There are now two candidates for the position of National President next year. The other candidate, Maureen Montgomery, has made use of solicited endorsements for her campaign. I would encourage members, especially those who know both of us, to make comment about this contest.
As Maureen and I are both from Canterbury, AUS members from our university have had the closest view of our respective contributions over the years. I would encourage members to take note of the views expressed from Canterbury.
To post comments on this blog, simply click on the comment tab at the bottom of this or any other entry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Hi David
Just to be clear, Maureen did not solicit my endorsement for her nomination as president, I offered it to her freely because I believe her to be an excellent candidate for this position. She is ideally equipped in terms of experience, strategic understanding and insight. I have been National President for three years, have worked with her closely, and, simply, believe that Maureen would fill this role ideally. Best wishes Nigel Haworth.
Who is Maureen Montgomery? With the unceratinty and change facing universities at the moment regarding things such as PBRF, academic freedom etc. I would have thought that she would be very vocal about her views on these issues. I am from UC and haven't seen or heard of her really. At least David fronts up and has a valid opinion on the key issues as well as the ability and experience to work with and influence the people that matter. I have no confidence in Helen being able to do that.
My bad! that's what you get for reading AUS stuff and trying to write at the same time. Apologies to Maureen whom I called Helen at the end of my post.
I endorse David as the candidate best suited to advance the interests of the AUS as a union and to play a progressive role on the national stage
Taffy Davies,former Canterbury Branch VP
David Small is ideally suited to become the next AUS national President. He is a long-time active member of the Canterbury branch, serving as Branch President and is currently the National Academic Vice-President. David is feisty, energetic, has a quick grasp of issues and is not afraid to speak out. He has spoken out about PBRF, academic freedom and university managerialism. It was David's morale survey that demonstrated that university managerialism here at Canterbury has undermined staff effectiveness. He can speak equally well to his colleagues, the student body, the VC, the media and to MPs. I have every confidence in David's ability to fulfill the role of AUS National President.
A long and egregious emergency continues in New Zealand's universities. David Small is the right person for the AUS national presidency at this juncture. David deeply understands and passionately embraces the original, defining values of the academy. He possesses a keen insight into the forces underlying unwanted and counterproductive change. David's voice on all matters of concern to the AUS is strong and fearless. I enthusiastically endorse his candidacy.
Yes well really not impressed that the President has nailed his colours to a successor's mast, and not impressed that she has allowed that and other endorsements to be circulated to us- though not surprised that AUS leadership are trying to stitch up their successor as well as their conference vote.
But David, you mentioned in your June blog that you want the vote on amalgamation to be carried out by an open and communicative process- Now that its August, how do you think it is shaping up to that. Many of us, including your own branch, feel that the whole thing has been railroaded through on a false understanding of what last year's conference was voting about- as future President, what do you say to that?
Thanks Anon. Good question to put to both candidates. I'll have a reply up soon.
I’m not sure it’s PC of the outgoing president to endorse one of the candidates! In any case, the point Nigel misses is that both candidates bring strengths to the position. The issue is what candidate has the mix of skills the AUS needs now. In my view, we need more democracy – David Small has a very strong commitment to this ideal and those who value democracy will be well served by him. rob strathdee
David is inspirational, outspoken, fair and fearless. He is an outstanding leader who has contributed toward creating a culture of self-determination and collegiality in an environment of increasing disenfranchisement of university staff. With his commitment, vision and experience, David would make an extraordinary president.
Thank you Anon for this important question. Since your question is focussed on process and not on the merits of the amalgamation itself, that is what I will address. I would be very interested to hear Maureen’s reply to the same question.
As Canterbury Branch President at last year's Conference, I argued and voted against the ‘in principle’ vote for the amalgamation. I did so out of a concern that Canterbury had not had a chance to adequately consider the matter. In the preceding year, we had had an unprecedented assault on the Arts Faculty to resist, at the same time as a blitzkrieg of other restructuring that attacked 26 units within the university. And this was on top of our normal (ie heavy and getting heavier) workloads. I thought we had done pretty well to organise even the one meeting that we did which was moderately well attended, seemed broadly in favour of amalgamation but did not (in my view) come anywhere near giving us a mandate to vote in support of amalgamation. The notion of ‘in principle’ always struck me as conveniently imprecise; lending itself to being downplayed to get people to agree to it, and then beefed up once agreement had been reached.
What’s the rush?!
At that time, I could not see, and I remain perplexed as to why this matter was pursued with such urgency. It is the kind of urgency that I would advocate only in exceptional circumstances such as imminent financial crisis or a looming legislative threat. With no apparent urgency and considering the radical nature of the proposal, I argued that consultation with members should be as wide as possible, and that it should proceed at the pace of the slowest branch committee. I argued that the potential advantages of an amalgamation would be realised only if we approached it in a unified and positive manner and that this would be undermined by proceeding with undue haste. I said several times that I believed this was a process that could not proceed too slowly.
I reject the argument that, without a vote for ‘in principle’ support, AUS would not have been able to progress discussions with the other unions, ASTE and TIASA. And I firmly believe that, unlike ideas that emerge as a result or pressure from the members, top-down initiatives of leaders take a long time to percolate into the consciousness of members. If they are progressed too rapidly, they create suspicion, hostility and division.
Ruled ‘Out of Order’ by National President.
