Former v-c's dictatorial regime to blame at London Met, says review

C'mon folks. Isn't it time for the Serious Fraud Office to become involved in this fiasco?

There is nothing new added to the story in this article... is THE team loosing its touch? I would have thought you had read the full leaked report by now and would give us added falvour that may be missing from the previous articles...

The THE team has been writing about this matter since at least a year ago (just type London Met into the archive search engine). They have been giving new information each time. Melanie Newman was long-listed for the Paul Foot Award for investigative journalism for her exclusives on London Met. This item is a re-write of the last one that went on line last week, as it is the version of the same story which appears in today's magazine.

After going to london met and hearing what people had to say, I agree that the uni is to blame. They obviously knew the rules. It's crazy that they got away with it for so many years thouh

S: the Melville report, supported by material evidence, indicates that senior management and the Board of Governors (and not 'the uni' - ie frontline staff, and students - as a whole) were responsible for the current crisis . Sadly, it was the 'dictatorial regime', which rendered itself immune to independent scrutiny, and which buried criticism (and those who dared to raise unwelcome issues) which sustained this situation for so long. It is to be hoped, now the facts are revealed, that once the management issues have been properly addressed, London Met can move forward in a new and positive way.

I suggest THE to drop any future threads planned on this 'no hope' institution. We were hit by blog threads on this failed institution all this year to the saturation point. Hence please THE Editor, remove these two current threads on this institution.

"Sadly, it was the 'dictatorial regime', which rendered itself immune to independent scrutiny, and which buried criticism (and those who dared to raise unwelcome issues) which sustained this situation for so long." Sadly, this is something which is all too familiar.

Has the report been published yet - if so anyone know where it can be found on line?

It's amazing that those at the top are still refusing to budge but, if HEFECE is successful, and the Governing Body and the Senior Managers do all go, so that Gillies has a fresh start, I am very optimistic. When I consider what we have managed to achieve IN SPITE OF the way in which the Uni has been (mis)managed, I don't think there will be anyone to hold a candle to us when we get proper systems and appropriate support.

Interestingly, a number of comments in the both the press and on the various blogs concerning the failure of management/governance at London Met have raised the parallel with the banking crisis and those responsible for it being rewarded, whilst the victims were the ones left to shoulder 'financial hit' and job losses. Well, in the case of London Met the management/governor response to these two events is far more than casual. Michael Synder (former Chair of the LMU Audit Committee, and now Vice-Chair of the BoG) is one of the key-players currently resisting falling on his sword. Below, are a couple of references to his past defence of the indefensible: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/sep/16/executivepay - 'Why City 'fat cats' deserve their pay - and our respect', http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/2816811/Michael-Snyder-keeps-the-City-in-first-place.html - 'Michael Snyder keeps the City in first place'. Well worth a read!

Yawn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, no, it's not at all boring, if your job is in danger because some people have behaved very stupidly, very badly, very pig-headedly (though that may be a bit of an insult to pigs), very blindly, and now very selfishly.

What I don't understand is why the Board of Governors would want to stay? Being trustees of an exempt Charity, they do not receive remuneration for their efforts. One struggles to establish what else they receive in kind for their efforts. Surely it would make sense for them to just chuck in the towel and let a credible team take over? Worse still, surely being Trustees, they should be held responsible for the financial largesse?

So despite HEFCE & the Melville Report giving clear indications that they expect the whole Board of Governors and Senior Management to resign within 7 days, not a single resignation has been offered. What will be HEFCE's next step?

Well, one can't believe HEFCE are going to stop there. They've made it clear that in their opinion London Met Uni cannot be allowed to continue under its present leadership, because they cannot be trusted with money. HEFCE are not able to back down now. They therefore have, as far as I can see, two choices open to them, one of them disastrous to London Met Uni's students and staff, and the other simply disastrous to the Governing Body and Senior Executives. It is a sign of just how far removed the Governors and Senior Management have got from reality and common sense that they can't see this. Word is that the letter from HEFCE calling for them to consider their position was received with bewilderment, disbelief and protestations of wounded innocence by most. None so blind etc. etc.. There is so much incompetence among them that I believe the majority of them, including some of the Senior Management, have no idea just how badly they've been managing the University for so many years, the damage they've wrought to staff, and the stress they've caused students. The majority of lecturers known to me have had to make personal sacrifices in terms of hours spent working to try to counteract some of the Management's most irrational decisions. But. as somebody has already said, it is usually the 'little people' who pay the price. I hope we can trust, in this case, that this will not go on much longer.

http://www.shouldtheyresign.blogspot.com/

London Met can only survive if HEFCE cough up the SDF money and cut it some slack over student numbers for the next few years. They will not do that unless the Board/EG go. Simple really, 3 jobs vs 3500 (The governors are not paid so don't count). The BDO report was commissioned to get rid of Roper, the Melville/Deloittes report to get rid of the EG. Neither are independent, what is needed is a public inqury into the whole HEFCE funding system.

The blog world is an unbelieveably cruel world. You are talking about careers here. You want 'heads to roll' etc. No one personally profitted from the so-called 'scam' at London Met - and the 3 that have been named? Sacrifical lambs - what did they do exactly?

