Dear members,

Last December we sent you our opinions of a management culture that we believed was one of the worst ever seen at our University. We highlighted a failure of our Executive Board (EB) to hold themselves to the standards they had come to require of ordinary staff, and we noted an increasingly dismissive attitude towards us, despite a formal recognition agreement that sets out expected levels of engagement with campus trade unions.

As 2024 progressed, the extent of EB’s shortcomings became increasingly manifest, largely through evidence of extreme mismanagement of our finances: a £20M loan towards the purchase of the AQA Building, £11M on Future Fellowships, eye-watering amounts on projects with ambiguous titles such as “Strategic Opportunities Fund” and “Size and Shape”, together with an undisclosed amount on the rushed creation of Surrey Online Learning programmes in partnership with a company that seems about to go bankrupt. Amid speculation about how this could have happened (why did EB and Council sign off projects we could not afford? Was this an accounting mistake – did someone miscarry a couple of zeroes? Why do we need a dilapidated exam paper factory anyway?) was the realisation that while our collective resources had been squandered by relatively few, the sacrifices to offset the damage was going to have to be made by relatively many.

There was some initial insistence via local “Financial Resilience Programme” meetings that despite clear evidence to the contrary none of this was their fault. Our managers tried desperately to blame sector-wide challenges to excuse their mistakes rather than acknowledge that such flagrant spending should not have occurred in such a climate in the first place. Perhaps there are lots of other Universities that are in dire hardship, but also a good proportion that are not. If the millions had not been frittered away on follies and doomed vanity projects we would have stood a better chance of remaining financially secure. 

Instead, according to recent HESA data, the University of Surrey has the second highest debt-to-income ratio of any UK HEI. Our net “days to liquidity”, a measure of financial security reported by HESA, plummeted from 246 in 2016/17 when Max Lu started as Vice Chancellor, to just 69 in the last accounting period of 2022/23.

After the excuses fell flat, came a communications blackout. In School and Faculty meetings any mention of the Financial Resilience Programme was vetoed. Access to all-staff email lists were heavily restricted in an attempt to smother public dissent. Most extraordinary of all was the total silence from Max Lu and Tim Dunne – during one of the most uncertain times in the history of the University, months passed without any public update or word of explanation from either of the two most senior managers that we should have been able to look to for leadership.

Perhaps there was a view that hiding in silence would make everyone forget what was happening and who was to blame – if so, this was a PR strategy that spectacularly backfired and led to our since “outgoing” VC achieving the dishonour of sustaining his second vote-of-no-confidence during his time at Surrey; this time of 97% from a very high turnout, a vote which was shared with the Provost, Tim Dunne. Strong leaders, had they somehow managed to get themselves into this position, would at this point have attempted to reassure their staff – perhaps acknowledging their accountability or perhaps making evident a level of competence consistent with their positions and salaries. But here, it was not until months later before reappearances were finally made. Despite some vague understatements of what a difficult year it has been, it was as if nothing had happened. A turnaround in fortunes was even announced in the form of a financial surplus!!! … or at least, if not an actual financial surplus then a projected one… perhaps, if we just budget assuming we can double the number of students… fingers-crossed, everyone!

The University did not want to run a staff survey this year, so we ran one for them (see also results here in the way that People Survey results have previously been presented) and we will be sharing the anonymised, summarised results with senior managers. Some of the more positive opinions were around the importance and impact of the work that we do in our various roles, with the most positive opinions relating to our co-workers (>70% agreeing / strongly agreeing that they receive a good level of support from internal teams of colleagues, and that they are treated with respect by their line managers). This is not a surprise – solidarity and collegiality could not have been more evident this year. We saw many members volunteering for UCU rep training at short notice and amid busy schedules in response to heightened demand resulting from widespread restructures. Consequently, not a single UCU member who was placed at risk of redundancy had to face their 1-to-1 meetings alone and unsupported if they requested a representative to accompany them. A huge thank you to everyone who helped.

Much of the staff survey reflects a workforce understandably weary and disillusioned by the new management culture – overwhelmingly, people do not feel able to recommend their place of work to others, and report that their career prospects, work-life balance, safety, and dignity at work are not taken seriously. A significant extra question asked by the branch was, ‘If you were a manager the Executive Board were your staff member, what PDR rating would you give’. The answers were 1 (0%), 2 (3.3%), 3 (18%) and overwhelmingly 4 (78.7%). Therefore, only 3.3% of participants thought that the EB was meeting expectations, and nobody thought they were exceeding them. Unfortunately though, nobody thought that University will take positive action over the People Survey…

83% of staff disagree or strongly disagree that their views are taken into account when the university made significant decisions – only 3% gave a positive response to this question. Surrey consistently scores very low here and given the lack of significant positive action to redress the situation, nobody in charge seems to think it matters. Why do our Executive Board think that HE sector staff surveys (often delivered via external agencies catering for the sector), include questions like this?

It may not have dawned on our senior managers, but the question is not there because it is nice for staff to feel that their views are being heard, as if in a benevolent dictatorship where avuncular leaders pat themselves on the back if they have successfully created the illusion that the rank-and-file think they have been listened to, but where it doesn’t matter too much if they realise that they have not. It is there because better decisions are made in organisations that hold value in the opinions and ideas of ordinary staff.

