Non-academic cuts for university?

Press, 26 February 1980, Page 6

Non-academic cuts for university?

The University of Canterbury Council has recommended ' non-academic staff cuts in expressing its concern over the new $640 million, five-year Government grant to universities.

The Vice-Chancellor of the university. (Professor A. D. Brownlie), said at the council’s meeting yesterday that he had reservations about passing the motion because the university was not sure of its share of the money or cut-backs,’ and he did not want to. ceate an impression that some people could be hurt by the new,measures. He suggested that the student president; (Mr A. J. Stuart) might be reacting too quickly when he put the motion.

Mr Stuart said that he would take back his “overreaction” in three years time if the financial position of the university had not suffered.

He said the new grant spelt gloom for universities over the next five years and that he was particularly concerned for non-academic workers who had no-one to put their case, but who were the backbone of a successful university.

“All hell would break loose if academic staff numbers were cut. I can think of numerous professors around this table who would be jumping up and down if they were,” said Mr Stuart. Professor Brownlie was optimistic about the ability of the university to survive with meagre financial rations. He said the university community had been very co-operative last year in trying to' save money and he was sure that if. the same co-operation was applied in

1980 the university should not suffer.

The 1980 estimates before the council yesterday showed a deficit of $160,520 for the year, compared with $14,206 last year. No special grants or money, for new equipment had been accounted for in the estimates because the special grants would be made later in the year when the financial situation was clearer and the University Grants Committee had been given $1 million ’by the Government to allocate during the year to all universities in New Zealand needing to replace equipment. . Professor Brownlie said that because Canterbury’s share last year was $llO,OOO for new equipment, a fifth of $1 million “should be a satisfactory replacement.” Professor Brownlie said the grants committee had assumed that 'the university’s roll would remain constan. during the five years and consequently no . money for additional academic staff had been provided. It had also been decided that the staffing policy of non-academic staff (administrative, clerical, welfare, etc), was too liberal and should be decreased by 50 staff per year nationally over the next three years. It had not been decided what universities would lose staff or which category they would lose, said Professor Brownlie.

The Government could not enforce the reduction directly but had resolved not to pay salaries for any more than a recommended number of staff. If a university wanted to employ more than

its official quota it' would' have to pay the salary itself. Computer developments,including extra staffing for them,, would be considered separately from the block grant and the committee would forward ' such an example to the Government later this month, said Professor Brownlie. The 1980 estimates were conservative and cautious, according to Professor Brownlie, who said special grants, and inflated costs, which under the new arrangements were not compensated for until the following yegr, would be likely to make the deficit for 1980 higher than the estimate. The answer for Canterbury would lie in careful use of money and the redeployment of staff and resources. Professor Brownlie said that a selective imposition of quotas in some departments might have to be a last resort so that staff could be reallocated and student enrolment patterns changed.