(NB: Frequently when I refer to UTAS in my writings I am referring only to the clique who make the big decisions for the University and, it seems, some of the big decisions for Tasmania; my meaning can normally be judged from the context).

Some ‘Highlights’

The University Council Membership Procedure (UCMP; click here for link) appears to be a mix of incompetence and arrogance. While poorly drafted, among other matters, the UCMP documents the processes by which UTAS controls appointments to the UTAS Council, including ministerial and student appointments. The UCMP fully justifies concerns expressed in numerous submissions (including mine) to the Legislative Council Select Committee Inquiry into the Provisions of the University of Tasmania Act 1992 (the UTAS Act), that – particularly as amended in 2012 – the UTAS Act created the potential for the Council to self-replicate and the institutionalisation of group think. That potential is realised in the UCMP.

I will discuss in depth below the issues that most concern me, but will mention some ‘highlights’ first:

  • What most of us would call a skills list, UCMP calls a “Skills Matrix” presumably to comply with a consultant’s wording but perhaps also to give the list a sense of rigour it otherwise lacks.

  • UTAS’ “Skills Matrix” is an exclusive list – a person cannot be appointed to the UTAS Council unless they have one of the skills on the list. It is also used for appointment to the powerful Committees of the UTAS Council.

  • One of the skills listed in UTAS’ “Skills Matrix” for UTAS Council members is “regionally located” – this must be a first. Extra points, perhaps, if you are skilled enough to come from the Northwest?

  • As 11 out 14 UTAS Council members are appointed, this makes UTAS’ “Skills Matrix” vitally important as it can be employed in a way that allows UTAS to appoint virtually anyone they wish to appoint and to exclude from appointment anyone they wish to exclude (“regionally located” from this perspective is but one more tool for use).

  • UTAS not only controls the process for the Government’s appointment of its two members to the UTAS Council but prescribes ministerial/governmental actions (“The Minister will…”). At the least, this is sloppy drafting. At the most, it is reflective of the power relationship between UTAS and Government, and the arrogance with which UTAS wields power.

  • Quite apart from highly questionable application of UTAS’ “Skills Matrix” to students, UTAS exercises tight control over student appointments.

  • Section 2.1 of the UCMP states that “Among other things, the Chancellor must have a clear understanding of the role of governance versus management and understand the complexities of navigating the politics of the State.” [my bolding] I query the meaning of this statement below, but really your guess is as good as mine.

  • The UCMP contains numerous typographical errors and inconsistencies. Taken together with issues such as the categorisation of “regionally located” as a skill, and the prescriptive drafting of the ministerial appointments section (whether sloppy or arrogant), it is a poor reflection on the UTAS Council that it approved such a document.

I encourage interested readers to study the document and raise any further issues that concern them in the comments section at the end of this post.

Background

This quote appears on page 12 of UTAS’ annual report for 2020:

“Governance Review

In 2020, as part of good governance practice, the University Council engaged an external consultant to review Council operations. Council implemented the recommendations from the Review, including a change to the length of Council members’ terms to a revised maximum period of 9 years, the development of a skill matrix [my bolding] for Council member selection, and a revision of the structure of Council committees.


Council determined that key strategic issues that led to the foundation of the Finance Committee and Built Environment and Infrastructure Committee were well covered by management and these committees were disestablished in October 2020. Council established a Strategic Resourcing Committee to consider, engage and advise on emerging issues which impact the strategic deployment of the University’s financial and physical resources.”

The UCMP was evidently part of the response to the Governance Review, with a first version approved by the UTAS Council on 10 September 2021. The second version – the version examined here – was approved by the UTAS Council on 9 September 2022. (I would be grateful to receive a copy of the first version, if anyone has one).

Issues

The “Skills Matrix”

Section 1.5 of the UCMP states:

“Appointed members of Council are expected to have skills in one or more of the following priority areas [my bolding], complementary to those skills offered up by elected members of Council (note: this set of skills is referred to as the ‘Skills Matrix’ in this Procedure):


a. Higher Education strategy/teaching quality management

b. People and culture

c. Legal Experience

d. Regionally located [my bolding]

e. Technology/social media marketing/data mining

f. Chief Executive Officer level financial management/accounting

g. Economic development/infrastructure planning

h. Chief Executive Officer level operational and people management

i. Research commercialisation

j. Property management/construction“ [my bolding]

Comments

  • Section 1.5 provides a list not a matrix. A properly constructed skills matrix might have some value for the UTAS Council, but here the term “matrix” seems to have been used to conform with the consultant’s language cited in the 2020 annual report and perhaps to give a sense of rigour it otherwise lacks.

