Funding chief grounds the globe-trotting spouses

I'm sure the examples above are perfectly legitimate and no impropriety is involved, but just WTF are we doing paying for spouses and partners to travel overseas? None of the rest of us are extended this luxury. It may be that the nature of VC visits are different and involve ceremonial and gladhanding duties, but just because an invitation is extended to a spouse/partner doesn't mean they have to accept it, unless it involves no cost to the institution. At a time when jobs are on the line and pensions are at risk, VCs (and their spouses/partners) need to get their noses out of the trough and tighten their own belts. 'Them' and 'us' simply won't wash in this climate.

FFS what's going on? Please don't get rid of the overseas trough I would miss it too much. Business Class travel, 5* Hotels, the best food and booze money can buy, plus all the other side "benefits" from travelling is these exotic climes. Don't give a monkeys about VCs and their wifes but leave us International Office wallahs alone. We deserve all these perks for the unreasonable amount of time we have to spend in countries such as Mauritius, Antigua, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Bali, Hong Kong. I personally don't bother with the less exotic countries such as China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria etc and leave these to my junior colleagues. Indeed, I don't think VC's bother with these either!

Typical HEFCE approach - lots of words and no action. And of course they've dropped the characteristic 'get out' clauses into the wording.

Many UK universities receive a minority of their income from HEFCE. Some as little as 20%. This raises the question of HEFCE's right - legal and moral - to dictate how universities should spend their money. Once the fee cap comes off, a number may simply go private. On this specific issue, it is impossible to legislate in a blanket fashion. Sometimes this is simple misappropriation; other times the presence of the spouse is a cultural expectation. More and more control from HEFCE is unlikely to help anyone

To my knowledge, HEFCE can only dictate how a public grant is spent. I would like to think more regulation is going to lead to better use of money, but Government (central and local) is sensationally effective when it comes to throwing other people's cash around.

I occasionally have cause to think that the notion of prudence is a myth. At least if these Universities were privatised, some of them would be allowed to fail.

It would seem that given this and several other recent articles that someone at THE has it in for Brunel. By all account Prof Jenks is an excellent VC, this sort of reporting has made THE descend into the worst sort of tabloid journalism. Shame on you. Your article seems to imply scandal despite stating that there is none.

Here's a few facts that may help the discussion along.

1. Despite its name, HEFCE has wider responsibilities than just looking after the funding that it distributes itself. It also monitors the financial health of the English HEIs that it funds on behalf of other governmental and quasi-governmental funders of HE in England, including the LSC (which funds FE in HEIs), DH/NHS, the Training & Development Agency for Schools, and the Research Councils – if this did not happen, HEIs would ahve to be monitored separately by each such body, with an enormously increased workload. Put together funding from all those sources, and you are looking at a tidy sum. Few if any institutions can claim this is a trifling part of their income.

2. As far as I know, there is no explicitly identified mechanism for the uses of student fee income to be monitored (except in relation to bursaries, etc.), so by default it presumably falls to the Commons' Select Committee to represent the public interest. Any enquiries they needed to make would undoubtedly be addressed to HEFCE, so in effect HEFCE is also monitoring financial health for this purpose as well.

So the argument that HEFCE has no standing to issue guidance to institutions in this sort of area doesn't look too convincing. But there's more.

3. The recent Charities Act remove the status of "unregulated charity" previously enjoyed by bodies such as HEIs, whereby they were asssumed by definition to be charitable bodies and no form of scrutiny of what they did was required to justify this. Every charity now has to be regulated. This change was certainly motivated in part by the desire to bring public schools within the scope of regulation, and HEIs got hit by the friendly fire. However, it was agreed that the regulator should be, not the Charities Commission, but HEFCE (we're talking England here, of course). In my view it was a wise decision by the sector representative bodies to go along with this – I see it as a correct application of the principle to "Always keep a hold of Nurse, For fear of finding Something Worse". But it does give HEFCE sweeping new powers – they may themselves not realise how sweeping, and HEIs almost certainly don't.. I have no doubt that the guidance about travel for sposes could be presented as indicating to HEIS where the limits of "charitable purpose" lie.

4. Finally, an off-topic comment continuing the same theme. The Charity Commission has the power to give guidance to the charities that it regulates about the limits regarded as acceptable for staff salary/benefits packages, and also exit packages – mainly, of course, in relation to senior staff. It has to be assumed that HEFCE has the same power in relation to the HEIs that it regulates as charities. The CC is realistic about pay levels, but some Vice-Chancellor pay packages might well go beyond its norms, and if HEFCE, as presumably they could, adopted the same norms and acted on them then that would really set the cat among the pigeons. Watch this space.

I think the last poster raises an important point. People defending very high pay for VCs frequently make references to the salaries of people in the private sector with similar budgetary turnovers. I would argue that someone like the CEO of Oxfam - a multinational charity with a budgetary turnover similar to a typical university - is a far more relevant comparison. She earns about 90000 pounds per year.

I love the post by whatalife, funny and true. I also work in an International Office of a big University. Sad bit is though I am one of the junior staff he/she refers to and I do not get the same benefits as the top dogs. However, hoping to move up the pecking order in the next few years.

So, taking spouses to overseas destinations is OK? Suppose a VC is gay/lesbian, how would that affect a "state" visit to Malaysia? For insular Brits, the former vice-president of the country is on trial (again) for sodomy. Would the VC boycott the country on principle, or would the smell of money be too much?

Why can't the VCs pay for the spouse/partner themselves? After all, they are hardly on the breadline.

@invinoveritas: they don't have to sodomise their partners whilst on the trip. Presumably if they did they'd be accused of having too much time on their hands ....

My partner has accompanied me on two trips that were of sufficiently long duration to make me think that I would not wish to be separated from her for such a length of time. In both cases the host unviersity arranged accommodation and air fares and I paid the difference. This is the right thing to do. It ws expensive though and I wish that my university had offered to cover the costs. I'd have happily accepted the money! And happily said bollocks to the charity commission and HEFCE.

This response is NOT addressed to any named person quoted in the article. The response is about broad points related to good governance practices, and the requirement for Codes of Conduct which reflect responsible ethical behaviour in respect of personal relationships and accepting 'gifts'.

The public at large was outraged by what was discovered about MPs' expenses claims and ‘employment practices’ of members of their families. Surely all universities/colleges operate from Codes of Conduct which lay down best practice ‘ground rules’ to avoid conflict of interest and payment of expenses to family members? This is part of good governance, and the Codes should be publicly available from the institution's web site. Such Codes will operate not only for members of Governing bodies, but for all employees and especially for senior staff who are probably the most ‘vulnerable’ to perceptions of ‘indulgence’ in foreign travel.

Spouses/partners who are not employees should not be paid for when they travel with husbands/wives/partners. If employees then presumably there will be a proven legitimate reason for the travel.

That another institution wishes to pay for them (e.g. cultural differences issue) may be a matter of personal conscience, and perhaps may be resolved by an appropriate donation back to the partner’s institution, the same as if a gift of a certain value were given.

If husbands/wives/partners wish to travel (and stay in hotels etc) lthey should be paying their own ADDITIONAL costs (as done in various public sector organisations).