As a Trade Union, this is the core of much of what we do because the University has a formal agreement in recognising Trade Unions and is supposed to negotiate with us on matters affecting staff. We reported last year of management failings to adhere to the principles of Union recognition, and a year later the situation has hardly improved. Most recently we learn, months after the project started, that the University of Surrey is intending to dissolve its Statutes (one of three high-level governance deeds that underpins the constitution of the University) – an action that will fundamentally change what the University is. It was not explained to us why the unions were informed of this long-term project only weeks before the documents were to be dispatched to the King’s Privy Council for what is an irrevocable change to the constitution of Surrey since it was founded nearly 60 years ago. In hoping that a change of such magnitude will not be to the detriment of the University and our colleagues, we would like to pin our hopes on those who gave a positive response for being able to trust our Executive Board to run the organisation effectively, except that nobody did – not a single positive response was received to this question in our staff survey (with 91% disagreeing / strongly disagreeing).

As a Trade Union, we should never give up on our efforts for improvement – for basic fairness and better working conditions. Such resolve and solidarity is needed now more than ever, in the aftermath of a year in which mismanagement by our Executive Board has led to unprecedented losses – to academic endeavours and resources across research, teaching and other areas of university activities, but most significantly losses of scores of valued colleagues. As if nothing had been learned from the disastrous “Continuous Improvement Programme” of 2018, it turns out that it is a bit of a problem to lose several centuries’ worth of expertise in one fell swoop. The chaos and uncertainty that remains, with increased workloads resulting from diminished teams and a “Seamless” Student Journey that is anything but, will have been felt by all of us who remain. The fallout from what has happened this year may cast a long shadow into the future.

2024 drew to a close with news that Max Lu will depart for the University of Wollongong in 2025 –  we expect our counterparts there have been watching recent events at Surrey closely. The University Council will be responsible for recruiting a new Vice Chancellor next year and we hope we can hold confidence in them making a sound decision in appointing someone with an exemplary track record of positive and respectful staff relations, and in making governance and finance decisions that are a world more sensible than those we have witnessed under our current senior EB leaders.

Surrey UCU 

Dear Professor Dunne,

Surrey UCU have raised numerous concerns in the last year about several questionable Executive Board and University Council decisions, including the borrowing of £20M for the AQA Building, and the £11M Surrey Future Fellows scheme. We have recently written open letters to the Vice Chancellor and to the Chair of University Council about our concerns.

University resources have also been allocated to the development of fifteen Surrey Online Learning (SOL, originally SOUL) programmes, five of which are due to begin in September 2024. https://www.surrey.ac.uk/online-learning

Your article on SurreyNet in October 2023 implied that SOL would provide a route out of the dire financial situation that the University finds itself in. You stated that if “1,000 students enrol, the University will bring in revenue of over £2m”. In this same article, you stated that “Fees for these programmes will be priced competitively to reflect the fact that we are looking for high enrolments and the target audience will be from outside the UK.”

Therefore, we would like you to respond to the following questions:

How much has been spent in partnering with 2u/edX a) in the previous financial year b) prior to 2023-2024?

How much money is estimated to have been spent on developing the SOL / SOUL programme in total, to date?

We hope for reassurances that the SOL programme is lining up to be the success that you predicted, given your opinion in the October ’23 article that “Surrey cannot afford to remain on the sidelines while other universities and private providers divide up the spoils… left to our own devices, starting from a very low base, we risk being completely left behind in the race to succeed in the rapidly growing global online education market.” We hope that aspirations for high numbers of students has materialised, rather than being part of an optimism-bias, such as was discussed at length in your 2024 New Year Missive on the 8th of January, which concluded “the importance of positive thinking that underpins optimism-bias remains relevant but it must not get ahead of reality”.
Therefore, we request a response to these further questions:

How many students have currently accepted places on your five SOL programmes?

How many of these students are from outside the UK?

What is the predicted final number of students on these SOL programmes for the 2024/25 academic year?

We are especially keen to seek the above assurances that the University of Surrey community are receiving a good return for the investment you made in SOL, because we are aware that some parts of the project have already run into difficulties. In your February SurreyNet update entitled “SOL: The Brave New Future of Surrey’s Online Education you explained your rationale for choosing to partner with edX: “Enough of the doom loop! There is one very positive opportunity on the table, and that is to win a share of the massive global market in online learning… we have decided not to step into this global marketplace without a proven ally who knows how to market and recruit educational programmes.” During the last year, we have noted several reports of increasing financial instability of edX, culminating in recent reports that they have finally been forced to file for bankruptcy.

We note that University Council, in their March 2024 meeting, had expressed concerns that “edX/ 2U are in financial difficulty and have been very open with the University about the issues. There is a strong relationship and protections in the contract so that Surrey could walk away in certain scenarios and would not lose financially.”
This raises further questions that we would like you to address:

What steps have been taken if 2u/edX stops operating to cover programmes?

What are the sector trends regarding partnerships with 2U / edX?

Given that the financial difficulties experienced by edX were known well in advance of your announcements in February about our partnership with them, we ask:

Did anyone on the Executive Board raise concerns about partnering with edX during the planning of the SOL programmes?

