A presentation on one of UQ's MOOCs, Think101, was given by the course coordinator from the School of Psychology, followed by a presentation by the PVC(Advancement) on a feasibility study for a fundraising campaign.
Declaration of interests, statements by the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor on recent UQ achievements; reports of Senate sub-committees and Academic Board; gifts and grants report; PPL changes; bequests, donations and prizes.
I noted in my last report that the page in the financial statements appendix of the UQ Annual Report dealing with senior executives remuneration had not been ready to circulate with the agenda papers. Members were invited to ask the Chancellor after the meeting if they wanted to see it. He told the meeting that the pays were comparable to previous years, but recognised that 2013 had been "a good year". Well now it has been published.
You can see it here: http://www.uq.edu.au/about/year-ended-december-31-2013 - go to the Annual Financial Statements Volume 1, then page 53. Performance payments to the 'group of 8' top executives totalled $540,000, with the V-C taking $200,000 of this on top of his $688K base salary and $118K of other benefits (eg, super), for a package of $1,026,000. That compares to a package for the VC in 2012 (partly Debbie Terry acting and partly Peter Høj) of $923,000 and of $980K in 2011. So if you average 2011 and 2012, you get $951.5K, and the increase for 2013 was 7.8%. Salaries for UQ staff covered by the Enterprise Agreement rose 2.5% between 2012 and 2013. The CPI for Brisbane for December 2013 was 2.6% higher then the December 2012 quarter.
Yes, it certainly was a "good year" - for some. It has subsequently been pointed out to me that no performance bonuses were paid to the VC in 2011 and 2012 given the circumstances of those years.
Well now it is public, I can talk about it here. Senate has been getting briefings on negotiations with USQ over the future of UQ's Ipswich campus since August last year. At the time I expressed concern that transferring the campus to USQ could mean that UQ would be losing an asset that would become more desirable as the population and economic health of Ipswich grows over the next 10-20 years (Google development of the Ripley Valley if you don't know what I'm talking about). At the time, Senate was informed that the full range of options would be considered, including a long-term lease to USQ and co-contribution to the running costs of the campus. A Senate sub-committee, hand-picked by the Chancellor, was established to be the sounding board for negotiations between the senior management of UQ and USQ who make up a joint working party. As time has gone on, the reports to Senate have increasingly been leaning to transferring the whole campus on a permanent basis to USQ. It would appear that the Ipswich campus is not seen as being consistent with the ambitions of a research-intensive university dependent on global rankings. If you thought universities were not driven by market forces, think again.
In my last report, I mentioned that the six sub-groups of the Culture Working Group (CWG) to plan for a more constructive workplace culture at UQ had recently proposed actions relevant to their theme for the CWG to endorse the "most effective initiatives".
In his written report to the April Senate, the V-C was silent on the CWG and its six sub-groups, so I asked why. With a wide grin on his face, Prof Høj said that the plan was to "streamline things" and focus on three particular issues. I'm aware that the three over-arching themes proposed by the CWG are:
Feedback I've received from insiders is that the six sub-groups have been disbanded and that the membership of the CWG will be substantially changed to those who are "most able to take carriage of the issues".
The V-C added that his recent management retreat for Heads of School and higher also gathered frank feedback on the University's culture. I understand that this is now being integrated with the CWG deliberations ahead of a CWG meeting 28 April.
Changes are afoot. Can't say until official communication comes out. Was the topic of some discussion at the meeting though.
All entries in the Policy & Procedures Library that involve employee conditions are subject to consultation with the Staff Consultative Committees established under the Enterprise Agreement. Once that has happened, they come to Senate.
I had been informed by my union colleagues on the Professional Staff Consultative Commitee that a wording change might lead to employees paid market loadings receiving it as a percentage of base salary only, when the pre-existing policy wording left it open for it to be a percentage of total earnings, including overtime. Normally Senate is not concerned with operational industrial relations matters, but I was concerned that because affected employees had not been consulted (as required by the EBA), there could be a governance issue for Senate. However upon raising the matter at Senate, I was assured by the Cheif Operating Officer that the wording change merely reflected custom and practice and that the loadings had never been paid on anything more than base salary. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I accepted the change.
I also proposed a tightening of wording elsewhere in the policy to require evidence that an employee would be able to command higher remuneration from other employers before offering a market loading to that employee the University really wants to keep.