'Just someone': no-one's to blame? There's no responsibility? There was no personal gain (well, apart from the small matter of self-directed inflated salaries of senior management, large performance related-bonuses, and quite outrageous payoffs)? No-one has suffered (well, apart from students, frontline staff whose working lives have been subject to the 'dictatorial regime' maintained by these and several other indviduals, and those frontline staff who've already lost their jobs through this management incompetence)? This all happened by itself? The report from the independent inquiry (which might never have happened if this small group had had its way) suggests differently. With authority comes responsiblity; and the current crisis didn't happen all by itself. Its not about 'heads rolling'; its about removing those individuals who brought the university to its current crisis, in order that the university can recover. Once those 'at the top' have been replaced, my guess is that the new management will conduct a wider internal review into senior management from associate heads upwards, and that there will be a number of further departures as a result. You mentioned careers; but we're not just talking about three or four here - we're talking about hundreds. perhaps thousands (staff and students) that have been, or would have been damaged by the actions of this small management group. There's no doubt that the management has to change; and this has to start from the top. Sacrificial lambs? More like vultures, I think.

What was "independent"about the inquiry.This was a stitch up and you have been conned

Yeah, right. Sour grapes, anyoine?

...and on the subject of the independent inquiry, does anyone know if there is a publication date, yet, for the full report?

https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/London_Met_Uni:_Melville_Enquiry_Report_Summary,_2009

There is only one reason why the BOG & EG refuse to step down. Because they are more interested in their own self-interests, than they care about anyone else - including the rest of the staff & the students. How much are the salaries & bonuses of Aylett, Lister, Link, Nelson, McParland, Bickerton?

It is clear that those named have to go. As the letter from HEFCE is in the public domain any other resolution, other than the immediate departure of those named, means that London Met is unlikely to get any of the support it will need to restructure itself as a smaller and more viable institution. By hanging on they are putting their own interests above that of everyone else.

For those interested in who currently sits on the London Met Board of Governors (therefore, with one or two notable exceptions re staff/student elected governors, those who have been asked to ‘consider their position’ by Hefce) - and wish to see the minutes of their meeting – it is all in the public domain (provided you know where to look!): http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/foi/classes/hwmd.cfm

Inordertosurvive what rank cowardice!!!Fullleakedreport you seem to be suprised that minutes are published .why are some Governors exempt.from scrutiny,the UCU/Natfhe clowns have a major responsibility.

The cowardice is in those that are guilty, cliniging on to precerve their positions and putting the whole institution at further risk. They have mismanaged the place for years and need to go NOW!

To totoughcall1:Guilty of what?Being smeared without evidence?Are you a HEFCE plant?

I think you will find that at least one 'third-tier manager' forwarded a significant number of emails to Melville as well as being interviewed. They confirm that the then Executive Group knew that what was being done did not comply with HEFCE's rules. What is far more debatable is the extent to which they believed that HEFCE were turning a blind eye. As with the HEFCE commissioned report, Melville does little to really investigate their role, and they are far more complicit in this than is currently understood. the shame is that this masks the debate that should occue over the fundamental unfairness of the whole funding methodology. Needs one of the Sunday papers to really go into this as the focus would soon shift from London Met.

Have those cunts resigned yet?

No

'toughcall1', both the elected staff and student governors are exempt because they have only this year (Oct 09) been elected members of the Board of Governors.

What about their predecessors?

'toughcall1', it is the case that at London Met, as with many other post-92 governance setups, neither the single staff governor (elected by all staff academic/academic-support and not therefore a union rep) nor the single student governor (elected student union president), are allowed to be on any of the important committees - such as the 'Finance & Human Resources' or the 'Audit Committee'. The elected staff governor wasn't even allowed to be on the interview panel for the new VC. The other so-called 'staff governor' is actually the Dean of the Business School and is there as the non-elected representative of the Academic Board. However, at London Met, the Academic Board is entirely compromised of non-elected managers and has no actual elected academic representatives on it - it is therefore an academic board in name only. Indeed, I would suggest the failures of governance/management at London Met are actually instructive re the general failure of such a non-representative, and non-accountable, model of governance in the university sector.

Bollocks!!!The unions ran alternate slates,their invollvement with those committees is PROSCRIBED by law.Why would anyone want A leaker to be involved???The composition ofr the Academic Board was approved by thje Privy Council of which Sally Hunt is a member.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/London_Metropolitan_University_Comissioned_Deloitte_Report,_unredacted,_3_Dec_2009

'Toughcall2', the unions suggested that their members voted for the candidate that appeared to be the most credible staff representative of those standing and was not known to be a management tool. However, as I said before, the vote was an open democratic one open to all staff of the university. Therefore, the fact that the candidate endorsed by the unions won so overwhelmingly should tell you something. Perhaps that's why there are so very elections to committees at London Met. It is probably also the reason why the only directly elected constituency of Academic Board, Departmental Staff Forum Chairs, was abolished in order to shrink the Academic Board to its current size and entirely management disposition. Also, for information, Sally Hunt is not a member of the Privy Council - http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/Page76.asp#h

Please note: the contributor using the name 'Toughcall1'/'Toughcall2' is NOT the same contributor as the one with the blogname 'Tough Call'. Sadly, 'Toughcall1'/'Toughcall2' would appear to lack the imagination to create their own web identity (along with the ability to contribute in an informed, or even literate, manner to the discussion). 'Full Leaked Report' and 'Wikileaks': thank you - very interesting indeed. As FLR observes (in the context of other information),' it is all in the public domain, provided you know where to look'. I guess the £56m question, now, is how this information can be used to move things on in a constructive direction.

