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.

Last week a new voice emerged in the VCA debate in the form of Ex (and 10-year veteran) VCA Film & TV lecturer Steve Thomas. Steve Thomas, no longer the documentary lecturer, takes up the story, in a year when the documentary course is not being offered at all at VCAM.

Published by Screen Hub on 22/02/10, Thomas supplies an incredible insight into what life is really like for VCAM staff, most particularly the unofficial VCAM Management policy of “change by stealth”. Thomas examines the world-class teaching methods which are being trashed in spite of the ongoing Review, and how staff morale is being beaten by everything from economic pressures (e.g. growing classes, forced to teach “more cleverly”) to the plain ludicrous (emails pressuring experienced staff to get PhDs). Thomas blows a hole into PR catch-cry of the Dean (Sharman Pretty), Deputy Dean (Kristy Edmunds) and Vice Chancellor’s (Glyn Davis) that “nothing has changed” or change is “proposed not imposed”, showing how courses (like documentary) are being quietly gotten rid of through new administration requirements.

Using the Film & TV industry as example, Thomas explains VCA’s vital role to arts business and the fact there is simply no choice – VCA must survive as an elite training ground.

Truly a remarkable read.

Read the full article here (copyright Screen Hub).

In other news, SAVE VCA received an email at 2.30PM on Thursday 25 Feb that “the Chair of the VCAM Review Committee is now inviting individuals and group representatives to meet with the committee next Tuesday 2 March at Southbank.” Yes. That would be three business days notice. After asking if we could have more time, we were told “March 2 is the only public consultation day scheduled at this point however I believe there will be another day to be decided after Tuesday.” As such, we’re not risking missing out and will be presenting on March 2 for 30 minutes (and 30 minutes of question time from the Committee).

This hastily put together public “consultation” does not bode well for an already suspect review and one can’t help but notice it has been schedule at the same time as the Melbourne Writers Festival and the Adelaide Arts Festival, meaning many industry officials are unable to attend. Is the University just racing towards a finding which is already written, printed, bound and waiting to be released? Post your comments below.

It may have taken 10 months, but the truth of VCA’s financial situation is rapidly coming to light. Further to today’s coverage in The Australian,  Crikey have revealed that a supplementary submission to the VCAM Review by Turnbull, Mathews, Denton & Landy details that an independent audit of VCA’s property value is estimated at $230m.

The UoM charging the VCA $6 million a year rent for a site, gifted to it, worth $230 million is morally unconscionable. If the rent is added (at constant current values) to the capital value above the UoM will have ended up with assets and transfers worth more than $500 million over the next few decades in return for the $5 million transfer imposed on it for a few years.

Furthermore, former Chairman of the Australia Council and former VCA Council Member, Rodney Hall has weighed in to the debate in his submission, suggesting the value of VCA is even higher:

My three main reasons for re-entering the debate are as follows:

 1.  To correct the notion that the motive for the merger, from the VCA’s point of view was to ‘broaden the courses’—during my years on the council the proposition of a merger was never raised prior to the axe-blow of the Nelson reforms.

 2.  To refute any implication that the VCA was not responsibly managed while it was independent. Quite the contrary, the old VCA delivered quality training in arts practice on the funding granted it—meagre though that was, in my opinion—without any ongoing deficit.

 3.  To point out that one contextual fact is conspicuously missing from the issues as laid out in the present discussion paper: the real estate value of the VCA campus. To put the university’s $5 million outlay per annum in perspective, the VCA campus, based on valuations commissioned by the VCA Council three or four years ago, must now be worth well in excess of $400 million.

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Peter Garrett & Julia Gillard when will you DO something?

Meanwhile the Victorian Greens have raised questions in Parliament about whether the VCAM Review Committee (to whom all these submissions go to) are even capable of objectivity in the review process. This is in line with SAVE VCA’s concerns that only 2 members were elected to their position. The Greens also questioned the rental scheme back in November 2009 and are still waiting for an answer from the Vic Government.

Post your thoughts below.

FURTHER READING:

• Read the original Turnbull, Mathews, Denton & Landy submission here.
• Read the Turnbull, Mathews, Denton & Landy supplementary submission here.
• Read the Crikey article here.
• Read the Hall submission here.
• Read all submissions published by the Uni to date via our previous post here.

