The issues which made the implementation of MyCampus almost farcical when it launched in September should be resolved by the beginning of the next academic year, according to the university’s vice principal of learning and teaching, Frank Coton.

Coton, who was speaking at the principal’s ‘question time’, said that next year MyCampus would return but “not as we know it”. He claimed that MyCampus would feature an updated user interface which would solve many of the more egregious issues that caused chaos at the start of the year, as staff scrambled to ensure students would be registered on the correct courses and tutorials.

However, despite Coton’s positive outlook, this does not appear to be a viewpoint shared by most university staff. The results of a feedback survey conducted by the Student Lifecycle Project – the internal group responsible for overseeing the project – reveal anger from staff towards the project and those responsible for overseeing it.

Most advisors and administrative staff who responded appear to share the opinion that despite attending various training sessions aimed at making the system more clear, little has been achieved. One advisor has said: “I have been to five three-hour workshops and still am not much further forward”, whilst another staff member explains that “the answer ‘I don’t know’ is a common one when questions are raised at so-called ‘training sessions’.”

Another grievance has been the limited access that staff have to the system, which they view as preventing them from fixing problems students are having. An administrator from the medicine, veterinary and life sciences department has described it as being “one of the biggest problems” with staff not having the “appropriate access levels to make appropriate changes”.

A number of basic operational problems have also been brought to light by despondent members of staff. There are numerous complaints on the way the system runs, with advisors raising issues on the various complications encountered with students trying to enrol. One inconvenience raised by an arts administrator was that of students having ‘holds’, which meant that “students were at a disadvantage when choosing tutorial slots”.

Much of the staff criticism casts doubts on Coton’s assessment that the current issues with MyCampus usability is one of user interface, with one advisor in the social sciences department claiming it is an issue with the “system architecture [which isn’t] user-focused; it is counter-intuitive”. Technical complaints aren’t a new addition to staff criticism of MyCampus. Dr Paul Cockshott circulated an email which contained a range of issues raised by members of the department of computer science. The email revealed that staff members in computer science had predicted many of the failures and described them as “being covered by the first classes of our undergraduate software engineering courses”.

Staff feedback is also highly critical of the university’s Senior Management Group (SMG) with Dr Cockshott’s email describing it as part of “the SMG’s need to command and control us more effectively”, a view which appears to be shared by many of academics who have filled in feedback forms – with one member of staff who wished to remain completely anonymous saying: “No one really cares about what MyCampus does to academics, administrators and students. All that is important for the SMG is to get the numbers they want out of the system … teaching and research is being damaged – if you care, do something about it.”

The problems with this software package, produced by Oracle under the name of Campus Solutions, aren’t just limited to Glasgow. The Glasgow Guardian has been in contact with sabbatical officers at Queens University Belfast, Liverpool John Hopkins University, and the University Of Manchester, all of whom have experienced similar difficulties with the package which continued to plague the system in years that followed its initial implementation. Queens University’s vice president of welfare, Adam McGibbon, told the paper: “We’ve had issues for the last three years and only now are we starting to see some improvement.”

One of major complaints levelled at WebSurf, the predecessor to MyCampus, was its inability to handle the increased traffic produced when exam results were published, resulting in the entire system being inaccessible. With January exam results fast approaching it remains to be seen if MyCampus will outperform WebSurf and ensure the system is usable when traffic increases substantially as students attempt to get their results for the first semester.

For comments and discussion on this article, see the page for our MyCampus December feature.

The payoff was first revealed by the Glasgow Journal. However, it was unclear at what point Ritchie had been offered the £3.8k and how the payment had been authorised. Responding to questions from the Glasgow Guardian, the three vice presidents said that despite approving the payoff, they were not part of the discussions between Ritchie and Bob Hay, the SRC permanent secretary, and were unsure as to when the offer was made. The situation was later clarified by Hay who confirmed that the offer was made before Ritchie resigned. Hay also confirmed that the payment was designed as an incentive for Ritchie to leave quietly and “protect the organisation” against the possibility of a lengthy and expensive employment tribunal process.

