Thursday 17 December 2009

Times Higher Education writes: In the name of Hefce, go



17th of December

Rebecca Attwood

Chief executive issued ultimatum to London Met governors before mass resignations: leave or risk the institution’s funding. Rebecca Attwood reports

Governors at London Metropolitan University were handed an ultimatum by funding chiefs who threatened to stop financing the institution if they did not resign, Times Higher Education has learnt.

In a joint statement released today, the university and the Higher Education Funding Council for England say that all board members who were in place in the period up to 31 August 2008 are to step down by 31 August 2010.

The action follows a letter from Sir Alan Langlands, Hefce’s chief executive, to Peter Anwyl, chair of the governors, on 14 December. It warns that Sir Alan would “press for urgent action” and review whether the university should continue to receive public funding if he was not assured that the board was responding “promptly and appropriately” to a series of reports detailing poor governance and management at London Met.

The letter, seen by Times Higher Education, calls for all board members who were part of the audit committee during the period to stand down “immediately”.

Yesterday, London Met’s University and College Union branch issued a statement to its members saying that at a governors’ meeting on 15 December, Mr Anwyl had resigned with effect from the end of March 2010, and that other governors associated with the audit committee would follow suit.

This is confirmed by today’s statement, which says the audit committee will be “renewed” by 1 April 2010.

The university has been embroiled in a row with the funding council after it emerged it had massively overclaimed public funding as a result of inaccurately reported student dropout rates.

Brian Roper, who was in charge when the flawed data returns were made, resigned as vice-chancellor in March, and the university is now being forced to hand back tens of millions of pounds, leaving hundreds of jobs at risk.

“The scale of the governance, management and operational failures at London Met is unprecedented in higher education in this country in recent years and urgent action needs to be taken,” Sir Alan’s letter says.

Sir Alan adds that he is “disappointed” that the board refused to consider the critical reports into the affair produced by Sir David Melville and Deloitte until 15 December.

He then warns that unless action is taken, he would “ultimately consider whether or not the university should continue to receive Hefce grant funding”.

Sir Alan stresses that Hefce’s main concerns are “the wellbeing of the students and the motivation of the staff”, and says that it is willing to consider a “realistic” bid for money from its Strategic Development Fund, although it has yet to receive such a proposal.

The letter also describes an issue excluded from the joint statement due to its “sensitivity”: “With regard to the senior managers criticised in the reports, I have already recommended that the board should take advice on whether or not the former vice-chancellor failed in his fiduciary duties and what prospect there is of recovering money for the public purse.”

Sally Hunt, UCU general secretary, called for the governors’ departure to be sped up.

“Those responsible must go immediately as their continued presence on the board does nothing to lend any credibility to the institution,” she said.

“We need one quick blow from a guillotine, not numerous hacks from a blunt axe.”

University governors resign after false funds claims, The Independent reports

17th of December 2009


By Richard Garner


Governors at the troubled London Metropolitan University have resigned in the wake of its financial troubles, university sources said last night.

The majority of its lay governors will be out of office by the summer, they added. The governors have been under immense pressure to quit following a warning from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce), the body responsible for funding universities, that urged them to "consider their position".

This came after it emerged that the university had falsely claimed £36m worth of government funds for students who had not sat their end-of-year assessments – as exclusively revealed in The Independent on 23 November.

The Hefce's comment were widely interpreted as being an indication that it would refuse to continue funding the university if the governors stayed in post – effectively forcing the university to close.

An agreement was drawn up before a governing body meeting on Tuesday night that the chairman, Peter Anwyl, would leave by the end of March.

The rest of the lay members associated with its audit sub-committee – charged with overseeing accounts – would leave by the summer. A new audit committee is expected to be in place by next April.

The agreement, between Sir Alan Langlands, chief executive of the Hefce, and Mr Anwyl had been expected to be published yesterday. Last night a spokeswoman for London Metropolitan University said it hoped to publish it today, "slightly revised". The revisions are likely to be about the timetable of departures.

At the meeting on Tuesday, a statement from staff governor, Kay Dudman, was read out. It said: "It is clear that London Metropolitan University's future and safety is at stake. Hefce has made apparent that there is a clear and immediate risk that funding will be withdrawn unless it is convinced that its financial support of the university with public funds is safeguarded to its satisfaction.

"London Met cannot survive without public funds. The honourable, and indeed the only, course of action is for members of the board who were serving during the period in question to resign and the executive should follow suit."

Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union, said last night: "Those who are responsible for the mess at London Met should go immediately. Delaying the inevitable does absolutely nothing to help the university, staff or students.

"Why burden the new vice-chancellor with people whose inadequacies have been brutally exposed? What has happened at London Met must act as a wake-up call to all universities and their governing bodies."

In a letter to the university, Sir Alan said: "We have been concerned that the university is unable to safeguard public funds.

"Given the criticism of the board and the senior management team, I do not believe confidence can be restored until action is taken to consider the position of board members and senior staff who are criticised in the report and new governance and managements arrangements are put in place."

The incoming vice-chancellor, Professor Malcolm Gillies, joins the university in late January.

Wednesday 16 December 2009

Long goodbye at London Met: Times Higher Education reports on the news of the slow departures of London Met's Board of Governors.


16 December 2009

Governors bow to pressure and resign, but final departures won’t occur until summer 2010. Rebecca Attwood reports

The governors of London Metropolitan University have resigned following a period of intense pressure from funding chiefs.

According to London Met’s University and College Union branch, the chair of governors, Peter Anwyl, resigned with effect from the end of March 2010 at a governors’ meeting last night.

