It has been brought to the attention of USSU that the University management is yet to offer any meaningful form of consultation to those threatened with compulsory redundancy as a result of the recent proposals for the Student Advisors and the new ‘Student Life Centre’.

Consultation with Staff

Student Advisors have been invited to a meeting, at which they were told that the new plans for the Student Life Centre were going ahead regardless of their arguments or opinions. This contradicts their right to be consulted on the process, by making it clear that there is no room for meaningful alterations to the Proposals. We note that this is a pattern worryingly repeated campus-wide in those instances where cuts are being made to services situated outside the schools.  Members of staff in I.T. Services, for example, are also yet to be offered any opportunity to collectively discuss the proposals with those imposing the cuts. We note that the Trade Unions explicitly approve of staff being given an opportunity for direct engagement in the plans affecting them.

Consultation with Students

USSU further notes that consultation with students has been comparably lacking.  With short notice, in the final week of last term, approximately 200 Student Reps and Sabbatical-Officers were invited to meet with Senior Management in a 50-capacity room.  A good half of the hour-long “consultation” was taken up with a presentation by representatives of the University.  Answers to questions were evasive, and focused on ‘defending’ the Proposals from excellent points made by Reps, rather than engaging with them and taking on their ideas.

This was followed by a series of ‘Focus Groups’ hosted by the Teaching and Learning Development Unit.  Again, insufficient notice was given.  In the groups, Student Reps were invited to offer “individual views” on a document titled ‘Proposals for changes to student advising’.  The initial e-mail from TLDU makes no reference to the recipients’ role as representatives.  It appears as though they were invited in a personal capacity.  As such, the Reps were given neither time nor reason to consult collectively with the student body they represent.

The information in the Focus Groups document is insubstantial, vague, and misleading.  When USSU’s ‘Stop the Cuts’ campaign attempted to distribute information detailing these inaccuracies to the Reps as they entered, the papers were confiscated. The University is purposefully obstructing the debate on student advice.

We remind the University that USSU is ultimately the most accountable and best-resourced organisation on campus to represent the student body on issues that concern us as a whole.  The attack on welfare services is such an issue.  Consulting with students is not about ticking a box.  It must be comprehensive and democratic.

Demands

We hereby demand:-

1.      That all those whose jobs are threatened by changes to Student Advice and their colleagues be granted an immediate meeting with management to discuss the proposals in a meaningful manner.

2.      That staff in areas of the University similarly outside the system of schools be offered the same.

3.      That further meetings with Student Reps and the wider student body are organised jointly with USSU and are held in the most democratic and accessible way possible.

All of these meetings should be open and serious opportunities for staff and students to ask questions and receive direct and honest answers to them.  Management also need to make it clear that they are taking criticism seriously and are willing to change their Proposals if there is good reason to do so.

In addition, the impact of these cuts needs to be properly established.  This will happen when users and providers of the threatened services are properly listened to.  To that end, we furthermore demand:-

1. i) That management issue a full and open review of the current Student Advice service and a full and open risk assessment of the proposals.
   ii) That the University management fulfil its obligation to immediately undertake an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) to ensure no particular group of students is disadvantaged by the removal of the current system. This needs to be completed usefully prior to the end of the consultation period with the trade unions.

5.      That the University publish hitherto withheld details about the proposed ‘Student Life Centre’ and related plans, including details of the planned pay grading and job descriptions.

USSU also encourages:-

6.      Former and current users of the Student Advisors’ services to anonymously publish their experiences of using the service, and how this would differ under the proposed new system, at advicetestimonials.blogspot.com