Staffing Advisory Committee: Can it have a human face?

D Gareth Jones

Quality ForumQuality Forum

March 2008March 2008

Not outlining policies

Talking around how things function

Personal perspective

Trying to provide insights into SAC’s processes

Introduction

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic & International) – Chair

Vice-Chancellor

Divisional representatives from each Division – two from Health Sciences (one from a Northern campus)

In attendance

Manager Professional Development & Equity

Manager Promotions & Remuneration

Human Resources promotions advisor

For promotion, also two AUS representatives

Composition

Policy review and development

Decisions on individual staff in:

• Confirmation

• Promotion

• Appointment of Associate Professors

• Appointment of Honorary and Adjunct staff

• Leave without pay

What does SAC do?

Takes guidelines seriously

Flexibility

Attempts to achieve consistency across University

Tries to balance teaching and research interests

How does SAC function?

Reports at 12, 24, 36, 48 60 (final) months

Based on generic objectives provided by Divisions (with modifications in some cases, e.g. performance staff)

Undertaken by DVC (A&I) prior to final confirmation

Response informed by comments of HoD, (Dean), PVC

Detailed analysis by HR

Confirmation in practice

Goes to SAC for early (3 reports minimum) or final confirmation

Reports from HoD and PVC (Dean) (generally very helpful)

Central role of HoD report

SAC has available all previous reports and can trace progress of staff member

SAC will take account of unusual circumstances (illness; excessive teaching loads; other responsibilities)

When necessary SAC works in conjunction with HR, PVC and HoD

Confirmation in practice

Takes objectives seriously

12 publications in international refereed journals means precisely that

Teaching responses: 20% 1 and 2 responses by students is not a good outcome

Address issues raised by poor student evaluations

Don’t pretend they don’t exist; don’t ignore them

Service is also taken seriously

Confirmation issues

SAC wishes to assist staff and not simply judge them

Teaching issues – make use of HEDC and peer review

Take seriously comments querying standards of journals

Outline service responsibilities in sufficient depth for outsiders to understand them

Confirmation issues

Are some staff not confirmed after 5 (or 5+1) years?

Problem posed by staff whose confirmation deferred repeatedly

SAC is reticent to defer staff for more than 1 year (after 5 years)

Repeated deferrals are unhelpful to all parties

Aim of confirmation process is to provide framework to assist staff to become successful academic staff members (by looking forwards as well as backwards)

Confirmation issues

SAC deals with promotions to AP and P; also special cases where Divisional committees unable to decide; also HEDC staff

Been through Divisional committees (DC) before coming to SAC

Recommendations of DC taken very seriously by SAC

If SAC’s recommendation is different, almost always in positive direction

SAC is in position of looking over all recommendations – attempts to ensure consistency

Promotion

SAC makes final decision on AP promotions in light of referee reports

Aware of rogue or unhelpful reports

Final decision on P promotion made by special committee chaired by VC

Special committee includes DVC (A&I), PVC, plus senior professors

Promotion

SAC aware that this is contentious area

Crucial importance of HoD’s comments and assessment

Rely on HoDs to provide insight into quality of journals, perspective on teaching contribution, and what staff member is actually doing in service area

Inadequate HoD’s comments do not assist staff member, although SAC tries to ensure that staff are not disadvantaged by less than helpful reports

On occasion SAC has asked PVC to talk to HoD after completion of exercise

Promotion issues

Criteria are scrutinized each year after completion of exercise

Scrutiny takes account of reports from PVCs and Divisional committees, members of committees, EEO and AUS observers, as well as HR and SAC

Modifications made for the following year

Promotion issues

Failure to be promoted

SAC provides staff with reasons why case unsuccessful

Discussion encouraged with PVC and DVC (A&I)

Some staff fail to do themselves justice by providing inadequately formulated cases

Promotion issues

Appeal against non-promotion – only on procedural grounds

DVC (A&I) decides on appeals assisted by HR analysis

All appeals are taken seriously

Promotion issues

Impossible for insider to judge

Always willing to improve procedures and practice

DCs function very well in promotion

Many HoDs (but not all) provide very good reports for confirmation and promotion

SAC only functions as well as the paperwork it receives from staff

How well does SAC function?