Toughcall is an impostor

Full leaked Report,you must be new tio revolutionary politics ,a leaker would be dealt with.you are,of course correct about Ms Hunt ,she is a member of Opus Dei.

IF NOT - WHY NOT?

Let us not lose track of the core issues. Aylett, Lister, Nelson, Link, McParland, Bickerton. These 6 individuals must resign immediately. They have been proved to put their own self-interest before the integrity of the university, they have no professional credibility left, and must resign. Let us not allow these corrupt managers to squirm and weasel their way out of being held accountable.

They still seriously think they have done nothing wrong and are prepared to sink the University rather than bow to the inevitable.

Given that a number of frontline staff have lost their jobs, careers and livelihoods as a result of the judgements of at least three, possibly four, of the above named individuals (who have presided over hearings within the university), and that these frontline staff have had to personally finance any legal action subsequently taken to rectify the situation, my question is threefold: (a) what action can be taken against individuals at senior level, when their conduct has been shown (by independent inquiry) to have constituted something akin to gross misconduct? (b) what body or agency has the authority to take this action (I understand that HEFCE have the power to withhold funding but not to dismiss senior members of staff; and I understand that, at ministerial level - the next level up - the Rt Hon David Lammy believes that government should not become involved in the management of universities. So who actually oversees and intervenes in this kind of situation)? And (c) bearing in mnd that individual members of frontline staff who lose their jobs have (most likely from a position of unemployment) to finance their own legal appeals, is it right and proper (and particularly in the current financial crisis) that university funds should be available to those in senior management requiring similar legal services? The inequity of the situation is fairly obvious: frontline staff can't afford to appeal so lose everything whereas senior management use university funds to maintain their position and defend themselves against dismissal. There appears to be a void, above VC and BoG level, in the chain of accountability; and this would appear to have sustained a situation where a small group could act in the knowledge that they were unlikely to be called to account for their actions. Unless legally challenged, there was no external body in a position of real authority to either scrutinise or intervene in regard their conduct. The Melville inquiry has been an extraordinary, and very necessary, journey. The work of the THES has been crucial, as has that of UCU/UNISON, in revealing the situation. And HEFCE will hopefully play a major role, now, in seeing this through to its proper conclusion. But the system as a whole, in regard the scrutiny of actions, and the accountability of those at senior level, would appear to require review, not just in the interests of London Met, but in the interest of HE as a whole. This situation should never be allowed to happen again.

Toughcall,let s(he) who is without sin cast the first stone.Melville was a stitch up and you have been conned.

Leviticus: yeah, right. And the earth is flat, and the clouds are made of candyfloss. Fortunately, these days, we rely on evidence. Open your eyes.

Several points to note 1) Melville was a stutch up in the sense that the conclusions were already determined beforehand. Morris was there to clear out a lot of the EG and the giovernors so that a new VC had a clear slate. That would be the only basis on which HEFCE would provide the required support. Thus Morris pushed the governors into commissioning the report knowing what would come out of it. No one at the institution really believed his effusive words of praise for the senior management team 2) That does not mean that the conclusions are wrong, Anyone who knows anything about the history of this knows that the rest of the EG were in this as deep as Roper and therefore they do need to go and go now. The best Xmas present the staff could get is an announcement on the 16th that having considered the report and HEFCE's letter the entire Board of Governors and EG have resigned.

'To Tough Call': there's no evidence, as far as I know, to indicate that the conclusions were determined beforehand or that the agenda of Sir Alfred Morris was quite so proscribed. Having said that, there was - of course - an awareness across the institution that there were serious issues to be addressed, and that evidence of these issues, if ever allowed to surface, was potentially shocking. Given the nature and scale of the problem, robust intervention was required. I can't, however, disagree with your second point, or with your vision of Christmas Present! And as I've said before, this situation should never be allowed to happen again.

Well it is not going to be written down anywhere and so there is no evidence in the obvious sense. However a careful reading of the correspondence that HEFCE published together with observations of behaviour over the last 6 months would support my first point. As I said the fact that it was prettty well pre determined does not invalidate the conclusions as the conclusions were obvious to most anyway. If HEFCE had not blundered so badly in their appointment of BDO in 2008 then the point may have been reached earlier. However the EG were able to deflect a lot of what was in BDO because it could be discredited by the use of a former member of the HEFCE audt committee to run it , though it did allow the governors to finally see what had been withheld from them and allowed the removal of Roper to proceed, which was always the prime purpose of that audit. Melville was put in place to finish the job off properly. I think the EG must have been the only people who did not see it's conclusions coming, which further illustrates how far removed from reality they have become.

'To Tough Call': can't disagree with the points you make, particularly the last one. The phrase 'stitched up', however, implies innocence; and the evidence indicates that this certainly wasn't the case. Granted, a certain amount of stealth was probably required, given the nature of the beast (you wouldn't go chasing an alligator with a fishing rod and a brass band), its 'dictatorial regime', and its resistance to external scrutiny. Given the validity of the findings, and the evidence which supports them, however, perhaps 'caught out' might be a more appropriate description? What's important, now, though, is that on the basis of these findings, changes are made, and quickly, in order that the university can begin to recover and move on.

If we concerntrate on now becoming what HEFCE thought they were going to get post merger, i.e. one decent quality medium sized institution with a bias towards widening participation, then the future is not as dark as some people think or even wish. Much will depend on how good Gillies is as he has to have a fairly immediate impact otherwise a lot more good people will go next year.