The other lay governors associated with the audit sub-committee – which the UCU branch said amounts to virtually all London Met’s lay governors – will follow suit in the summer.

In a statement to its members, the UCU says it assumes that an entirely new audit committee will be in place by April 2010.

The resignations follow a series of reports criticising the governors’ role in inaccurate data returns detailing student dropouts at London Met.

The university reported a non-completion rate of about 3 per cent, while under the Higher Education Funding Council for England’s definition, the actual rate was about 30 per cent.

The inaccuracies mean London Met has been forced to hand back £36.5 million it was overpaid by Hefce between 2005-06 and 2007-08, leaving the university in dire financial straits and hundreds of jobs at risk.

The UCU branch said it understood that a formal announcement on the resignations would be made today. It added that it understood the announcement would include a statement that the new vice-chancellor, Malcolm Gillies, would be investigating members of the executive group who were in post during the relevant period. This could include disciplinary action with the possibility of individual suspensions during the inquiries.

A statement from Kay Dudman, the staff governor, that was read out at the meeting says:

“It is clear that London Metropolitan University’s future and safety is at stake. Hefce has made apparent that there is a clear and immediate risk that funding will be withdrawn unless it is convinced that its financial support of the university with public funds is safeguarded to its satisfaction. It is noted that Hefce itself is not without blame, as cited in the [Sir David] Melville report, in particular for failing to make a written record of meetings.

“London Met cannot survive without public funds. The honourable, and indeed the only, course of action is for the members of the board of governors who were serving during the period in question to resign, and the executive… should follow suit.”

She adds: “Their sacrifice will be for the good of the institution as a whole, and allow London Met the opportunity to flourish once again under the leadership of a new vice-chancellor, a new board of governors and a new executive.”

Students storming the London Metropolitan University Moorgate building, waving a banner saying: Student struggle 1968 -2009


Police tried to stop students entering the University building in Moorgate the 15th of December where students and staff were demanding the mass resignation of Governors and Executives responsible for cheating with student completion rates to the staggering amount of 36 Million pounds. A few students were however lucky enough to get in, seizing the opportunity to wave a banner with the words: "Student struggle 1968 -2009" to the crowds underneath.

Protestors call for governors to quit London Metropolitan University, East London Advertiser reports.

"STUDENTS and staff were calling for governors at London Metropolitan to quit yesterday as it emerged the university could miss out on vital funding if they refuse to step-down.

Protesters gathered outside the university's campus in Moorgate as the board of governors met for the first time since its members were told by The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) to "consider their position".
And this came as the acting vice-chancellor Alfred Morris admitted in a leaked e-mail that the university may not receive extra funding unless its board proves its "adequacy" and confidence is restored. Board members were given the warning after an enquiry accused them of claiming funding for thousands of non-existent students at the university which also has campuses in Whitechapel, Aldgate and Holloway.
The University and College Union's general secretary, Sally Hunt, said: "London Met desperately needs a fresh start and that cannot happen with the current board of governors in place."

Mass Rally urging the Governors and Exec to resign NOW 15th of December, Moorgate




Tuesday 15 December 2009

Pressure mounts on London Met governors to quit, the Guardian reports today.

Staff and students to protest as board meets to discuss damning revelations of funds claimed for non-existent students writes Rachel Williams for the Guardian.

Troubled London Metropolitan University could lose out on badly-needed funding to help with its financial woes if the board of governors does not resign, leaked documents suggest ahead of a crunch meeting today.

Last month the head of Hefce, the body that funds universities in England, wrote to the chairman of governors at London Met in the wake of revelations that it falsely claimed funding for non-existent students, calling for board members to "consider their positions".

Staff and students will protest outside as the board meets to discuss the university's response to a damning inquiry published last week, which found that the institution had misused public money. Sir David Melville, former vice-chancellor of Kent University, warned in his report that senior officials at London Met must take responsibility for a fiasco which saw the university receive tens of millions of pounds in overpayments after submitting inaccurate student data. It has been ordered to pay back £36.5m.

But a leaked email suggests Hefce's assessment of the "adequacy" of the board's response would be critical to the success of a bid for cash and "any requests for further assistance".

The email, from London Met's acting vice-chancellor Alfred Morris to Hefce chief executive Sir Alan Langlands, predates the reports and Langlands' letter to London Met's chairman of governors.

Summarising Langlands' comments, the email said: "It would not be easy to persuade the Hefce board of the case for significant further support, and the restoration of mutual respect and confidence remained an essential preliminary."

The University and College Union (UCU) today said the governors' position had become "completely untenable" and demanded that they stand down.

UCU's general secretary, Sally Hunt, said: "London Met desperately needs a fresh start and that cannot happen with the current board of governors in place.

"The position of the board is completely untenable and they will cause greater damage by remaining in post.

"Nobody can have confidence in the university until there has been a proper shake up at the top and those behind the current shambles have gone."

Hefce said Langlands and Peter Anwyl, the chair of the board of governors, had a "purposeful meeting" earlier this month and met again yesterday.

"Both are committed to ensuring the wellbeing of the current students and supporting the continued provision of their education," a spokesman said. "They are equally concerned to ensure that there are governance arrangements in place which sustain confidence in the work of the university."

A London Met spokeswoman said: "The board of governors will be considering the detail of the university's response to the findings of both reports at its next board meeting on December 15.

"We will be preparing a full response to both reports, specifiying the detail and time scales of actions to be taken."

The incoming vice-chancellor, Professor Malcolm Gillies, who joins the university in late January, would be closely involved in the process, she added. "[Gillies] has been clear in his determination that all action must be in accord with a thoughtful, long-term plan that emphasises student learning and staff scholarship, and seeks to restore public confidence in the university."