In The Age (02/12/09) senior Arts Writer Ray Gill pointed to the importance of working with the University of Melbourne’s (UoM) Discussion Paper on VCA despite its flaws.

SAVE VCA encourage all staff, students, alumni, VCA parents and industry to make a submission to the Review, remembering you dont have to follow any particular format and you can choose to focus on your own area of interest. You can make a personal submission, as a business, as a collective (e.g. VCA Production 1st Year Students) etc.

SAVE VCA will publish sample submissions shortly which you can personalise, but in general terms your submission should include:

1. VCA NOW: If you are a student or staff member, give the Review Committee a sense of what has been lost post-merger and how this has affected you.
2. VCA FUTURE – CURRICULUM: Should VCA be 100% practical or liberal arts (aka Melbourne Model) or another combination? Be as specific as possible e.g. the number of contact hours, term length, how many students in a class, how many studio vs lecture classes, how much private tuition. See Discussion Paper pages 21-22.
3. VCA FUTURE – STRUCTURE: Should VCA remain a Faculty of UoM or demerge (aka back to pre 2007) or become completely independent (heavily reliant on the Rudd Government considering VCA for Arts Ministry funding like NIDA)? See Discussion Paper pages 27-28.
4. VCA FUTURE – MISSION: What should VCA do? What should it give its students? What should the outcomes be? What do they need in order to be able to get work? What does the industry need of graduates? What is required of VCA to make the best contribution to the Arts economy? What should VCA be offering that is unique in Melbourne?
5. PERSONAL GOALS: It is extremely important the Review Committee understand your area of interest e.g. if you are talent agent, explain if you think the Melbourne Model will affect graduate quality. If you are an arts business, explain to what degree you are reliant on VCA graduate quality and numbers. If you are a film student, explain why sessional teachers are important to you being able to get work. etc etc.

If you make a submission, we would love to publish it on savevca.org for others to read. Just email it to us at savevca@savevca.org.

The Discussion Paper can be found here. We suggest you also read the SAVE VCA brief which gives more detail on the status of VCA at present.

In the coming weeks SAVE VCA will attempt to get some clarity from UoM on the major queries with the Discussion Paper including:

• TIMING: Should the 12/02/2010 submission deadline be extended so it falls due after students are back on campus in 2010 so they have more chance to work on submissions together?

• INDEPENDENCE: The Review Committee is hand-picked by the Vice Chancellor Glyn Davis and the Dean Sharman Pretty. Will the University consider some compromise to allow the 5 staff and 2 student representatives to be elected by the staff and student bodies respectively? It is also unclear whether the “one University academic from outside VCAM” need be a UoM employee?

• TRANSPARENCY: Will all submissions be published on the Discussion Paper website in a timely manner? The Review Committee’s final report is submitted to the Vice Chancellor and the Dean – will it simultaneously be made public?

• IMPLEMENTATION: The recommendations of the Review Committee must be approved by the VCA Integration Committee. The three public members of the Advisory Board resigned this year and the University website says the Advisory Board member roles in the Integration Committee are not filled . Who is on this Committee? Are they independent?

• GOVERNMENT: There is no active engagement with Government in the review process nor is there a formal opportunity for the Victorian and Federal Governments to give a response. What is the University doing to engage Governments in this Review, especially if extra funding is being sought (either through reversing the 2005 $5m p/a funding cut, moving VCA from the Education to the Arts Ministry like NIDA or seeking State Government support like the WA Government give to WAAPA)?

• LIMITATIONS IN SCOPE: A glaring omission in the Discussion Paper process is any request for feedback on curriculum content. Only structures are offered up for discussion. Staff, students, and industry should be encouraged to detail what they believe are standard benchmarks in terms of (1) how many contact hours are necessary (2) how long should courses run, (3) what percentage should be practical, (4) how many students should be in a class etc. The Review Committee need this information to work out what curriculum and financial structure is appropriate. Will the University issue a call for this information?

• OMISSIONS: Will the University consider supplying an supplementary document explaining the new financial arrangements imposed on VCA since the merger, most particularly the rental scheme (which saw VCA pay $6m in rent to UoM in 2009 for assets it owned pre merger) and the “responsible division management” of staff? This information is critically important when considering whether VCA would be best to operate as a Faculty of UoM, demerge or becoming independent.

