Reading v-c Sir David Bell loses 'no confidence' vote

It is notable that the one of the main responses of the university is to accuse its own staff of 'electoral abuse and rigging'. So much for management respecting their staff who actually do the day-to-day work of the university. But this is how it is nowadays not just in universities, of course, but almost everywhere: overpaid, senior managerial staff who have no accountability and who take no responsibility -- the next big job is around the corner for them no matter what the outcomes of their restructurings and reorganisations -- sneering at the people who actually do the work. Also, most academics have realised by now the con of being invited by management to sell their admin colleagues down the river as if this would prevent 'major cuts to academic activities' when, in fact, the loss of support staff precisely causes 'major cuts to academic activities' anyway as academics then have to do the admin themselves instead, and, moreover, performance reviews are then deployed to get rid of academics also, for ostensibly other reasons and through other routes. To top it all, none of the figures offered make any sense, except to explain how university staff will be working for years to pay back the management consultants. This is a prime example of how English Higher Education is being destroyed by pretending that it can and should be a business and a very badly run business at that. But I guess that it puts it in a prime position to be sold off to private providers a few years down the line, just like the NHS.

One of the things staff are enraged about is the amount of money given to consultants. This UCU report (p35) shows that the University of Reading has paid more to management consultants than any other UK Uni: http://www.ucu.org.uk/media/7870/transparency_at_the_top_2016/pdf/VC_pay_and_perks_FINAL_VERSION2.pdf In total PricewaterhouseCoopers have received more than £20 million. The changes they’ve recommended suggest they know little about how a higher education institution works.

"[the University] will not challenge the vote of no confidence" ... of course not; they know perfectly well that the integrity of the process is good. "... but questioned whether the online poll had been open to electoral abuse and rigging" If this actually came from some official source, this smear-and-sneer tactic shows their contempt towards their own administrators and professors. And it comes right after the Vice-Chancellor said, "I accept too that some of the language and tone of our communications has been perceived as patronising". Keeping it up, I see.