This one is for the silent collaborators...

They first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Pastor Niemoeller (victim of the Nazis)

University bullying shock [Shock and horror, how can these things happen in universities...]

Dozens of staff at Sheffield Hallam University have reported being bullied at work, according to a private internal survey into workplace stress carried out by their bosses. Almost 100 of those taking part reported being bullied 'always, often or sometimes', while other revealed fears about stress levels and victimisation.

Staff also raised serious concerns about pressure at work, the report finding that 'urgent action' was required in 10 areas of work relating to stress. 'Clear improvement' was needed in 22 other areas, while in no category was the University rated as doing 'very well', according to scales devised by the Government's Health and Safety Executive.

The survey, carried out for the University's internal health and safety service, received 844 responses. A similar report prepared last year found staff rated the quality of the university management as 'very unsatisfactory' in many respects.

Lecturers' union the UCU said the findings on stress and bullying were 'disturbing' but pointed out such problems were common throughout higher education. And spokesman Roger Kline praised Hallam for seeking to understand the issues involved. [Roger Boy why did you not kiss their feet?]

"This report makes disturbing reading - it shows the pressures that university staff are under and the levels of stress," he said. "But this is not unique to Sheffield Hallam. I am quite certain that were surveys to be done in most institutions they would show similar or even worse responses." [So when will we have surveys in all other universities Roger Boy?]

In all 96 staff members said they had been bullied at work. University Vice-Chancellor Diana Green said the University cared about the welfare of its workforce and it was important that the wellbeing of staff was regularly monitored.

"We do this in a variety of ways, one of which is the staff stress survey. The survey allows us to take action to alleviate stress where there are concerns and I, and the Board of Governors, have publicly committed to improving the University's performance in this area." [I will vomit later...]
---------------------------
From: The Star, 9 February 2007

Drowning in bureaucracy - undermine it!

In a recent satirical commentary on British academic life, the sociologist and broadcaster Laurie Taylor recently conjured up a memo from the director of corporate affairs of the (fictional) University of Poppleton on "Staff Xmas Dinners". New guidelines are to be introduced, requiring that all staff who wish to participate in any such dinner first attend a special SDW (staff development workshop) on social interaction; departments must henceforth submit a statement of DAO (dining aims and outcomes); and all those attending dinners must complete a PDQ (a post-dining questionnaire) "that includes learning outcomes and a TQA (turkey quality assessment)". If this sounds familiar - if not a turkey quality assessment then a teaching quality assessment - you must be an academic. Such heavy-handed rules and regulations are the reality at British universities today. Thus we were in for a shock when we left prominent American universities over the last decade or so and took up posts as professors in the UK.

There is a great deal about academic life here that we appreciate and consider worth emulating abroad. But we are baffled by the level of monitoring, reporting, evaluating and bureaucratic hassling to which academics in this country are subjected. Our response is to ask: why doesn't Britain let its academics do what they do best, teach and carry out research, without government and university administrators breathing down their necks?

Many British academics groan under the weight of administrative tasks, and they appear to think that this worsening trend is an American one - and American universities are widely held up as a model. US universities have indeed experienced an increase in paperwork in recent decades. But they can't compare with their UK counterparts in terms of sheer zeal for reporting and monitoring.

The problem is that bureaucrats prefer to introduce monitoring and reporting in order to forestall problems that they expect, rather than dealing with the tiny number of such problems that might actually appear. This is evident in the constant reporting on all sorts of things. Instead of the central administration reacting to problems that come to their attention, they expect departments to spell out their activities in mind-numbingly detailed reports - hardly any of which result in any action.

But there is also, more worryingly, a systemic distrust of academics. If lecturers who have been trained for many years can be trusted to teach their courses, why can they not be trusted to assess students' performance without a host of colleagues looking over their shoulder every step of the way? In the US and most other countries it seems to work just fine without these excessive layers of control. While it should be compulsory for lecturers in their first post to be adequately trained and mentored, it seems laughable, if not demeaning, to double- and triple-check every mark on every essay and exam on every course of every lecturer or professor right up to retirement. By stark contrast, even GPs, themselves familiar with appraisals and audits, normally seek a second opinion only when referring a patient to a specialist; otherwise they treat the patient, often with a serious condition or illness, alone.