Morris was there to clear out a lot of the EG and the giovernors so that a new VC had a clear slate.------ If this was Morris's "Prime Directive", it needs to happen before Gillies takes over. Gillies needs to arrive to a clean slate.

Government ministers break their silence and demand London Met governors/managers 'act with all due urgency to resolve the problems that have been identified, putting the interests of the students and the proper stewardship of public funds at the forefront of their concerns". - see: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/london-met-warned-that-it-could-be-closed-1835511.html and the following at the letters page: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/letters/letters-university-funding-1835528.html

how untenable their position is and are prepared to see everyone else suffer rather than go.

'London Met warned that it could be closed' (Independent, 7 Dec, see FLR link above): Its interesting to see that the Rt Hon David Lammy, Minister for Higher Education, has finally raised his head above the parapet. Its just a shame he didn't do so earlier, when the university appealed to him for help, and when his intervention might have - at the time - made a difference. As I have said before, there would appear to be a gap in the chain of accountability above VC/BoG level, and it is this gap which has allowed the situation at London Met to develop. Now, for example, the consequences of the gap are that it would appear that no body is in a position to dismiss (or even discipline) those individuals responsible for the current crisis at London Met. How ridiculous is that? Everyone has to be accountable to someone or something! And if there's no 'moral integrity' there, either, as a moderating force, then the situation becomes very unstable indeed. Its clear that the university cannot move forward whilst these individuals are still in post; but if these individuals refuse to step down, does the whole university have to be destroyed in order to remove them? The system as a whole, in regard scrutiny of actions, and the accountability of those at senior level, would appear to require review, not just in the interests of London Met, but in the interest of HE as a whole.

I couldn't agree more with Tough Call's comments here. The whole system needs overhauling, so that no other vice-chancellor/CEO and his mates can take it into their heads to run a publicly funded body like their own personal fiefdom. I understand that there are a number of other universities watching us very closely right now to see what happens.

One can not help but wonder... why would a BOG that theoretically receives no salary refuse to step down? Is there something more happening behind closed doors? would a new BOG have the powers to commission a detailed audit that could highlight issues that a HEFCE commissioned one could not? Last hope is the 16th of December.... with no resignations then we shall all know the certain future of our uni...

The EG & BoG refusal to recognise their position is now untenable, and their stubbornness is clinging to their ownpositions, putting their own self-interest ahead of any concern for the university as a whole, is akin to Marie Antionette's attitude to the starving peasants, showing how out of touch they truly are.

Aylett, Lister, Nelson, Link, Bickerton, McParland. These 6 individuals are the root of all the problems and must go.! Aylett & Lister, as Deputy-VC's, must do the honourable thing and fall on their swords. Pam Nelson, as Finance Director, has shown a level of incompetence beyond belief, and her position is untenable. Lyn Link as HR Director, is an inconsiderate heartless bullying dictator and cannot be allowed to remain in post. Mark Bickerton must take his share of blame for 'gaily' flying off to all the 3rd world slum areas and recruiting all those handsome young ethnic boys for his empire- no matter what their level of academic unsuitability. We must wonder about Bickerton's motivation for filling the university with all those poor uneducated young lads who are wholley unsuitable on any academic basis. And McParland - the "Mr Potter' of Fenn Street, basking in his own sense of self-importance as he signs whatever forms he is told to sign. All these 6 individuals must take their share of responsibility and be held accountable for LMU's present crisis.

Surely Mark Bickerton must have known that he was building a house of cards, by his recruitment policy of recruiting all those thousands of sub-standard poor uneducated youngsters from overseas. One must wonder what he spent his time doing in those seedy 3rd world cities, how he came to recruit all those gay young things, and what personal incentives he promised them. After all, we all know how unsuitable for university acadenia the vast majority of them are. All those thousands of overseas students who are completely out of their depth in university, coming to London England with their valuable student visas, and once here just dropping out of their courses to get jobs selling dodgy DVD's in the pubs and cafe's of North London. THAT is precisely why LMU is in the position it is now in.

The individuals of Senior Management named above, and the BoG, must be gone before Gillies arrives. If they are still in place it will mean that Morris's time in post was pointless, and will totally undermine Gillies to have to deal with those same individuals still entrenched in post. Morris must earn his money by making sure they are gone, and replacements lined up. Gillies must arrive to take charge of a new crew, not the same bunch of pirates.

The whole point of Morris and Melville was to give a new VC a clean start and enable a new beginning. It is not just the EG that needs to go but large parts of the SMG as well as many of those were hand in glove with Roper and co all the way through.

The London Met Student Union has now joined forces with UCU and Unison in demanding the resignation of London Met governors and members of senior management. See joint staff/student petition currently collecting hundreds of signatures: http://files.groupspaces.com/londonmetsu/files/11045/uroeBivaRhQ7zdCpYd5a/Petition.pdf

What would be more interesting would be a secret ballot of Academic Board members.

Who cares? By keeping the bad news of this so called university in headlines for weeks and weeks, these staff will ensure the eventual demise of this place!

'Who cares?', you clearly care enough to comment. I assume therefore you have a different agenda than one of simply disinterested boredom? As others have said, this catalogue of mismanagement and non-accountable governance has valuable lessons for all HEIs and the people that try to run them as their own private fiefdoms.

