Due credit...

Anonymous said...

While this blog is becoming the platform to name and shame many bullying and corrupted managers, I wish to give credit to Prof. Peter Grant from Edinburgh University who displayed the highest levels of integrity when dealing with a complaint against someone quite senior to myself.

Dignity at Work, HEIs - UK

In large, complex organisations such as HEIs, conflict between staff, students and visitors will inevitably occur from time to time. The key is for organisations to recognise this and to take steps to deal with issues that arise in an appropriate and timely manner. This research has identified a number of important criteria for tackling bullying and harassment in the workplace effectively.

• Senior management support is vital – those institutions that promote dignity at work most effectively have a proactive and committed senior management team.

• The business case for tackling bullying and harassment must be articulated effectively and understood within the institution. Institutions need to be more effective at identifying the costs and benefits, both of introducing dignity-at-work initiatives and of failing to do so. A ‘virtuous circle’ of continuous improvement in relation to dignity at work should be developed and promoted.

• Dignity at work must be established as a core value of the organisation and thus become a basic right for all. It should form part of the institution’s strategic objectives, and should become embedded in all its strategic developments.

• Organisational factors can create problems in relation to dignity at work; bullying and harassment do not always occur because of personal differences between individuals.

• Working in partnership with trades unions to develop a culture in which bullying and harassment are treated seriously and tackled effectively can be beneficial.

• Dignity-work policies should be comprehensive, but easily understood and accessed by all staff within the organisation.

• Institutions should emphasise the importance of early intervention and the use of informal dispute-resolution procedures to minimise damage for all concerned, and should explore less adversarial routes of conflict resolution such as mediation.

• Services such as harassment networks and mediation should be supported by effective communication and rigorous training.

• Institutions need to develop good monitoring and evaluation systems for such services. Provision should be regularly reviewed to ensure it continues to be appropriate.

• Institutions should make every effort to provide a range of support services for staff, to ensure they meet the needs of people from a range of backgrounds and with different needs.

• Managers should be well trained, and encouraged to seek support if they are encountering difficulties with staff management issues. A blame culture, and one that encourages reward by results, by whatever means, will be detrimental to the institution’s efforts in tackling bullying and harassment.

• Finally, institutions should be encouraged to work towards becoming a model workplace in which all staff are treated fairly, and dignity at work is effectively and continually promoted.
--------------------
From: Dignity at Work, Final project Report, Equality Challenge Unit, April 2007

Open Letter to Mr Robert Moreton - The 'correct' procedures

Dear Professor Roberton Moreton,
Dean of the School of Computing and Information Technology, Wolverhampton University

In the Times Higher Education Supplement of 18 May 2007, we read the following: '...Robert Moreton... said in a statement: "Following a series of incidents, I can confirm that a member of staff in the School of Computing and IT has been dismissed on the grounds of gross misconduct." He said that all allegations by the staff member had been "fully dealt with" under correct procedures, adding that staff welfare is a priority for the university.'

Professor Moreton we have some questions about the above statement.

Firstly, if the member of staff who was dismissed on the grounds of 'gross misconduct' did not approve of you sharing this with the media, then this could potentially constitute a breach of confidential information and could be reported to the Information Commissioner. Did you have the approval of the staff member to share his dismissal with the above publication?

Secondly, you state that 'correct procedures' were followed in reaching the decision to dismiss the staff member.

When a staff member raises in writing concerns about lack of support and allegations of workplace bullying, are you aware that this should be dealt with as a formal grievance? What efforts for mediation did the university attempt?

Did you follow the three-step discipline and dismissal procedure (as described by ACAS) before you reached the decision to dismiss the staff member? Did you follow your own internal procedures? Did you seek independent external advice, for example from the Andrea Adams Trust?

Was the staff member allowed to read transcripts of witness statements, and was he invited to present witnesses? What representation did he have and was this adequate? How have issues of confidentiality been dealt with? What training did the investigators have?

Unless there are answers to the above questions, any claim that correct procedures were followed, and that staff welfare is a priority for the university are unsubstantiated.

Lastly, we wish to quote the following from ACAS: '...Most people have very clear ideas about what they think is fair. These are partly a reflection of personal values. However, in society we also have shared values – and many of these are associated with the idea of 'natural justice'.

