DRAFT COPY – NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Minutes of AUCU General Meeting

Wednesday 16 November 2016

1pm – 2pm

Macrobert 051 and IMS Level 5 Conference Room

Chair:Andrew Mackillop

In attendance: As per sign in sheets

Minutes: Susan Melvin

Note: Technical Support team was unable to set up the AV link between venues.

  1. Welcome:The Chair welcomed the Principal, Sir Ian Diamond, The Head of SMMSN, Prof Steve Heys and the Director Finance, Mr David Beattie to the meeting.
  1. Job cuts in the School of Medicine, Medical Sciences & Nutrition:The Principal explained the background to the need for savings in the School.
  • The Higher Education & Research Bill is going through parliament at the moment. This will have an impact on the University:
  • Increased access for private provision of teaching in universities in England. The Principal noted that if this comes in in Scotland, the “bar must be set high”
  • Teaching Excellence Framework. The Principal stated that he has been working with other Scottish Universities as to whether or not we should be part of the TEF.
  • Research & Innovation. Research Councils have been amalgamated. The Principal has been lobbying hard for Scottish/Welsh representative(s) on the Board. He also noted the Stern Report which will determine the rules for the next Research Excellence Framework. It is important that the rules are released as soon as possible as academics are already working towards producing papers for the next round of the REF
  • BREXIT vote in June has caused uncertainty.
  • The Principal reported that there have reassurances regarding the status of EU staff as it is likely that the principle of Freedom of Movement will remain.
  • The status of EU students for the 2017 intake is OK but discussion continues over status of future intakes.
  • “Excellence” remains a criterion for access to European research grants.
  • Additional factors impacting the University budget:
  • There is a review of the Enterprise and Skills agencies in Scotland underway. It is expected that Scottish universities will retain their autonomy.
  • There has been a 3.9% reduction in funding to the University of Aberdeen from the Scottish Government. Further cuts in funding within the HE sector of between 4% and 6% are anticipated over the next few years.
  • The Research Excellent Grant has also been reduced (SMMSN saw a drop £2.5 million in their allocation).
  • The University’s pension contributions has risen significantly.
  • The annual pay award of 1.1% has to be allowed for.

As costs have risen, income has gone down so the University must increase efficiently and seek to increase income (eg recruiting and retaining more students). The Principal noted that the staff:student ratio in some areas is too high. He also noted that the staff:student ration in SMMSN is relatively low (1:10 compared to a norm of 1:18)

The Principal then answered a series of questions which had been submitted by members before the meeting:

Q1: Are compulsory redundancies among staff yet to complete their contract now to become the norm at the University of Aberdeen, and, if so, why?

A: No.

Q2: The University has been unable to share information with UCU to clarify the financial methodology used to place the medical school in deficit which in turn has been used to justify compulsory redundancies. There appears to be a system whereby approximately a 40% tax on teaching income and 20% tax on research income is applied to all schools to recover central costs such as Professional Services. What assurance can you give that this mechanism is the most appropriate for the University, is well thought out and fair - for example discriminating against research intensive schools and incentivising external research which generates surplus.

A: The old financial model had no opportunity for incentives. We have brought in a simplified model which encourages innovation and incentivises staff.

Approximately 30-32% of our spending is on things like buying computers, heating the buildings etc. We effectively “tax” research and students to fund these things. The SMMSN is the most challenging area because of the funding cuts and the low staff:student ratio.

I think the model is clear and well thought out and similar to the models used in other institutions. There is no discrimination against research-intensive schools.

The main problem is that external funding is not covering the overheads so the SMMSN is subsidised by other Schools.

Q3: Between 5 and 10 years ago, schools had strategies to grow by research, now we are being told to grow by teaching. In hindsight, it appears the former strategy wrong, and seems to have led to a penalising those schools that were the most successful at it. Is that the way you see it? Furthermore, if research is no longer seen as the highest priority, what are the long term implications for our ability to retain and recruit academic staff who traditionally have been judged primarily on research excellence?

A: Both are important and we celebrate excellence in both areas. In the SMMSN the majority of the staff who pull in the highest amount of research income, don’t teach. However, some of the staff who bring in the lowest amounts of research income also do little teaching. We have a workload model that allows for 1650 working hours per year. We would expect to see 40% of the time spent on teaching (this includes preparation and marking), 20% on admin, and 40% on research. The data behind this will be published on the web next week.

Q4: We have seen communications from UoA that the drive to reduce operating costs will not have an impact on the student experience. Since the voluntary scheme has been going, SBS has lost the teaching effort of 6 staff in the area of Plant and Soil Science, compromising the ability of SBS to deliver a biology curriculum that reflects the evolutionary, ecological and human impact of plants and soils. How is that not impacting the student experience?

A: There are no plans for compulsory redundancies in the School of Natural and Computing Sciences. There is a new Head of School in the School of Biological Sciences and he is developing a School Plan at the moment. We will have to wait and see what the Plan looks like before making any decisions.

We do not foresee issues anywhere else.

