That Time of Year (again) - Annual Accounts 2011

The annual accounts as ever make for interesting reading. There's a lot to cover so we'll get right to the point with the key stats/info to emerge:

1) A new phenomenon was encountered this year - contracting income, both in cash terms and in real terms. In cash terms income contracted by some ~1.2%. If one assumes an inflationary rate of ~5% (CPI currently at 5% and RPI at 5.4% but both figures have been high since the initial slump in both output and demand post-banking crash, as the Bank of England has pursued a policy of devaluation) then this equates to a real terms contraction of income of ~6%.

2) In spite of this a historic cost surplus was preserved (just) at £0.3m, which is a fairly impressive achievement given the fairly large contraction of income that has hit the University. We would envisage that this was preserved at least in part by a reduction in staff numbers and some quite broad and detailed campus-wide policies for creating savings. Preserving some kind of surplus can have important implications for the University's relationship with its creditors so this is a key statistic.

3) It appears a large chunk of the lost income is explained by a reduction in HEFCE grant - some of this seems to be because the University was fined for under-recruitment, although we cannot be certain of this.

4) The fiscal restraint has been primarily achieved by keeping growth of key expenditure (staff costs & other operating expenses) well below the rate of inflation.

5) From August 2010, "staff pay rises" were a mere 0.4% - we will have more to say on this point below.

6) Professor Hall's emoluments are a mixed bag. On the one hand, his notional salary and pension contributions have risen roughly in line with the rest of the University's staff - his salary is declared as increasing by a mere £1k to £192,000, with pension contributions increasing by the same figure. We do expect that these are 'rounded' figures and, with regards the salary at least, this is roughly the 0.4% pay rise afforded to all other staff. On the other hand, he received 'benefits in kind' totalling some £4k and a 'merit award' (presumably a bonus by another name) of some £8k. All in this amounts to an increase in total emoluments of some £12,000 - or roughly 5.4% year-on-year. This is roughly in line with the current Retail Prices Index and has meant that Professor Hall's salary has effectively been 'proofed against inflation'. It must be considered in assessing this figure that it has been an extremely intensive year for the University so there is at least an argument in favour of a performance-linked 'merit award'. One of the benefits of such awards is that they usually do not have to be accompanied by a corresponding increase in pension contributions, whereas a simple increase in salary usually would, which helps keep the overall emolument figures down. That said it is obviously the case that Professor Hall's total emoluments have been inflation-proofed and those of the rank and file have not. We leave it to others to decide upon the morality of this discrepancy.

7) The number of staff within the '£100k+' club actually fell year-on-year to 11 (including Professor Hall himself). One member of staff is said to have received a severance payment of £112,000 and pension contributions of some £82,000. The only high profile member of staff who left suddenly that we can immediately think of is Professor Alistair Alcock, but there is obviously no obvious way of determing to whom such a large sum was awarded.

8) The method of presenting 'other operating expenses' has been revised (again). We wouldn't wish to venture as to why. Most of the expenditure is quite innocent (which we did anticipate when we commented upon last year's accounts) but as ever there are opaque sub-headings describing the divestiture of enormous sums of money - "Professional and Other Fees" still accounts for some £9.935m (~5% of operating income!) and 'Staff Travel and Subsistence' dispenses with some £3.5m. We now have a point of reference thanks to the Freedom of Information Act what these enormous sums incorporate - legal fees, consultants, air travel, rail travel, hotels etc are the principal contributors. Without seeing the detailed breakdown, we doubt much has changed year-on-year.

9) Commercial loans obtained by the University have run to some £39.5m - still a relatively 'safe' level of operating income although we would be tempted to add into this ostensible liability the lease arrangement with Peel Holdings for the use of the campus facility at MediaCityUK (which, to 2014, would add a further ~£6m to the total liability - we will not speculate beyond 2014 as the lease arrangement is thereupon due to be renegotiated and so the cost of the lease may be subject to variation).

On the whole, we would agree entirely with the University's description of its own future risks. The primary risks as we see them are the simultaneous tightening of visa restrictions, and the likely cascading effect on non-EU recruitment levels, as well as the 'core and margin' element of the Higher Education White Paper, which will almost inevitably lead to a loss of UK/EU student places. Our sources tell us interest from non-EU prospective students has contracted markedly on the previous year - a product no doubt of central government policy. Whatever way one tries to look at it, income will at best stagnate in cash terms but, in our opinion, is more likely to fall both in cash and real terms in the short to medium term.