Natural justice refers to certain fundamental principles of justice that many of us deem to be fair. Conflict often occurs when we neglect our duty:

• to give someone a fair hearing
• to explain the reasoning behind a decision
• to be impartial
• to hear an appeal against a decision.

Your organisation's procedures and policies must include key aspects of natural justice.'

Yours sincerely,

Louise Michel

Staff see red over online policing

Staff face dismissal for criticising their employers in chatrooms and blogs, report Phil Baty and Tony Tysome. [Times Higher Education, 18 May 2007]

Academics' internet activity is increasingly being "spied on" by managers, it was claimed this week after a lecturer at Wolverhampton University was sacked for making a series of allegations online.

Union leaders and academic freedom campaigners argued this week that lecturers and researchers must be free to criticise their managers and to discuss their jobs without fear of reprisal. But university marketing chiefs warned that online activities such as blogs and web forums are increasingly being monitored by universities keen to protect their reputation.

The debate was sparked by the case of Sal Fiore, a senior lecturer in computing at Wolverhampton. An investigation by The Times Higher has established that he was sacked on grounds of gross misconduct last month following a series of e-mails.

Evidence against him included a posting he had made to a discussion forum in which he named Wolverhampton in association with general bullying allegations. Dr Fiore had also contributed to a blog for bullied academics - bulliedacademics.blogspot.com - where academics this week complained that they were under surveillance. One said that managers use postings "to 'get' their targets on some violation of university policy". Another said that bosses were "snooping around, looking for 'evidence".

Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union, said: "Academics should not be made to feel that any comment they make may be picked up by some sort of university spy team and used against them." [Thank you Sally - such a radical statement!]

Peter Reader, director of marketing and communications at Bath University, said that there was "huge interest" in such websites and that universities were beginning to monitor them.

Wolverhampton confirmed that Dr Fiore's dismissal related to a number of incidents. Geoff Hurd, deputy vice-chancellor, said: "No member of staff has been, or ever will be, dismissed for exercising their right to freedom of speech."
------------------------
Dear Geoff Hurd, Deputy Vice-Chancellor Wolverhampton University,

Of course it is impossible to prove that "No member of staff has been, or ever will be, dismissed for exercising their right to freedom of speech." It is normal routine to 'manufacture' new 'evidence' against the staff member to be eliminated from his/her position.

Regarding allegations of 'spying' we have evidence that on May 18, 2007, at 9.12am somebody from your university - and yes, it could be anyone - visited this blog and then followed the link to the online forum to read 'Pack of Wolves, Part 2'. Now who would have an interest in this story, and if it is not you, is it somebody you know?

How likely is it that a staff member - in full knowledge that online communications are monitored in HEIs - would use their work PC to try to join the online forum? Slim chance.

Mr Hurd you are welcome to visit this blog and the online forum - there is much that we can learn from each other...

Question for/about HEFCE

Anonymous said...

What does one do when one obtains hard evidence that the Governors are themselves violating the Nolan principles? Does one need to go public with this evidence in order to stop the Governors from continuing their abuses?

What if HEFCE Board Members are in on the improper behavior? What would one do if one had evidence that a HEFCE Board Member engaged in collusion with a panel of a Board of Governors hearing a grievance appeal?

Where does one go with all of this?

-----------------------------------------------
- The seven principles of public life as articulated by the Nolan Committee, are integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. They apply to higher education institutions and holders of related titles and offices.

Quote from Nolan report: '...Institutions of higher and further education should make it clear that the institution permits staff to speak freely and without being subject to disciplinary sanctions or victimisation about academic standards and related matters, providing that they do so lawfully, without malice, and in the public interest...'

Also from: Whistleblowing Revisited - Tenth Report, January 2005

...After the first comprehensive review of how whistleblowing is working in the UK, the Committee on Standards in Public Life made some wide-ranging and important recommendations. In its report the Committee stresses the importance of leadership and sets out whistleblowing best practice.

One of its recommendations was that: Leaders of public bodies should reiterate their commitment to the effective implementation of the Public Interest Disclosure 1998 and ensure its principles and provisions are widely known and applicable in their own organisation. They should commit their organisations to following the four key elements of good practice i.e.