• UNREASONABLE EXPECTATIONS: Many questions posed by the Discussion Paper require knowledge well beyond that supplied in the paper. For instance, without seeing VCA’s budget, the budgets for each discipline and having an idea of VCA’s running costs in a demerged environment, how can a respondent answer “if an independent VCA operating with the FEE-HELP program is established how will the corresponding significant increase in student fees be avoided” (question 14, page 26)?  Will the University commission an independent financial review of the College to operate in tandem with the Discussion Paper, staffed by experts in the field, to present a range of researched options that lay people can understand?

• GENERAL QUERIES:

1. Are the Review Committee being paid?
2. Will all Review Committee members have equal weight in putting forth recommendations? Will recommendations have to be unanimously endorsed?
3. On page 3 the statement is made “in recent years there have been substantial changes to the structure and governance of the way visual and performing arts courses have been offered in the city of Melbourne.” What is this statement based on?
4. On page 21, “Option 1” Music Theatre is considered a viable practical degree (undergraduate) and practical diploma (post graduate). However, in “Option 2” (page 22), Music Theatre disappears as an option. What makes Music Theatre Melbourne Model “non-friendly”? Conversely, on what basis are the remaining courses deemed Melbourne Model “friendly”?
5. Should the VCA become independent, there is no mention in the document as to what would happen to the $103m worth of VCA assets UoM inherited at merger. There is also no mention of the cost UoM would charge VCA for UoM-owned land rental (the Drama and Arts buildings sit on UoM land).
6. On page 24 the Melbourne Model is presented as a revenue raising facility, whereby non-VCAM students are lured to study their breadth subjects at VCAM. Is this appropriate to be considered in this Review process?
7. Considering the highly controversial tenure of the new Dean Sharman Pretty, will there be any consideration of whether the current VCAM leadership should be reviewed?

As soon as we get answers from the University on the above, we’ll post them here. Alternatively, we invite the University to directly post their responses below.

A screenshot of the VCAM.org.au site

This flies in the face of UoM assertions the “Discussion Paper” process will be independent and shows the administration’s true colours i.e. they are not interested in anybodies opinion other than their own, and are happy to make arguments without knowing the facts.

UoM’s recklessness still shocks.

You can read the crikey article here 09-11-26 Crikey

Dr Ziggy Switkowski, Former Telstra CEO

In an move that is polarising opinion, UoM have appointed former Telstra CEO Ziggy Switkowski to Chair the VCA Review Committee.

Ziggy has never worked as an artist, nor as an artist educator, nor had a he run an arts business, but he does have exposure to non-UoM opinions through his role at the Australian Major Performing Arts Group. He has also had a very successful corporate career and headed a review into the nuclear industry. Perhaps it’s good to have someone who can come to VCA with fresh eyes? Or is he not qualified for this crucial role? What do you think? Post your comments below

We wait to see who will form the rest of the Review Committee as to whether UoM are really interested in giving Mr Switkowski and Ms Delahunty colleagues from a range of viewpoints

You can read the University of Melbourne Press Release here

You can also read a recent article from  09-11-26 in The Age

The Cover of the discussion Paper

It’s taken seven months of pressure to force a formal consultation process out of Vice Chancellor Glyn Davis and VCAM Dean Sharman Pretty.

Only problem is they will be playing judge and jury in the “discussion”.

SAVE VCA welcome the University of Melbourne (UoM) finally opening up discussion about the Victorian College of the Arts (VCA) to the wider Arts Community as well as to students, staff and alumni. It is also encouraging that some staff recommendations about the composition of the Review Committee have been acknowledged in the document.

However let us not forget the only reason this Discussion Paper exists is because of the seven-month backlash against the UoM changes.

Now UoM want the VCA community to entrust the moderation of discussion to an organisation which has already shown high disregard for VCA’s staff, students and Victoria’s arts business. And considering the ongoing conflicts in the Law, Business, Economics and Arts faculties, SAVE VCA feels it is reasonable to be sceptical about this consultation process, especially as the result is ratified by the VCAM Integration Committee (the same Committee from which the Chair and two other highly regarded members resigned this year).