London Met’s financial future hangs in the balance, Times Higher Education reports

14 December 2009

Outcome of board meeting will determine whether Hefce offers the beleaguered institution more funds. Melanie Newman reports

The financial future of London Metropolitan University rests on the outcome of a meeting of its board of governors on 15 December.

The board’s response to two critical reports into the problems with student-completion data that led to the clawback of tens of millions of pounds will determine whether the Higher Education Funding Council for England grants the institution’s requests for extra cash.

A memo seen by Times Higher Education from Alfred Morris, London Met’s acting vice-chancellor, to Sir Alan Langlands, Hefce’s chief executive, sets out a record of meetings between the university and the funding council.

It says that Hefce’s “perception of the adequacy of the board of governors’ response” to the reports by Sir David Melville and Deloitte “would be critical to the restoration of confidence and hence to the Strategic Development Fund bid and any requests for further assistance”.

The Melville and Deloitte reports criticise the university’s senior management and governors for allowing inaccurate student-completion data to be supplied to Hefce between 2005 and 2008.

The memo, written on 11 November, also shows that Mr Morris believes London Met’s incoming vice-chancellor, since confirmed as Malcolm Gillies, could take five years to “turn around” the institution to the point where it could be removed from Hefce’s list of institutions at high risk of financial failure. He says the new vice-chancellor would be expected to seek Hefce’s support for a bid for strategic development cash next March.

Professor Gillies will take up the vice-chancellorship in January. He is also likely to ask for a renegotiation of the repayment schedules for the £36 million overpaid by Hefce as a result of the data inaccuracies.

The memo reports Sir Alan as saying that “it would not be easy to persuade the Hefce board of the case for significant further support” without “the restoration of mutual respect”.

Sir Alan has since written to the governors asking them to consider their positions.

The University and College Union is calling for the governors to step down at the board meeting, which will be held on 15 December at 5pm.

Sally Hunt, the UCU’s general secretary, said: “London Met desperately needs a fresh start and that cannot happen with the current board of governors in place.

“The position of the board is completely untenable and it will cause greater damage by remaining in post. Nobody can have confidence in the university until there has been a proper shake-up at the top and those behind the current shambles have gone.”

Mass rally asking for a mass resignation of Governors and Senior Management

The Board of Governors of London Metropolitan University are meeting on 15th December to consider their response to the recent reports into the financial fiasco they got us into. Both staff unions, UNISON and UCU, and London Met students union, are now calling for their resignations and for a Fresh start at London Met.

We will be presenting them with our petition. Come and join our final lobby/ rally/ protest for 2009 and give them a last push:
  • Tuesday 15th December,
  • 4.00pm Moorgate Building
  • Note change of time to 4pm start - get there early; 3.45pm

Why don't the Board of Governors resign?


The Board of Governors may rightly feel that their reputations are at stake.


As the Independent can reveal, London Met's board of governors has 15 members and "contains movers and shakers of the City of London Corporation, including one key member who has spent his life in accountancy. Sir Michael Snyder, a former chairman of the university's audit committee, the Corporation's policy and resources committee and its finance committee, is a senior partner of the accountancy firm Kingston Smith.
In September 2007, Snyder wrote the following article in the Observer, "Why fat cats deserve their pay and our respect." http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/sep/16/executivepay
In a portrait interview in The Telegraph with the title "MIchael Snyder keeps the City in first place," he claimed that the Northern Rock crisis wasn't such a bad thing. In the interview that took place three days after the first run on a British bank since the 19th century, Snyder reasoned that "It illustrates the robustness of the London financial market and regulatory system." Even after the Government stepped in and pumped money into the bank system and when Northern Rock slid further into difficulty, Snyder was not
fazed by the criticism. He says: "My view still stands. It's reasonable in a free and open market place to have an individual failure as long as the system remains intact."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/2816811/Michael-Snyder-keeps-the-City-in-first-place.html

Another governor is Jeremy Mayhew who is also a Common Councilman on the City of London. He is also a member of the London Development Agency (DLA), a functional body of the Greater London Authority (GLA) and a board member of Barbican Arts Centre.

The board of governors is chaired by Peter Anwyl, director of International Students House, which provides accommodation for students in the capital.

Other governors include Professor Zanobia Nadirshaw, head of psychology at Kensington and Chelsea primary care trust, Raj Patel, director of policy at Enterprise Insight, Abduhl Rahim, managing director of Platinumlinks Ltd; Tony Millns, chief executive of English UK Ltd, and Bob Morgan, dean of London Met's business school.

Embattled board refuses to resign

10 December 2009

London Met governors claim damning report isn't based on the evidence. Melanie Newman writes

The governors of London Metropolitan University are resisting calls for their resignations, claiming that a damning report into their role in the institution's funding crisis is not based on the evidence.

Their stance suggests that a long-running dispute with the Higher Education Funding Council for England over responsibility for the errors in London Met's student-completion data is at an impasse.

The row centres on data inaccuracies that prompted the funding council to claw back £36.5 million overpaid to London Met between 2005-06 and 2007-08. The university reported a non-completion rate of 3 per cent compared with Hefce's figure of 30 per cent.

A report by Sir David Melville, the former head of the University of Kent, which was passed to the board last month, says that the governors' supervision of the executive team and Brian Roper, the former vice-chancellor, was inadequate.

Sir David's review and a draft report by Deloitte into the affair prompted Sir Alan Langlands, Hefce's chief executive, to call on the governors and senior management to consider their positions. He said Hefce doubted the university's ability to safeguard public funds.