(i) Ensuring that staff are aware of and trust the whistleblowing avenues;
(ii) Provision of realistic advice about what the whistleblowing process means for openness, confidentiality and anonymity;
(iii) Continual review of how the procedures work in practice; and
(iv) Regular communication to staff about the avenues open to them.
----------------------
HEFCE will reply:

'...Higher education institutions are legally independent corporate bodies. Their councils or boards of governors are responsible for the effective management and future development of their affairs. They are ultimately responsible for all affairs of the institution.

The fourth edition of the Committee of University Chairmen's 'Guide for Members of Governing Bodies of Universities and Colleges in the UK' (HEFCE 2004/40) was published in 2004, in association with the UK funding bodies.

The guide outlines the legal status of institutions, their governance, and the responsibilities of their governing bodies. It shares and encourages appropriate adoption of current good practice across the higher education sector. A voluntary code of practice is proposed to which, it is hoped, [Hope is a great thing and pigs fly] all institutions will be able to subscribe or explain where their practices differ...'

HEFCE will also say:

'...Allegations concerning higher education institutions: HEFCE policy and procedure

The HEFCE and its Audit Service receive, from time to time, a range of allegations of financial irregularity or impropriety, mismanagement, waste and fraud in higher education institutions, from a variety of sources. The attached annex sets out our procedure for dealing with allegations.

We welcome these allegations insofar as they are brought to our attention in good faith and relate to our statutory functions. Our public interest disclosure, or whistleblowing, procedure has been in existence for a number of years and it has guided the Audit Service in dealing with allegations received. The volume of cases is increasing, and the interaction with those making a public interest disclosure is becoming more complex. Therefore, the policy and procedure have been reviewed and redrafted, informed by legal advice.

If you require any further information, please contact Paul Greaves, tel 0117 931 7378, e-mail p.greaves@hefce.ac.uk.
-------------------------------
Now let us think about this... If you are about to whistleblow and you are employed by an HEI, the chances are that you will loose your job and HEFCE will not be able to stop this. When they make their enquiries with your employer, they will mention your name to them. They will not be able to demand that your university follows correct precedures in dismissing you. Also, there are many university managers that have close working relationships with HEFCE...

Back to the original sin (question): Where does one go with all of this? The local MP is unlikely to challenge the local university. The appropriate minister is caught up in the post-Blair situation - He recently referred us to the courts and Employment Laws wishing us good luck.

Now ask: At what price to the victim/target, the taxpayer, the students and education in general? How many more good academics will be bullied out of their jobs?

Want to get rid of an annoying academic?

University administrators are familiar with academics who are uncomfortably outspoken, disruptive or different. If these problem staff would just leave the campus, life would be much easier. But how can this desirable outcome be achieved?

The answers are in a book by Kenneth Westhues, Eliminating Professors: A Guide to the Dismissal Process (Edwin Mellen Press, 1998). Westhues, a sociologist at the University of Waterloo in Canada, gives a step-by-step account of how administrators can get rid of troublesome academics.

There are five stages. First is ostracism, to cut the victim off from influence and support. Second is administrative harassment, often in petty ways. Then comes the incident, an action by the victim that can trigger formal retribution. The fourth stage covers the various appeal procedures and the final stage is elimination.

Within this framework, there are many specific points of value. For example, the matter of truth can sometimes be an obstacle, but by following Westhues’ practical principles for administrators it can be reduced to manageable dimensions. Principle one, for example, is that charges should be formulated sufficiently vaguely that hard facts are not relevant.

From this description, you might imagine that Westhues is some sort of academic Machiavelli, giving advice to university rulers on maintaining power. Actually, Westhues is on the side of those targeted by administrators. Indeed, he has been a target himself. His book is an extended satire.

After immersing himself in the details of some 25 cases of academics targeted for elimination, Westhues extracted common features and developed his guide for administrators. To personalise his advice, he dubs the hypothetical target for elimination "Dr Pita," an acronym for Pain In The Arse...

Review of Kenneth Westhues, Eliminating Professors: A Guide to the Dismissal Process (Edwin Mellen Press, 1998), published in Campus Review, Vol. 9, No. 38, 6-12 October 1999, p. 12. Written by Brian Martin.