Although there was some support for my arguments (but none from Maureen), the discussion was moved along and put to the vote and the ‘in principle’ support was decided. I also supported an attempt led by Grant Duncan (who’s standing for Academic VP) to get a conference decision on a ballot of members, but this discussion was closed down and ruled ‘out of order’ by President Nigel Haworth.
At the first Council meeting after the Conference, I argued that the consultation process that was being proposed by the General Secretary was tighter even than that which was required by Conference. I was also concerned that the proposal was not given to Council delegates until we actually came to that item on the agenda of the meeting, thereby curtailing our ability to give it due consideration.
At both Conference and Council, other delegates (but not Maureen) advanced similar arguments as well, but we were unable to convince enough other voting delegates to support us. It felt rather like trying to score points against the Wizard on his soapbox in the Square. The top table has a lot of influence in these situations and the views they advanced were accepted by a majority of those who were mandated to make the decisions.
Accept the Democratic Decision of the AUS
Once Council had approved the consultation plan, I accepted that the democratic decision-making bodies of the AUS had spoken. Conference had decided. Council had decided. And so I decided to accept those decisions and not relitigate them. I also chose not to air them publicly on the National Discussion Forum on the amalgamation, an idea that I proposed in order to ensure that debates and discussions that were occurring locally could be shared more widely between campuses.
From this point on, my aim was to try to get the best model possible for a new union and to try to get maximum awareness and involvement of members in the decision. I was an AUS rep on the inter-union group that met twice to talk through the detail. The first meeting determined the content of the first discussion booklet. The second meeting considered feedback and fleshed out what the new union could look like. I was heartened at this meeting to hear the General Secretary’s suggestion that we organise a call centre to follow up members to ensure that participation in the September ballot is as wide as possible.
Harness the Collective Wisdom of the AUS
The amalgamation process highlights some significant ways in which participatory democracy has been compromised within the AUS in recent years. I genuinely believe in the collective wisdom of human associations, especially in a union of university staff. As National President, I would pursue organisational structures and decision-making processes that would harness that collective wisdom to advance the aims of our union.
Hi David,
I've posted this question on both candidate's blogs.
If elected, would you continue the current AUS practice of making split claims and/or accepting split offers that increase the pay differential between the general and academic staff?
Thanks for your question, Paul.
Pay claims are made in the context of negotiating collective agreements. Academic staff have different conditions of work, salary scales, promotions criteria etc… from general staff. They therefore have different collective agreements, which need to be negotiated separately. This does not, however, prevent a union that is negotiating on behalf of general and academic staff from seeking the same increase (whether in dollar or percentage terms) for more than one collective agreement.
Organisations, companies and even countries that have smaller income differentials between those at the top and those at the bottom have a greater capacity to function in a more collegial, unified and ultimately effective manner.
Where inequalities are extreme or have recently widened, tensions increase and there is less of a sense of common purpose and interdependence. The clearest example of this in universities has been the recent emergence of a highly paid managerial elite over a period where other university pay rates were stagnating and staffing levels and other budgets were being cut.
I believe that increases in pay differentials within universities and between universities is one of the factors that is fuelling the move away from the traditional liberal model of the university (to which I am committed) and towards the market-driven corporate model. I consider that the New Zealand university sector is being eroded by the steady advance of the corporate model and that a union like the AUS has a duty to society to resist it.
Having said that (yes, you knew there was a ‘but’ coming), a union must also work to get the best deal possible for all of its members.
Academic and general staff salaries are influenced by different factors. Most general staff pay rates are shaped by comparisons with pay rates of people doing the same work with similar qualifications in a different institution, for example, a librarian at a university library compared to one at a City Council library. As we all know, pay rates for many occupations within general staff have been held at unacceptably low levels in New Zealand for some time.
With the emergence of the PBRF and its overseas equivalents, the quality of universities throughout the world is increasingly being judged by the quality of their academic staff. Academic salaries, therefore, need to be set in relation to not just the local labour market (in fact, in some fields there isn’t a local market) but also international academic pay scales. Those international comparisons show a long-standing and significant gap between academic salaries in New Zealand and those in all the major countries from which we need to recruit and retain staff; Australia, the US, the UK and Canada.
This academic salary gap has been recognised by government as dangerous to the New Zealand university sector, and this is why it (eventually) agreed to make special allocations of funding directly into university salaries. It is unclear yet whether the amounts of funding being given have been sufficient to stop the international salary gap growing let alone close it, but the extra funding is a promising start and the hard-won tripartite forum provides a good mechanism to continue to address this issue.
During negotiations of collective agreements, unions can advance whatever claims they like. However, the good-faith provisions of the Employment Relations Act require them to base their negotiations on rational argument. Frankly, for the reasons I’ve noted above about pay relativity, the case for general staff is in most cases (there are some occupational exceptions) more difficult to advance. But I am absolutely committed to pushing as hard as possible on general staff salaries.
As I have noted elsewhere, I think we will have to be very careful in the event of a decision to amalgamate, to ensure that university general staff remain closely associated with university academic staff in their salary negotiations. The last thing we want is to allow employers and/or government to use generally poorer pay and conditions of general staff in the wider tertiary sector to impede progress on making gains for university general staff. I am alert to this risk and, as National President, would work hard to ensure it did not happen.
Post a Comment