So what for the forthcoming year? We suspect that this is actually the worst possible time to have incurred liabilities to creditors and to have entered in to high cost lease agreements - neither of these are optional commitments and regardless of what happens to operating income these costs are going to have to be met. This will create even further pressure to make savings elsewhere and we suspect the temptation for the University will be to dispense with departments and/or courses that are likely to perform poorly under the unflattering spotlight of the government's 'Key Performance Indicators' statistical data (which are intended to measure the financial prospects that graduates of a particular course might look forward to) and which are not an effective bastion of international recruitment. Similarly those that attract no HEFCE subsidy (band C and D subjects) are likely to suffer. We would anticipate that this will mean the University makes a shift to even greater emphasis on its considerable assets at MediaCity, and away from the Social Sciences and Humanities.

Is this a crisis of funding or just turbulent times ahead? It will depend on the effect the new HE funding policy has on recruitment, coupled with how much of a deterrent/filter the new visa restrictions prove to be.

Minute Precision

The latest minutes of University Council never fail to make for interesting reading.

It would appear Eric Healey - 'Daffyd' Austin's replacement as the Chair of the Audit Committee - was parachuted in in something of a rush. The 30th June 2011 meeting was Mr Healey's first appearance at Council and he was immediately appointed Chair of Audit. Perhaps they were in a rush to dispense with the services of our old friend Ian?

Vice-Chancellor 'Marty' Hall postulates that the HE White Paper looks gloomy for Salford. He calls the University part of the "squeezed middle" (trampled bottom, surely?) that is likely to lose substantial funding under the arrangements.

Finances don't seem to be looking too healthy either and the University have introduced means of mitigating the possibility of the end of year accounts showing a budget deficit (including a freeze on discretionary expenditure - more on this another day).

In what it calls a "cautious approach", Council has anticipated a drop in Home/EU student recruitment, as a result of the HE White Paper/Fee Change, of 21%, as well as declining retention rates thereafter. This itself will put further pressures on operating income. "Asset disposal" was described as a future possibility in order to help try and alleviate the anticipated financial pressures, although the budget agreed to includes no assumptions that this will be necessary.

Yet another fall in the league table positions was finally discussed - Professor Hall yet again claiming that it's a numbers game as well as a quality game (now when did we last hear him say that?). Naturally the method of calculation was blamed rather than the University's performance - a Marxist explanation if ever we heard one.

Of interest is that the University has taken a position of outright opposition to plans for a private Student Accommodation complex (non-affiliated with the University we presume) to be build on Adelphi Street.

Perhaps the most interesting detail in the minutes is that the University's statutes are set to be amended to prevent staff members from being able to elect candidates for membership of University Council. The official explanation given for this was to ensure members were competent rather than popular. So much for transparency!

There is some discussion of the new - much despised - logo, which the Salford Star are claiming cost a whopping £170,000.00. Much attempt is made to intellectualise what is largely seen as a pretty shoddy finished product. To her credit, current Students' Union President Caroline Dangerfield asked for it to be noted in the minutes her opposition to the rebrand.

Success!

A little over a year ago a publication by the name of Private Eye asked, pensively, "How much longer can Ian Austin last as Chair of the University of Salford's Audit Committee?"

Quietly, and without a fanfare, the University have finally answered this question - just over a year, it turns out.

Yes, 'Daffyd' Austin no longer presides over the Audit Committee, his role as Chair now having been filled by one Eric Healey (a Chartered Accountant we think - and seemingly quite a good one at that).

We are quite sure that Daffyd's departure in no way relates to revelations in The Lawyer that he is currently fighting off a claim by Halliwells' administrators BDO to repay the £21m reverse premium he - among others - secretly pocketed whilst serving as Managing Partner.

The three main 'tranches' of the High Court Claim by BDO have been listed by 'The Legal Week' as being:

"breaching Halliwells' partnership deed by failing to act in good faith and parting with the LLP's property "otherwise than in the ordinary course of business"; breaching their fiduciary duties to act in the best interests of the firm, not to make a "secret profit" and not to prefer their personal interests over the firm's; and breaching the Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) regulations 2001"


We are naturally quite sure that Daffyd's ongoing attempts to mediate away the High Court case will not inhibit his capacity to continue serving on the Audit Committee.

We do wish him all the best for the future.

"We're Sorry" Say Amnesty International

Internal emails seen by UoS have revealed that graceless Irene Khan - Chancellor of the University of Salford and former Secretary General of Amnesty International - has made quite the stir in the corridors of her former employer's HQ after she "negotiated" the sum of over £500,000 in a compromise agreement.

The emails describe Amnesty International as being "very shocked and upset by the payments" and explains that Peter Pack, the former head of AI's International Executive Committee (the body which approved the payment), has "stepped down" from his role over the fiasco.