When asked about the plans for Ritchie’s salary and a possible severance package, the SRC responded: “The President’s salary will be redistributed to fund GUSRC’s core services and activities.” When details of the payoff were published in the Glasgow Journal the SRC issued the following apology: “We’d like to apologise if any students feel misled by the statement, that was not our intention and we hope you can respect that the statement was made at a time when details were still uncertain.”

The money will be given to Ritchie in accordance with a “Memorandum of Understanding of Employment” which is signed by each SRC sabbatical officer upon taking office. The memorandum states that discretionary resignation payments given for “extenuating circumstances”, are “subject to the decision of the Permanent Secretary”. The Glasgow Guardian understands that the decision to offer Ritchie the extra money was made with the approval of the remaining vice presidents, on the recommendation of Mr Hay, who is the most senior member of staff at the SRC.

In a statement issued to the Journal, the SRC sabbaticals said that the decision took into account “GUSRC precedent”, referring to the resignation of SRC president Dan Guy in 2005.

Hay defended the decision to award Ritchie the payment, suggesting that the payoff would protect the SRC from becoming embroiled in an employment tribunal, or from a situation where Ritchie could “sign off sick for six months”. In this regard, the permanent secretary has stated that he was following guidance published by the National Union of Students (NUS), which encourages student bodies to treat sabbaticals not just as office holders but also as employees. Glasgow University SRC is not a member of the NUS, but most student unions in the UK are.

As elected office holders, the sabbaticals are trustees of the SRC, which is a registered charity. The Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator provides guidance for trustees which states that “trustees should put the interests of their charity before their own interests or those of any other person or organisation.”

A former member of SRC council expressed dismay that Ritchie as a trustee of the organisation was offered, and then accepted, this money and suggested that this was indicative of wider problems at the SRC: “I have been a student at this university for nearly 8 years. This is another perfect example of why the SRC has become one of the biggest embarrassments for students who choose to study at this wonderful institution. It is in need of huge reform. The sabbatical roles appear to attract the type of people who are more worried about their own future employment than representing their fellow students.”

Ritchie did not respond to our requests for comment.

Monday’s open meeting with the Principal was a marked improvement for Anton Muscatelli, with only one call for his resignation. In stark contrast to the packed meeting in March, around 30 students turned out to put their questions to Principal Anton Muscatelli, and Vice Principals Andrea Nolan and Frank Coton.

Students were asked to submit questions to the Glasgow University SRC prior to the meeting. The three main areas for discussion were: the University’s relationship with Eden Springs – a supplier of bottled water which operates out of illegally occupied Golan Heights; the erosion of Slavonic language teaching; and the University’s priorities with regards to learning and teaching. After these areas were covered, questions were opened to members of the audience.

On the issue of Eden Springs, a member of the Glasgow University Palestine Society asked whether the University would reconsider its contracts with Eden Springs, whose contracts with the Glasgow are worth around £50,000 a year. Principal Muscatelli answered that water contracts are part of a bulk procurement tender with all the other universities and colleges in Scotland, and that the university is bound to its contract with the supplier until its expiration in 2012, at which point he would be happy to bring forward the concerns raised by the members of the Palestine society. The Principal agreed to meet representatives from the Palestine Society at a future date to discuss this.

A number of questions were raised around the design and implementation of MyCampus, including the difficulty that had been experienced by visually impaired students who had difficulty using the system as it stood currently. Vice Principal Learning and Teaching, Frank Coton, described the issues surrounding MyCampus as “unfortunate” and insisted that many of the usability errors would be fixed in the future claiming that next year they system would be “MyCampus, but not as we know it”.

A number of graduate teaching assistants raised issues regarding payment for work done and what was described as an obsession with the university’s rankings in world league tables at the expense of the quality of education and to the university’s role to the local community. Senior Vice Principal, Andrea Nolan, defended the University saying:

“I don’t think we are obsessed with tables and rankings…but I think that having a world class university on their doorstep is good for the local community”

Concern was raised in advance of the meeting that Glasgow University Student Television (GUST) and the Glasgow Guardian had not been permitted to broadcast or record the event. SRC VP Media & Communications Iain Smith, who chaired, apologised at the start of the meeting for the lack of media access to broadcast from the event, afterwards saying “there were a number of factors which came together to make broadcasting difficult, including my own oversight of not involving the student media during the planning of the event. The Principal’s Office were also unconformable with the event being broadcast and with the requests coming at the 11th hour of planning it was not made a priority, for which I have to apologise. We’ll be working to ensure that this does not set a precedent for future events in order that as many students as possible can participate.”