In a written response, Peter Anwyl, chair of London Met's board, says there is no evidence to support this concern, and claims that parts of Sir David's report - commissioned by the governors - are not based on evidence. He adds that an investigation into senior management's role in the crisis will be overseen by Malcolm Gillies, London Met's incoming vice-chancellor.

He writes: "Your precipitate remarks serve only to prejudice and compromise this action."

Mr Anwyl says the governing board acted in good faith and could not have been expected to "second-guess ... audit opinions, including those of the Hefce auditors".

"There is a sector-wide issue here about what it is reasonable to expect of lay, staff or student governors," he adds. He says the university will act on the recommendations of the Deloitte report.

The report criticises the flow of information from the executive to the governors, identifies a lack of formal policies and control of data assurance, plus an over-reliance on external audits and Hefce reviews.

Sir David said: "All of my conclusions are firmly based on the evidence in the Deloitte report, along with the interviews I carried out and the submissions I received."

Times Higher Education understands that the board and senior management continue to maintain that Hefce condoned the university's actions over non-completing students for several years, as its auditors were aware of London Met's stance but took no action. Hefce said it acted as quickly as possible.

A KPMG report commissioned by Hefce in 2009 says action could have been taken earlier, but that London Met and its governors were ultimately responsible for the errors.

If Hefce wants to force the governors out, it could withhold funds from the university, pushing it into insolvency. London Met is a limited company and its governors are directors, so if they allowed the university to continue "trading", they would be in breach of their duties under corporate law.

Sir Alan has already asked the board to consider whether Mr Roper, who stepped down in March, breached his fiduciary duty.

Former v-c's dictatorial regime to blame at London Met, says review

26 November 2009

And the university's governors and audit committee are also culpable. Rebecca Attwood writes

The governors of London Metropolitan University must take overall responsibility for the university's financial catastrophe, a review says.

Sir David Melville, the former vice-chancellor of the University of Kent, was asked to investigate how London Met came to overclaim millions of pounds in public funding, which it has been forced to hand back.

His review, which is due to be published this week, concludes that despite not being fully informed of the scale of the problems, the university's board of governors and audit committee were aware of the poor quality of the university's student data and high dropout rates, but failed to follow them up.

The review, commissioned by the university and obtained by Times Higher Education, follows an earlier report into the affair commissioned by the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

It emerged this week that Hefce has written to Peter Anwyl, the chair of governors, asking members of the governing body and senior staff to "consider their position" in light of Sir David's findings.

Sir David's report says that Brian Roper, the former vice-chancellor of London Met, who left in March but remains on the payroll until next month, presided over a dictatorial management regime.

It says he must take "the major responsibility and culpability" for the fact that the university has been forced to hand back £36.5 million overpaid to it by Hefce between 2005-06 and 2007-08. The university's recurrent grant has also been cut by £15 million.

Mr Roper and some members of the executive were fully aware that the university was applying its own definition of funding rules on student dropouts - rather than the funding council's - as far back as 2003, but took no action, it says.

The university's method resulted in a non-completion rate of 3 per cent compared with Hefce's 30 per cent figure.

Sir David acknowledges that Hefce's funding rule on completion was "controversial" and says there was "widespread belief" in the sector until 2004 that it was not literally applicable. However, the fact that Hefce was taking a literal approach to the rule in audits was apparent in the sector from 2004, leaving Mr Roper out of step.

There is clear email evidence that "third-tier officers" responsible for the area tried to warn the vice-chancellor and most members of the executive that, if Hefce applied its definition literally, the result would be "disastrous" for London Met. There is no record of a response.

Mr Roper has confirmed that he saw no reason for the university to change its practice because he firmly believed that Hefce was not applying its funding completion rule in a literal sense and that London Met's approach was therefore valid, Sir David's report says.

"It appears that he took it upon himself to make this decision, and it is clear that he was not challenged in this by his executive group colleagues," the report states.

Meanwhile, Mr Roper, the university secretary and members of the executive group failed to present clearly the risks to the board of governors or board committees, and the audit committee "appears to have failed to consider" the audit reports for Hefce's Higher Education Students Early Statistics Survey in 2003 and 2005 and other Hefce reports, the review finds.

Sir David writes that vice-chancellors "are often charismatic leaders, and the case of LMU is no exception", but says "it is incumbent upon boards of governors to provide sufficient and effective challenge". He concludes that in the case of London Met, "this challenge and supervision by the board of governors in general was inadequate".

Sir David adds that he has received more than 50 submissions from staff, most of which describe "a highly centralised and dictatorial executive led by the vice-chancellor." To see all executive members in the same light may "be unfair to particular individuals", Sir David acknowledges, but adds that they "share collective and in some cases line-management responsibility for the failings in relation to data quality".

Hefce might have discovered the problems at London Met earlier if it had been quicker to investigate in more detail the "lack of credibility" in student data identified during Hefce audits from 2003, while its initial lack of clarity on the funding rule "may have contributed to LMU's position", he says.

Sir David's report is coupled with an independent review carried out by Deloitte into the circumstances of Hefce's funding clawback, which is due to be finalised this week.

The university says the Deloitte report "is critical, and the board acknowledged those criticisms".

It says the points raised by Sir David's report "provide London Met with important lessons, which will also be discussed at length by the board of governors. All the recommendations will also be the subject of full response and proposed action."

Monday 14 December 2009

London Met warned that it could be closed, The Independent can reveal.


