in the slightest “ Prefer not to say on legal advice)
| Criteria | Relevant actions | F / B / N / P |
| Observe the highest standards of corporate governance, integrity | ||
| Wherever possible follow a policy of openness and transparency | ||
| Be accountable for the activities of the organisation and for the | ||
| Accept collective | ||
| Reflect and |
- TEACHING AND LEARNING
List the average number hours per month you have spent in the current academic year
(2008/9) discussing the University's current problems with the following groups:
| Group | Average number of hours |
| Students | |
| Prospective students | |
|
| |
| PSD staff (That's | |
| Trade union representatives | |
| Community representatives | |
| Political representatives | |
| Civil servants from HEFCE or DIUS | |
| Property | |
| Total (if more than zero) |
4. List any executive, administrative, campaigning or developmental activities that you have carried out over the last two academic years (2006/07 and 2007/08), which could contribute to the prevention of cuts and redundancies. We have given some examples but of course the list is not exhaustive.
| Preparation | |
| Consideration | |
| Applying for emergency funding | |
| Engagement in consultation with staff and unions | |
| Deployment of funds from reserves | |
| Other (please specify): | |
| None of the above |
5. Conduct of role
Taking into account your responses to the above questions, please indicate which of the following most accurately describes your role (tick as many as apply):
| I have diligently carried out the role of governor in the | |
|
| |
| I wanted to have some role of responsibility to put on my CV and never expected to account for decisions | |
| I was only obeying orders | |
| I should resign immediately | |
| Signed | |
| Date |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)