CRIKEY: Ziggy Review Update

Posted by savevca1 on March 3rd, 2010

In a letter to Crikey’s editor, VCAM Review Chair gives readers an update on the Review process.

Read the article here (starts page 3 of the PDF).

What are your thoughts?

  • If you are a current student, did the University or VCAM Management make it clear to you that you had an extension to March 5 to send in your review submission? Noting it must go through the Student Union vcam@union.unimelb.edu.au (not via the usual VCAM Review email).
  • Do you think concerns that the Review Committee  includes Heads of School, the Deputy Dean and has only 2 out of 9 staff and students representatives elected to their position “feel very dated and irrelevant” as asserted by Ziggy? Ps did you know concerns about the Review Committee have been raised in the Victorian Parliament?
  • If you are a current VCAM staff or student member, did you know consultations with “key stakeholders” had started yesterday? Where you offered a timeslot?
  • Missing from Ziggy’s email is any specific mention of dedicated staff and student consultation sessions with the Review Committee. Are you aware of any provision being made for this? Will you ask to partake in the “full day forum” in March? Would you feel comfortable presenting to the Committee knowing the Heads of School and Deputy Dean are on the Review Committee?
  • Do you believe criticism of the Review’s independence and processes is warranted? Or do you agree with Ziggy that such assertions are “uninformed and, frankly, insulting”?
  • What’s your overall impression of the Review to date?

Send your feedback to Boss@crikey.com.au (if you are a current staff or student member, you can ask Crikey to withhold your name) and post below.

In other news, see the public post left today at the bottom of http://savevca.org/archives/682 by a VCA Staff member regarding how VCA may be affected by the “Towards 2011″ plan.

  • Share/Bookmark

3 Responses to “CRIKEY: Ziggy Review Update”

  1. If Ziggy is unwilling or unable to prevent further detrimental changes, covert or otherwise, from continuing to occur at VCA campus during the course of the review, then the committee’s findings will “feel very dated and irrelevant”.
    If evidence were brought to his attention of more staff resignations and course cuts, would he publicly ask the University to desist?

  2. Robert Stephenson

    Ziggy is right to say that with the quality and volume of submissions the committee will be properly informed and its good to see some extensions for submissions taking place. As to predetermined outcomes, this suspicion could have been alleviated by having ‘VCA’ staff elected representatives. The composition of the committee, how its members are selected by way of selection criteria and association to the people who selected them is not ‘dated or irrelevant’ but is, as with any committee, germane to the arrival of the committee’s findings. These concerns are not meant to be a frivolous ‘insult’ but ones that many staff and students hoped would have been addressed.

  3. Have just read Robert Stephenson’s report of the ‘towards 2011′ UoM plan (http://savevca.org/archives/682). This is exactly the kind of heavy handed coercion that should be presented to Ziggy. If he cannot give an absolute guarantee that ALL proposed changes are currently to be ignored until the committee’s findings are delivered (and this position immediately and publicly confirmed by UoM), then the review process is a complete farce. It is like a public inquiry into logging in Tasmania while the guys with chain saws are working overtime.

Leave a Reply

  • Please help this campaign…