As a Trade Union, our key role is to protect jobs and maintain high standards of working conditions for staff. Therefore, we would like to ask one final question:

How would a low number of students, coupled with edX bankruptcy, affect staff involved in running the SOL programmes?

We hope that it is realised why there is a need for openness and transparency to the trade unions and the academic community since the teaching we deliver as a university should exist to benefit both the institution and society.

The UCU Surrey Branch Committee

Each year we offer some advice to members as we head into the Academic Appraisals – now called Professional Development Review (PDR).

This year, PDRs are being used against a background of significant staff cuts under Phases 1 and 2 of the Financial Resilience Programme, with confidence in our senior managers at an all-time low, and no assurances that we are not heading to “Phase 3”, with more cuts. Note, we have not received an answer to our request to know which areas of the University still have financial savings to make, or how such savings will be made. 

Please see below some detailed advice for this year, updated to account for the significant changes to the process.

Excerpt from page 2 of Academic Professional Review Guidance:

“Who is going to be my Reviewer? Your Reviewer is the person completing your PDR. Most academic staff are members of a School; however, we have wide variants of academic areas (Departments, Centres, Institutes) which are best described by the generic category of Academic Operational Units (AOUs). The Head of your AOU will decide whether they undertake your PDR or, more likely, which senior colleague will be appointed to undertake the review. The term that we use for an appraiser who is not the AOU Head is ‘Reviewer’ (hence the use of the Head/Reviewer shorthand elsewhere in this document). The process of delegation will vary according to the scale of the AOU. Updated 08/07/24 Page 3 Please note that if your Reviewer is not your line-managing Head, then the Head will also need to sign the completed form so that they are across what has been written by both by the staff member and the Reviewer.”

UCU comments:

You may wish to seek clarification of the process in your own area, because we are aware of variations in practice across the University. In some cases, immediate line managers at Department-level will conduct PDR meetings with staff using prior ratings that will already have been decided in advance by the Head of School. This is a significant departure from previous practice, and we don’t know if there is a “rank-and-yank” approach being taken in some areas, because unions were not consulted about this change.

Excerpt from page 4 of Academic Professional Review Guidance:

“I’m on a Research pathway, why does the PDR form include Teaching? If your contract is deemed to be ‘research’, it is likely that you will undertake some Teaching and/or more broadly to contribute to the educational aims of your School/Department; in which case, this is an opportunity to have this rated by your Reviewer as well as encouraging you to set goals in the ‘Education and Student Experience’ domain for the following year. However, if you are engaged as a researcher and the funding rules prohibit you from contributing to Teaching, then you would not be evaluated in this area.

Similarly, staff on teaching contracts will normally engage in Scholarship/Research activities and these should be evaluated in the PDR and appropriate goals will also be set in the ‘Research, Innovation, and Impact’ domain.”

UCU comments: 

You should not be forced or coerced to accept ratings or targets for activities that are not part of your contract. “Optimising Academic Achievement” (OAA; under which the PDR process sits) does not override the terms of your contract of employment.

We have made our concerns known to the Executive Board around staff on single-track contracts being assessed against all three domains, despite which the rationale for this change has not been shared openly with us. The background here is that the Executive Board have cut and frozen hundreds of posts to cover their lack of foresight regarding sector-wide funding issues, while simultaneously rolling out expensive projects which include new courses. There is an obvious high risk of failure of these projects with so few staff left to run them and this may be the likely rationale for attempting to load more teaching onto remaining staff.

If you are on a single-track contract, you should not be penalised for refusing to accept targets outside of your formal remit. If you do decide to agree to anything extra we advise that you seek written assurances of the exact workload involved, together with time and resources available to support you. Be sure that you understand how you will be assessed next year, and keep a written log of whether the support promised was actually delivered. If you are volunteering for this extra work then our view is that it should not be accompanied by a target against which your voluntary activities could be measured in a year’s time. 

What ever type of contract you are on, be aware of attempts to coerce you in to agreeing to take on additional duties that may overload you or detract too much from priorities in your own teaching and / or research. Keep in mind that certain members of the Executive Board may have career aspirations that are important to them, but they rank no more importantly than your career aspirations do to you.  If you feel that you are being coerced into an agreement to work beyond the terms of your contract, then you may want to seek further advice from UCU before committing yourself.

Please feed back to us your experiences so that we can advise you further, and update our general guidance to all members.

Are you on an teaching & research contract, and being down-graded for not excelling in all three “Domains”?

We note that for a teaching / research academic to be promoted (according to the new promotion process) there is a requirement to excel in at least two of the three domains. You should therefore robustly defend yourself against any attempt to rate you less than “Meeting Expectations” if you have performed well in at least two domains, because that would imply an illogical scenario whereby the standard for promotion is less rigorous than for performing well at your current level.

Excerpt from page 4 of Academic Professional Review Guidance:

“How am I going to be rated in the PDR?

Heads/Reviewers will identify evaluations for activities that have been undertaken in each of categories.

The Ratings are:

1. Exceeds expectations and objectives

2. Successful in meeting expectations and objectives

3. Partially meets expectations and objectives

4. Unsatisfactory. Not meeting expectations and objectives.

What happens if I do not get the rating I am hoping for? Academics at Surrey are high achievers and will likely aspire to be rated exceptional in all respects. It is important to note that performance among a large cohort of staff is always going to be distributed; it may be more important for your career to have an open conversation about where you may be able to improve. The test of a mature institution is whether we are able to have courageous conversations about what has gone well (and be recognised for that) and where improvements can be made (and be supported for that).