It is also hard to escape that reality that VCA is in crisis now and it’s because of the UoM. We’ve gone beyond a Discussion Paper. We need the Federal and State Governments to urgently step in to not only safeguard VCA’s courses and funding, but Australia’s arts business:

Students are voting against the Melbourne Model with VTAC first-preference applications down 27% (The Australian 11/11/09 ).

• Victoria is losing arts industry jobs and business now because of UoM’s mishandling of VCA. UoM has cut off the supply of Music Theatre and Puppetry graduates to the ‘arts capital of Australia’ without notice. Ironically VCA’s Music Theatre course was developed after extensive industry consultation and it was the first course UoM cut – clearly the opinions of industry are not held in high regard.
• Even this week The Age reported West Side Story will buck the trend and open in Sydney. VCA is the epicentre of Victoria’s arts business and it is being left to the wolves.
• A National Tertiary Education Union run survey taken by approximately a quarter of VCAM Southbank staff showed 40% are seeking to leave VCA within a year. VCA is facing a huge and immediate teaching talent drain.

FURTHER OBERSEVATIONS:

• The “independence” of the Discussion Paper is highly suspect. How independent is an “Independent Chair” and his/her Review Committee if they are all “appointed by the Vice-Chancellor in consultation with the Dean of VCAM?”
• There is no mention of whether the highly controversial tenure of the new Dean Sharman Pretty should/will be reviewed. Many would argue there is no point in discussing anything with the current Dean at the helm.
• All the changes done to date (e.g. Puppetry & Music Theatre being axed and staff cuts) are not mentioned in the document. Is UoM embarrassed of its management of VCA to date?
• Nothing has changed in the UoM attitude to VCA. VCA is still presented as ungrateful child that has rudely questioned its parent’s wisdom:

“The VCA affiliation turned into a significant financial disadvantage for other University of Melbourne students. Millions of dollars in teaching income earned from enrolling students at the University have become cross subsidies to the VCA and then the Southbank campus of VCAM. As these student places were already under-funded without this added cost, it would benefit University of Melbourne students if this money could be used as originally intended.”

The above statement is also highly defensive and conveniently forgets the $103million of VCA assets UoM inherited and that three other UoM Faculties are also cross-subsidised. There is also no discussion of the UoM rental and administration cost system which is the major financial drain on the VCA.

• The tone of the Discussion Paper gives a very obvious sense of what the result of the Review will be. The most obvious solution to VCA’s is independence from UoM, but this is demonised and does not factor in perusing funding from the Arts Ministry (like NIDA):

“The risk to the University itself would be low; the risk to the training of students through many of the current VCAM programs and the wellbeing of the existing VCAM staff would be significant.”

The Discussion Paper is box ticking. It’s no mistake this document was launched to the media whilst most students have already ended classes for the year. The UoM have bought themselves another 6 months in the hope staff, students and industry will simply get war weary. It also means the UoM have deflected the Government’s ability to become involved because UoM can say they are “consulting”. All this at a time when VCA can least afford to delay in clawing back its reputation and arts business need urgent certainty on the supply of graduate quantity and quality.

Read the highly subjective UoM Discussion Paper “Defining The Future” document here (http://vcam.unimelb.edu.au/discussion/)

Meanwhile, Sharman Pretty has tried to sell the Discussion Paper on ABC Radio, to listen, click here

As always, comments welcomed below and at facebook.com/savevca

Glyn Davis and PM Kevin Rudd

Save VCA campaigner and VCA Music Theatre Alumni Scott Dawkins corrects the UoM “correction”

See the article in full here 09-09-11 Crikey.pdf

Hear the 06/11/09 Glyn Davis / Jon Faine (mentioned in the Crikey article) here

Students & Lynne Kosky at the VCA

Victorian Arts Minister Lynne Kosky yesterday received a 15,000 signature petition in opposition to the changes to the Victorian College of the Arts. Current and past students were on hand to facilitate the hand over, completed by David Haidon, the former VCA Student Union President.

This comes after more than 150 staff “apply for voluntary redundancies” at Melbourne University.

Photos of the hand over can be found here.

This is an important step in the campaign, but there is still more you can do to help; become a fan on Facebook, or Twitter, spread the word about the changes and pass on the newly released industry document.