Do executives and governors in the academe have to explain themselves when they as in the case of London Metropolitan, have mislaid millions of pounds

3:53 pm diary

Most people, if they had mislaid millions of pounds, would have to explain themselves to the fraud squad – unless they were a big banker, of course, when they could then look forward to a large cheque courtesy of taxpayers. So it will be interesting to see if things are different in the rarefied world of academe. In an unprecedented step, the Higher Education Funding Council for England, which funds English universities, has called for the entire board of governors at London Metropolitan University to resign. Two reports, one from accounting firm Deloitte, found that the university claimed falsely for thousands of students and it has been ordered to repay a staggering £36 million. Some academic staff – who played no part in this perfidy – have already paid for it with their jobs and many others are also expected to be made redundant in a desperate bid to cut costs. The previous vice-chancellor left under a cloud, but is rumoured to be still on the payroll until the end of the year. There are reports that an injunction bars him from entering university premises. However, since he is said to have left the country, he might not find that too inconvenient. The governors have been invited “to consider their position”. Some people might think that would be up a certain creek without a paddle. But who actually has the power to sack the governors is a grey area. Since universities are part of Lord Mandelson’s vast remit, he may want to have a word. According to Deloitte, LMU failed to keep track of its students or ensure they sat examinations. It claimed money for more students than were actually attending. It is even alleged that no eyebrows were raised when “Bugs Bunny” registered for a course. The surprise is that university managers did not try to tap the Hollywood star for a donation and ask his famous friends, Daffy Duck and Sylvester the Cat, if they would like to contribute, too.

London Met governors urged to quit following funding fiasco University ordered to repay £36m worth of funding, the Guardian reports.

23. November 2009

By Judy Friedberg,

The University and College Union (UCU) says the position of governors at London Metropolitan University has become untenable, following a call for the entire governing body to resign in the wake of revelations that the university falsely claimed funding for thousands of non-existent students.

The Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce) has written to the chairman of governors, instructing all members of the governing body and senior staff to "consider their position", according to a report in today's Independent.

The university failed to keep track of students or ensure they sat exams, damning reports by Sir David Melville, former vice-chancellor of Kent and Middlesex universities, found. It continued to claim government funding based on artificially low drop-out rates. London Met has been ordered to repay £36m worth of funding.

Hefce itself came in for criticism over the London Met fiasco in August and was forced to tighten its audit procedures.

Sir Alan Langlands, Hefce's chief executive, wrote to the chair of governors, Peter Anwyl, on Friday, giving them six days to consider their position.

The letter says: "The reports make it very difficult for Hefce to have confidence in the governance of the university. Given the criticism of the board and the senior management team, I do not believe that confidence can be restored until action is taken to consider the position of the board and senior staff who are criticised …"

London Met has the second highest percentage of students from low-income backgrounds – 55% of the student population, according to the Higher Education Statistics Authority. It's first year drop-out rate is 16.6%, according to latest figures.

Melville's report, while criticising former vice-chancellor Brian Roper who resigned earlier this year, made it clear that the problems were endemic. He had received "over 50 submissions" from acadmic and support staff, attesting to "problems of student data quality over many years". These provided "many detailed examples of the difficulty of removing students from the record whom they know to have left or who never ever appeared".

UCU, which represents lecturers, said that swift action was needed if the university was to stand any chance of getting through the current crisis.

Its general secretary, Sally Hunt, said: "The Melville report, coupled with the Hefce letter, makes the position of many of the board of governors untenable.

"Those who failed to hold the autocratic management to account, in particular the chair of governors, the chair of the audit committee and the executive managers who were part of the discredited vice-chancellor's inner circle, are heavily criticised in the report, which rightly recommends new leadership.

"Nobody will have confidence in the university until there has been a proper shake-up at the top. We have maintained from the beginning of this crisis that there needed to be a full independent inquiry.

"Although the report took longer than we would have liked, the most important thing now is that decisive action is taken with regards to its findings and recommendations."

The media reacts to the leaking of Melville report.

Wikileaks has also published the BDO-report, commissioned by HEFCE, removed from the Freedom of Information Act site due to legal threats.


Released November 21, 2009
Summary

This document was removed from the UK Freedom of Information Act site WhatDoTheyKnow.com, but was removed after legal threats (of libel) were made by the UK's London Metropolitan University: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/london_met

According to the document, the London Met university fiddled their student figures to show a 3% dropout rate, in reality it was about 30%. The HIgher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) had an audit or their student records done (with public money), but individuals at LMU are threatening legal action if that report, which found them to be at fault, is made public.

There was a second FoI request (which is also suppressed) concerning conversations between LMU and HEFCE about what parts are actually considered defamatory.

Melville and the uncensored version of the Deloitte report published on Wikileaks.




The Sir David Melville report looks into the causes of the 36M pounds over funding of the London Met University and the subsequent "claw-back" of that money, which resulted in hundreds of job losses for the front-line staff. Allegedly, this was due to fraudulent accounting of student numbers—this report into the fiasco lays the blame squarely on the Board of Governors of London Met University for not keeping in check the 'dictatorial' Executive Group. According to our source, subsequently, the funding body HEFCE have asked for them to resign.

Our source has disclosed the document because the "Governors and the Exec Group are 'sitting on the report', not publishing, and attempting to spin 'we've already made changes', and 'lessons have been learned', yet nothing has changed."

Sunday 13 December 2009

University accused of £36 Million Fraud, The Independent reports

Governors urged to quit after college falsely claimed for thousands of undergraduates.

The body which funds English universities has taken the unprecedented step of calling for the mass resignation of governors at a university accused of misusing public money.