UCU comments: We have expressed concern to senior management that the five categories in the previous appraisal system (two for above expectations; one neutral, and two for below expectations) are replaced by new ratings in which one of the positive categories has been removed. Our concerns are that this risks a skew to the more negative ratings across a normal distribution of scores. Certain interpretations of the PDR guidance wording above suggests that we were correct to be concerned.

Without the transparency we would expect from a management that supposedly recognises a Trade Union Agreement, we see the potential here for punitive actions – for example, it may be harder to get promoted if you have not scored a “1”, and it may be risky to your job security to score a “3” or “4”.

If you have performed well, and find your manager wishes to score you below “2”, we advise to push back against this. At the very least, you should make sure you hold management to their apparent commitment of “support” in the PDR guidance documentation. Make sure there your managers commit to a tangible and realistic resource allowance and ask for mentorship, time, and appropriate achievable targets next year. Keep a clear log of whether management honoured these commitments, should any failings of their part help you fight against allegations of underperformance next year.

We note the irony around the opinion that a test of maturity involves courageous conversations being made in the face of a low rating, expressed by the same people who have remained silent in the face of an overwhelming vote-of-no-confidence of 97% of staff and students at the University.

Excerpt from page 7 of Academic Professional Review Guidance:

“Colleagues are reminded that Learning and Teaching Objectives are as follows:

Achieving MEQ scores of 85% in overall satisfaction

75% in assessment and feedback

80% in organisation and management in modules being taught.”

UCU Comments: We remain in dispute with the University management about the use of fixed MEQ targets and thresholds in appraisals, because we had a prior negotiated agreement in place about this, which management reneged on. The agreement previously entered into between UCU and the VC is clear:  MEQs are only an example of a performance target and there are no fixed percentages against which you can be measured. The current management have chosen to break that agreement hence the continuing dispute. When UCU enters into an agreement it stands by it. When management reneges on their agreements then it is another example of their lack of good faith and poor leadership.

The better-managed part of the HE sector is moving away from the use of student ratings as crude measures of staff performance, as these articles illustrate:

Universities drop student teaching evaluations | Times Higher Education (THE)).

Module Evaluation Questionnaires – Education – University of St Andrews (st-andrews.ac.uk) -leading to  how-to-interpret-and-use-meq-feedback.pdf (st-andrews.ac.uk)

Closing the loop – evaluating the use of student feedback to enhance teaching | University of Hull

In addition to the numerous shortcomings in the reliability of student ratings, including biases around protected characteristics that MEQs have been shown to amplify, we note the low return rate makes these scores very unreliable. We attach an “MEQ margin of error calculator” that you may find useful, which measures the 95% confidence interval of these scores. (For the unfamiliar, this is a statistical tool which estimates the range within which your true score may lie when sampling error is accounted for because only a portion of samples are collected from a given population. Further details on how to interpret your score is given in the Excel attachment).

Our advice is to offer your manager alternatives to appraising your educational activities. You can illustrate your commitment to teaching by setting yourself targets and aims that are fully within your control: E.g. updating teaching material; implementing a novel idea or building on something you trialled in the last year that went well, are examples of SMART targets.

UCU invites members to get in touch if you have any concerns about your PDR, and/ or if you need advice about any of the following:

1. you do not want to sign your PDR due to a misalignment/disagreement in either ratings or content, and you are not provided with a mechanism to register this disagreement

2. You are a line manager and have concerns about the pressure this altered process places upon you. Please also report any targets that you are set regarding giving people low ratings.

3. You have any other concern/s related to the PDR process

Remember:

• Do not sign your PDR if you are not happy with what your review and your rating says. You can add a line stating any reasons why you do not think it is appropriate for you to sign.
• Do not commit to targets that are not SMART
• If you are identified as needing to improve in any area, ensure that the support, time, and resource you will receive from your managers is clearly documented

All feedback will be handled in strict confidence, and anonymised and collated before being forward to the Surrey UCU Committee.

 

Dear Mr Geffen,

Thank you for your response (14.06.24) to the campus trade union open letter (10.06.24).

Substantive concerns raised in our letter were not actually addressed in your response, and we were disappointed that you delegated these issues to the Vice Chancellor and the Executive Board, with an accompanying reference to your agreement with the contents of the Vice Chancellor’s letter to the campus unions dated 17th April 2024. The level of information within this April letter was insufficient to restore confidence in the leadership trajectory and the letter also contained the incorrect assumption that the unions had been provided with the in-depth financial detail which UCU had formally requested (see point 5 of our March open letter here – and the assurance of provision originally contained in the Vice Chancellor’s March response here). Subsequent cursory information has not answered questions sufficiently or restored confidence lost, for example, the information contained in the ‘wider updates to staff’ [29.04.24 and 10.06.24] referenced in this letter by the Vice Chancellor [17.04.24].