  • 11 out of 14 members of the UTAS Council are appointed and the skills list is also a basis for Committee appointments (UCMP, Section 9.4), so the list is of high importance.

“The size of the governing body should not exceed 22, and desirably be no more than 15 members, and include members with strong expertise in and knowledge of higher education and/or other education sectors. There should be at least two members having financial expertise (as demonstrated by relevant qualifications and financial management experience at a senior level in the public or private sector) and at least one member with commercial expertise (as demonstrated by relevant experience at a senior level in the public or private sector).“

  • UTAS’ skills list in comparison appears a total hodgepodge.

  • While a fairly broad hodgepodge, UTAS’ skills list is, however, exclusive. It would, for example, allow the appointment of someone with some construction experience while seemingly excluding someone of piercing and critical intellect, whose skill set doesn’t quite fit.

  • “Regionally located” is listed as skill. The debate around the UTAS Act in 1992 centered on the need for balanced gender and regional representation on the UTAS Council and these issues are dealt with appropriately and together, for example, at section 5.3 of the UCMP. To be consistent UTAS’ “Skills Matrix” should also list “gender” as a skill, but perhaps this is too silly even for UTAS.

  • Particularly with the skill of being “regionally located” included, I believe the skills list is a mechanism that UTAS could use to ensure the appointment of basically anyone they want to appoint.

The Chancellor and politics

Section 2.1 of the UCMP includes a statement that:

“Among other things, the Chancellor must have a clear understanding of the role of governance versus management and understand the complexities of navigating the politics of the State.” [my bolding]

Comment

  • It is not clear what this means – does it mean understanding the regional factor in Tasmanian politics? Does it mean understanding the parties and the independents? Does it mean understanding Tasmania’s Hare raising voting system? Does it mean grandstanding in the media in pompous and misleading ways? Or does it mean – as I believe – knowing how to play the political game behind the scenes, of which UTAS seems to have some mastery?

  • I wonder if and how Chancellor Alison Watkins demonstrated her ability against this mandatory criterion.

  • Whatever the case, I certainly don’t believe that Chancellor Watkins demonstrated much political judgement in putting her name to an advertisement that included at least one clear deception – see my post UTAS’ $15 million lie?

Ministerial Appointments

Section 5 of the UCMP states:

“Ministerial Appointments


5.1 The University Secretary will notify the Tasmanian Minister for Education of any upcoming vacancies at least four but no more than five months ahead of the role/s on Council becoming vacant.

5.2 The University Secretary will advertise and manage the application process.

5.3 The University Secretary in liaison with the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor will provide a shortlist of applicants to the Minister, noting the requirement of the Act to have regard to the balance of skills and experience, regional representation, and an appropriate gender balance. [my bolding]

5.4 The Minister via the Department of Premier and Cabinet will liaison with the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor to finalise the Minister’s appointments, noting that the Act prescribes that one of the two ministerial appointments must be a graduate of the University.

5.5 The Minister will contact the successful applicants to discuss their selection.

5.6 The Minister will write to the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor to confirm the names of selected appointees.

5.7 The University Secretary on behalf of the Chancellor will formalise appointments with the successful applicants and advise Council at its next meeting.“

Comments

  • I believe that this section confirms that UTAS are now able to exercise controlling influence over ministerial appointments to the UTAS Council.

  • As I have indicated, it would be easy to say to a Minister that “we need such and such a person to meet our requirement for [x] skill”, including most absurdly that “we need someone with the skill of being from the [for example] Northwest of the State”.

  • Sections 5.4 to 5.6 prescribe ministerial and governmental processes (“The Minister will…“). At most there should be a note here saying that the UTAS Council understands that this is how ministerial/governmental processes may generally work, with a narrative description and total avoidance of prescriptive language, but really government processes should be no business of UTAS.

  • That UTAS feels able to use such language speaks volumes. It supports my view that in matters touching UTAS, the UTAS Council, or rather the small clique who actually run it, operate as the de facto Government of Tasmania. See my post RTI papers reveal Government left governing to UTAS.

  • It also speaks volumes for the arrogance and/or incompetence of the UTAS Council that it has sanctioned such language.

