An alternative to Cardiff University's plans
It's short, simple, and lets the University unite to grow again.
University finances are less transparent than those of governments or public limited companies. Government finances are set out in detail and crawled all over in public by parliamentary committees and independent bodies. Public Limited Companies publish quarterly results with considerable detail and hold investors’ and analysts’ meetings. Universities have to prove to their regulators that they are going concerns, but beyond that? Far less scrutiny.
These are the latest minutes published on the University website by Cardiff University’s Audit and Risk Committee, for 10 October 2024, almost six months ago. Scroll through to find how much is redacted.
I could find no publicly-available minutes for the Finance and Resources Committee. I am happy to be corrected on this point if anyone can point me to them.
Is it any wonder that people are now asking serious questions about University governance? I will return to that in a post next week.
As I write, we are nine weeks into the consultation. Nine weeks in, the University has still not published the ‘critical friend’ report on Cardiff Business School promised in the consultation, yet all Cardiff Business School staff, myself included, remain at risk of redundancy.
Our alternative is credible, strategic and incremental, and more sustainable than the ‘big bang/shock and awe’ macho management approach which the University launched on 28 January, at a high price to staff trust, goodwill and morale, to the University’s reputation, and the University Executive Board’s credibility.
Our alternative has been written in light of the situation which the University’s self-destructive announcements have left us in, with a real need to rebuild morale, trust, goodwill and credibility. It is a genuine attempt to reset the University on a course which can carry its staff with it. Its principles are relatively simple. It is not a soft option and it includes tough messages.
We suggest that the University changes its Transformation Timescale from one concluding at the end of the 2025-26 academic year to one concluding at the end of the 2027-28 academic year. This is a two-year extension. The University would progressively reduce its deficits in the meantime and record a surplus in 2028-29. The revised Transformation Timescale would be based on a clearly costed programme of change with definite time-scales not vague ‘Horizons’, using available reserves within the University’s ‘liquid cash and investments’ to manage this process.
This is the University’s publicly shared overview of its Transformation Roadmap, based on vague Horizons:
Our alternative
returns responsibility for achieving realistic contribution levels and staff student ratios to Schools, to be achieved on a staged basis within the extended Transformation Timescale. Schools should achieve this through measures including voluntary severance/ voluntary redundancy; natural attrition; a recruitment freeze until targets are achieved; and a promotion freeze for an appropriate period.
takes staff in affected Schools out of scope for redundancy, removing the threat of compulsory redundancies.
defers inessential infrastructure investments if necessary to free up further cash reserves for the Transformation process in the short-term to the end of 2027-28.
draws down a tightly controlled and minimized portion of the University’s ‘liquid cash and investments’ to offset the deficits that will be incurred, noting that these deficits will reduce rapidly in successive years given the savings measures outlined.
requires preparing and using fully detailed financial models to enable Schools and university management to test scenarios and track progress towards financial objectives.
requires completing the work-streams in the Transformation Roadmap before implementing further changes, unlike the present chaotic and disorderly university approach.
Our alternative draws on material in the critique we released last week. As we said then, it appears that the university has a larger financial reserve than almost all the other Russell Group universities. We take reserves as meaning the ‘liquid cash and investments’ set out as totalling £426 million on page 25 of the most recent University Annual Report, published at the end of January. This total is divided into named types of holding. We understand that of these holdings (1) the £53 million in ‘endowments’ cannot be accessed by the University, and (2) the £7 million in ‘approved capital projects’, £19 million in ‘capital commitments’, and the £62 million in ‘bond repayment’ may be at least partially accessible but that it would not be prudent to do so. This leaves £41 million in ‘freely available to spend’, £144 million in ‘bond funds’ and £100 million in ‘long term reserves’. These three sums add up to £285 million. There do not appear to be any legal reasons preventing the University from accessing these funds. We are suggesting drawing down only part of this - a tightly controlled and minimized portion of the University’s ‘liquid cash and investments’ - as necessary to offset the deficits that will be incurred.
This week, the UCU union revealed the details of the strike vote at Cardiff University. Overwhelming votes of well over 80% in favour of strikes and other action on a 64% turnout. That is some mandate, and it reflects the anger and sadness across the University. I have yet to see any evidence that the University Executive Board has any kind of plan to address staff goodwill, morale and trust. If Cardiff University’s Council wishes to rescue the University from the spiral of decline into which the University is heading, then it will look seriously at our proposals - and soon.
Here is the Alternative:
