Conflict of Interest

After his earlier reassurances that the TCM Report exonerated staff appointments within Salford Business School, we are getting unconfirmed reports that Professor Hall's claims to staff in his letter of 6th July are, to coin a much used phrase, questionable.

The report apparently contains no less than 13 irregularities in the appointments process, some of which directly relate to the supposedly 'suspicious' appointments.

One of the alleged findings of the report is that 'Project Headroom' (remember that?) made two Accountants redundant, following which two accountancy jobs were advertised (!!).

The report is bound to leak eventually, and if it doesn't, it will certainly be disclosed under FoI before too long.

As soon as it becomes available, expect a full analysis on here.

But the bigger question has to be - why commission an independent report only to prevent wider analysis of its findings? This speaks to Professor Hall's character almost as much does threatening to sue his own students.

[edit]

Justification has since been offered by the University that the composition of this report is predicated upon the notion of confidentiality - i.e. that those whose testimony informed it have a right to retain their anonymity.

The Information Commissioner will have to judge the veracity of that defence. Rest assured, we are not accepting it at face value.

"Independent Review"

Readers will be familiar with the propensity for appointing staff to the University of Salford's Business School who, shall we say, have some connection to the existing hierarchy of management.

So Professor Martin Hall's decision to appoint independent consultants TCM Group to conduct an investigation into these appointments might have initially seen by some as a step in the right direction.

But what, pray-tell, is the purpose of conducting an 'independent' review, and then not allowing staff to read the detailed results? It is all well and good for Professor Hall to write to staff asserting that:

"The TCM Group’s report concludes that all appointments within the scope of the review were appropriate. The report has, however, made a number of recommendations for improvement of some aspects of our procedures and administration of staff recruitment.

Specific recommendations include processes for shortlisting candidates, the selection and training of interview panels, resolving potential conflicts of interest, and the internal communication of staff recruitment and selection."

But why not allow staff to read the report for themselves to assess the veracity of these conclusions?

We cannot help but think that the reason might be that the report may not support Professor Hall's assertions. As ever, both of the Freedom of Information Requests asking for copies of the report have thus far been ignored.