An internal review - due to be made publicy available in October - conducted at AI has been led by former HM Inspector of Prisons, Dame Anne Owers, and has concluded both that "the payments were excessive" and that "mistakes, bad judgements and poor systems" led to the decision.

We are sure that will come as cold comfort to AI's generous supporters.

You Khan't Be Serious

University Chancellors are symbolic roles which historically fulfill the function of representing the Sovereign at degree awarding ceremonies. At places in touch with their history (Cambridge, for instance), when the Chancellor confers a degree upon a student, the student kneels before the chancellor, clasps their hands together (as if to pray) and the Chancellor places their hands over those of the student. This is a ritual of Feudal Homage, although at more 'progressive' Universities such as Salford, a simple handshake usually does the trick.

Unfortunately, for Irene Khan, the University of Salford's ceremonial figurehead, recent events have left her looking less than divine.

When appointed as Chancellor of the University, she was - on the face of it - a highly regarded public figure as Secretary-General of Amnesty International. In the subsequent two years, she has left AI and has since scaled to the dizzying heights of Consultant Editor of the Bangladeshi newspaper, The Daily Star.

She seemingly didn't leave AI without a fight, pocketing a tidy £533,000 sum upon her departure - a figure which puts even former UoS Vice-Chancellor Michael "Didn't we do well" Harloe to shame.

Mercifully she has since resigned from her role as a Board Member of the UK's Charity Commission. Yet she still clings on at UoS.

She must feel right at home there.

Ian't Getting Away With It!

Looks like out old friend Ian Austin is finally feeling the heat under the collar for his folly as Managing Partner at Halliwells LLP (in administration).

The Lawyer are now reporting that the joint administrators, Dermot Power and Shay Bannon, have instructed the 32 former Equity Partners who divvied up a £20.4m property windfall and put it straight into their own pockets to repay the money, plus costs and interest.

We at Universally of Salford have been highlighting Austin's hubris on this issue for almost a year now.

It will be interesting to see just how much Austin pocketed and how much he is ultimately expected to pay  back. One hopes that the University of Salford have been paying him handsomely as their instructed solicitor in their libel case against Dr Gary Duke!

Those Dastardly League Tables

Yep. It's a race to the bottom again this year, as the Place We All Know And Love spirals down to 109th in the Guardian's rankings (which doesn't take account of research activity), whilst dropping to 97th in the Independent's rankings (which does).

So precisely how bad does it have to get before the institution is admitted by those in charge to be failing?

Life Imitating Blogs

Remember when we pointed out that the University of Salford would eventually have to file an estimate of costs during their idiotic instigation of a Libel trial against Dr Gary Duke? Well they've done just that.

For those of you wondering why the University are so cash strapped they're having to axe 10%  of their work force then perhaps this will provide at least part of the answer.

The estimate of costs - as calculated by Heatons LLP (it appears our old friend Daffyd has been taken off the case) - has been submitted at:

£113,462.24

So much for 'Mediation'

One would think that, facing enormous funding cuts and an uncertain future, Universities such as that in Salford would wish to invest their moneys in activities likely to yield a decent rate of return (ideally by attracting students). You'd be wrong to think that, however, as Professor Martin Hall has decided it far more wise to throw money at lawyers and the High Court in order to bring a libel case against an unemployed former lecturer from whom the University stand absolutely no chance of securing costs or having any awarded damages paid.

Rather than (as stated to District Judge Smith) enter into mediation on the matter, Professor Hall and the University of Salford have gone straight for the jugular, having officially served notice on Dr Gary Duke for creation and authorship of the 'RatCatchersOfTheSewers' blog, whose contents Hall and Dr Adrian Graves (now the only two individuals listed in the 'latest' statement of truth) claim are defamatory.

It will come as no surprise to some that notice was served on the same day as Dr Duke's Employment Tribunal hearing began (now there's a coincidence for you!).

There have been some interesting revelations in said Employment Tribunal so far. For instance, in spite of Dr Duke supposedly being fired for bullying and harassment, it turns out that no complaint of bullying and harassment has ever been made against him and the University can produce no written record of one ever existing. This in spite of the fact that their own regulations for investigating allegations of bullying and harassment - and the ACAS published guidance - states that a written complaint must at some point be submitted and must be made available to the defendant to challenge.

So what is the purpose of instigating expensive libel proceedings against an individual with no means to pay your costs or submit to the damages awarded in the event of triumph? Well, in our humble opinion (and we must stress that this is purely our opinion) there are several possible motives for this:

1) You mean to both bankrupt and ruin the individual against whom you are bringing proceedings.

