Star Newsletter 4

Volume 2, Number 1, January 2010

Academic Board discusses STAR A special meeting of the Academic Board was held on Wednesday 20th January to discuss the effect of changes proposed under Project STAR on teaching and learning in the university. The Academic Board has an advisory function on academic matters but cannot require or instruct the VC to take any course of action.

UC Change Thermometer

Both the VC and the Chair of the Academic Board, Steve Weaver, welcomed the meeting as an opportunity for healthy debate and discussion. The large turnout of 80-90 members to the meeting also demonstrated the level of interest in these change proposals within the academic community on campus and the desire for the academic voice to inform the decision-making process. It also further evidences, as previously asserted by the TEU, the extent to which general staff services are integral to the delivery of teaching, learning and research in this university and the need to consult with academics to ensure the best outcomes from these changes. We are therefore encouraged by the undertaking of the VC that a special sub-group of Academic Board will be provided with copies of all future Project STAR change proposals. This sub-group will identify any academic issues resulting from the proposed changes and advise the VC accordingly.

Academic Board also passed the following motions: 1)

That the restructuring process retains (and where possible strengthens) the current role of AVC Academic as overseer of academic excellence and the development of a world-class learning environment and that the position include the oversight of AQUA and the Academic Development Group (currently in UCTL).

2)

That the restructuring process retains (and where possible strengthens) cohesive academic development and flexible learning groups as part of an integrated approach to teaching support.

3)

That the restructuring process retains the function of the Survey and Testing Unit within the University as a component of a cohesive academic development group and that this unit is overseen by the AVC Academic.

4)

That a more considered and comprehensive review of the Library as a unit be undertaken by an expert panel led by an external consultant with experience and knowledge of university libraries with a view to recommending the appropriate structure for the UC Library to best support the aims and aspirations of UC in relation to teaching, learning and research, and that the current ICTS change proposal that affects the Library should be deferred pending the outcome of such a review of the Library.

Business as usual Paul O'Flaherty, Director of Human Resources has responded to a question from the TEU (regarding members potentially impacted on by Project STAR proposals) as follows: "...we are most definitely in "business-as-usual" mode. No decisions about changes have been made and will not be made until after the submissions process has closed. Decisions will then be conveyed formally to staff and their representatives. Then, if there are to be any changes, there are the usual processes to be worked through according to the collective agreement. This includes a three or four month notice period, so there are potentially many steps to be worked through before we move away from carrying out business as usual. I would encourage your members to progress on that basis until then...."

Redundancies: 7 Redeployments: 0

Did you know?

If your position is disestablished and you are made redundant there is no stand down period imposed to prevent you from attaining future employment at the university.

Preparing a submission in response to a change proposal Following the release of a change proposal stakeholders are able to make submissions about the changes proposed. The purpose of such submissions is to genuinely influence the proposal’s intent, change some or all aspects, improve or enhance the outcomes, mitigate negative aspects from the submitter’s viewpoint, and to provide information and compelling argument that supports such submissions.

These submissions may be done by individuals, teams of staff or by the TEU on behalf of members. Submissions made by the TEU will be based on information provided by their members in the affected area. Whether you are making an individual submission or providing information to us for a TEU submission there are some things you can do to ensure that your submission has the greatest impact. There may be aspects to the proposal that make you feel intimidated or uncomfortable about making your opposition known or suggesting changes. In these cases the TEU will be very happy to promote the submission on your behalf.

Things to consider before writing a submission

What elements of the change proposal do you agree or disagree with?

If there are elements you disagree with, why? Do you think they are based on factual errors or a misunderstanding of the services provided? Do you think the changes proposed present a risk to the university’s service or reputation?

Can you provide evidence which will support your views?

Are you able to make alternative suggestions which will provide better outcomes for the university?

Writing the submission or preparing information for TEU submission

Identify who is making the submission. E.g. the individual or team.

Identify which change proposal you are submitting on.

Avoid lengthy narratives. Concise and to the point is best.

Avoid personalising the submission. Change proposals are about work done by a position, NOT about the person doing that work.

Avoid emotive language.

Make sure your comments are accurate. Avoid including statements which you cannot verify.

Show how the recommendations you are making support the VC’s vision for the university.

You may wish to make an ideological argument about retaining a service or position. It is fine to include this in your submission but you may find practical arguments are more persuasive.

Format the submission clearly — subheadings can be useful, especially if you are commenting on a number of elements in the change proposal. Clearly indicate your recommendations.

TEU believes the consultation process is valuable and that a cogent, well-argued submission can and has influenced the employer’s decision-making. We would encourage all members to participate in this process.

If you require any further assistance with writing a submission, please contact Megan Clayton (Branch President) or Helen Kissell (National General Staff Vice-President). Also, please send copies of personal or team submissions to the organisers, or to Megan or Helen so it can further inform the TEU submissions.

Contact your organisers Ilam Members Gabrielle Moore 021 190 2396 extension 6485 tertiaryunion@canterbury.ac.nz

College of Ed Members Paul Corliss 021 859129 extension 6288 paul.corliss@teu.ac.nz

Phil Dodds 027 44 99 422 extension 6768 phil.dodds@teu.ac.nz

2