In the US, panels appointed to interview new colleagues typically consist of three or four staff members from the hiring department. They are, after all, the experts and can certainly be trusted to make the best appointment. In Britain, such panels usually include a vice-chancellor, a dean, a head of another department and often a senior member of the personnel department. Potentially, then, an appointment could be made by a panel whose majority is not from the field for which a candidate is chosen. The present unwieldy system reinforces the notion of academics as unruly youngsters whose every step must be watched and controlled.

The business world seems to be the model for much of what goes on in academia these days, but when we describe this system to business people they inevitably say that no business could survive with this level of monitoring and waste of resources. Academic staff have less and less time for students and research, as polls have shown. If American universities are indeed as superior as some think, it is not only a matter of better funding. In our experience, American lecturers have considerably more time for their students and for research.

British academics seem to be stressed out like no others, and that is bound to diminish their effectiveness and reduce their levels of research output. While they continue to produce excellent research and are outstanding teachers, despite their administrative overloads, they could do even better - and suffer much less stress in the process - if their talents were directed toward these areas instead of into mounds of useless paperwork. We hear that Britain is seeking to attract foreign academics - but this crushing load of administration is not the way to do it. British universities cannot afford to be complacent if they wish to compete in a global academic marketplace.

A national commission is needed to investigate procedures at UK institutions of higher education with a view to reducing monitoring, reporting, assessment, paperwork - and anything else that really doesn't play a useful role in what universities are, or should be, all about: first-class teaching and world-class research.

Professors Susanne Kord and W Daniel Wilson are department heads at University College London and Royal Holloway, University of London. This article was written with the collaboration of Professor Leonard Olschner, of Queen Mary, University of London, and Robert Weninger of King's College London. All worked previously at American universities.

From: The Guardian, Wednesday December 27, 2006
-----------------------------
Smash bureaucracy... undermine it... treat it as a tick box exercise... don't let it control you. It is a powerful means of keeping us down, of making us slaves to the system.

UCU and Leeds Metropolitan lock horns over 'institutional bullying culture' claims made by staff

A furious war of words has erupted between the management of Leeds Metropolitan University and the national University and College Union over the union's allegations of an "institutionalised culture of bullying". Regional UCU officials say they have been inundated with complaints from current and former staff about bullying and a "climate of fear" at the university, and are demanding an inquiry.

But the university hit back this week, claiming it had already supported bullying victims and acted to dismiss staff who had "behaved badly". It accused the union of acting "irresponsibly" by resurrecting old complaints and failing to co-operate with the university over the latest allegations.

A support group of allegedly bullied staff has been formed to share experiences after a story in The Times Higher last year about claims by former art lecturer Julia Odell that she had been bullied and harassed at Leeds Metropolitan Harrogate College. Ms Odell resigned her post at the end of last year and signed a deal with the university to settle her allegations of constructive dismissal. The university did not admit any liability and the terms of the deal are confidential. [The normal process - the victim is invited to sign a confientiality clause and the bullies get away with it.]

Since then, dozens of staff have come forward to tell UCU leaders in private that they too had been bullied, the UCU said this week. Many claimed that managers brushed aside their complaints, and that bullying intensified after they reported their problems. [Surprise, suprise... Don't worry, HEFCE has a working group to encourage mediation!]

A letter from UCU regional official Adrian Jones, seen by The Times Higher, calls on LMU vice-chancellor Simon Lee to commission an external independent inquiry into the complaints and allegations.

The letter, dated January 4, also sent to Education Secretary Alan Johnson and the Higher Education Funding Council for England, warns that "evidence is surfacing, rapidly, of a culture of bullying" at the university. It adds: "In some areas it appears to be so entrenched that it might legitimately be described as institutionalised."

Mr Jones says in the letter that the UCU has received "a great many" approaches from staff who claim to have been bullied at the university. He adds: "A number of those now contacting UCU are still employed but say they are afraid to complain within the university's procedures as, they assert, where this was done by others known to them their concerns were not taken seriously, but instead the bullying intensified once they had complained." [Is the union surprised about this?]

The UCU is conducting a survey of LMU staff to gather further evidence of bullying at the university. [Why can't the UCU do the same with all universities?]

In a letter sent to all UCU members at Leeds Metropolitan, Adrian Jones says the union has noted that the university is currently introducing an occupational stress management policy. But he adds that UCU still feels it is necessary to conduct a staff survey on bullying to get "a better sense of the scale of these problems". The union is expecting to compile the results of the survey by early March. Mr Jones declined to comment on his letter, other than to say that Professor Lee had so far failed to respond to it.