2) You have absolutely no intention of bringing proceedings and are simply trying to intimidate the individual into complicity with a course of action you deem desirable.

3) You, in the parlance of gentlemen of a pair of centuries ago, 'demand satisfaction' that can only be provided by the Court.

4) Alternatively, you sincerely believe that the criticisms of an unemployed former lecturer published on an internet blog and read by an absolutely minuscule number of people will seriously damage the reputations of your University and impede your capacity to recruit students (this is Professor Hall's contention).

In the event that this ever gets to trial (and we have serious reservations about whether or not it will), the University (if successful) would eventually have to draft an order for costs to be approved by the court. This would necessitate some transparency about the quantity of money spent on solicitor's and barrister's fees - for once, we might find out a little more about the University's expenses.

So, every cloud...

More FoI Humiliation for Salford

The Information Commissioner has issued yet another damning decision notice over a Freedom of Information request submitted to - and rejected by - the University of Salford.

This time, it was Steve Kingston of Salford Star fame trying to ascertain how much money the University were paying for the lease on their new premises at MediaCityUK.

The University initially refused the request claiming that the information was available through other means (the Land Registry). They later admitted that this was actually complete bullshit and instead switched their defence to 'Commercial Interests'. Needless to say, this defence didn't fly either, and the Information Commissioner has duly slapped them about in his latest decision notice.

The University have been instructed to publish the information within 35 days of the decision notice.

TCM Report

Your authors are quite tipsy, so we'll allow the report to speak for itself:

Click Here.

Full analysis when sobriety resumes.

Salford's botched handling of FoI

So just how desperate were the University of Salford to avoid having to deal with Freedom of Information requests submitted regarding their expense accounts and managerial activities? A subject access request to the Office of the Information Commissioner eventually resulted in a response amounting to several hundred pages of documentation being handed over, including correspondence between the University and the investigating Case Officer, Mr Steve Dickinson.


So what has this vast bulge of documentation revealed? Well, in no particular order:

• The University wrote to Mr Dickinson no less than three times pleading for a face-to-face meeting rather than engaging in correspondence. Why exactly they request this is unclear. What is clear is that the University promise to cover Mr Dickinson's travel expenses and submitted the following, rather perplexing, line: "I am certain that we can demonstrate to your satisfaction that disruption was a primary objective of this campaign."
• In spite of Mr Dickinson pointing out to the University that a face-to-face meeting would be "somewhat unusual", this meeting appears to have gone ahead. Mr Dickinson appears to have met up with Matthew 'Accident' Stephenson and Alison Purnell (Martin Hall's Chief of Staff - a very regal sounding job title). There is no indication of where or when this meeting took place, why it was necessary or what documentation or information was exchanged. A request has been submitted asking for further clarification.
• About 80% of the submissions made by the University are in fact totally irrelevant waffle. There are pages and pages of articles from the Times Higher Education, Manchester Evening News, Private Eye, Salford Star etc. There are even paper copies of comments on the news stories by individuals the University has deemed 'undesirables', including hand-written notes in some instances of what became of the transgressors.
• There was also a great show made of critical comments left on Professor Martin Hall's increasingly bizarre blog (which this week seems to implicitly attack the Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). Vast swathes of the endless documentation were in fact copies of his blog and comments deemed 'undesirable'.
• The University have sought plenty of legal advice regarding their position - a sure fire indication of how much they wanted to avoid processing many requests for information.
• There are also pages and pages of waffle in which the number of requests submitted to the University are analysed numerically and in graphical representations (this being a supposed 'justification' for not dealing with any of them).
•  Election campaign materials of several individuals - including those that have not submitted any Freedom of Information Requests (to our knowledge) - were incorporated into the 'evidence' and the University attempted to argue that these were relevant in terms of there being a campaign to disrupt the workings of the University.
• Unsurprisingly, both the initial decision to treat requests as vexatious and the decision to re-affirm this at Internal Review were taken by the same individual within the University - our old friend, Dr Adrian Graves.
• More worryingly, Dr Graves submitted on 22nd September a letter to Steve Dickinson in which he actually defames several of the requestors in order to try and justify the claim of Vexatiousness. This includes a 'chronology' of events leading up to the requests (much of which is, in fact, a complete fabrication), as well as accusing two of the requestors of criminal offences (another fabrication). Needless to say, he offers absolutely no evidence for the assertions, and we are currently investigating whether written submissions to the Information Commissioner's Office meet with Absolute or Qualified Privilege. [Edit] - turns out it meets with Qualified Privilege (i.e. can be defeated by demonstration of malice), so bon appetit!

So there you have it. Face-to-face meetings of questionable necessity, defamation, legal advice, hundreds of pages of 'evidence' submitted.