'Sure the SU will have a big impact', In most HE institutions you may well be correct in stating the importance of the Academic Board. However, in the case of London Met you would be totally mistaken. The London Met Academic Board is overwelmingly populated with members of the Executive Group (EG) and the Senior Management Group (SMG). Large numbers of which are directly, or indirectly, implicated in either the detail of the financial mess itself, and/or the 'dictatorial management regime' that allowed such a mess to occur in the first place and prevented the necessary checks-and-balances to correct it at a far earlier point. Interesting to note the latest and greatest scheme being foisted on academics at London Met is a non-consulted move to reduce our current 8*15 credit modules/year to 6*20 credit modules/year (far fewer to fail as one of the rationales!). This was 'agreed' by the following non-representative Academic Board : Bob Aylett (EG), Paul Lister (EG), George Ellison (SMG), Brian Falconbridge (SMG), Jean Fawcett (SMG), John Gabriel (SMG), Roddy Gallacher (SMG), Robert Mull (SMG), Dominic Palmer-Brown (SMG), Ray Smith (SMG), Bob Morgan (SMG), Graeme Evans (Director Cities Institute), Steve Jefferys (Director of WLRI), Errol Campbell (Identity Management Project Leader), David Ealey (Deputy Academic Registrar), Farhi Marir (Reader FoC), Shahriar Hashemi (Reader London Met Polymers Centre)

Hence the comment about it being a secret ballot. Think in your haste to, justifiably, attack the current EG you are allowing everything to be seen as a conspiracy. A number of other Universities operate 6X20 at UG level, London Met already does at PG level. and the change is actually more on academic grounds, i.e. it will allow a bit more depth and should be seen alongside other changes such as restrictions on choice and tighter rules on progression. As to the composition of Academic Board I think most institutions would include the Deputy Vice Chancellors and Deans of Faculty. Where there is more room for debate is over the other representation but there are staff members on there. Think the issue is that under Roper no serious discussion was allowed, whoever was there.

'Actually', I note your points, but would strongly suggest the following: If there are members of the Academic Board, even amongst its SMG number, then now is the time for them to openly (not via secret ballot) declare their hand. The problem with the idea of collective 'cabinet-like' responsibility is that it can look an awful lot like 'collective guilt'. On the issue of changes to academic regs: The real point to note is the lack of genuinely consultation. Academic Board, in agreeing the timetable put forward in Jean's paper, is that such 'consultation' that may (or may not) be happing in restricted circles within various departments, is on the basis of implementation arrangements rather than on the basis of 'is this the correct approach' to achieve the laudable aims you suggest? In most departments we have the continuation of the reverse pyramid view of consultation. The Dean/HoD receives the decision/timeline and then passes that down to his (not aware of any hers) Associate Deans/Heads to devise an implementation strategy. So said managers appear at Course Committees and ask student reps (StARs) - without any pre-warning/material, for comments on the 'decision' that has already been made - and then report upwards that 'consultation' with the student body has taken place. Staff get even less input into the process, other than to be told that as from Jan 2010 they will need to spend considerable time remodeling their courses to account for the 'decision' that has been 'agreed' to move to 6 modules/year. Yes, other universities have such a model - although it is interesting to note that City University where the new VC comes from - still has 8*15 modules/year. However, I doubt very much they constructed their degrees on the basis of faculty/dept managers telling course leaders 'choose' which two modules to loose, or, worse, telling them which two modules they needed to loose! Why, for instance, couldn't Academic Board have made a decision to conduct a full and free staff/student consultation on the structure of the UG scheme, and then listened to the voices/opinions of those that actually do the teaching/studying, rather than yet again rushing for the next 'quick fix'?

Fair points and you are right about rushing for a quick fix. It remains true that trying to regulate student behaviour has only so far succeded in increasing the non-completion rate. What should worry people far more is the QAA audit as that has the potential to be disasterous. Aylett's 'light touch' quality regime will be exposed for what it is, an abandonment of quality assurrance in the institution. Fawcett is usually pretty good at dodging the responsibility so this one could be interesting.

One can only hope that, as an absolute minimum, the incompetent 6 plus the BoG find their own way to the door. I also like to think that, if they resign, as they should, they leave with nothing save for a tarnished CV and unemployability. It would be the final insult for them to get what those who were made redundant as a consequence of their incompetence didn't i.e. a reasonable amount of compensation for a problem not of their making. Link, in particular, has presided over the most unprofessional and woefully constructed redundancy strategy I have ever seen in a long career. The errors and plain amateurish way that it has been carried out beggar belief. Sadly, since these pretty useless individuals had found themselves a 'nice little earner' and knowing something of their makeup I suspect that it will need their fingers breaking before they loosen their grip on their cash cow. And am I enjoying my enforced retirement? Now I look back on what I left behind - you bet I am. But I feel so sorry for those dedicated staff still being 'managed' by the likes of the incompetent 6.

Why it would be nice t othink that they would go with no pay off I fear that is very unlikely and to be honest most people who still work there just want them gone, and the sooner the better. The University has probably a year to show it has turned the corner otherwise it will fall victim to the second round of Tory cuts.

Interesting to note that one of the first things that Gillies did when he became VC at City University was to conduct a wide ranging staff survey. In the post-current Bog/EG new year we are all demanding/expecting/anticipating then such a no-holds barred staff (and possibly concomitant, student) survey may well be a good idea. However, given the eight years of unabated misery suffered by most frontline staff at London Met, it may indeed start to (reasonably, and certainly necessary) resemble a cathartic 'Truth & Reconciliation' commission rather than a mild-mannered academic survey. Those perpetually silent, yet apparently uncomfortable with the current regime, SMG members please note your actions now may well define your future.

