Inside account of meeting at which not a single member of Cardiff University’s Senate backed cuts plan

Martin Shipton

A member of Cardiff University’s Senate has provided Nation.Cymru with notes of a highly charged and – for the university – devastating meeting at which not a single member of the body backed the latest cuts plans.

The Senate consists of senior academics who lead the university’s teaching and research progammes. The meeting, held on Wednesday June 11, came a day before Vice Chancellor Wendy Larner and the Chair of the University Council, TV executive Pat Younge, were questioned at a public session of the Senedd’s Children, Young Persons and Education Committee.

The university’s proposals, initially announced on January 28 when they entailed 400 academic job losses and the closure of five of the university’s Schools including nursing and music, have created huge trauma for staff members. The University and College Union (UCU) published the results of a staff survey this week, which showed that some had contemplated suicide and others having an abortion. The UCU has reported Cardiff University to the Health and Safety Executive.

‘Academic Futures’

The meeting notes, written by an anonymous member of the Senate, state: “On the agenda for this Senate meeting, among other business, was discussion of the finalised ‘Academic Futures’ business plan (the details of and justification for the plan for an 11% cut in academic staff, the axing of subjects, degree courses, and mergers of schools devised by the University’s Executive Board, UEB).

“The paper (the actual final business plan) was circulated to members of Senate after 11am on Monday June 9, ahead of the Senate meeting at 2:15pm on Wednesday June 11. But University ordinances require all papers to be sent a minimum of five business days ahead of a meeting of Senate. The excuse given was that the plans have been widely trailed for months and also if the business case had been shared with Senate earlier, it would have been leaked to the press and so it wasn’t possible to share it earlier.

“In actual fact, although the ever-changing plans of the UEB have indeed been a relentless topic for university staff, it was always emphasised that these plans are not final and so it was not possible for Senate members, who have busy day jobs they are also expected to carry out, to scrutinise the actual plans until those papers were released, only two days in advance.

“The item on ‘Academic Futures’ was introduced by the Vice Chancellor with an admission that this was a topic likely to bring up strong emotions, and reminders to be respectful during the discussion were dished out.

“A brief presentation by the Deputy Vice Chancellor [Professor Damien Walford-Davies] followed, claiming that these proposals were academically led, but also financially sustainable and would save the university from threats to its existence. But those in the room knew that at the start of the exercise it was all about financial targets and only at a late stage did the claim that this was academically led surface, with academics puzzling as to the meaning of ‘academically led’. A discussion of the proposals then followed.

“Heads of School (academic organisational units within the university) speaking about disappointments:

of not being dealt with respectfully, not being asked for views, not being told of developments;

of having their alternative proposals criticised very unfairly: (‘the case for non-mergers of schools was not made convincingly’ was one feedback received, when, because they were told mergers were non-negotiable, their proposal therefore laid out how a merger could be done in a responsible way that minimises negative effects, even though they believed that no merger was the best solution);

of having their staff remain in scope for redundancy (since January), unable to concentrate on their work for worries they will lose their jobs, when the School demonstrated that their target reduction in full-time equivalent jobs (FTEs) had either been met fully, but the goal-posts were later moved and now more reductions were demanded, or they were only a few FTEs from the target and with the complete hiring freeze, inevitably the remaining reduction would be met naturally in just two or three years.

that Student-Staff Ratios (SSRs), the number of students in relation to the number of academic staff, that had been imposed by the plans would be catastrophic in terms of teaching quality and much higher than sector averages in their subject or what could be considered safe in their subject areas;

or about their deep disappointments of being told to reduce their student intake even though they had 20% more applications while holding admissions tariffs high.

“Yet other Heads of Schools communicated their serious worries about coping with teaching hundreds of students in yet-to-be-designed foundation courses in Kazakhstan from September, and designing first and second year courses for teaching eventually 400+ students in Kazakhstan while at home being merged in rushed fashion into new organisational units.