Recent investigations by the Glasgow Guardian have revealed A1 Outsource, a company based in Glasgow, has been falsely advertising management training schemes targeted towards graduates who have found themselves unemployed.

The scam is designed to get as much free or cheap labour as possible for the company through offering an impressive resume of represented companies, such as leaders in the telecoms industry, and a fast-track management plan to entice potential employees to work for them.

A1 Outsource, whose website has recently disappeared, is associated with many other companies, such as the Cobra group. Employment in these companies means door-to-door sales based on commission only, though nowhere in the vacancy advertisement does it specify this.

Although commission-based pay is not illegal, the severely low wages mean that for most they would not be not sufficient to live on, and the company seems to be taking advantage of the UK’s current economic situation and thousands of newly and long-term unemployed people. Not all of the adverts for vacancies are tailored towards graduates.

Such companies renounce responsibility towards their employees by forcing them to declare they are self-employed using a series of contracts. However, as an employee is expected to work full-time, they will only be dealing with one company.

The advert suggests that the average wage for a graduate will be between £15,000-£20,000 per annum, but does warn that this is a projection. The estimated wage for non-graduates is in fact around £250 per week, based on a business model of a sale at 1 in 25 houses visited. This suggests that some may be able to excel by working on a commission basis, but at no point does the company specify the percentage rate of commission on an employee’s sales. Some of those employed by A1 Marketing have earned around only £100 in a month, despite working full-time.

James Cooper, who graduated from the University of Glasgow in 2010, attended both a preliminary and a secondary interview for A1 Marketing’s direct marketing and management programme. He described these interviews as a series of attempts by A1 Marketing to avoid straightforward questions on the vague job description. The interview process was rapid, taking just one week between the applicant sending out a CV to an actual job offer. The secondary interview is based out in the field, following one of the company’s ‘top salespeople’ as they sold products door-to-door. Mr Cooper added, however, that the supposed leading salesperson did not make a sale that day.

This type of scam has existed for the past few years across the country, including in cities such as London, Cardiff and Leeds. Companies involved have often tended to liquidate and reform under a different name once that name has been discredited. JMS Marketing is one company that is particularly well-known for this, though the company does still function in some areas. In an attempt to combat the wider problem, affected individuals have set up a group on Facebook to “Name and shame recruitment and job scams”.

Mr Cooper, who refused a job offer from A1 Outsource after looking into the company history, believes the process “seems unethical”. He said: “[A1 Outsource are] capitalising on the current climate. They’re going to get more applicants, I think, because of the current economic situation. People at the bottom [of A1 Outsource] could end up being evicted or in debt because they assume they’ll be earning a certain amount.”

Glasgow University Students’ Representative Council issued the following advice for students:

“It’s a shame that students are being targeted by these kinds of organisations which are looking to take advantage of the difficulties in the graduate job market at the moment. GUSRC’s Advice Centre offers quality employment advice for students who are looking for work, both as summer jobs or after graduating and we’d recommend anyone who is unsure in any way about the any kind of job offer, terms or advertisement, to get in touch with them before committing to a job.”

A press release [4] from the remaining executive members states that they had unanimously asked Stuart Ritchie to tender his resignation.

Following this, the Glasgow Guardian asked a range of politically prominent Glasgow University students to give their opinions on the recent events and what this means for the SRC.

National Union of Students Scotland says the emails “suggest a leader who is out of touch with the national picture, Glasgow University students and even his own SRC’s policies.”

Rest of UK (RUK) fees

Emails made public via a Freedom of Information request to the university, reveal that he personally advocated for the university to charge students from the rest of the UK (RUK) fees of £9,000 per year, with the total cost of a degree capped at £27,000. This is despite publicly reiterating the SRC’s statement that it is an “anti-fees organisation” saying on the day of the announcement that “we therefore condemn the fee increase at a base level”.