  • Were Sections 5.4 to 5.7 cleared with agencies/Ministers? If so, they have themselves been incompetent/derelict in clearing such language. If not, why not?

Student Appointments

Section 8 of the UCMP states:

“Appointed Student Member/s

8.1 A student member’s term of office is one year. Council may choose to extend the term of office for a maximum of one additional year (two years in total) [my bolding]

8.2 After consultation with the relevant student associations, the University Secretary will advertise and manage the application process to appoint a student member no less than two months ahead of the role on Council becoming vacant, noting that the advertisements must refer to the specific skills from the Skills Matrix that are required to ensure an appropriate and ongoing balance of skills among members of Council.

8.3 A Student Council Member Selection Panel will be convened by the University Secretary and comprised of the Chair Academic Senate (as Chair), the Executive Director Student Experience or nominee, President of Tasmanian University Student Association, and the University Secretary.

8.4 Applications that are deemed to adhere to the stated requirements will be provided to the Student Council Member Selection Panel, noting that each applicant put forward to the Panel must be a current student of the University as required by the Act.

8.5 The Student Council Member Selection Panel must include two (2) independent members (i.e. members who are not Council members).

8.6 The recommendation of the Student Council Member Selection Panel will be submitted to Council for approval.

8.7 The University Secretary will provide a formal offer of Council membership to the approved applicant.

  • While student appointments are generally only for a year, it is apparent that the appointments can be rigorously controlled and filtered.

  • Absurdly, student appointments are also subject to the skills list (which skill might they have other than the easily manipulatable “regionally located”? Perhaps work in the construction industry?).

A sin of omission?

As quoted above, the Governance Review recommended that there be “a change to the length of Council members’ terms to a revised maximum period of 9 years“.

Comments

  • I note that this matter is not addressed in the UCMP; but perhaps it is elsewhere. I can only hope.

  • In the past a number of UTAS Council members have served terms that I regard as unhealthily long (up to 10 years or more) adding, I suspect, to a culture of group think. See my submission to the LegCo Inquiry.

Appendix A: Responsibilities of Council Members

This section of the UCMP is too long to quote here, but I thoroughly recommend reading it. I particularly note that there is considerable emphasis on critically reviewing documents.

“Members of Council have a responsibility to the best of their knowledge and ability, to:

….

  • Critically read all agenda documents before each meeting

  • Ensure critical review of all proposals put to the Council”

They are also reminded of their obligation under the UTAS Act “to exercise care and diligence“

Comments

  • UTAS Council members have clearly failed in their duty to critically review the UCMP.

  • I find the references to critical review of documents ironic given that of the 14 UTAS councillors present at the 5 April 2019 meeting which decided that UTAS should relocate to the Hobart CBD, two joined the Council in January 2019 and two others in February 2019. How well could they have applied themselves to the business case put before them.

  • I repeat my suggestion in my submission to the LegCo Inquiry “that there should be an obligation for UTAS Council members to show that they have satisfied their ‘Obligation for care and diligence’ under s11A. of the 1992 Act through, for example, a signed declaration when major issues (appropriately defined) are considered.”

  • A further statement in the Responsibilities of Council Members section is:

“Council is responsible for ensuring that the University complies with the Voluntary Code of Best Practice for the Governance of Australian Public Universities“.

Appendix A: Responsibilities of the University in respect of Council Members

This section of the UCMP is again too long to quote here in full, but I particularly note the following:

” The University will provide Council members with complete and accurate information in respect of all matters to be considered by Council and in respect of all of Council’s identified functions, in sufficient time to allow proper consideration.

….Members are expected to sign a deed of access and indemnity, which sets out confidentiality requirements of Council members, and their right to access to records.“

Comments

  • Has the University provided accurate information to Council members in respect of the bogus $15 million figure that I have mentioned above or was the provision of this figure to Chancellor Watkins regarded as outside Council proceedings?

  • UTAS having twice rejected my RTI application for (1) the STEM business case and (2) the business case for the Hobart CBD move presented to the UTAS Council meeting of 5 April 2019, I look forward with hopeful expectation to the Ombudsman requiring release of these documents so that I and others can assess their completeness and accuracy.

  • I note the confidentiality required in respect of Council Members. This makes it all the more important that the UTAS Council publish minutes of its meetings. This is a matter on which I will write further.

My thanks to the member of the Save UTAS Campus Supporters Group who drew my attention to the UCMP by posting a copy on our Facebook site.

By : Robert Hogan