Roger Kline, UCU's head of equality and employment rights, said the union was "determined to make LMU a bullying-free zone". He added: "Bullying is an offence to human dignity, academic freedom and collegial working, and damages staff health." [Nice rhetoric. He is waking up... a bit slow off the mark but he is getting there.]

An LMU spokesperson said: "The university did receive a letter from a regional official at the UCU. It referred to an individual case from a previous year of a former part-time member of staff in Harrogate that had already been resolved and governed by a legal agreement between the parties. [Yes, confidentiality clauses are powerful means to shut up the victims.]

"The university is therefore not in a position to discuss this further. The letter also made a number of general and unspecified allegations of bullying. No details were given about the alleged incidents. Notwithstanding this, the university was concerned to find out further details about the incidents so that we could investigate further. We rang the UCU, but they refused to take or return our calls. [Wow, just imagine... the management phoned UCU and UCU refused to take or return our calls...]

"Where specific allegations of bullying have been raised, the university has investigated and dealt with such incidents swiftly, supported those who had raised concerns and dismissed those who had behaved badly, despite union support for the perpetrators and union objection to the university's approach. We believe the UCU has acted irresponsibly in this matter. It refused to speak to us about these matters. If and when the details are provided we will act swiftly, as we have always done. Similarly, the attempt to rekindle interest in a three-year-old story about some staff reactions to the previous management in Harrogate is unworthy of further comment."

HEFCE aims to cut costly court bills

Mediation could be key to resolving campus disputes speedily and amicably, reports Rebecca Attwood. Long and costly disputes between universities and their staff and students could be a thing of the past if the academics behind a new project get their way.

The Higher Education Funding Council for England has handed a £125,000 grant to a team of academics to raise the awareness of the use of mediation and other ways of avoiding costly and often drawn-out legal disputes within the higher education sector.

According to the Oxford Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies, which is a partner in the project, universities spend an average of £100,000 a year on legal fees, most of which goes on defending legal claims against students and staff. Settlement costs can reach six-figure sums.

Mediation is a way of avoiding big legal costs, and advocates say it can also save years of stress and wasted management time. Unlike arbitration, a mediator does not have the authority to arrive at a decision. Instead, the mediator's job is to find a solution that both parties can agree on.

Joan Whieldon of Wolverhampton University's School of Legal Studies is one of the team who will work on the two-year project, which is called Transforming Policy and Practice in Dispute Resolution in HEIs and is funded by Hefce's leadership, governance and management fund.

She said the project aimed to encourage higher education institutions to overhaul their procedures to ensure that disputes were resolved fairly and speedily. [Ha, ha... the emphasis is on 'encourage', not force, not monitor, not oblige, just 'encourage'...] The team will also examine mediation training provision and design training for mediators.

Ms Whieldon said: "In many cases, it will require a huge culture change to existing conflict and dispute procedures, which are generally processed through some form of informal/formal grievance or student complaints procedures. "The intention is to take the adversarial 'win/lose' and 'us and them' approach away from the dispute while resolving the problem to the satisfaction of all parties." She said that if a mediation scheme resolved just two or three disputes that might have evolved into litigated cases, it would save the entire cost of the grant provided for the project as a whole.

Mediation is more commonly used by higher education institutions in the US. Doug Yarn, professor of law at Georgia State University, will offer a US perspective on the project. He said: "As in all organisations, conflict in institutions of higher education is inevitable. The challenge is to resolve it in a way that is the least costly, not merely in economic terms but also with respect to emotional and health costs, the cost to human relationships and the cost of recurring conflicts.

"In contrast to adjudication and dictation, mediation works through consensus. In the 35 colleges and universities that comprise the University System of Georgia, we have been using it effectively to reduce the costs of conflict in disputes ranging from roommate spats to employment discrimination to revolts by faculty against department heads and college presidents. We have prevented costly lawsuits and improved internal relationships and modes of decision-making."

But he added that although mediation gets most of the attention, it is just one of many alternative resolution processes Georgia uses to resolve conflict. Administrators, faculty, staff and students are also taught a variety of constructive problem-solving skills to help them to resolve disputes without resort to third parties.