Oh and by the way, none of it worked!

You'd be Daffyd to keep him! *Updates*

The University of Salford's Audit Committee is described on their website in the following, rather flattering, terms:

"The Audit Committee is responsible to Council for adequate and effective risk management, control and governance (including ensuring the probity of the financial statements and the effective management and quality assurance of data submitted to funding bodies) and for the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the institution's activities."

All very proper sounding. But why oh why, given these onerous and crucial responsibilities that the committee is required to fulfil, would the University elect to keep Ian 'Daffyd' Austin as its Chairman?

News has emerged today via The Lawyer that Halliwells LLP - the 'Biggest Law Firm in the North West' that Ian Austin 'managed' to its collapse - went into administration last year owing creditors a staggering £200,000,000.00.

Yes, you read that correctly - Two Hundred Million Pounds.

This includes a staggering £5.5m debt owed to Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs in unpaid taxes and VAT, and £17.7m to the (government owned) Royal Bank of Scotland.

But not only are the University of Salford placing huge trust in Austin to provide 'adequate and effective risk management' (!!), but they obviously trust his judgement enough to employ his legal services in order to try and pursue a libel case against Dr Gary Duke - a case mired in controversy and which has gone conspicuously quiet as of late.

So if the University want to know why some people seem not to trust the judgement of senior management, they need look no further than their placing their faith in Mr Austin.

*Updates*

The Administrators of Halliwells LLP have reported that it is highly unlikely that the small business creditors of the failed firm will ever be repaid. This includes an unfortunate Sandwich Shop owner, who the firm were running up massive bills with until the day they announced their intention to file for administration. This behaviour on the part of 'respectable' lawyers is frankly disgusting.

Furthermore, it appears that a number of the former Halliwells employees will have their day in court. Naturally we will be covering these proceedings to see what revelations emerge.

Vexatiousness and the Freedom of Information Act

So what did the Information Commissioner make of the University of Salford's deeply convoluted, poorly justified application of section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act as an excuse to refuse to publish great swathes of information about their expense accounts and managerial activities?

Well, in short, he thought it was total rubbish, ruling that the University of Salford failed to demonstrate evidence of a coordinated campaign of requests designed to divert their resources (now there's a chuffing surprise!) and also that several of the requests had both a serious purpose and value.

The highlights:

"The University has not been able to demonstrate indisputable links between all the parties whose requests have been refused.


"The University's evidence, though considerable, is largely circumstantial.


"There is a distinction between annoyance caused by possible disclosure of controversial information, and annoyance caused by receipt of a deliberately vexatious request. 


"The commissioner finds no conclusive evidence that the requests are designed to cause any such disruption or annoyance"


Needless to say, the Commissioner eventually ruled that the University had indeed broken the law with respect to the Freedom of Information Act (another surprise!) and had incorrectly applied their section 14(1) defence (exemption on the grounds of vexatiousness - discussed in previous posts).

Where do we go from here? That's a very good question. Perhaps Vice-Chancellor Professor Martin Hall will realise the damage he is doing to his own, and his University's reputation, in not putting a halt to this continued prevention of scrutiny of University expenditure.

Or, perhaps, a little more exposure in the national press might help to convince him.

Watch this space.

In the interest of Fairness

Professor Hall has responded to some of the criticisms made of his Kafkaesque blog entry with the following tract of rebuttals:

"Eric states that the right to anonymity does not assume the right to defame. This is my point, which Howard misses by eliding personalised abuse with the right to challenge institutional authority. Decisions on the interpretation of the Freedom of Information Act are made by the Information Commissioner, and not on the interpretation of email comments. Decisions on the boundary between, on the one hand, hate speech, defamation and harassment and, on the other, legitimate public interest are made ultimately by the courts; one of the reasons why this issue needs to be opened up for discussion is so that generally accepted codes of practice can be developed that avoid litigation. I did not criticise the protection of sources by journalists, which is fundamental to press freedom. “Dodgy journalism” here referred to deliberate misrepresentation and abandonment of basic codes of professional practice; since Barry is a lecturer at two universities, he should know such codes of professional practice well. J. Smith casts me as a “benevolent dictator” intent on closing down freedom of speech. It is widely accepted that hate speech, bullying and intimidation close down the public sphere that is essential for freedom of speech; again, my point."

The Social Contract

"And if we are to glimpse a social contract leading neither to tyranny nor to chaos, then I prefer at first to consider it simply as a fraction of a larger delusion. And the Greeks had a word for it: Hubris." - Robert Ardrey, The Social Contract

Professor Hall, having dedicated his until-now quite objective if ultimately rather pointless blog to rather lighter affairs, has finally turned to testing the hypothesis of whether or not he possesses an eloquent back side.