Pack of Wolves #2

...This story describes how my partner endured breaches of contract, bullying and misconduct by managers during his probationary year and, despite his probation being concluded, how such conduct was turned against him as the basis, for the first but not last time, of a spurious attempt to formally discipline him...

After many breaches, dismissed complaints and breakdown in communication by the School, my partner was called in to meet with the Dean Moreton. During the meeting, despite acknowledging that the events my partner cited constituted "unprofessional conduct" by the colleagues concerned and seemingly recording my partner's allegations of bullying, Prof Moreton used the meeting to accuse my partner of having relationship problems which he needed to address...

Strangely enough, while my partner's probation was due to end on 31 August 2005, the 3 month extension was declared to be until 31 December. Either the Dean was trying to impose a prohibited 16 month probation or there were serious problems in managing dates within the School; either way the extension was not admissible and its handling represented yet another contract breach.

The letter dated 7 September was clearly instead a disciplinary letter. It invited my partner to "a formal probationary review meeting" at 10am on Tuesday 13 September. This was itself impossible given that his probation officially had ended on 31 August. However, my partner and I attended to answer to the two spurious allegations set out in the letter...

By Melody Boyce - The complete story available at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bullied_academics/

Procedures for making allegations concerning higher education institutions and the 2008 RAE - UK

The 2008 RAE is managed on behalf of the higher education funding bodies for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (HEFCE, SFC, HEFCW and DEL) by a project team based at HEFCE.

Different procedures are in place for making and investigating allegations of financial irregularity or impropriety, mismanagement, waste or fraud (public interest disclosures) about the higher education institutions (HEIs) funded by each funding body. Disclosures concerning HEIs and the RAE will be handled through these same procedures.

If you wish to make such an allegation concerning an HEI and the 2008 RAE, either about its preparations for the RAE or its submissions, then you should follow the procedure that applies in the relevant country.

• For allegations concerning an English HEI funded by HEFCE, please follow HEFCE's procedure.
• For allegations concerning a Scottish HEI funded by SFC, please follow the procedure described in paragraph 23 of Guide for members of governing bodies of Scottish higher education institutions and good practice benchmarks' (SHEFC, HE/05/99).
• You can also refer to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.
• For allegations concerning a Welsh HEI funded by HEFCW, please follow HEFCW's procedure.
• For allegations concerning a Northern Ireland HEI funded by DEL, please follow DEL's procedure.
  
• The RAE team will handle allegations of perceived irregularity within RAE submissions that it receives from chairs or members of RAE panels during the assessment process through the RAE data verification procedures.

Any allegations of irregularity or impropriety on the part of members or chairs of RAE main or sub-panels will be treated as complaints.
--------------------
...The criteria and working methods encourage higher education institutions (HEIs) to submit the work of all of their excellent researchers in the 2008 RAE, including those whose volume of research output may have been limited for reasons covered by equal opportunities legislation...
--------------------
...The legal framework for the RAE: a changing context

7. Since the last RAE there has been an increase in the scope and application of equalities legislation that encompasses all functions of HEIs and of the UK higher education (HE) funding bodies, including the RAE.

8. This means that, throughout all stages of the planning and implementation of the RAE, legislative requirements must be met by HEIs and the funding bodies. HEIs, funding bodies, and panels acting on behalf of the funding bodies may be open to external scrutiny. HEIs and funding bodies may be open to challenges in respect of their operation of the law.

9. HEIs will need to meet legislative requirements in selecting their staff for inclusion in RAE submissions. The funding bodies, through the RAE team, will require HEIs to confirm that they have developed, adopted and documented an appropriate internal code of practice in preparing RAE submissions and selecting staff for inclusion.
-------------------
From: http://www.rae.ac.uk

Let us not forget the governors...