Q5: You indicated at the recent Senate that, alongside the current risk of redundancy issue in SMMSN, there remain financial concerns with both the School of Biological Sciences and the School of Natural and Computing Science. Can you confirm there will be no compulsory redundancies in these areas?

A: The Principal read a statement from the Head of the School, Prof Paton. New staff employed over the last 4 years (replacing higher grade staff who undertook less teaching) have enhanced the number of teaching hours and led to a fairer distribution of teaching in the School. Level 1 and Level 2 courses have been restructured to enhance the student experience and feedback from students suggests this has been successful. Courses at Levels 3, 4 and 5 have increased flexibility and maintained quality.

The Principal (P) and Head of School of SMMSN (HOS) then answered questions from the floor:

Q6: I am a member who has been identified as being “at risk of redundancy”. I have not had a clear explanation as to the criteria used for evaluating who would be “at risk” and who made those decisions. The terminology used to describe areas marked for disinvestment are meaningless. Are the procedures for deciding disinvestment areas clear?

P: All of the staff who were at risk of redundancy have been offered redeployment posts.

HoS: The disinvestment areas were identifies by the School Management team in line with the School Plan which was published a year ago, and underpin the University’s Strategic Plan. The criteria for deciding which areas would be chosen for disinvestment were income generation, research publications and student numbers (postgraduate research students and postgraduate taught students). There have been open meetings about the School Plan for all staff at the SMMSN. Individuals have had opportunities to challenge the criteria. We want to be fair but have to work with the budget constraints in mind.

Q7: I would appreciate a clearer sense of how specific areas have been defined. I have asked the Head of School about this and he said he would email me with answers months ago but I have not had a response from him.

HoS: I did not say I would email anyone. We looked at which areas would best underpin the University Strategic Plan and provide the best income generation.

P: A management judgement was made on the basis of student numbers, publications and research income.

Q8: It has previously been stated that all Schools should aim to be cost-neutral. Is this also the case for the SMMSN too?

P: It should be possible with an increase in efficiency and increased income. I do see “green shoots” in some areas. It won’t be immediate so for now Schools will continue to cross-subsidise.

Q9: A perception has arisen in the membership outwith the School that the areas identified for disinvestment were more around targeting individuals than particular research areas.

P: This is not the case.

HoS: It is not about individuals, it is about research areas. I can understand how people feel, but research areas are ultimately comprised of individuals.

Q10: Until this morning it looked as though enforced job losses in the SMMSN were inevitable. What has changed?

P: Nothing has changed. We have all been working really hard to find redeployment opportunities for all those at risk of redundancy. All of those at risk of redundancy have now been given an offer of employment.

Q11: We welcome that development but this is not what we had been led to believe was the case at the JCCRA [Joint Consultative Committee for Redundancy Avoidance] meetings where an aggressive timescale for redundancies had been put forward. How can we improve our communications?

P: We have been working really hard on this. I agree that we need to improve communication. It is important that JCCRA and PNCC [Partnership & Negotiating Consultative Committee] work well. We need good relationships and good communications on both sides.

Q12: The Senior Management Team and UCU need to learn for this experience so that we don’t find ourselves in this position again. There seems to be a “disconnect” between the relationship/communication with the Principal and the relationship/communication at JCCRA and PNCC.

Q13: I attend the Employee Engagement meetings and am unhappy that papers for these meetings ae not provided in adequate time – only 45 minutes prior to the meeting. I am also concerned that the Employee Engagement Forum will discourage trade union membership and side-line the role of trade unions in negotiations.

P: Believes completely in the current role played by the Trade Unions. Employees asked for an additional voice for communication with the University and there should be no diminution of the importance of trade unions. We want to engage with ALL staff. I agree that the provision of papers so close to the meeting time is unacceptable and I will look into this.

Q14: Senate is another forum for the “staff voice”, including those who decide they don’t wish to join their trade union. So why the need for the Employee Engagement Forum?

P: Senate can’t cover everything. It is appropriate to have other “voices” and I am happy to work with them to work constructively. I will speak to Margaret Ross about feedback to Senate.

Q15: I am in an area which has been incorrectly identified for disinvestment. How can I correct this?

HoS: This is being addressed via the systems we have in place. I will ask HR to communicate with you this afternoon.

P: Yes – a written response is needed this afternoon.

Q16: I have issues relating to the transparency of the process by which areas were identified for disinvestment. In one area, the three members of staff have all done well in relation to the criteria mentioned yet are now at risk. I would like to see the data that was used to justify the decision.

P: Yes, you will get a written response and access to the data.

Q17: The news that there will be no compulsory redundancies is welcome, even if sudden. I feel that staff in the SMMSN are still not happy though. How many of them are satisfied with the new positions they have been offered, and will it involve pay cuts?

P: We are still waiting for them to respond to the offers. There will be a degree of grade protection.

The Principal confirmed that he would attend a similar meeting at Foresterhill to meet members personally.

The Chair thanked Prof Diamond, Prof Heys and Mr Beattie for attending the meeting, and also thanked Mr Beattie for coming to a Branch Committee Meeting last week to explain the financial situation in more detail.

1