Far be it from us to intrude upon private grief, but we couldn't help but notice that former Managing Partner of Halliwells LLP (now collapsed - we are reliably informed this is the single largest LLP failure in British history) Ian Austin is currently under threat of litigation from the former Fixed Share Members of the LLP.
What has been alleged is that Mr Austin and the other Equity Partners were emailing the Fixed Share Members with, shall we say, imaginative interpretations of the state of the LLP's finances in order to persuade them to invest their own money (!!) into the LLP to keep it afloat. One (undisclosed) former partner has claimed that there is documentary evidence to substantiate this claim, which could be acquired via a court order in the event they decide to press ahead with litigation.
So lets get this straight - a man who (allegedly) 'shapes' impressions of the state of the finances in the LLP he is responsible for managing in order to extract investment by his juniors and keep a failing partnership afloat?
At the time of writing, Ian Austin is still listed as the Chair of Audit at the University of Salford and is (by proxy) still a member of University Council (i.e. the Board of Trustees).
Is this really the sort of person Professor Martin Hall wants as being primarily responsible for assessing "risk management" and "financial health" within a public charity?
Actually, perhaps we'd better not try and answer that...
Friday, 1 October 2010
Friday, 17 September 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, 14 September 2010
"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:
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."
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.
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.
Tuesday, 3 August 2010
Concerns about impartiality put to rest
No more will anybody have to worry about the possibility that members of University Council - the 'independent' body that scrutinises the activities of senior management and is responsible for, among other things, appointing a Vice Chancellor - are accepting hospitality from the University or having cash and contracts supplied to them.
Because now, the University of Salford's charter has been amended to make such activities a permitted matter of policy!
"The University may, and may only, confer benefits on members of the Council if the benefit has been authorised by the Council in accordance with the Ordinances. In this clause "benefit" includes:
a) Buying any goods or services from the University;
b) Selling goods, services or any interest in land to the University;
c) Being employed by, or receiving any remuneration from the University;
d) Receiving any other financial benefit from the University"
The University of Salford now has an "independent" governing body which has granted itself the right to vote to bestow itself with financial benefits from the University's charitable accounts.
Even our Members of Parliament have recognised the lunacy of the sovereign chamber deciding its own pay and remuneration policies.
Perhaps the University of Salford will set a more positive example than Parliament managed to? That said, we may never find out, as the University is proving even more robust in preventing public scrutiny of its accounts than Parliament has, having refused well over 100 Freedom of Information Requests about them.
Because now, the University of Salford's charter has been amended to make such activities a permitted matter of policy!
"The University may, and may only, confer benefits on members of the Council if the benefit has been authorised by the Council in accordance with the Ordinances. In this clause "benefit" includes:
a) Buying any goods or services from the University;
b) Selling goods, services or any interest in land to the University;
c) Being employed by, or receiving any remuneration from the University;
d) Receiving any other financial benefit from the University"
The University of Salford now has an "independent" governing body which has granted itself the right to vote to bestow itself with financial benefits from the University's charitable accounts.
Even our Members of Parliament have recognised the lunacy of the sovereign chamber deciding its own pay and remuneration policies.
Perhaps the University of Salford will set a more positive example than Parliament managed to? That said, we may never find out, as the University is proving even more robust in preventing public scrutiny of its accounts than Parliament has, having refused well over 100 Freedom of Information Requests about them.
The Curious Case of Ian Austin
Spare a thought for poor Ian Austin who, as former Managing Partner at Halliwells LLP, had to endure burdens that we mortals could not even imagine.
This included the horrors of having to slice up a £15m cash windfall as profit, to be trousered by him and his co-Equity Partners, before the humiliating experience of having to watch as Halliwells LLP went into Administration.
As if that weren't enough, his colleagues are not even supplying him with a sympathetic showing for his plight.
We trust, in the spirit of academia which so often flourishes in Britain, that he will be given a much fairer deal in his other official role, as Chair of the Audit Committee at the University of Salford!
This included the horrors of having to slice up a £15m cash windfall as profit, to be trousered by him and his co-Equity Partners, before the humiliating experience of having to watch as Halliwells LLP went into Administration.
As if that weren't enough, his colleagues are not even supplying him with a sympathetic showing for his plight.
We trust, in the spirit of academia which so often flourishes in Britain, that he will be given a much fairer deal in his other official role, as Chair of the Audit Committee at the University of Salford!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)