In an email exchange with Ritchie, Glasgow University Corporate Communications boss Susan Stewart expressed her disappointment with the SRC’s press release on RUK fees:

Kind of disappointed, Stuart, had hoped for a more positive tone from SRC. [...] Especially disappointing since I know you were one of the people on [the] working group arguing for the 9k position. [...] I understand your need to play to/placate your various constituencies, but your release is far more negative than I’d expected.

The SRC press release was in response to the University’s announcement that RUK fees would be set at £6,750 per year, with all students entering in first year receiving a £1,000 bursary. In total, a degree would cost no more than £26,000.

Ritchie justified his position in similar terms, and said that even his colleagues on the SRC Executive disagreed with him on RUK fees:

Whilst I think that’s fair. There are lots of people on campus who will expect us to be outraged that we are charging anything like 26k. That includes the rest of the exec.

I seriously don’t think I had any option. Particularly when you consider the botched PR job you guys did on the hive. If I sound chummy with the uni am toast.

To be frank even if the group had been persuaded To go to 3×9 I would have released a statement saying I was disappointed with the decision.

See you tomorrow

NUS Scotland President, Robin Parker, told the Glasgow Guardian that Ritchie’s behaviour was that of “a president who thinks he’s untouchable and entirely unaccountable to his own students.” He went on to say that Ritchie’s comments on RUK fees “suggest a leader who is out of touch with the national picture, Glasgow University students and even his own SRC’s policies.”

The NUS leader also highlighted the damage that Ritchie’s lobbying for £9k fees meant to the national campaign:

The worst thing is that these actions not only damage the hard work of Glasgow students in campaigning against the introduction of tuition fees, but he is also risking damage to our national work to oppose this unfair system. I’m sure Glasgow students will reflect very seriously on that.

Sources on the SRC Council say that the SRC Constitution provides no formal mechanism for a vote of no confidence, but Ritchie could be open to complaints submitted through the SRC’s Complaints Procedure. This procedure applies to breaches of the Code of Conduct laid out in Schedule 3 of the Constitution.

Relationship with university management

The same email release contains Ritchie’s dialogue with Secretary of Court David Newall about an open meeting with the Principal. The exchange adds to accusations that Ritchie is putting his relationship with university management above his role as spokesperson for the 26,000 students of the University. He advises the Principal on how the occasion might best be formatted to show management in a favourable light by having students submit questions before the event starts.

An open meeting with the Principal was part of an agreement made to voluntarily end the conclusion of the Hetherington Occupation and was scheduled to take place some time in October. As of 29th October, a date has not been announced.

This is just one of several recent headlines suggesting that the President has been closer to senior management than to his own colleagues on the SRC executive. A similar story earlier this month, showed Ritchie attempting to exclude Deputy President Iain Smith from discussions relating to the new postgraduate social space:

Let’s try and meet more often – without Iain might be a good idea. I don’t always like the media man who lives [...] at the QMU to know everything under discussion.

The SRC’s full council and council committee have both met twice in the past two weeks and recently elected a number of new members. It remains to be seen if the Council will be convened to discuss Ritchie’s conduct. Follow our website, twitter or facebook for updates.

See also

Glasgow Guardian, October 9 2011
“qmunicate FoI reveals tensions among SRC Sabbatical Officers”

qmunicate, October 28 2011
“GUSRC President didn’t fight for lower RUK fees”

[1] 8th August 2011 – SRC Press Release condemning the Scottish government’s plans to allow universities to raise fees for non-Scottish students.

[2] September 28 2011 – SRC press release on Glasgow University fees announcement.