The responses to his self-serving drivel have been far from complimentary. Barry Turner, Lecturer in Media Law and Public Administration at Nottingham Trent University, had this to say:

"The protection of sources is a fundamental ethic in journalism and it is not ‘dodgy’ for journalists to keep sources of information from those who would retaliate, usually in the most spiteful manner. Legitimate criticism is not harassment even if it is repeated over and over again."

Whilst 'J. Smith' - presumably an anonymous posting - went a little further:

"I conclude that the Vice-Chancellor’s article comes off as the work of a benevolent dictator and, in the end, as another assault against freedom of debate. People who are criticized or “attacked” online need to learn that the appropriate thing to do is simply to rebut the criticism. If the claims are not true, that should be easy enough to prove. Give a little credit to readers, too, who are generally intelligent enough to discriminate between pure “nastiness” and legitimate complaints."

All of this has proven a little academic, however (no pun intended). A fellow blogger by the name of Erin Baldwin - who we had never heard of before today's events - has revealed a rather interesting fact. After Hall's high-brow bullshit about the evils of "disaffected individuals with personal grievances who hide behind anonymous blogs and e-mail pseudonyms," it turns out that individuals within his own University are actually doing exactly the thing he is railing against others for.

This might yet be compounded by the on-going legal proceedings to trace the source of anonymous comments left on the Times Higher Education website - themselves libelous and authored by somebody with knowledge of the University of Salford's internal data records.

The Greeks did indeed have a word for it. The Americans have a phrase for what might follow - 'humble pie'.

Where to start?

Professor Hall's lid has finally blown, and today he has thundered during one of his blog-posts about the dangers of internet harassment and libel. We have a sneaking suspicion he might have had certain websites in mind whilst composing his diatribe.

So what did he have to say for himself?

"As a University, we have our own share of cyber-bullies and harassers. They are invariably disaffected individuals with personal grievances who hide behind anonymous blogs and e-mail pseudonyms. They are often neither students or [sic] staff. They make unverifiable claims for mass support (sometimes aided by dodgy journalism) and exaggerated claims to be speaking truth to power, or revealing corruption in the public interest."

Fair enough...

"They misuse rights of access to information through serial claims under false identities."

We presume this might relate to Freedom of Information Requests submitted under false names via the WhatDoTheyKnow website. It is not permitted under the Act to submit requests under false names, and the University were quite right to refuse these. However, there are many requests on the website which were seemingly submitted by genuine requestors, and if the University had any doubts in this regard it is permitted to request proof of identity from the claimant.

"Their postings are peppered with defamatory attacks on individuals which may be xenophobic, sexual or just downright nasty."

Oh dear... Although we hasten to point out that whilst defamation is a civil offence (very rarely a criminal offence), abuse is perfectly legitimate.

"Because these postings are always anonymous, those defamed have no easy recourse. And because of the nature of the internet, these toxic shards hang around for ever, popping up along with the victim's name as a virtual doppelganger."

Oh dear! Although this is slightly misleading since the vessel against which the University (and Hall) are currently bringing libel proceedings (the Rat Catchers of the Sewers blog) has been shut down and is inaccessible to the public.

We hasten to add that District Judge Smith read all of the accusations made against the University, its staff and Professor Hall specifically, in open court. Thus any reporting on it attracts qualified privilege and we would be quite within our rights to repeat on this blog all of the defamatory allegations made against Professor Hall. Some may care to reflect upon that.

Then come the real fireworks:

"an institution (and particularly a University) that acts to defend itself and its staff against defamation and criminal harassment will, in so acting, shut down legitimate criticism."

What's that? Criminal harassment? This being the type that attracts jail terms? Very serious stuff to allege there. Perhaps he's been spending time at the Sir Peter Scott school of law, the latter being a Vice-Chancellor who pissed away well over half a million quid of his University's money trying to bring a criminal case for harassment against a former employee, only to fail miserably.

"To use the argument of free speech to defend actions that so evidently abuse individuals, is a betrayal of the essence of the right to freedom of expression."

See above - there is no criminal or civil law prohibiting verbal abuse of one individual by another.

Whilst we sympathise with the overall thrust of Professor Hall's post, we would draw emphasis to the following:

1) There is a right of reply on this blog. Anybody is open to dispute its assertions or request material be removed or amended. We are amenable to such requests.

2) It may be expedient to call it "dodgy journalism", but material from this blog has been used in national and international publications by renowned journalists. It has filtered in to the legal, Higher Education and the general press. It has been nominated for the George Orwell Prize for Blog Writing and has proven eminently popular since its inception. It cites all the facts upon which it bases its assertions, excepting in instances where those facts may breach the anonymity of the source. It has been accepted as a work of reliable journalism with a public interest focus.