A letter seen by The Independent from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce) to the chairman of governors at London Metropolitan University calls on members of the governing body and senior staff to "consider their position".
Read the rest of the article here:

A report on a London university has found board members were aware unfair funding claims were made for the institution, BBC reports

I fail to see how the board of governors can remain in post after such a damning report
Sally Hunt, University and College Union

LMU admitted it counted students as having completed the period if they moved into the next year, regardless of whether they had sat all exams, BBC reports.

Under the LMU's definition, just 3% of students failed to complete the year. Under the real definition the non-completion rate was 30%.

The payback order threw London's biggest university - with 34,000 students - into financial crisis.

Lecturers worried about redundancy during the fallout have staged several strikes.

Now the inquiry, led by Sir David Melville, lays blame for the fiasco squarely at the door of former vice-chancellor Brian Roper and his board.

"The unique level of the LMU clawback is attributable to a combination of ignoring the HEFCE definition and a failure to address very high levels of incomplete modules and student drop-out," the report said.

'Renewed focus'

"It must be the case that the board of governors and the audit committee should take their share of corporate responsibility for a failure of this magnitude."

An LMU spokesman said: "We are confident the appointment of a new vice-chancellor, subsequent action taken by the board and the university's new strategic plan will allow London Met to renew our focus on students and their education."

University and College Union general secretary, Sally Hunt, said: "I fail to see how the board of governors can remain in post after such a damning report.

"Sir David Melville's report completely vindicates everything the union has been saying yet, whilst it might be nice to be right, it is no comfort in these extraordinary circumstances."

London Met board bears responsibility Times Higher Education reports.


20 November 2009

Report into overpayments to university finds top officials were aware of problems but took no action. Rebecca Attwood reports

Brian Roper, the former vice-chancellor of London Metropolitan University, presided over a dictatorial management regime and must take “the major responsibility and culpability” for the fact that the university has been forced to hand back tens of millions of pounds in cash.

That is the conclusion of a review by Sir David Melville, the former vice-chancellor of the University of Kent, commissioned by London Met to investigate how the university came to massively overclaim from the Higher Education Funding Council for England after submitting inaccurate data about its students.

But despite not being fully informed of the scale of the problems, the university’s board of governors and audit committee had an oversight role, which makes them ultimately “accountable for a financial failure of this magnitude” and means that they “must take overall responsibility”, Sir David’s report says.

The review, obtained by Times Higher Education, which follows an earlier report into the affair commissioned by Hefce, found that Mr Roper and some members of the executive were fully aware that the university was applying its own definition of funding rules on student dropouts – rather than the funding council’s – as far back as 2003, but took no action.

When the scale of the data problems was finally picked up, the university was forced to hand back £36.5 million overpaid to it by Hefce between 2005-06 and 2007-08.

The university’s recurrent grant has also been reduced by £15 million, leaving the university facing financial difficulties and putting hundreds of jobs at risk.

Under the Hefce funding rule – which has since been changed – a university received funding for a student place only if the student in question sat all their exams at the first opportunity or completed their assessments for the year.

But London Met applied its own rule, based on successful progression of the student from one year of study to the next.

The discrepancy was huge. The university’s method resulted in a non-completion rate of 3 per cent compared with Hefce’s 30 per cent.

Sir David acknowledges that Hefce’s funding rule on completion was “controversial”. He says there was “widespread belief” in the sector until 2004 that the rule was impractical and not applicable in its literal sense to universities with modular degree schemes, particularly universities “with a strong widening-participation ethos”.

There was an anecdotal belief that Hefce did not apply the rule literally and that there was “leeway” in the way institutions might interpret their returns in the light of their own academic regulations on progression, he says.

However, Hefce was taking a literal approach to the rule in audits circulated in the sector from 2004, and many universities changed their regulations in response.

Sir David says it is “beyond dispute” that Mr Roper, who left London Met in March, was fully aware of the existence of the Hefce funding rule and its potential consequences from September 2003 or earlier.

There is clear email evidence that “third-tier officers” responsible for the area tried to warn the vice-chancellor and most members of the executive that, if Hefce applied its definition literally, the result would be “disastrous” for London Met. There is no record of a response to such warnings.

Mr Roper has confirmed that he saw no reason for the university to change its practice because he firmly believed that Hefce was not applying its funding completion rule in a literal sense and that London Met’s approach was valid, Sir David’s report says.

“It appears that he took it upon himself to make this decision, and it is clear that he was not challenged in this by his executive group colleagues. In this respect, he was out of step with the actions of other vice-chancellors in the sector as they became aware of this issue in 2004… This is a clear failure of senior management in the institution,” the report states.

Meanwhile, Mr Roper, the university secretary and members of the executive group failed to present clearly the risks to the board of governors or board committees.

Although the director of finance brought up the completion rule during a presentation to the board of governors in October 2005, the issue was a single bullet point in a large presentation and was “delivered without particular emphasis”.

It was, however, clear that the more general issues of high dropout rates and poor data returns in Hefce audits were brought to the attention of the audit committee and board of governors “at an early stage” but they did not follow this up.

The audit committee “appears to have failed to consider” Hefce’s Higher Education Students Early Statistics Survey 03 and 05 audit reports, or to have given “proper attention” to the detailed conclusions of other Hefce reports, the review finds.

“It must be the case that the board of governors and the audit committee should take their share of corporate responsibility for a failure of this magnitude regardless of the detail of information provided by the executive,” Sir David concludes.

