Notes+from+Arts+problems

Notes taken at meeting of Thursday 11 June

Areas looked Corrupted PDF processes, Workloads, Opaque Governance, Inappropriate Relationship

Performance Development
 * Some informal information on new metrics for calculating a score or reaching a target number of points
 * All performance now measured in points system
 * target number of point imposed
 * consequences of not reaching mandated points levels detailed
 * supplied some documentation
 * point score outcomes for individuals are collected from various inaccurate databases then supplied to senior management with suggested mandated outcome or expectations of consequences without individual being included - so reports supplied to senior exec not seen by person referred to
 * there is a matrix of performance and matrix of workload although these seem to be basis for measurement there is no relationship between them and there is no matching or offset process scoring badly on either can result in mandated outcomes in terms of feedback and consequences for employment continuity of employment, advancement, passing of increments etc = seems that consequences for staff member are mandatory -
 * not always clear whether the consequences of not meeting target scores applied in every case or some level of coercion of supervisor or staff member was available - some inconsistencies - very opaque to scrutiny - possibly hiding behind confidentiality
 * template exists for how and what to measure and what and how everyone must perform - very coercive model of measurement of performance
 * PDF scores result in withholding or delay of increments - has dramatic consequences for superannuation and for end of contract and redundancy and retirement
 * Supervisor guidelines as outlined for University generally have been qualified in a unilateral way by Arts Faculty management acting independent of employer or as new employer
 * qualifications of PDF processes and supervisor direction now micro mangged down to defining for example the points to be allocated to a project and the way that a project can be defined
 * knowledge transfer has recently also been arbitrarily defined - without consultation - and its measurement arbitrarily quantified
 * massive inconsistencies - seems some KT activity sometimes counts for PDF but not for workload matrix and reverse is also likely
 * not about performance but about coercion the reason for the imposition of the new scoring system and mandated outcomes is designed to prevent objections or discussion or requests for justification and make staff comply with limited outcomes or rewards or recognition without an ability to respond in any meaningful way (not me doing it to you - rules are rules - you did not meet criteria set and reset without consultation)
 * does not matter what is done satisfactory is the best outcome to be expected - consequences for promotion - so limits claim for promotion
 * inability to score higher than satisfactory because conditions to be met are set impossibly high or are not applicable or unachievable eg outside teaching awards to reach outcomes for teaching but there is no particular outside teaching award available - or only one for all areas or some such
 * **Professional staff**
 * need to work with supervisor to get hight reating
 * this year everything changed and then was not clear but seemed to apply retrospectively
 * all PDS would be rewritten

Workload


 * Point system for workload stifling actual real work and redirecting staff away from productive or valued areas of work
 * point system rigid - does not apply to realities of what is done in faculty by individual staff
 * although rigid it also shifts for different staff and is not consistent
 * no recognition in point sytem to the realities of workload requirements and new requirements imposed on staff under restructures, Melbourne Model, loss of, nion replacement or centralising of staff especially support staff
 * points accumulated in previous teaching or previous publication outcomes not recognised and cannot be carried forward
 * regardless of publication record or history or current levels - must be available for 12 - 18 hours of teaching - not as maximum but as minimum expectation
 * teaching and research staff are being trapped or timelined or timetabled into teaching only by default
 * staff are being categorised by system or imposed or mandated circumstances into being labelled as not performing or teaching only or other such imposed label or criteria
 * staff member is being required to fit model or template as per score or points
 * workloads template is points based but not reality based so not time based and fails to recognise certain work but prvedges some types of work with point not time
 * requirement for massive project funding and research grants
 * in past increments were available at satisfactory now much higher score befor increment


 * All PDs are now being re written and
 * introduction of a whole new layer of further restructurings are being planned or implemented
 * Academic workload eg in conference presentations recognition only for time duration of presenting now allowance for travel preparation rest or recuperation for jet lag
 * additional time is possible if records of meetings agendas and minutes and email lists of attendees collected
 * record keeping requirements justifying time seem excessive and childish causes stress and exhaustion and
 * should have a proportional allocation and designated days for travel and preparation and rest recognised- is an occupational health and safety issue
 * should have a proportional allocation and designated days for travel and preparation and rest recognised- is an occupational health and safety issue

Governance
 * Faculty of Arts governance and operations now operate top down there is no process for decisions other than through Dean and Faculty manager when they are both away no decision are possible and there is no idea how for example a Head of School may be able to make a decision or even advise on decision made without recourse or waiting for return of or response from dean or his manager
 * delegation or power or decision making to deputy is not existent or not working
 * no idea of some decisions there is funding opaqueness and no ability to make any decision outside reference to dean or his manager
 * Heads of schools do not now know what to do and must await centralised directives
 * Faculty minutes are not kept and not distributed
 * secretariate does not have minutes and those in the past who would have been expected to attend are no longer required