3) The University of Salford have repeatedly broken the law with respect to the Freedom of Information Act. This is not an area of discretion - they have broken the law. This has been acknowledged by the Information Commissioner in writing. It is simply not true to say that all statutory requirements with regards to the publication of information are met or exceeded. It is a statutory requirement to respond promptly to requests - one which has persistently been broken. It is a statutory requirement to provide details of a publication scheme on request - one which was broken.

4) We know that Martin Hall is personally asked to approve refusal notices for Freedom of Information requests. We also know that some of these requests the University have eventually decided (without recourse to the Information Commissioner) are perfectly valid.

5) We know that disclosure is being sought in the High Court against the Times Higher Education for personally identifying data for comments left on news articles, comments which are defamatory and are in breach of the Data Protection Act. We will leave it to the reader to consider the relevance of this to the above.

No work of serious journalism has ever committed social harm - although plenty of social harm has been committed by those who seek to stifle legitimate criticism. The balance between unsupportable fact, and comments based on identified facts, is a fine one - indeed, one on which Courts of Law do not always agree.

There have of course been allegations made against the University of Salford and its staff which a Judge has already ruled are 'arguably defamatory', and we respect that judgement. But such judgement was not levelled against UoS and we take great care to make sure any comment is supported by facts, and that the facts upon which a story is based are reliable and accurate. Most importantly, these facts are accessible to the reader.

Any dispute over this we are happy to listen to representations upon.

Loads-A-Money!

The ever brilliant Salford Star are reporting this week that management at Salford University are throwing other people's money around like there's no tomorrow, handing a staggering £42,362 to the Manchester-based 'community engagement' group, People's Voice Media.

People's Voice Media describe themselves as "a not for profit community development organisation" that specialises "in using social media as a community engagement tool."

Their latest Annual Accounts reveal that People's Voice Media have a total income pushing £600,000 per annum - so why they need another ~£50k from a cash-strapped University, which is itself legally recognised as a charity, is anybody's guess.

Those same Annual Accounts reveal, rather tellingly, that Salford's Professor James Powell is a member of the Board of Directors. They also tell us that the Charity's revenue stream is divided into 'restricted' and 'unrestricted' funds - it would be interesting to try and delineate whether Salford's contribution came with any strings attached.

Whilst we are sure that People's Voice Media undertake commendable work, it is worth noting that not all of this is Salford-centric (indeed much of it is not). But the bigger question surely is whether Salford University's educational objectives - legally enshrined in their Royal Charter - are served by throwing money at community groups? Less we forget, £42k is roughly equivalent to 14 people's tuition fees. Is this - if it were to have been taken from existing budgets - a justifiable diversion from the funding of teaching at a time when University budgets nationally are facing almost impossible overstretch? [edit - see below, there is some debate about the actual source of this money]

If this is any indication of the sort of activities submerged within the murky headings of 'Other Fees and Expenses' in the University of Salford's Annual Accounts, it becomes all the more enticing to learn what other activities moneys are being diverted toward. Time will tell.

[Edit]

A little more research adds a little more confusion in to the mix.

Salford Star are reporting that this money was provided to People's Voice Media as part of "Salford University's Transformation Fund". The only reference we can find to a "Transformation Fund" was one initiated within Peter Mandleson's tenure as Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.

This was a £20m fund designed to initiate informal adult learning at the community level. BIS's own website describes how just £1m of this was given directly to community engagement groups, with the remaining £19m handed over to the National Institute for Adult Continuing Education, who took responsibility for administering a competitive tendering process for the remaining money.

Unfortunately NIACE are describing themselves as both a "Company and a Charity", and neither their Annual Report nor their Financial Statement give any indication of the detailed fate of the £19m.

Salford's own website reveals that a 'consortium' involving the University, People's Voice Media, CSV Media, Salford Arts Theatre, Voice of BME Trafford, Chapel Street Business Group, MediaCityUK Public Sector Partners, the BBC and Peel Media successfully bid for a £300,000 'slice' of the Transformation Fund. The website claims that this came directly from the Government but obviously, in light of the above revelations, it is perfectly possible that it actually came from NIACE administering Government money.

The University's website then goes on to explain "the partners have additionally pledged a further £100,000 from their own resources to support and ensure sustainability of the development."

So is this where the £42k hand over to People's Voice Media comes in? Did the University bid for the £300k devolved Government grant on the pretext of further administering it to community groups, this being the source of the £42k? Have the University simply 'passed on' a restricted grant or is this indicative of their pledge to match the grant with their own resources?