“Yet others explained how subjects to be cut were of central importance to their departments, how cutting out teaching in certain subjects would mean that the whole offer would collapse in on itself, how local schools said to them that Cardiff cutting subject X would mean the end of pupils studying the subject at their school because it would signal that this was not a subject worth studying at all (regardless of whether these pupils would have gone on to apply to Cardiff University or any university at all). Senate members also heard how alternative proposals were put to the UEB with huge amounts of carefully researched data and figures, including financial figures and student numbers and evidenced expectations, only to be told, without evidence provided, that UEB had a different take on it, did not ‘feel’ this was credible, or simply disagreed without explaining on what basis they disagreed.

Students Union

The note continues:“The meeting also heard from representatives of the Students Union on how they surveyed students and found that students were anxious about their courses, about losing their lecturers, about Welsh medium provision when key staff were put at risk of redundancy, about constantly being told that students were being listened to, but feeling their concerns were totally ignored and only late and confusing and contradictory information given. Any actual substantive suggestions from students made at meetings, being rejected out of hand.

“From other Senate members, there were reports about details from the business case they had checked and found to be wrong, misleading or not matching reality.

“Although all participants in the discussion were polite and many showed deference to the Vice Chancellor, mentioning they were grateful that they were given to chance to make representations, none of the speakers in the discussion spoke in favour of the ‘Academic Futures’ plan, none said they looked forward to its implementation or would support it. None.

“The Vice Chancellor kept replying to what Senators said with phrases like ‘I hear you loud and clear, we will of course address this, that, the other, of course we will’ or ‘I agree’, before picking up a detail they agreed with, while ignoring the rest, or claiming that the particular aspect of the plan raised was not yet final and would of course be discussed more and their concerns resolved, despite the paper before Senate being the final business plan for approval.

“Finally, the Vice Chancellor called a stop to Senators’ questions and interventions citing time pressures and said a vote was now going to take place on whether Senate would recommend to Council that the Academic Futures plan be approved.

“She said it would not be for Senate to decide on whether the plans were going forward, this was for Council only to decide. This is a point of debate, however, because in academic matters, the ordinances and statutes make Senate responsible for decisions and in other cases Council acts on recommendations from Senate, not on its own because it is not an academic body.

“The Vice Chancellor called on everyone in favour of making the recommendation to Council to approve the ‘Academic Futures’ business plan to say ‘yes’ and there was total silence. Not a single ‘yes’. She then had to move on to ask everyone against to say ‘no’ and there was a determined chorus of ‘no’ responses.

“The Vice Chancellor then had to promise to report to Council that there were zero votes in favour of recommending that Council approve her ‘Academic Futures’ plans.

“Business moved on to a number of other items on the agenda before concluding.

“The Chair of Council, Pat Younge, was informed of the result of the vote in Senate, but the next day, June 12, when appearing with the Vice Chancellor in front of a committee of Senedd Members at Cardiff Bay, Pat Younge stated that ‘everyone bought into the vision [of ‘Academic Futures’], but nobody likes cuts to their bit [of the university], it is natural.’

“Having received information that no-one in Senate was in favour of the plans, he chose to tell a lie at Senedd and slander members of staff as only interested in looking after their own interests.

“He and the Vice Chancellor seem determined to push their plans through even when the University’s highest academic body, Senate, votes unanimously that the plans cannot be recommended for approval.”

‘Clarify’

A spokesperson for Cardiff University said “The university does not comment on anonymous sources.

“However, it is important to clarify that the comments about “everyone bought into the vision …” were made in reference to ‘The Big Conversation’ which is separate to the Academic Futures proposals. The Chair was not referring to Academic Futures or the views expressed at Senate when he made this specific comment.

“Any suggestion that the Chair of Council ‘lied or slandered members of our academic staff’ would be inaccurate and we’d reject in the strongest possible terms. The Vice Chancellor and the Chair of Council have the utmost respect for the views and concerns expressed by our academic community and by representatives of Senate.

“As you will be aware, the final decision to approve the Academic Futures proposals rests with Council as the University’s supreme decision-making body. The views of Senate will be considered when the final Our Academic Future proposals are considered by Council on June 17.”