A spokesman for HEFCE said: "Litigation is time-consuming and often stressful and expensive for all parties involved. Alternative approaches such as mediation are used relatively little in higher education at the moment and can offer opportunities to resolve conflicts promptly and in a non-adversarial manner."

WE FOUND A CREATIVE SOLUTION THAT MET EVERYONE'S NEEDS

Soran Reader, a lecturer in philosophy at Durham University "I was in dispute with Durham that was solved by mediation. We signed a compromise agreement, so I can't give details.

"Before mediation, the dispute was adversarial, with complaints and countercomplaints escalating, and it might have ruined my career or the university's reputation. But we agreed that court would be bad for both sides. Lone claimants rarely win against institutions. Even when they do, the rewards are small. Work is set back, relationships are ruined and reputations damaged as imperfections are publicly exaggerated to 'win'.

"Mediation is better than court, but it is not easy. A mediator is not interested in the rights and wrongs but in what can be agreed. He or she pushes you to see where you will give, and as an employee you are vulnerable.

"We found a creative solution that met everyone's needs. Mediation was great. It can save a huge amount of public money, not to mention personal suffering. Early mediation can prevent disrupted work. In higher education, there is a reluctance to acknowledge that things are not perfect, which may reflect how universities are rewarded for presenting a positive picture.

"It is well known that women and other groups face difficulties in getting hired, tenured and promoted, and that higher education institutions can find such difficulties hard to manage but are afraid to be open about such problems. They should be open and work to solve things."

From: Times Higher Education Supplement, 9 February 2007
----------------------------------
Nice try. A bit 'airy-fairy'. We are not convinced that encouragement alone will achieve much. It shows how reluctant HEFCE is to impose specific targets and agendas on workplace bullying in academia, and as for the amount of £125.000 - a drop in the ocean... Thank you HECFE for leading the way.

URGENT: Defend Freedom of Information Act

Think how much easier it will become for bully academic managers to hide their tracks - ACT NOW

Does anyone care about the draconian and far-reaching changes proposed to the once glorious Freedom of Information Act?

While Shilpa Shetty swanned through the House of Commons yesterday and charmed everyone she met, truth seeking MPs were actively debating their concerns over the curtailment of access to vital information, which could begin as soon as 19 March.

I have just read the Hansard report of this crucial debate and I am very disturbed by its implications, which I believe people are totally unaware of. I am also staggered to learn that up to 1 February, there were only 21 responses to this consultation - and that they are fairly evenly split.

It is not just a cost issue, far from it. What this boils down to in the words of Labour MP Don Touhig, is a mere annual saving of £12 million, the cost of cutting 20,000 requests from the new criteria, cuts which he describes as ”blunt and brutal” and contrary to the whole intention of the Freedom of Information Act, as well as “mean-spirited”.

The £12 million saving equates to just 4 per cent of the total cost of running the COI, the government’s press office - which would you rather have, fact or spin? It is also feared it will deliberately curtail contentious issues - in effect, gagging whoever it chooses.

Freedom of Information requests are presently answered free of charge, although applicants can be asked to pay for photocopying and postage costs. However, a Department can refuse to process a request if it estimates that the cost will exceed £600. Local authorities, national health service bodies and other public authorities can refuse if the estimated cost exceeds £450, based on £25 per hour staff time. The DCA proposes to include the costs of reading the information, consulting other authorities or bodies about the request and considering whether to release it: three more hurdles, all of which are unnecessary

Touhig is also concerned that the changes will make the requests open to abuse because it will aggregate campaigners, journalists, lawyers and academics according to their “legal body” and refuse requests made by the same individual or organisation if the combined cost of answering their requests exceeds the limit of £600 for central government and £450 for other public bodies. He warns:

“I have grave fears that the proposed new regulations will invite abuse. Authorities will realise that by deliberately extending the hours that they spend, or estimate that they will have to spend, on a request, they will be able to ensure that a request for information is rejected.

“The more people the authority decides to invite to a meeting to discuss the request, the easier it will be to reject it. Instead of just bringing in the officials directly involved, the authority might decide that it would make sense to bring in line managers and departmental heads. A two-hour meeting involving six people at £25 an hour each automatically adds £300 to the cost of the request. A few additional hours will usually be needed to find the information, then there is the time needed to read it and to extract the relevant passages, and we see how we move very quickly towards the cost limit. That work could easily bring the request up to the £450 or £600 threshold without much having been done. If there were any doubt, and the authority did not wish to release the information, it could add an extra few hours by consulting its legal department.