He adds: “Vice-chancellors are often charismatic leaders, and the case of LMU is no exception. While it is important that they are allowed to manage, it is incumbent upon boards of governors to provide sufficient and effective challenge. In the light of what is now known about the management of LMU during this period as well as the disregard for funding council rules, I can only conclude that this challenge and supervision by the board of governors in general was inadequate.”

Sir David writes that he has received more than 50 submissions from staff, mainly academics, who universally expressed lack of surprise at the events that unfolded.

“They attest to problems of student-data quality for internal use over many years and provide many detailed examples of the difficulty of removing students from the record whom they know to have left or who never appeared,” he says.

“They generally describe a highly centralised and dictatorial executive led by the vice-chancellor, which was incapable of listening to what was going on in the university, discouraged or ignored criticism and made decisions without consultation.”

However, to see all the executive in the same light may “be unfair to particular individuals”, Sir David acknowledges.

He adds that there is “much evidence” that the prevailing style of management led to a “silo” approach that allowed little collective discussion.

“It must however be the case that they [the executive] share collective and in some cases line-management responsibility for the failings in relation to data quality,” he concludes.

Other universities have fallen foul of the funding rule, but not on the same scale.

Sir David says Hefce might have discovered the problems at London Met earlier if it had been quicker to investigate in more detail the “lack of credibility” in student data identified during Hefce audits from 2003, while the funding council’s initial lack of clarity on the rule “may have contributed to LMU’s position”.

The report adds that the university appears not to have been interrogated on how it defined funding eligibility during these audits.

“I am not aware of any other crucial funding rule that has been so difficult to apply and/or clarify and has had such a wide-ranging effect on so many institutions,” Sir David says.

“Hefce therefore bears some responsibility for this, but this does not detract from the singularity of the responsibility of LMU.”

In a statement, London Met says Sir David’s report is coupled with an independent review carried out by Deloitte into the circumstances of Hefce’s clawback of funds.

The reports were presented to the board of governors on 18 November. They are due to be published next week.

The university says the Deloitte report, which is still in the final draft stage, “is critical, and the board acknowledged those criticisms”, adding that its recommendations will be considered by the board next month when the report is finalised.

London Met says the points raised by Sir David’s report, “particularly about perceptions of the management style and the relationship between the executive and the board… provide London Met with important lessons, which will also be discussed at length by the board of governors. All the recommendations will also be the subject of full response and proposed action.”

The university adds that it wants to draw a line under the clawback issues “to allow both Hefce and London Met to proceed with their much more important tasks”.

And it says that it is confident that, following this week’s appointment of Malcolm Gillies, the former vice-chancellor of City University London, as its new vice-chancellor, it would now be able to “renew our focus on our students and their education”.

Malcolm Gillies appointed as the new vice chancellor of London Metropolitan University, Times Higher Education reports.

Former head of City named as new vice-chancellor

19 November
by Rebecca Attwood in Times Higher Education

Malcolm Gillies, who resigned as head of City University London in July, has been appointed the new vice-chancellor of troubled London Metropolitan University.
London Met has been forced to repay more than £36 million to the Higher Education Funding Council for England after major inaccuracies were discovered in its student-completion data.
Hefce has also reduced the university’s recurrent grant by £15 million.
The previous vice-chancellor, Brian Roper, left in March, and reports into the crisis have criticised the way the institution was managed and governed.
Last night, London Met’s board of governors appointed Professor Gillies to the role.
Professor Gillies, who is still a professor of music at City, served as deputy vice-chancellor of the Australian National University from 2002 to 2006.He stepped down as vice-chancellor of City in July after disagreements over governance with the institution’s council.A survey of City’s council members in summer 2008 noted that the council had “failed over the past year on clarifying the relative responsibilities of the vice-chancellor and the council”.There needed to be more contact with the vice-chancellor to build a “more engaging relationship”, the survey indicated.It also identified an “ambiguous relationship” with City’s executive committee, in which non-executive council members had “too little interface with management”.Professor Gillies said: “I am delighted to take on the position of vice-chancellor of London Metropolitan University. I relish the opportunity to address the challenges the university faces going forward.”Peter Anwyl, chairman of London Met’s board of governors, said: “The board is absolutely delighted that Malcolm has accepted the position. With the university having gone through a difficult period, Malcolm’s energy and experience will help us to draw a line under recent issues, to move forward and to concentrate on our students, their education and our staff.”Professor Gillies will take up the post early in 2010."



Lobbying of Board of Governors 18th of November 2009

There was a lobby of the board of Governors the 18th of November 2009.
This was a crucial date as the board of Governors were presented with the Melville/Deloitte report, a report commissioned by the University.
Sir David Meville had made it quite clear that he wanted his report to be made public soon after it had been presented to the Board of Governors.
However, during the meeting, and due to the damaging revelations in the reports, the Board of Governors decided to not have it published before later in December.
The appointment of the new Vice Chancellor was also being announced during the meeting.

Strike 15th and 16th of October 2009



STUDENTS and lecturers barricaded the doors of a university building - in protest at plans to cut staff jobs.

Hundreds of staff walked out of London Metropolitan University today (Thursday) for a two-day strike.

Many students ignored the university's pleas to "attend classes as usual" and joined the picket lines.

London Metropolitan University, which has campuses in Holloway and Highbury, has told staff that it needs to cut 550 staff by July 2010.

Greylisting of London Met announced the 1st of September 2009




Official "grey-listing" of London Met announced
Email from Sally Hunt, General Secretary of UCU, to all members 01/09/09

Dear colleague,
As you will know, I seldom email you directly and only do so when I feel that a situation is extremely important to our union. As such, it is with regret that I write to you today to formally notify you of the greylisting of London Metropolitan University (LMU). Those of you who have been in the union since its inception or were in one of the predecessor unions, AUT or NATFHE, will be aware that this is the most serious sanction available to us and this will be the first time in UCU's history when greylisting has been formally implemented rather then threatened (such as at Keele University and Nottingham Trent University).

