Sussex Not For Sale

The implementation of the framework agreement has resulted in a pay cut for many ATs in SocCul and Humanities. In February the University shut down the appeals procedure and promised a full review of the treatment of ATs.

We call for The University:

1. To set up this review transparently and with all speed. This review should report by September 2008.

2. To give ATs direct representation on this review group

3. To Negotiate in good faith with unions and elected AT representatives:

a. To correct this cut in pay

Sussex Not for Sale has been one of the most important and popular campaigns to take place at Sussex in many years. We should not be surprised that the Vice-Chancellor has been closed to criticism of his ideologically driven restructuring. If we learn from this experience, the campaign will return even stronger in the new academic year.

UCU have sent the following message to their members:

Dear members,

Some of you will have seen the revised White Paper that is going to Council tomorrow. On page 12, as part of the risk assessment, is the following: 

On the last day of term, we protested outside University Senate to say 'no' to the Vice-Chancellor's plans for our university. Inside the meeting, our concerns were voiced by student and staff representatives. But the Vice-Chancellor isn't listening.

This Friday, the proposals will go before University Council, the very highest governing body of the university, for approval. The Vice-Chancellor's group is trying to whitewash our demands by telling Council that Senate approved the plans [1] and that our concerns have been dealt with in a new version of the White Paper [2]. As any of the staff and students who sit on Senate could tell you, this is not the case. The new version of the White Paper contains minor changes and a new 'risk assessment' section which makes it even more obvious that no adequate risk assessment has been done.

We must not allow the Vice-Chancellor to gloss over the problems with his proposals when Council meets on Friday. Most students are away for the Easter holidays, so it is crucial that as many of us who are around as possible turn up to demonstrate outside Council at 9.30am on Friday.

Hope to see you on Friday!

Thanks to Daisy for these pictures.

Last week, in a meeting attended by over 300 students and staff, a statement with our demands was drawn up by the Sussex Not For Sale campaign. You can pledge your support by emailing sussexens@gmail.com.

We assure staff that no names will be published until at least 100 people have signed up and no names will be circulated to the press.

The Dean of SocCul, Mike Johnson, has invited all students of SocCul to meet up for a discussion about the VCEG's proposed Green Paper. This is a great chance for students to talk with someone who is in Senate, and share opinions on the Paper. The meeting will be held on Thursday 6th March at 4.30 p.m., in EDB 121. The Dean will chair the meeting himself. Let's make it a great discussion, and come ready to talk things right through!

Our website now hosts a Wiki that will make it easier to assemble facts about the management-proposed changes. All logged-in users can (should!) add to the wiki if they are well-informed. The research group maintains editorial control. You can find it here.

The results of our staff survey are in. In total 63 members of staff took part, cross-section of people working at Sussex university. Perhaps surprisingly, the most popular statements are of an explicitly political character: nearly three-quarters of participants are concerned academic freedom could ultimately be undermined by increased financial pressures, and two-thirds reject the language of business being used for discussing education. Two-thirds also insist that normal procedure must be followed in the decision-making on the Strategic Plan. Conversely, almost nobody (3%) understands and trusts the decision-making process for picking research themes, and almost nobody (3%) thinks working closely with senior management should be the main role of the heads of the new Schools. Only 14% of participants see an urgent need for restructuring. More interesting, and perhaps more relevant, than the numbers are the comments that we received (all are reproduced below).