“Politically contentious requests will also be hit. Inevitably, authorities will spend longer considering such requests, particularly if the consequence of disclosure may be to suggest that the policy the authority is pursuing is a mistake or is not working as intended. The mere fact that the request is contentious and the disclosure could have serious consequences for that authority could lead to it being refused under the new proposals. Secrecy would replace scrutiny in very critical areas and we should resist that.”

Alarmingly, Touhig warns that newspapers may be punished for being “un-cooperative or disruptive” - and quite rightly asks who will make that subjective decision.

“The next factor is even more alarming. Page 14 of the consultation paper proposes that authorities should take into account the volume of requests made by an applicant in the past and whether the applicant has been “un-cooperative or disruptive”. I am sure that nobody in this room would ever be un-cooperative or disruptive in seeking information, but that measure appears to be a direct invitation to authorities to discriminate against applicants who have not shown them sufficient deference.”

And if we need reminding about the importance of the FoI Act, this is how Tony Blair described it back in 1996 when he was Leader of the Opposition:

“A Freedom of Information Act is not just important in itself. It is part of bringing our politics up to date, of letting politics catch up with the aspirations of our people and delivering not just more open but more effective and efficient government for the future.”

So what has made Blair change his mind? Why is government deliberately taking this backward step, why does it fear the truth? Touhig cited recent examples obtained from FOI, including some amusing cases:

“The MOD has released includes anonymised details of investigations into alleged offences by soldiers in Northern Ireland, the types of boots used by the armed services, the number of service personnel failing drug tests and information about complaints of discrimination and bullying. On a lighter note, the MOD has also released its recipe for curried meatballs, and disclosed reports of UFO sightings in Wales, including a black object hovering over Rhyl, a flying disc over Newport and a spinning craft with legs flying over the valley where I live.”

The ridiculously short 12 week consultation period for this ends on 8 March - with the new regulations implemented 19 March. How can we persuade government to extend this consultation period? Do you feel less information should be made available through FOI? Just think of all those questions the public and our activists will be unable to access, how crusading newspapers will struggle to get true answers from a government that wants to cover up the true facts. [Just think of how many University managers will use the new measures to cover-up their actions.]

From: http://elleeseymour.com/

If you want to object and share our concerns, then contact Vera Baird a.s.a.p.

Vera Baird MP
Redcar Constituency Office
Redcar Station Business Centre
Station Road
Redcar
TS10 1RD

OR:

Vera Baird MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

OR:

Private Office to Vera Baird
Telephone: 020 7210 8294
Email: martyn.taylor@dca.gsi.gov.uk

OR:

http://www.verabaird.com/Contact.htm

Freedom of Information Act 2000 - Formal Request for Information

From:
Mary Smith
Address
Rest of address

To:
Appropriate Person
Name of University
Rest of address

Freedom of Information Act 2000 - Formal Request for Information

Dear Mrs/Mr …………………………..

I am writing to request information to which I am entitled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. In order to assist you with this request, I am outlining my query as specifically as possible. If however, this request is too wide or too unclear, I would be grateful if you could contact me, as I understand that under the act, you are required to advise and assist requesters.

Please provide me with the following:

1. How many Employment Tribunals have been brought against the university from 1998 – 2006?

2. A detailed breakdown of what the Employment Tribunals have been brought against the university for?

3. How many such Employment Tribunal applications were successfully upheld against the university?

4. How many Employment Tribunal disputes with individual employees were settled out of court?

5. How many Employment Tribunals and out of court settlements have resulted in a financial settlement, and how much were the settlements for?

6. For the period 1998-2006, how much money was spent in legal fees defending claims of staff workplace bullying?

7. The number of formal and informal complaints by employees concerning workplace bullying and harassment by managers for 1998–2006?

8. How many managers were formally and informally disciplined, due to employee complaints about bullying and harassment?

9. The number of employee resignations due to bullying and harassment from 1998 to 2006?

10. How many workshops or awareness sessions on bullying did the university provide to its employees in the last five years?

If you decide to withhold any of the information requested you should clearly explain why you have done so in your response, by reference to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 legislation. If your decision to withhold is based upon an evaluation of the public interest, then you should clearly explain which public interests you have considered, and why you have decided that the public interest in maintaining the exception(s) outweighs the public interest in releasing the information.

I look forward to receiving the information requested as soon as possible and in any event, within 20 working days of receipt.

Yours sincerely,


Name/Signature

[This template was written with the assistance of Michelle Edwards, thisismeeshe@yahoo.co.uk]
---------------------------
Remember: Any person can make this request. It could be a friend, a relative, somebody you trust.
---------------------------
Campaign for Freedom of Information: http://www.cfoi.org.uk/

Some of the things we know about universities due to FOI requests

Below is a small list of things we do know about universities due to FOI requests. There are many more things that we don't know about...

Defend Freedom of Information Act. If you want to object and share your concerns about proposed changes to the Act, then contact Vera Baird a.s.a.p.
--------------------------------------
UK university ethics under fire
67 UK universities hold shares in arms companies, it has been revealed. Following an FOI request, 67 out of 183 colleges and universities confirmed they held investments in six of the UK’s leading arms companies, including BAE systems, GKN and Smiths Group. Cambridge and Oxford universities hold 3 million shares between them. The largest investor though is the Universities Superannuation Scheme, the lecturers’ pension body, which holds more than 24 million shares.
25.10.05 The Times

Soas sells off arms shares
The School of Oriental and African Studies, part of the University of London, has announced it will be selling its investments in arms companies. The school is the fourth institution to do so after details of arms share holdings by 67 universities were published under the FOI Act. Oxford, Cambridge and Swansea universities have all started disinvestment campaigns.
9.11.05 The Guardian

170 attacks a year on hospital staff
There were more than 170 incidents of violence and aggression against staff at a Cambridge hospital last year, according to data released under the FOI Act. Staff have been punched, kicked, bitten and spat at in attacks occurring on average three times a day.
15.2.05 Cambridge Evening News

University staff ‘face threats’
More than a thousand incidents of violence or harassment against university staff have been recorded in the past five years. The figures, released by universities under the FOI Act, show there were 178 instances of physical violence and 832 of threatening or intimidating behaviour, with one student sent to prison for assault. However, the disclosures also reveal an uneven level of recording of threats and violence, with 37 institutions saying they had not recorded any incidents of aggression since 2000.
9.6.05 BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk

Hospital staff in £100,000 payout
Personal injury claims by staff cost a Cambridge hospital nearly £100,000 last year in damages and legal fees. Figures released under the FOI Act show that seven members of staff received damages, the largest payment being £9,990 to a staff member who acquired industrial dermatitis. In the same period £9,270 was paid to 73 patients in non-clinical compensation cases including loss of clothes, dentures and glasses.
6.6.05 Cambridge News

Minister reduced student targets
The government target for university entry was revised downward following concerns about a ‘pilethem high’ culture and accusations of ‘dumbing down’. According to documents released under the FOI Act, in 1999 Downing Street intended to set a target of 50% participation by young people in higher education by 2006/7. However, this was eventually amended to 50% by 2010 amid worries that ‘too hasty’ an expansion could also prompt elite universities to ‘break away from the existing system’.
17.2.05 The Guardian

Favouring students from disadvantaged backgrounds
Bristol University has a policy of favouring studens from disadvantaged backgrounds, according to documents released under the FOI Act. The papers recommend that admissions tutors make lower offers to disadvantaged students. Bristol has been running the policy since the mid-90s, the documents reveal.
4.2.05 Times Higher Education Supplement

University cheats on the rise
There were 6,672 incidents of plagiarism and collusion in the 2003/4 academic year figures from half of Britain’s universities have revealed. The figures, disclosed under the FOI Act, show that 707 students at Westminster University were found to have copied original work, the highest incidence of plagiarism of the 64 institutions surveyed. No incidents were reported at Oxford or Cambridge.
2.8.05 The Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk

Mental health alert for students
The number of university students seeking counselling has risen by more than 20% to 60,000 in five years. The figures were obtained from 18 universities under the FOI Act. Minutes from Bristol University, where the number of students seeking counselling has risen by 29%, state “The waiting list for the counselling service is of great concern. Some students have to wait four weeks to see a counsellor.” British universities spend £30m a year providing counselling for students with mental health problems.
20.9.05 Bristol Evening Post