As of today, 1 September, UCU will be asking colleagues across the country, other trade unions, labour movement organisations and the international academic community to support our members at the university in any way possible, including:

* non-attendance, speaking at or organising academic or other conferences at LMU
* not applying for any advertised jobs at LMU
* not giving lectures at LMU
* not accepting positions as visiting professors or researchers at LMU
* not writing for any academic journal which is edited at or produced by LMU
* not taking up new contracts as external examiners for taught courses.

Lecturers call on Mandelson to protest against massive job cuts at London Metropolitan University, Gemma Collins reports.





Lecturers take protest to Mandelson after halting colleges.

14 July 2009

By Gemma Collins

SIXTY lecturers who brought their college campus to a standstill today in London’s East End have just held a protest rally in the street before taking a petition against job cuts to Whitehall.
They warned university bosses during the 30-minute rally which ended a few minutes ago outside the London Metropolitan’s campus in Whitechapel that “there will be more action to follow.”

STANDSTILL

They have now joined lecturers who have walked out at the university’s other campuses in a delegation to hand a petition in to Peter Mandelson at the Department of Business & Skills.
The campuses at Whitechapel, Aldgate, Moorgate and the main site in Holloway have all been brought to a standstill today in a joint action by the lecturers’ union UCU and public service union Unison.
The university has been hit by ‘repayment’ demands by Whitehall totaling £36 million and is responding with plans to axe 550 posts.
The unions are calling for a public inquiry.

MP calls on Mandelson to shield London Met 'innocent' from crisis Times Higher Education reports

2 July 2009

By Melanie Newman

Parliamentary motion demands protection for students and staff. Melanie Newman reports

An MP has called for "innocent students and staff" to be protected from cuts at London Metropolitan University, which is embroiled in an ongoing funding crisis.

Jeremy Corbyn, Labour MP for Islington North, has tabled a parliamentary motion demanding that Lord Mandelson, the First Secretary, intervene "to protect the university and innocent students and staff from the funding row".

He has also asked the Government to ensure that a report into the role played by the Higher Education Funding Council for England in the debacle is published "on its receipt". The report was due to go to Hefce's board on 2 July.

The funding council has asked London Met to repay tens of millions of pounds that it said was allocated on the strength of inaccurate student-completion data. The university is looking to make job cuts as part of its efforts to find the money.

Rob Wilson, former Conservative Shadow Higher Education Minister, has tabled a Parliamentary question, asking: "In light of the scandal of 'phantom students' and the 500 posts to go at London Met ... why are there no senior management cuts among them?"

He said: "This saga gets murkier and murkier. It appears that only members of staff who had nothing to do with this scandal are to be sacked. This cannot be right."

The MPs' actions follow revelations by Times Higher Education that in 2008, Hefce concluded that it had no confidence in London Met's management, and that at one stage funding chiefs were considering plans to take the "nuclear option" and dissolve the institution.

Ministerial correspondence obtained under Freedom of Information laws also revealed that a report commissioned by Hefce was "extremely critical" of London Met's data-handling processes and its governors' lack of oversight.

Brian Roper, the university's former vice-chancellor, and several of its governors threatened to sue Hefce for defamation if the report was published.

In November 2008, Mr Roper told governors that Hefce had condoned the inaccurate reporting of student completions, an allegation Hefce strenuously denies.

An email exchange between officials in the former Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills says that in August 2008, negotiations between Hefce and the university were "extremely difficult", with "threats of legal action flying around".

It continues: "The Hefce board concluded, in December 2008, that it had reached the point where it had no confidence in that leadership."

Mr Roper resigned in February 2009. In March, the university struck a deal with Hefce to repay £36.5 million. London Met is in the process of cutting 550 jobs, including hundreds through compulsory redundancy. However, the rest of its governors and senior management team are still in place. Mr Roper will remain on London Met's payroll until December.

Alfred Morris, interim vice-chancellor, said last month that he had been "impressed by the professionalism, competence and confidence" of his senior management group and that the "right people" were in place to resolve the crisis.

But Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union, called for an "urgent overhaul of governance and management at London Met before any compulsory redundancies take effect".

"It is a disgrace that hard-working and talented staff are being axed for the failings of senior management," she said.

A government briefing included in the FoI documents suggests that some of the redundancies are not linked to the funding clawback.

Workers facing redundancy were this week asked to fill in forms listing their qualifications, number of successful student completions and grant applications, publications and their attendance record.

melanie.newman@tsleducation.com

- See http://tinyurl.com/lb5qey

CONSTITUTION SAVED LONDON MET'S MANAGEMENT

London Metropolitan University's constitution may have saved it from dissolution and stopped the Government from intervening in its governance.

On 7 January 2009, John Denham, the then Universities Secretary, sought legal advice about his powers to remove London Met's governing board and vice-chancellor, documents obtained by Times Higher Education reveal.

The Higher Education Funding Council for England also considered asking Mr Denham to dissolve London Met, with one Hefce board member suggesting that the council's reputation would be at risk if the university stayed afloat.

Mr Denham's legal adviser pointed out that such steps were impossible because the university was a limited company.

He said that Hefce would have "more weapons" when it became a regulator under charities law later this year.

David Palfreyman, director of the Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies at the University of Oxford, said: "The Department is not able to take over a university in the way it can intervene in the case of a failing school."