In short, it is clear that the ‘usual channels’ and ‘established mechanisms’ which you request us to rely on / resort to, clearly do not provide staff with adequate protections or means of consultation, negotiation and information on damaging institutional actions – actions which ultimately culminated in a second overwhelming Vote of No Confidence. This is especially the case as the unions are increasingly told by the Executive Board during consultation meetings that these institutional actions are based on the decisions made by Council. Staff and students are looking for leadership and reassurance after losing confidence in the Vice Chancellor, Provost and the Executive Board; staff are an integral part of the community, they will want to hear how they will be protected by Council in future, not least due to the fact that scores of staff were coerced into leaving during the recent rounds of ‘Voluntary Severance’.

We know that Council are aware of long-standing staff survey results/low confidence in the executive leadership team as can be evidenced by the Council Nov 23 minutes [23/129.4(pg 3)] . We believe that this is another reason why it is important that you attend an open meeting to address University of Surrey governance structures after this second Vote of No Confidence.

The request of such a meeting with the Chair of Council (as opposed to delegating such discussions back to the Vice Chancellor and Executive Board) is all the more pertinent given that the Remuneration Committee is currently reporting back to Council on the incentive (bonus) scheme for the Executive Board with associated concerns on its ‘affordability and optics’ Council minutes March 2024 [24/046.3 pg 6]. As you can appreciate, at the same time, staff remaining are being asked to accept financial stringency – not to mention those 140 staff members who have just lost their livelihood under highly pressurised circumstances.

To return, then, to the content of your own letter response, you have referenced the ambitions which you claim underpin the Financial Resilience Plan, you stress that you are in full agreement with the actions that the Vice Chancellor, Provost and the Executive Board have taken in relation to these ambitions. Please could you therefore field a series of dates when you could meet the trade unions in an open meeting, in order to respond to our questions and present your rationale to staff and students, who are looking for accountable leadership at University of Surrey.

Yours Sincerely
UCU, Unite, and Unison Committees

————————————————————————-

14 June 2024
Sent by email to: Campus Trade Unions

Dear Trade Union colleagues

Thank you for your letter dated 10th June 2024.
The Vice-Chancellor and Executive Board are responsible for the operations of the University but are, as you note, accountable to Council.
The financial resilience plan aims to eliminate the deficit between the University’s income and expenditure and return the University to surplus in the next financial year.
Council has spent much time discussing the plan with the Vice Chancellor and the Executive Board.
We have been guided by the core principles of minimising the impact on our students and harm to our core mission and community.
The plan has the full support of Council.
I certainly appreciate that this has been a tough time. And although we have managed to avoid compulsory redundancies it is particularly sad to see some colleagues departing.
In his letters to you dated 14th March 2024 and 17th April 2024 the Vice Chancellor has responded to a number of the points you make in your letter to me. I agree with the answers he has provided, and he and the team will respond to the other issues you raise through the usual channels.
Comprehensive briefing materials and FAQs have also been made available to senior leaders and impacted colleagues throughout the process.
And a series of meetings have taken place with Trade Union colleagues to consult openly both generally on the financial resilience plan and on the issues you have raised with me.
As you acknowledge, the financial pressures we are experiencing are being felt across the HE sector because of the declining funding in real terms for home students and the fall in international recruitment. These are the reasons for the action we are having to take.
Nevertheless, the University will be publishing its vision to 2041 later this year which sets out our plans for an exciting future.
You will know we were recently ranked 12th in the UK by the Complete University Guide and the new vision sets out our plans to be ranked in the global 100 by 2041.
Council is confident in that ambition as long as the University can ensure its income exceeds its expenses. If achieved it will bring significant benefits to students, staff and our wider community and stakeholders.
Thank you also for the invitation to meet.
As I mentioned at the beginning of this letter the Vice Chancellor and Executive Board are responsible for the day to day operations of the University. They will continue to engage with you through the established mechanisms and answer any further questions. They will also continue to report to Council which will monitor developments.
I look forward to hearing more about the positive and constructive contributions from the trade unions so that together we can all shape the future of our great University to the benefit of all our students, staff and society.
Kind regards.
Charles Geffen
Chair, University Council

Dear Mr Geffen,

We, the undersigned, are members of the University of Surrey community, and are writing to you in respect of your role as Chair of Council, in which you hold a key role as a governor of our academic institution.

We are well aware of the challenges facing the Higher Education sector, and that there are a number of institutions having to make cuts to save money. Our concerns regarding the financial situation at the University of Surrey, however, extend beyond this general situation.

Our concerns are focussed on a series of expensive (and it turns out, unaffordable) projects in the lead-up to the ‘Financial Resilience Programme’ – projects such as £10M+ on the Surrey Future Fellows Scheme; a loan of £20M to purchase a building which remains largely unused; a rebranding exercise, and exorbitant Executive Board expenses claims, well above sector averages. There are examples of many projects costing tens of millions of pounds. Surrey’s rate of borrowing against income has been one of the highest in the sector, with debt amounting to approx £300M. We note that the Financial Resilience Programme was preceded by the sudden departure of the University’s Chief Finance Officer and Chief Operating Officer in 2023, with very little explanation to the University community for the reasons behind this.