Pesticide probe into death of farm worker hit by lab error
Three samples sent to the forensic science laboratories at the University of Glasgow have been accidentally disposed of since 2002. One sample belonged to Graham Stephen a young farm worker who died after applying a highly toxic pesticide to a potato crop. The official investigation into his death was abandoned following the error. Details of the mistake were unearthed using the FOI Act.
28.8.05 The Sunday Herald

University scam lets in illegal migrants
Illegal immigrants may be entering Britain by enrolling on university courses, obtaining student visas and then disappearing. Under the present arrangements overseas students do not have to pay their fees in advance, they only have only to show they have the means to pay. Figures for 37 universities, released under the Freedom of Information Act, show that more than 17,000 non- European Union students accepted undergraduate or graduate places last year but never arrived at their colleges. However, not all of these are abusing their visas - many go to other institutions or never enter the country.
4.9.05 The Sunday Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk

MRSA rises despite new hospital routine
The number of patients contracting MRSA at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge increased after new cleaning procedures were introduced to combat the bug. Alcohol gel handwash was introduced in July 2004 and more rigorous cleaning was introduced that autumn. But MRSA bloodstream infections only fell by 3 cases, from 126 in 2003-4 to 123 in 2004-5 and the number of MRSA-positive patients - not all of whom had bloodstream infections – actually increased the month after the new procedures. In September, when cleaning was improved, there were 86 new MRSA-positive patients, which rose to 104 in October.
24.6.05 Cambridge Evening News

N&N staff act to stamp out blunders
Staff at the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital reported 64 medical mishaps in the two years from October 2003 to September 2005. The mistakes, revealed for the first time in response to a FOI request, include 45 drug mix-ups, patients being mistaken for someone else, a patient accidentally burned during surgery, an incorrect breast biopsy diagnosis and an undetected fracture. The Hospital’s chief executive said "What we have tried to encourage at the hospital is an environment of openness, where people don't think they are going to get hammered for admitting a mistake.”
15.11.05 East Anglian Daily Times

Endless laughter...

DEMANDS: ARE YOU DOING ENOUGH? Management Standards for Tackling Work Related Stress - Health and Safety Executive (HSE), U.K.

How much work is there?

• Ensure there are sufficient resources to do the work allocated:
• If there are insufficient resources seek guidance from management about priorities.
• Support your staff by helping them prioritise or renegotiate deadlines.
• Cover workloads during staff absences.
• Adjust work patterns to cope with peaks (needs to be fair and agreed with employees).
• If people are underloaded, think about giving them more responsibility, but make sure that they have been adequately trained.
• Strike a balance between ensuring that employees are interested and busy, but not underloaded, overloaded, or confused about the job.
• Develop personal work plans to ensure staff know what their job involves.

Are staff able to do the job? Training and development

• Train staff so they are able to do their jobs.
• Implement personal development/training plans which require individuals to identify development/training opportunities which can then be discussed with management.
• Devise systems to keep training records up to date to ensure employees are competent and comfortable in undertaking the core functions of their job.

Communication

• Encourage staff to talk to you at an early stage if they feel as though they cannot cope.
• Develop a system to notify employees of unplanned tight deadlines and any exceptional need to work long hours.
• Talk to your team regularly about what needs to be done. This can:
• help you understand the challenges the team are currently facing and any pressures they are under;
• find ways of sharing the work sensibly and agreeing the way forward with the team;
• gain team cohesion and commitment to the work you have planned – the team is likely to be more responsive if it understands what needs to happen and by when. Allocating more work to an already stretched team without explanation is unhelpful;
• ensure shift work systems are agreed with employees and their representatives and that the shifts are fair in terms of workload;
• gain understanding and commitment to unplanned tight deadlines and any exceptional need for long hours;
• help you manage any unexpected absences or losses to the team – everyone knows the key stages of the project and what each other’s role is.
• Lead by example. [Endless laughter...]

How good is the work environment?

• Have a suitable and sufficient risk assessment to control physical hazards. Further information is available from HSE Infoline: 08701 545500.
• Assess the risk of physical violence and verbal abuse. Take steps to deal with this in consultation with employees and others who can help (eg the police, charities).
• Change start and finish times to help employees cope with pressures external to the organisation (eg child care, poor commuting routes).
• Ensure your risk assessments for physical hazards and risks are up to date.
• Provide training to help staff deal with and defuse difficult situations (eg difficult phone calls, aggressive members of the public).