[3] October 29 – NUS response to Stuart Ritchie’s stance on RUK fees

[4] SRC Constitution

[5] FoI F0176962 Response

Appendix A: Emails between David Newall and Stuart Ritchie
Appendix A1: Student Lifecycle Project Progress Update – 4th August 2011
Appendix A2: SLP/SRC MyCampus Guide
Appendix A3: Review of Higher Education Governance – Call for Evidence
Appendix A4: John Mac construction plans emails
Appendix A5 (John McIntyre Building construction plans draft)
Appendix B: Emails between Susan Stewart and Stewart Ritchie (September 1, 2011 – September 28, 2011)

The email, which summarizes a meeting of the School’s executive on October 5th, states that:

[I]t was agreed that, in light of this year’s experience and in view of current uncertainties, not to admit students to the PG [postgraduate] diplomas in Czech, Polish and Russian in session 2012-13. The programs will remain live and the position for future years will be reviewed.

There are currently 8 students studying on the diplomas, which account for half of the SMLC’s 16 postgraduate taught students. Upon finding out about the proposed suspension, Sam Beaton, a student on the Czech diploma, said:

The ‘suspending’, in effect cutting, of postgraduate diplomas in the Slavic languages goes not only against popular opinion nationwide but is denying the possibility for students to take up languages to complement their undergraduate degrees. I study Czech at PGDip level in the hope of continuing my studies of Czech issues, and the support we are getting from the SMLC Executive is non-existent.”

Further emails which were circulated around the school indicate that the decision was made with: “no consultation with Slavonic [staff] about the decision to suspend the Czech, Russian and Polish Diplomas for the next session.” A university spokesman said of the decision:

The University remains committed to language teaching and regard it as central to its strategy. The University Court agreed on the 22 June 2011 that the School of Modern Languages and Cultures (SMLC) would continue to teach the full, current range of modern languages, and at the levels presently taught, assuming there is sufficient demand. The reason that we are not admitting students to the PG Diplomas in Russian, Czech and Polish in 2012-13 relate to the extremely low numbers coming forward to express interest as potential students.

The future of Slavonic languages and cultures at Glasgow University has been a matter of controversy and confusion in recent months. Several modern languages, including Russian, Czech and Polish were threatened in the package of cuts announced in February, however they were spared the axe when University Court decided in June that “the SMLC should maintain the teaching of the full current range of modern languages at the levels currently taught”. At the time, no qualifications were made with regards to course numbers.

The future of the postgraduate diploma in Russian was thrown into question over the summer, when an email dated 26th August, was circulated by Murray Pittock, Head of the College of Arts, indicating that the diploma had been suspended for 2011-12:

The College received SMLC’s decision today to suspend the PG Diploma in Russian due to low anticipated numbers in 2011-12 only. It is important to stress that this decision, which is in line with practice across the College and University, is for 11-12 only and does not affect the availability of the Diploma from 2012 to support Erasmus Mundus needs in Social Sciences

In contradiction with the latest move to suspend all Slavic language diplomas, Prof. Pittock’s email, recognizes the importance of the diploma to the School of Social Sciences, where it is used to provide intensive language training for postgraduates in Central and East European Studies, and talks about further developing the provision, indicating that “work will take place with the College of Social Sciences on developing provision from 2012″.

According to further emails on the subject, when the decision was made to cancel the Diploma for 2011-2012, 11 students had applied with 7 having confirmed their acceptance. The course numbers are capped at 15 due to the intensive nature of teaching in small classes.

Students never received any official confirmation that the course was cancelled and in September a last minute decision was taken to run the diploma, however by this time, 3 of the 7 students had dropped out. David McCallum, a postgraduate student on the course said that:

I first heard that it was under threat in July, when I was making enquiries about funding. Others didn’t learn that the course was under threat until August, and some of those applicants were coming from secure employment in other cities and countries, with the belief that they were entering full time education. Obviously these applicants faced a far worse problem than I did if the course failed to run. In the end, we didn’t learn that the course was to run in 2011/12 until the 9th of September – 10 days before the first scheduled class.

The University Court’s decision to close the Slavonic studies degree program is also still the subject of controversy due to the ongoing legal challenge by Professors from the University’s School of Law.

Written by Amy Mackinnon

GUU President Chris Sibbald

Glasgow University’s Senior Management Group has been forced to shelve its plans to demolish the Glasgow University Union extension this January in order to expand the University’s sports facilities after facing intense pressure from the union and its supporters within the University.