A deep analysis of the University’s financial situation by a sector analyst on behalf of the UCU, indicates that the dwindling levels of cash reserves places the institution in a vulnerable position in terms of ‘liquidity days’: we are amongst the lowest in the sector. Clearly, the executive board (EB), with Council’s agreement, has ‘maxed out’ the University’s lines of credit resulting in the coercion of scores of colleagues to leave Surrey in order to balance the books. In addition to the 140 or so that are leaving over the summer, there are dozens of unfilled posts that were previously frozen, which will put a huge strain on the colleagues that remain. We note that this situation has arisen despite many of the financial challenges affecting the sector being entirely foreseeable.

The Minutes of Council meetings are devoid of any explanation about the background to why these financial decisions were approved – in some cases, redacted to the point of being meaningless. There remains a lack of transparency on what further spending is planned for the future, and a “Phase 3” of restructuring has not been ruled out. If Council and EB are confident of the quality and probity of their governance decisions then why not publish them for all to see?

The University Council’s Terms of Reference make clear its responsibilities in terms of finances, administration, property and management and general control over the affairs of the University. Indeed a consistent line from senior managers and EB members has been that their unpopular decisions are based on being instructed by Council. We are therefore keen to hear more from you about the background to Council’s rationale for approving the financial decisions that have led up to the current desperate measures being undertaken. We are also keen to hear your strategy for leading Council through the difficult times that will result from these decisions.

You will have seen that a large number of staff and students have taken part in a ‘vote of no confidence’ against the Vice Chancellor, Provost and Executive Board, where the outcome was 97% no confidence. This is only five years after the last Vote of No Confidence – the University is pursuing a pattern of debt and large-scale staff loss, causing huge internal damage.

Given the responsibilities of Council and the current state of the University, we close by extending an invitation for you to an open staff meeting, hosted by the three recognised Trade Unions to discuss the matters outlined above, to report back on how money has been spent, and what has been achieved by these projects.

Yours sincerely,

UCU, Unite, and Unison Committees

https://www.ucu.org.uk/article/13602/University-of-Surrey-management-given-vote-of-no-confidence-by-staff

Staff and students have called on the University of Surrey management to stop the threat of job cuts after staff and students delivered an overwhelming vote of no confidence in the University’s Vice-Chancellor, Provost and the Executive Board.

Over nine in ten voters (97%), in a ballot organised by the University and College Union (UCU) and other campus unions at the University of Surrey, said they have no confidence in Surrey’s Vice-Chancellor, Prof GQ Max Lu, its Provost, Prof Tim Dunne (the architect of the cuts programme) and the Executive Board.  
  
Staff are furious at the axing of more than 140 jobs as part of a radical programme of cuts. The unions, staff and students fear these moves are merely the thin end of the wedge, with further cuts to jobs, provisions, and course content likely in the future, which may lead to closure of some degree programmes. Although they are yet to embark on mass compulsory redundancies, over 140 staff have accepted Voluntary Severance. Feedback from members and union caseworkers shows that many staff felt pressured into accepting voluntary severance. 

The University and College Union said it wants management to take note of the strength of feeling and commit to working with staff, students, and other campus unions to build a better university for all, rather than tearing down the bedrock of the institution by making staff redundant.  There has been no meaningful interaction with the unions, rather, releasing fait accompli measures at the 11th hour under the badge of ‘consultation’.   
  
UCU regional official, Michael Moran, said: ‘It is little surprise that staff confidence is at an all-time low given the cuts that Surrey is implementing. We believe there is no business or educational case for further cuts and ask that the VC and Provost rule out any future plans for redundancies and that management listen to staff concerns and commit to building a better university rather than sacking staff. We fear these cuts are the thin end of the wedge and, unless urgent action is taken now, Surrey staff and students will suffer further in the future.’  

45 staff are now ‘at risk’ of compulsory redundancy. The calls from all three campus unions for no compulsory redundancies have been ignored: [see open letters: 11.03.24 / 14.03.24 / 11.04.24 / 19.04.24 / UCU comments re 19.04.24]

The process has been clouded in secrecy and compulsory redundancies declared with no realistic opportunities for consultation, pressurising affected staff into making rushed decisions. There is a real threat of a third phase of compulsory redundancies being declared in September 2024. 

As a result, campus trade unions (UCU, UNISON and Unite) have received overwhelming calls to facilitate a Vote of No Confidence.


University of Surrey finances – a flawed ‘sector norm’ argument

University of Surrey has repeatedly justified its actions using the ‘sector norm’ argument, repeating the same line to the press: BBC / BBC / Surrey Live / Times Higher. UCU expertise, via a sector analyst, challenges this premise as the sole cause as further finance metrics place the University of Surrey well outside of the sector average. There are of course sector pressures affecting our University, but the analysis shows that the predicament at UoS is very far from ‘normal’, that the University is a financial outlier, and that there has been long-term irresponsible financial planning despite the sector trajectory and pressures being well known.

The amount of borrowing against income has been one of the highest in the country, the latest reported HESA figures show University of Surrey second only to Oxford Brookes: https://surrey-ucu.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Debt-to-income-HESA-data.png. The evidence suggests that in addition to reckless spending, the Executive Board have also borrowed recklessly to the point where the ‘deficit’ appears to have been planned rather than arising from circumstances outside of anyone’s control. The debt repayments are not imminent (and so would not be causing immediate pressure to reduce staff numbers), but the debt levels mean that further loans are unlikely to be secured. Rather than scale back ambitions for further capital expenditure the current leadership seem prepared to fund these through job cuts, generating a high student to staff ratio and high workloads for remaining staff.