One of the thing that Morris has noted in his many staff meetings is how quickly the volume gets turned up in email exchanges, which is probably as good a measure of any as to how disfunctional the place is. Choice for Gillies is probably between a very big clear out of virtually al lthe SMG and immediately below or a more limited clear out and then a large dose of deroperfication for those that remain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oc4XDHBJgA

Good too see the slime caoagulating.you gutless and nameless bottom feeders.

Leviticus could you be a serving member of the EG/SMG perhaps? If so, I can well imagine your fear...possibly, a little like that of the innocent staff you shafted trying to hold on to your ill-gotten bonus.

'Embattled board refuses to resign' (THES 10 December 2009): http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=409513&c=2

The members of the Academic Board "Aylett, Lister, Errol Campbell"... The very Errol Campbell who is the ISS Project Leader of the Identity Management Team who should have been responsible for collating accurate student numbers in the Directory. This is all starting to make sense. The fraudulent conspiracy of false student numbers was no accident. The resulting hefce clawback & mass redundancies are a result of collusion & corruption between all relevant parties.

Yes, Errol Campbell is the ISS Project Leader of the Identity Management Team who should have been responsible for collating accurate student numbers in the Directory. Ever since Errol took over as Project Leader for Identity Management 5 years ago, he has been deliberately obstructive toward gathering correct data into the Directory. There is no doubt that his appointment to Identity Management Project Leader was due to his eagerness to suck up to Aylett, his willingness to be a "management stooge", and his obstructiveness unwillingness & incompetence in gathering correct student data into the Directory has played a major part in the whole student numbers fraud. He must also share the blame for all those subsequent staff redundancies. But I'm sure as long as he's ok, he won't worry too much about anyone else facing redundancy.

It is unfortunate that ex-ISS staff, possible even some of those sacked for abusing thier positions, use this to try and settle old scores. Whether a student is in the directory has no bearing whatsoever on what is returned to HEFCE or anyone else for that matter. But those posting those comments know that .

There's no point in naming names because the identity management was doomed to failure from the outset. Merger talks didn't cover the two bodies computer networks. Nobody realised until very late in the day UNL had Novell and LGU Windows networks. Nobody had the courage to admit the oversight and immediately decide which system would be implemented throughout the institution, instead a continual hotchpotch of workarounds was established - running to this day. Consequently identity management spiralled out of control following merger. Both institutions had similar numbers of live student network accounts (20,000) pre-merger, suggestion a figure of ca. 40,000 in 2002 at time of merger. Quite unaccountably numbers increased to well over 120,000 live accounts on the network by 2007. IT Service Desk staff were increasingly frustrated as the huge numbers meant it took the account management software applications over 10 minutes to load leading to lengthy delays in servicing routine student requests. Any queries as to why this had developed were met with very aggressive, obfuscative workplace assertiveness from some of those involved in that sphere of operations.

There's no point in naming names because the identity management was doomed to failure from the outset. Merger talks didn't cover the two bodies computer networks. Nobody realised until very late in the day UNL had Novell and LGU Windows networks. Nobody had the courage to admit the oversight and immediately decide which system would be implemented throughout the institution, instead a continual hotchpotch of workarounds was established - running to this day. Consequently identity management spiralled out of control following merger. Both institutions had similar numbers of live student network accounts (20,000) pre-merger, suggestion a figure of ca. 40,000 in 2002 at time of merger. Quite unaccountably numbers increased to well over 120,000 live accounts on the network by 2007. IT Service Desk staff were increasingly frustrated as the huge numbers meant it took the account management software applications over 10 minutes to load leading to lengthy delays in servicing routine student requests. Any queries as to why this had developed were met with very aggressive, obfuscative workplace assertiveness from some of those involved in that sphere of operations.

Consolidating the IT infrastructures inherited from LGU & UNL post merger should not have been an insurmountable obstacle - all that would have been required would have been a willingness to acknowledge the shortcomings of the current systems, some sound business analysis, some planning (ha!), and above all a willingness to change. Unfortunately obstacles to progress did emerge very quickly, but these were in the main political rather than technical. The middle-managers involved learnt their IT chops in the eighties and were having a hard enough time coming to terms with the concept of client/server let alone this new fangled web malarkey - it became clear they were out of their depth from the outset. Why didn't senior management pick up on this or did they choose to ignore it? ISS/SYSS had a bit of a clear out in 2007 when a the largely ineffective top tier of departmental management were put out to pasture, but the view from the coalface was and remains that it was too little too late, coupled with a suspicion it was a wheeze on the part of the Executive Group to throw Hefce off the scent (they'd started to take a very close interest in LMU at this point - 3% drop out rate? Really?) by trying to scapegoat poor old bumbling Bill and pals for the horrendous data quality issues in SITS despite letting them flounder for 5 years. Issues of institutional governance aside, the EG's complete abdication of responsibility for dealing with the post merger IT problems should be damning enough in itself. Why did they let it ride for so long? Are they just really crap managers? Or were they aware of how poor quality the systems were but just ignored it for some other reason? Other post-92's take note! Does any of this sound familiar? Remember, history has a nasty habit of repeating itself!