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has produced practical guidance for auditors and companies on the obligations in the revised Combined Code on Corporate Governance. Encouraging companies to follow our approach, the ICAEW recommends that boards should ask about the following questions:

• Is there evidence that the board regularly considers whistleblowing procedures as part of its review of the system of internal control?
• Are there issues or incidents which have otherwise come to the board's attention which they would have expected to have been raised earlier under the company's whistleblowing procedures?
• Where appropriate, has the internal audit function performed any work that provides additional assurance on the effectiveness of the whistleblowing procedures?
• Are there adequate procedures to track the actions taken in relation to concerns made and ensure appropriate follow-up action has been taken to investigate and, if necessary, resolve problems indicated by whistleblowing?
• Are there adequate procedures for retaining evidence in relation to each concern?
• Have confidentiality issues been handled effectively?
• Is there evidence of timely and constructive feedback?
• Have any events come to the committee's or the board's attention that might indicate that a staff member has not been fairly treated as a result of raising concerns?
• Is a review of staff awareness of the procedures needed?
  

From: Public Concern at Work
------------------------------------------------
One wonders if there are similar guidelines for Governors of universities and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). The seven principles of public life (Nolan Committee) do apply to the governance of HEIs. There is also a guide of best practice, BUT no real accountability or policing.

OK, HEFCE, QAA, HEA... To whom are governors accountable? An answer we received not too long ago from somebody in HEFCE, suggested that governors are accountable to the other governors that elect/appoint them! Impressive.

To whom are governors really accountable?

A Golden Oldie: The Mobs of Academe - Excerpts from an online discussion

The Chronicle of Higher Education

The guest: Kenneth Westhues is a Professor of sociology at the University of Waterloo who has written a five-volume series about mobbing in academe and who frequently visits college campuses to collect data on episodes of mobbing.

'...Academe is a perfect petri dish for the culture of mobbing, according to the sociologist Kenneth Westhues, thanks to its relatively high job security, subjective measures of performance, and frequent tension between individual professors' goals and the goals of the institution. The victims of mobbing are not always wholly innocent, he says, but the campaigns against them are often based on fuzzy charges, take place in secret, happen fast, and are full of overheated rhetoric. And yet academics tend to think they are immune from the groupthink that characterizes mobbing...'

'...Mobbing is especially tragic when the target is a young scholar who has not yet had a chance to acquire credentials to fall back on. The graduate student most at risk is an independent thinker whose scholarly record (e. g., publications) threatens the supervising professors. So yes, of course, mobbing happens at all levels. My priority has been on the mobbing of professors because if professors are not secure, graduate students working with them are even less secure.

How does one heal from the humiliation of being mobbed? The general answer is, "Slowly." Support from family and friends is indispensable. Some kind of professional counselling may or may not be helpful. Healing happens above all as the mobbing target regains confidence by renewed achievements in whatever is the relevant field -- or in an altogether new field of work. It can be really, really hard for a mobbing target to "move on," but it gets easier with every day of successful negotiation of relationships at home and at work...'

'...First, encourage administrators and colleagues to inform themselves about the mobbing research (the mobbing.ca website is a rich resource, so is the book, Mobbing: Emotional Abuse in the American Workplace, by Noa Davenport and her colleagues in Iowa, or one can simply google "mobbing"). The more aware we make ourselves of the human tendency to mob, the more able we are to control that tendency in ourselves and others.

Specific step number two is to keep campus media for discussion and debate alive and active. A vigorous campus press helps a lot. So do chat rooms for faculty. I often quote Churchill's line, "It is always better to jaw, jaw, than to war, war." Yes, it sounds better with a British accent.

Third and probably most important, stand with mobbing targets. In most healthy, productive, well-functioning departments and faculties, one can identify individuals who do not let colleagues get mobbed. Such individuals have the guts to say at crucial moments, "Cut it out." They are what researchers call "guardians" of prospective targets. They are willing to be seen with a mobbing target and to speak up for him or her when that is a risky, unpopular thing to do...'

'...The starting point for any possibly effective action to stop or turn back a mobbing has to be a careful analysis of the structure of the mob. Who, one asks, is the instigator, the "chief eliminator"? Sometimes this is the administrator who formally leads the exclusionary action, but sometimes such an administrator is only responding to the ardent wishes of some number of colleagues. The goal, generally speaking, is to "break up" the mob, to try to take some kind of action that will get the professors to behave as independent, reasoned thinkers, as they're supposed to be, instead of like a bunch of sheep...'

Complete online discussion available at: http://chronicle.com/colloquy/2006/04/mobbing/