Although the University has not been open with us about its finances, the VC has made it clear in his recent all-staff message and open letter response, that future spending is intended for buildings and refurbishment, not staff.

University communications blackout – management have deliberately kept people uninformed 

After the previous Votes of no Confidence in the Vice-Chancellor and Executive Board in 2019, Council sent an email to all-staff stating ‘’What is very clear from these votes – and the feedback in the town hall meetings – is that collectively we need to get much better at communicating, particularly in difficult times’’. So it is with great concern that at this time of unease and precarity, there has been sparse all-staff communication from the University leadership on the details of the Financial Resilience Plan since the initial announcement in March 2024. 

Summary of concerns

 Overall, the concerns expressed by members that have led to such financial instability include:

• The volume of borrowing against income, which surpasses nearly every institution in the sector, with the exception of only two with comparable or more borrowing.
• The millions of pounds spent on projects that are not necessary to finance, which has substantially lowered the University’s cash reserves leading to weak financial sustainability.
• The ongoing concern that staff are regarded as a cost and not as an asset 
• The threatening of course closures without due process 
• The serious implications for staff well-being, including stress and workload concerns as a result of staff reductions. 
• Recruitment continuing, despite a recruitment freeze, and alongside large scale redundancy processes.

VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE

In light of the above issues regarding the conduct of the University in relation to the Financial Resilience Plan, we would like to invite the University of Surrey community to participate in a Vote of No Confidence. Membership of a campus trade union is not a requirement. The vote relates to the Vice Chancellor, the Provost, and the Executive Board, based on the substantial concerns expressed by staff about their handling of the current situation.

This vote closes: 12 noon 17th May 2024

Dear Vice Chancellor,

We are writing to express our ongoing concerns about your Financial Resilience Programme here at the University of Surrey.

In your response, dated the 14th of March 2024, to our previous Open Letter, you claimed that staff cuts were being made because of sector-wide problems. As we knew at the time, historical borrowing and significant spending on multi-million-pound projects undermined your claim.

In the intervening weeks since our previous Open Letter, scores of staff have now accepted voluntary redundancy and it is unfortunate that we hear in some cases this has happened through coercion, or through people feeling that their hand has been forced given that you refused to remove the possibility of compulsory redundancies.

We now face a summer where many valued and experienced colleagues will leave the University of Surrey, and no all-staff communication has been forthcoming about onward plans for staff and students in the wake of such high staff losses. Neither has there been any all-staff meeting to update about your progress towards your financial goals. We only know that if you decide to make redundancies before the end of the University Financial Year on July the 31st, these will have already been planned and will need to be announced soon.

Our principal concern now relates to your future capital plans. The amount of institutional debt (an outlier in the sector) appears to be forcing you to pursue your substantial investment plans by running down cash reserves beyond a point which is sensible and then having to make cuts to free up cash to compensate and mitigate this. If the Executive Board and University Council were to dial back on substantial investment plans, then there could be a more prudent approach to the projected level of surpluses. You have not justified why staff need to lose their jobs, you have not clarified or outlined the future capital plans which are deemed so essential that they warrant targeting staff as part of an irrevocable institutional loss. Staff cuts of this magnitude and the cutting of courses will affect the
University’s reputation both in the short and medium term and would mean applicants will not be confident in applying.

In light of such lack of transparency, we therefore request:

• An explanation as to why all-staff communication has ceased even though we are heading for significant changes across the university.
• That the university therefore update staff on progress towards financial ambitions, specifically: i) whether VS has been sufficient for your aims, and ii) whether further measures will be needed, and if so, what these are.
• That all programme and module changes be discussed openly and transparently with those staff and students who will be impacted and voted through at quorate Boards of Studies meetings in line with the University’s regulations.
• That the University Executive Board make public the scale of University capital investment plans.
• That you supply the detailed financial information which we requested, and which was promised in your 14th March letter response.

We look forward to a speedy response.

Yours sincerely,

UCU, Unite, and Unison Committees

Dear Vice Chancellor,

UCU members and the wider University community are extremely concerned at the content of the message delivered in your recent all-staff meeting on the 6th of March 2024. You are calling for voluntary redundancies alongside the sale of University assets, and range of vague cost cutting exercises that involve “working in a different way” in an attempt to transform your £10M deficit into a £10M surplus in a year. Consequently, job security, increased workloads, and lack of financial transparency are many areas of concern highlighted to us by our members and other colleagues.

Your justification for the programme of voluntary severance and other cost cuts includes an ever more competitive student recruitment environment, tuition fees that have not risen with inflation, and increased energy costs. With the exception of the last point, these are the same reasons that attempted to justify the swingeing cuts five years ago as part of the Continuous Improvement Programme that resulted in a Vote of No Confidence in University Leadership. We note the lack of progress in managing these challenges, and furthermore, the incongruous investment in several multi-million-pound projects that University managers were either unaware the institution could not afford, or perhaps worse, went ahead anyway in the knowledge that they were beyond the means of the institution.

We note, as we noted in 2019, a tendency towards an Executive Board that regards staff as “costs and not assets”, with the focus entirely on crude financial savings and without any obvious consideration of the unforeseen costs in losing experience, knowledge, and expertise across a body of staff that underpin all that the University does, and that you should regard as your greatest resource. Clearly, many areas are already significantly understaffed.