The whole merger was handled badly. To this day there is still resentment and hostility between the different UNL & LGU Factions. Considering these intransigent hostilities and lack of cooperation, it is no wonder that no real progress has been made toward merging the systems. When UNL & LGU merged, one would have thought that somebody would have had the nous to recruit an independent "Mergers" Project Manager with no partisan baggage to oversee the merger of the IT systems, who would have quickly identified the issues & implemented a solution.

It could have all been so much simpler. A Merger Project Management team would have been the ideal way to go. Unfortunately what happened in practice was the existing dept managers were left alone to work things out themseelves, which meant a series of "horse trading" meetings between established managers from the 2 different institutions to try and barter a fudged compromise that would give job security to all those managers, at the expense of any practical working system. The repercussions of this decision are still in place, with incompatible systems and uncooperative entrenched staff still refusing to work together and bickering with each other. From the managers POV, this "divide & rule" policy meant that the longer the confusion & infighting went on for, the more they could get away with prolonging the needlessly difficult project work.

The first SYS H.O.D. post merger had this remark minuted in a meeting "city has a bog standard windows network with 3 people running it, north has heavily manned over complex Novell network which nobody understands". Soon after an 'independent' person was employed; it became very clear what their real brief was.

"city has a bog standard windows network with 3 people running it, north has heavily manned over complex Novell network which nobody understands" / But yet nothing was ever done to resolve the situation. Why not? Because there was always too much resistance to change & short-sighted petty office politics, and not enough long-term common sense & cooperation.

And don't forget the LGU/City IT staff were paid peanuts in comparison (I'll leave the drawing of any monkey analogies to others on this occasion). This was the cause of much resentment for many years, a fact often conveniently overlooked by many UNL/North colleagues. Yet more HR/management incompetence, the repercussions of which are still being felt today.

"The members of the Academic Board "Aylett, Lister, Errol Campbell"... The very Errol Campbell who is the ISS Project Leader of the Identity Management Team who should have been responsible for collating accurate student numbers in the Directory. This is all starting to make sense" . It starts making even more sense when you realise that Errol Campbell often used to drink with Brian Roper after work and sucked up very close to Betty Kagan by giving much-sought-after tickets to her to attend England rugby matches. But then, he did have a lot of other 'disadvantages' (ie, lack of any technical IT knowledge or management experience) to overcome in keeping his job.

Get passed over for the job did you ? Still at least you are not bitter about it

Those individuals in any dept who think they are clever by needing to resort to sucking up to managers, being management stooges, and being complicit in hiding the real student numbers, in order to keep their job, and being very aggressive toward anyone asking awkward questions, and who hitched their wagons very firmly behind the SMG horse... are now finding that as time goes on and more evidence becomes known which portrays SMG as the culpable party (and by association find themselves tarred with the reputation of being untrustworthy obstructive management stooges) may very well find they have now isolated themselves from their colleagues who are themselves facing pay cuts & redundancies as a result of the fraud in which the stooges have been a party to, and who now see the incompetent treacherous stooges for what they are.

North's has higher pay scales because after the city big bang in late 80's, PNL (which became UNL) haemoraged staff for silly money and perks in city IT jobs. At one stage IT dept had 53% vacancies. With union agreement the IT HOD abandoned nationally agreed pay scales for IT staff in favour of higher ones to attract and retain staff. Guildhall poly located in the city must have had similar problems and could have done the same but didn't. City IT staff resentment should be directed at former LGU senior management not north colleagues.

As has been pointed out before, the accuracy (or in this case not) of student data in the AD/NDS systems made not one iota of difference to the HESES returns, which were sourced from SITS alone, and these continual attempts to embroil the Identity Management project lead in that particular aspect of this unfortunate affair for whatever personal reasons you may have (are you former email system admin by any chance?) are getting rather tiresome. I do however agree that the management culture at LMU does rather encourage sycophancy as a means to career progression at the expense of any demonstrable technical or managerial aptitude...

The whole IT infrastructure is a complete shambles, with no real attempt ever made at merging the networks or even verifying SITS data. Bickering over whether the source of student data should be verified within SITS or the AD/NDS, is just like arguing over where to place the deckchairs on the Titanic. In the case of LMU, each dept (SITS & Identity Management) have a convenient scapegoat in blaming each other for the fault and are focussing on covering their own back & making the other team look bad, rather than working with each other and cooperating together to resolve the problem. Yes, a big part of the problem is bad management, but the individuals on both sides must also face up to their own parts in this whole fiasco.

The SITS database is a mess. Nobody knows what information it holds, of the reported 120,000 student entries, nobody seems able to tell which of those 120,000 are current students, which are dropouts, which are graduated, and which of them never actually enrolled. The only way to filter the relelvant entries into different tables to establish active current students, is to use a filtering mechanism to establish which of those 120,000 entries are currently enrolled and using the network by using the IT network login/password details to establish the date of last last login/access to the IT network, which is all held in the AD/NDS Identity Management system. So in that regard, both the SITS & Identity Management dept should be working together to filter & clean the data instead of all this infighting. For this situation to be unresolved after 4 or 5 years, with this continual obfuscation & bickering, is just inexcusable.