Of course, all of this could be answered by a Freedom of Information Request - but we know how Salford University feels about those.

Taking Information Seriously

Remarkable revelations on Freedom of Information website 'WhatDoTheyKnow' today as the University of Salford gave us an indication of the sort of information requests they believe "lack any serious purpose or value".

Yes, the primary question the Information Commissioner expects a public authority to consider when considering applying the Vexatiousness exception to Freedom of Information Requests is that of whether or not the request lacks any serious purpose or value.

And so in response to two FoI requests recently submitted to them, the University thought nothing of applying the Section 14(1) exception when asked to provide information about the Procurement of Legal Services and Incidents of Bullying and Abuse by SLT Members.

How a public authority could make the deduction that the procurement of legal services, or allegations of bullying or abuse against their own Strategic Leadership Team, lack any serious purpose of value seems to defy conventional wisdom.

Departing for pastures new

Whilst junior staff at the University of Salford's Business School may struggle to contain their devastation, others might well have a glint of pride in their eyes at today's announcement that Professor John Wilson - Head of the Business School - will be departing from the largely impoverished concrete jungle that is Salford in order to take up a new post at, urm, the largely impoverished concrete jungle that is Glasgow.

Yes, Professor Wilson will henceforth be known as Executive Dean and Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the School of Business, Law and Social Sciences at Glasgow Caledonian University.

As you'd expect, news of his departure prompted a stream of "land of milk and honey" commentary from the University's top brass, with Professor Hall providing this gushing praise:

"This is an excellent promotion for John and I am very pleased for him and wish him every success in his new role."

And then the real cracker:

"Thanks must go to him for his leadership of the Salford Business School and the energy he has shown in building the school's reputation."

Perhaps by "leadership" and "reputation" this is referring to terrible staff morale and a collective sense of ire which probed championship heights, such that even the notoriously disclosure-averse Martin Hall was forced to agree to an independent inquiry - the full results of which are still being collectively policed by the University and the Unions for fear that its less than positive revelations might spill in to the public domain.

Or perhaps he is referring to the eight-month suspension of a member of staff? Or the confiscation of staff PCs in response to claims of damning evidence against management being stored on them? Or the on-going libel claim being brought in the High Court (in which Professor Wilson is one of the named claimants)?

On that note, we wish Professor Wilson the best of luck too...

Freedom of Information

When they're not busy instructing solicitors to issue libel proceedings against former employees, another activity pursued by some at the University of Salford is to totally cock up the handling of Freedom of Information requests.

The Office of the Information Commissioner has now spent upwards of seven months investigating the University of Salford's application of Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act (exemption on the grounds of vexatiousness), which they have so far used as the basis for refusing to supply great swathes of information ranging from the activities of senior management, to a more detailed breakdown of the expenditure contained within the sub-headings of the Annual Accounts (including the much loved £297,000 of 'Household Expenditure' declared in last year's accounts).

So why has there still been no movement on disclosure? For the simple reason that the University of Salford's reasoning for its application of Section 14 is one of the most convoluted yet conceived.

They are not arguing that the requests are vexatious - they are, in fact, arguing that the requests have only been submitted because a group of individuals have been in collusion, trying to think up dastardly ways of diverting the University's precious resources (presumably away from things like 'Household Expenditure') in order to meet the costs of compliance.

How did they arrive at such a fantastical notion? Well, apparently, because the requests were submitted over a period of months (described by the University as a "short period of time"), this is proof that the requestors MUST have colluded...

This line of argument has been somewhat complicated by Matthew "Accident" Stephenson's revelation in Freedom of Information correspondence that the University are treating requests from specific individuals as vexatious, in spite of the fact that the Information Commissioner's guidance on the application of Section 14 explicitly states that:

"It is the request and not the requestor that must be vexatious in order for the exception to apply."

So where is all of this likely to lead? It is hard to see how this fantastical application of Section 14 could possibly succeed, especially as the Information Commissioner very rarely grants applications for exemption under this rule even when the arguments in favour are ostensibly quite strong.

What the University of Salford may not have realised is that witholding details about expense accounts will inevitably give rise to the question of whether or not they contain impropriety. The legal position does not look at all encouraging - as this recent test case between a requestor and the Cabinet Office, which tried to apply the Section 14 exemption, seems to confirm.

As we look ahead to the new year, it will be interesting to see how these crucial events unfold. The expense accounts, the position of Ian Austin as Chair of Audit and the unfolding libel case over the Rat Catchers of the Sewers Blog might drown out the University's grand ambitions for MediaCityUK.