However, the main purpose of this letter is to seek some early assurances so that staff do not have the spectre of uncertainty hanging over them. You raised the issue of the potential for ‘compulsory redundancies’. We therefore request:-

1. That you provide a categorical assurance that no member of staff that the recognised trade unions have bargaining rights for will be subjected to compulsory redundancy this calendar year.

2. That a VS scheme must fully incentivise applicants in order to reduce the risk of compulsory redundancies. As this is our paramount goal, we ask that you keep the VS application process open until at least the end of this academic year. This would allow those considering this option the time to make financial decisions which could involve checking pension data, considering reducing hours on a permanent or temporary basis, unpaid sabbatical etc. A 10-day period is not long enough for such life changing decisions nor to get the feedback required on the various options.

3. That you provide assurances that where “different ways of working” are planned, and where this may significantly change someone’s role, (especially where people may be outsourced or directed to sign new contracts that they may feel are on less attractive terms), then VS will be re-opened for those individuals, on the same terms as currently offered.

4. That the period, after which an employee can be made compulsorily redundant without an unsuccessful application for EVS being honoured, should be at least a year.

5. That UoS respond in detail to the UCU request for full financial transparency (formal request made to the Interim Chief Financial Officer Finance: Tuesday 5th March 2024).

We look forward to a positive reply from yourself that is sufficiently timely to allow our members an opportunity to consider your response, given the very short 10-day window that you have set for Voluntary Severance applications.

Yours sincerely

Surrey Unite, UNISON and UCU Committees

Dear Vice Chancellor (Cc Karen Raymer, acting Chief People Officer),

As you may have been aware, we had once again this year carried out a “Not the staff survey” at a similar time to the University’s own staff survey, or People Survey as it is known, since we continue to identify the need to seek feedback from members and their colleagues on matters that we find are otherwise not picked up. There are a number of observations we can draw attention to on the way the University’s survey was carried out in relation to this one, which we will outline here.

The first observation from members and others participating in our survey is that they had more assured anonymity to submit their written comments than they did on the University’s survey. While the University’s survey was ensured to be anonymous, it is clear that a trace indicator was present to ensure each person completed the survey only once. Despite this and that an outside agency was handling the survey, there was still discomfort among staff to be honest in their viewpoints. Our survey on the other hand was completely open for anyone to complete. The nature of the comments from each individual do give us the assurance that the people responding were genuinely staff of the University while the unique responses give us some confidence in there being sufficient accuracy in the numerical results to reflect the opinions of our members and their colleagues.

With regard to the numerical results, we have repeatedly said that the change made in the 2022 People Survey regarding one of the questions set should be reversed. The original question was written as “My views are considered when the University makes significant decisions”, which existed up to 2021 and was replaced with “I have the opportunity to feed into my department/faculty when significant decisions are being made”. These two questions are distinctively different and indeed the positive scores dramatically increased in 2022 due to the change, when previously there was a substantially low score. Despite our insistence that both questions should be in the 2023 survey, this did not happen and therefore we brought out the ‘Not the staff survey’ partly to determine a difference of opinion between these two questions. The results below clearly show a difference of opinion between the two where confidence at University level is somewhat lower, though any degree of confidence in both cases this year is very low.

My views are considered when the University makes significant decisions
Agree (19%) Disagree (81%)

*The Neutral score was 0% in this result.

I have the opportunity to feed into my department/faculty when significant decisions are being made
Agree (19%) Neutral (36%) Disagree (45%)

A final point we will make on the conduct of the survey is that we have for many years argued for allowing unlimited length free text written comments. From our observation this appears to have been honoured in the latest survey which we welcome, though members and others do express concern about the lack of anonymity if they go into too much detail with their comments. We therefore hope that due to the difference in approach in this survey, that all points of concern will be taken on board and enable actions which could not be grasped from the University’s own survey. Attached to this letter is the free form comments from our respondents, which as we had declared at the start would only be visible to the UCU Surrey committee and recipients in Senior Management. Therefore, those reading this open letter externally will not see the attachment.

We will though highlight the following points that were found to occur significantly in the written feedback that we wish to draw to your attention:

– Consultations are meaningless because the so called consultation is with regard to decisions already made and then the questions are about how staff are going to adapt to them. Consultations should be about whether the leadership decisions are sensible.
– Staff turnover is intense in some parts of the University while also there are reported some abrupt fast handled restructurings over the past year that clearly had an effect on morale and momentum of the work those people are doing. It is more concerning for us as a union
that these restructurings were not brought to out attention.
– Substantial workloads imposing on staff due to the knock on effects of the recruitment freeze but also some great concern about the micro management and inappropriate, inconsistent or even hidden workload models.
– There are mixed views of the professional development review, which is often down to the reviewer and how well they are conducting it. Nonetheless there is a clear certainty, as we expected, that many reviewers and reviewees just did not know about or understand the process as it was weakly communicated. There are clearly also concerns about the operational side with the form used and improvements are necessary.

We hope that the feedback we have gathered from this survey will be taken on board and considered with due care along with the feedback from the other staff survey and are happy as ever to discuss any other details coming about from our findings.

Kind regards

The UCU Surrey Committee