Are you enabling staff to have their say? [Endless laughter...]

Give more control to staff by enabling them to plan their own work, make decisions about how that work should be completed and how problems should be tackled (eg through project meetings, one-to-ones, performance reviews etc).

Allocate responsibility to teams to take projects forward...

Are you making full use of employees’ skills and abilities?

• Enrich jobs by ensuring that staff are able to use various skills to get tasks completed, and that staff can understand how their work fits into the wider aims of the unit.
• Talk about the skills people have and if they believe they are able to use them to good effect. How else would they like to use their skills?

...A supportive environment is crucial. Staff need to know that managers will support them, even if things go wrong or if they find that they are unable to cope with added pressures. [More endless laughter...]

How supportive are you?

• Give support and encouragement to staff, even when things go wrong. [More endless laughter...]
• Encourage staff to share their concerns about work-related stress at an early stage.
• Hold regular liaison/team meetings to discuss unit pressures.
• Hold regular one-to-ones to talk about any emerging issues or pressures.
• Value diversity – don’t discriminate against people on grounds of race, sex or disability or other irrelevant reasons.
• Seek examples of how the team would like to, or have, received good support from managers or colleagues – can these be adopted across the unit?
• Ask how employees would like to access managerial support – ‘open-door’ policies, agreed times when managers are able to discuss emerging pressures etc...

How well do you listen? [So much fun...]

• Listen to your staff and agree a course of action for tackling any problems – it is important for staff to feel that the contribution they make at work is valued.
• Involve your staff – they need to do their bit to identify problems and work towards agreed solutions.
• Talk about ways the organisation could provide support if someone is experiencing problems outside work.
• Disseminate information on other areas of support (human resources department, occupational health, trained counsellors, charities)...

How well do you deal with unacceptable behaviours? [We are on the floor with tears in our eyes...]

• Work in partnership with staff to ensure that bullying and harassment never emerge as an issue. One way of doing this is by having procedures in place, such as disciplinary and grievance procedures, to deal with instances of unacceptable behaviour.
• In consultation with staff and their representatives, draw up effective policies to reduce or eliminate harassment and bullying.
• Agree and implement procedures to prevent, or quickly resolve, conflict at work – communicate these to employees.
• Agree and implement a confidential reporting system to enable the reporting of unacceptable behaviour.
• Communicate the policies and make it clear that senior management fully support them.
• Communicate the consequences of breaching the policies.

Do you work for a caring organisation?

• Create a culture where members of the team trust each other and can be themselves while they are at work.
• Encourage your staff to recognise the individual contributions of other team members and the benefits of the whole team pulling together... [The building is shaking...]
  

--------------------------------------------------------------
From HEFCE: '... The section on leadership, governance and management looks at how establishing the Leadership Foundation for HE has been an important first step in addressing leadership development [code for leadership incompetence] and succession planning, with strong support across the sector. The Committee of University Chairmen (CUC) is increasingly proactive – for example, in the development of the new Governance Code – [The building is about to collapse...] and the profile of governance is rising. There is also evidence that HEIs are directing more funds towards leadership and management development...' [Put your helmets on!!!]

Anyone for a short course in Leadership? The Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.

'...Senior management teams face the challenge of creating and maintaining a positive working environment in their institutions. Sustaining a positive working environment and culture is a key objective of university policies, and many feel that the best way to achieve this is through emotional intelligence. Many factors may work against this including:

• poor performance management systems
• harassment
• bullying
• unmanageable stress levels
• [bully managers?]

The Leadership Foundation recognises that these factors may have a negative impact upon the performance of the institution and have a detrimental effect upon working relationships. The quality of leadership can play a key role in creating the climate and conducive to a positive working environment... Fee: £280 [We can't take it anymore...]

Abolish the General Medical Council (GMC) - UK

An ethical blog for those who publicly feel that the General Medical Council (GMC) should be Statutorily Abolished in favour of a Medical Licensing Commission (MLC) to solely register and revalidate Doctors who practise Conventional Medicine in the UK.

The Blog also recommends that the GMC/MLC hands all disciplinary functions over to an Independent Clinical Tribunal (ICT) in keeping with the EU Convention on Human Rights ; to avoid (both) Institutional Bias and Multiple Jeopardy.

From: http://abolishthegmc.blogspot.com/

General Medical Council Protest Date Set For March 17th 2007