After following this thread & others regarding the issues surrounding the return of student numbers, it is clear that it should be a relatively straightforward procedure to get the true student numbers had that project been taken seriously. The VC doesn't have the figures for how many active students LMU has, on his desk without having to ask his managers to produce the relevant reports. The IT staff at the coalface who run the SITS & NDS systems on a day to day basis should have the ability to run a search query on the SITS database and find out how many students enrolled (or re-enrolled) that year, to get the number of new students & returning students. A search query could also be easily run on the NDS system to find out how many students had accessed the IT network in the previous 3 months or 6 months, or student ID's that had not accessed the IT network in any way for 6 months or a year. These student ID's could then be flagged and put into a seperate database table within SITS or NDS. That would have been basic database housekeeping and not necessarily have needed the personal authorisation of the VC. Which begs the question of how well these ISS databases are actually managed on a technical level? Or are the ISS SITS & Identity Managers telling us that they were explicitly told not to do any such thing? It does mean that we are looking at one of two options. Either the SITS & Identity Management staff are lazy & incompetent, or else they have willingly colluded in the cover-up of data.

all the students on SITS have a status that defines their enrolment position. all of hat is crystal clear to anyone using or reporting from the system and actually was not and is not the problem. The problem is solely around whether they did all their assessments or not,how that was returned and what levle of non-completion rate was estimated . That has nothing to do with identity management and how many students ar on SITS/LDAP or sitting in the Piazza having a coffee !!. Deloitte/Melville tell you why students were returned in the way they were and who made those decisions.

"all the students on SITS have a status that defines their enrolment position & the problem is solely around whether they did all their assessments or not" - so that students who have not completed any assessments going back 4 years ago still have an enrolment status of "active current student" to define their enrolment position? And did anyone ever question why there were 120,000 students listed in the NDS directory?

What is the AUTHORATIVE data source? For years, the Identity Management team were bigging themselves up by claiming the NDS Directory was the "Authorative Data Source" for all staff & student details. Are we to understand that now, this Identity Management team are claiming the data on which students are categorised as current active students, is nothing to do with them? Think of it this way: The NDS directory is a library and the Identity Management team are the librarians. The librarians are not responsible for what is written in every book, but you would expect the librarian to know how many books the library has, and whether to file a book under "Fact" or "Fiction".

Their enrolment status is defined year on year as they have to enrol each year. they can be current and not enrolled but if they are not enrolled they do not get returned. If you count every course that is recorded on SITS, thrn there about 35000 or so enrolments each year plus all th records that get created for people who apply. Everyone who puts the University down as 6th choice on their UCAS form has a record created, it is done automatically by the UCAS download. So 120000 is only probably 3-4 years worth at most. How they get managed is an issue that should sensibly be addressed but it has nothing to do with the current issues and the funding claimed

How long do you think it will be before the assertion appears that the University was run from the George through an alcoholic haze.

It should be understood The problems are entirely Down to the VC. He only told the 'GUVS' what he wanted them to know, he also told his senior managers what to do and say and how they should say it. They I admit were very weak (and still are) and should have stood upto him (but they didn't). I doubt there will be any retribution (and therefore no justice) - that's life. Pam tried her best but it was mission imposible Lyn did as she was told - with a bit too much enthusiasm but there you go Bob is and was looking after himself. I just hope that he doesn't end up like George Holmes, who got so lucky for a man with no skill or talent. If he does there is no justice. Chris looked after himself (with Brian's considerable help) and is now very comfortable TYVM. John I feel sorry for ! The LGU management were an absolute wast of space - but did ok for themselves. LIster was after my time Good luck BAR

The whole institution is clearly unfir for purpose. These blogs are full of people (presumably staff actively involved with the university) who are merely confirming the worst of the allegations that the whole university is staffed by a load of sad bitter petty bickering hostile uncooperative incompetents, who continually pass blame & accusations back and forth instead of working together, and who frankly couldn't organise a booze-up in a brewery. No wonder Roper was able to run rings around them all for so long.

A comedy of errors: if you're looking for a trace of a 'sad bitter petty bickering hostile uncoperative incompetent', I suggest you look closer to home, before venting your bile on the rest of us. There are a small group of bloggers who ( a bit like the disappointed vultures in 'Jungle Book', and for whatever peverse reason) still hope against hope that the university will collapse. The independent report, however, has clearly indicated where - in terms of the institution - the problem lies; and hopefully, once this is addressed, the university will be able to move on in a more postive direction. ACOE, I suggest you find another carcass to circle.

Yesterday's board meeting result is Anwyl resigns in March 2010 with the remainder of the board of governors in August 2010. No executive group resignations, however the unions want to do a deal with Gilles; if he suspends Nelson, McParland and Aylett when he arrives in Jan, pending an investigation into their role (with the expectation they will be gone by the summer), UCU and UNISON will offer the incoming VC no opposition.

not the Xmas present that the staff want or deserve. no one cares about the Governors it is the EG that need to go

"if he suspends Nelson, McParland and Aylett when he arrives in Jan, pending an investigation into their role (with the expectation they will be gone by the summer), UCU and UNISON will offer the incoming VC no opposition." Otherwise? Skirmishes between the VC and the Unions? Interesting months ahead? Sure way to end the existence of London Met. As a current staff I am worried.

Aylett, Nelson, McParland, Link - These 4 individuals as a minimum need to go, BEFORE Gillies starts. Topley, Lister & Bickerton also need to be investigated as to their involvement in the misappropriation & waste of funds.

Floud & Roper must be laughing their socks off.

Like Charles & Cromwell? or Thatcher & Scargill?