What does a vote of no confidence in a vice chancellor mean?
David Kernohan is Deputy Editor of Wonkhe
Tags
There’s been a rash of votes of no confidence in sector vice chancellors in recent months.
Today saw University and College Union branch members deliver a no confidence verdict in the leadership at Canterbury Christ Church University. We understand that yesterday a similar motion was passed at the University of Greater Manchester (formerly the University of Bolton). Last month saw a no confidence vote passed at the University of Cardiff, last year saw similar motions passed at Dundee, Surrey, and elsewhere. We’re sure to see others as the year progresses.
In parliament, for a sitting prime minister, a vote of no confidence nearly always points the way towards a resignation or a leadership challenge. It indicates that their leadership is untenable, and that their government is ungovernable.
For a vice chancellor, things are not as clear cut. Though university leaders like to be popular on campus, it is not a key component of the job description. A trade union or other group of staff (or students) have no direct mechanism to remove a vice chancellor they are unhappy with – the vote is symbolic, and the intention is generally to influence the governing body (who actually have the power to remove (fire) members of the university) to act, or to remind they vice chancellor how unhappy they are making some of the university staff..
A no confidence vote is also an expression of concern among union members, and other members of staff (and/or students) about the way the university is being run. It makes for an arresting headline, and hopefully as a means to draw attention to problems within the university that may otherwise go unreported. It does not have a regulatory impact (there is no suggestion that it would be a “reportable event”, although the circumstances that brought the vote about – for example concerns about finances or fraudulent behavior – may be).
It’s not a great moment in the career of a vice chancellor, and some institutional leaders see it as a validation of their ability to make unpopular but necessary decisions. For others it can lead to a dark night of the soul, and possibly a rethink of plans to avoid at least some of the pain caused by a restructure or redundancy programme. But it is seldom a route to meaningful change of either the ambition of governors to run a solvent higher education providers, or the prevailing financial circumstances.
Does rather beg the question of how VCs and senior leaders are to be made accountable (if ever) for some of the poor decisions that have been made in their watch? The cynical view is that most move on before the mess becomes apparent and if anything there are rewards for failure. Perhaps DK could offer some constructive suggestions if votes of no confidence serve no purpose?
The only vote of no confidence that might matter legally is one by the lay-dominated Council/Board where sovereign power lies – not by the UCU or even by the Senate. Yet the Council/Board might be influenced by such a vote by the academics…
Surely if such a vote is to have the weight required to be described as a “vote of no-confidence” it needs a basic quoracy rate?
The vote at Canterbury was open to both staff and students, of whom there are are c.1500 and c.30,000 respectively. That ~1.1% (359) of the University population dislike the actions of a Vice-Chancellor seems hardly noteworthy.
Less than 1100 direct delivery students and no way to contact students or non-UCU members other than via posters and leaflets on campus. In 2.5 weeks, and in a climate where staff are fearful of voting as they are currently ‘at risk’ of redundancy, it’s not so bad. Plus, it had the desired effect and got an enhanced voluntary exit scheme launched, which SMT had been refusing to do. So still considered a win!