In a joint statement, handed to the Guardian, co-written by GUU President, Chris Sibbald and University Principal, Anton Muscatelli they outlined the new criteria that must be met before the University would continue with the project:

The University will only commit the Sports Extension when we are also able to commit to a development of GUU social space that will sustain its activities

Speaking to the Glasgow Guardian, GUU president Chris Sibbald announced that architects were already in the process of drafting up designs for the new joint facility:

Currently we are looking at an eight storey building split between the union and the Sports centre. It will be four storeys of a new union and four of world class sports facilities. It’s a really exciting time. The Extension needs to be rebuilt because it simply isn’t built to handle the amount of people we have coming through the doors. There will be a split though so you don’t need to worry about clubbing on a basketball court.

The University’s original proposals had outlined plans to see demolition work on the Extension commence in January but now no work will begin on the building until at least September.

The University has long been home to a number of former GUU Presidents and Board Members, known colloquially as the “Old Boys”. A fact Sibbald is more than happy to acknowledge:

I find it amazing that David Newall thought he could force through this proposal even though three members of the Court are former GUU Presidents… It really could have been a success story for Glasgow University, the uniting of world class sports facilities with an historic union, but instead they have back tracked and come out looking pretty foolish.

With the decisions looking set to be finalised in December, one thing for sure is that with the future of the Hive ensured in one way or another the GUU will no doubt count this as a successful campaign, Sibbald certainly does:

I thought it was incredible that they thought we were just going to sit back and accept their decision. Of course we were going to fight.

From the views section of the October 13th print edition:

Reamonn Gormley

The High Court in Glasgow today heard the pleas of two men accused of the murder of University of Glasgow student Reamonn Gormley. Daryn Maxwell, aged 23, admitted murdering the nineteen year old, after having his plea earlier in the year for culpable homicide rejected by the Crown office. Maxwell confessed that while masking his face he had attacked Reamonn, demanding money and the teenager’s phone before fatally stabbing him three times in the body and neck. Barry Smith, aged 19, pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of culpable homicide.

Maxwell and Smith are also accused of threatening and robbing Reamonn’s friend, David McFall, with a chisel during the incident. The High Court heard that both men had an extensive criminal past and had been released on bail for other offences at the time of the attack in February earlier this year. Maxwell had previously been convicted for stabbing a victim in a similar incident while Smith had prior convictions for both assault and theft.

After the attack Mr McFall was able to carry Reamonn back to the Parkville Hotel where both men had previously watched the Aberdeen V Celtic game that day. As patrons of the pub attempted to save Reamonn’s life he begged them: “Please don’t let me die.” He later succumbed to his injuries at nearby Hairmyres Hospital.

A post-mortem found that Reamonn’s injuries would have been unsurvivable after his carotid artery – one of the body’s major vessels – was severed, causing him to die of blood loss.

In the days after Reamonn’s death, both friends and family organised a commemorative walk through his hometown of Blantyre paying tribute to his life with over 1,000 people gathering in support. Prior to studying Psychology at the University of Glasgow, Reamonn had volunteered with the Good Child Foundation teaching disabled children English in Thailand. Children who had been taught by the teenager recorded an online tribute version of the anthem Just Can’t Get Enough in his memory.

Celtic Football club also paid tribute to Mr Gormley who had spent two years at the Celtic Youth Academy.

Detective Chief Inspector Robbie Allan, the senior investigating officer for Strathclyde Police, said:

Reamonn was someone who had so much to offer in life. He had a very bright future ahead of him. On the night he was attacked, he had just enjoyed a night out with friends and was walking home in the community he was brought up in and where he felt safe. Daryn Maxwell and Barry Smith, motivated by nothing more than sheer greed, viciously attacked Reamonn and his friend with complete disregard for the consequences.

The Gormley family described their son as “a wonderful son and a loving and caring boy”.

On social media sites people touched by Reamonn’s life posted messages in honour of him. One read: “You live on because of your acts of kindness and commitment to others while you lived, you will never be forgotten.” Another simply said “RIP – Did not know you but watched you with the Thai Tims – you were a great lad.”