FAQs
In preparing for the Integrated Planning Exercise (IPE) in June 2008, it became evident that the faculty was facing severe financial difficulties, largely as a result of unachievable recruitment targets.
Steps were taken to bring the faculty’s budget back into balance, including relinquishing space, not replacing staff, cutting non-staff costs by 5% and a £2.1M ‘pound-for-pound’ funding arrangement from the University. A revised budget was agreed at the faculty planning meeting in September 2008.
These actions were insufficient, however, and financial problems persisted owing to a number of factors, including a drop in quality research (QR) income per fte (full time equivalent member of staff) following the change in the RAE funding formula (£6m), a significant reduction in research grants (£13m) and the 2008 pay award. By the beginning of 2009, the faculty was losing £400k a month and faced a cumulative deficit of £21.8m to 2013/14. The management team therefore agreed that a faculty-wide review was necessary, as well as some immediate measures to address the problem. Measures taken to date, including some staffing reductions, have cut the projected deficit by around 50 percent.
“Why can't the University subsidise the losses in FBS?”
A subsidy could ease the problem temporarily, but unless the cause of the problem is addressed, the faculty would not have a sustainable future. Any subsidy would of course be funded by the remaining Faculties and Services and would reduce the income available to them.
“A major strength of Biological Sciences at Leeds is its breadth – does the review mean a narrowing in focus?”
The faculty is facing more limited external funding opportunities and it is necessary therefore to scale back activities to those that are both high quality and sustainable, focusing resources on areas of strength and the external research agenda to ensure they continue to develop.
“Why has the review continued during the ACAS talks?”
With monthly losses of £400,000 at the beginning of last year, it was imperative that action was taken to prevent the situation worsening. After a long consultation process which began in March 2009, the faculty’s plan was endorsed by Senate in November 2009 and the restructuring strategy implemented soon after. To abandon the plan agreed by Senate would mean prolonging the uncertainty for staff and making the faculty’s financial position even worse.
“Have staff, students and Unions been involved in the review? ”
Three all-staff meetings were held in the faculty on 3 April, 23 June and 28 October 2009 to discuss the review. Regular Institute meetings and support service meetings have also been held. Staff have received regular email updates from Dean Professor Steven Homans and all information about the review has also been available to staff on the faculty’s intranet.
From April to December 09, the review team has met with union representatives on eighteen occasions including staff meetings where union representatives have been invited. Some of these meetings have been formal and some have been informal.
The review and the proposed structure were discussed with student representatives at the staff student forums on the 16 November and 8 December. A meeting for all undergraduate students was held on the 18 November to discuss the process, issues and questions. Meetings on the 3 and 11 December were held with students on particular degrees affected by the review – Genetics and Microbiology.
“Has the timetable for the review changed and, if so, how?”
The original timescales for the review were established to address the deficit by realising financial savings from April 2010. The management team felt it was important that the review be done in a timely, efficient way in order to reduce uncertainty and unease for staff. There has been a good deal of feedback from staff to support this view.
The current plan outlines the job matching and selection process for the coming months for both academic, professional managerial and support staff. We aim to complete this by March 2010.
“Were job descriptions for professors sent out earlier than planned?”
In mid December and in line with our consultation processes and custom and practice, job descriptions for professorial roles were sent to the UCU for comment in advance of their being issued to all staff.
Unfortunately, a number of staff received copies of these directly from UCU and, because some staff had the job descriptions and others did not, it was decided to circulate these documents to all professors earlier than planned in the original timescale.
“Have job descriptions in the faculty changed as a result of the review?”
Job descriptions for roles within the new structure are more specific in nature than some previous job descriptions, but are entirely consistent with roles and descriptions which would be put together if the University was seeking to fill posts through external appointment. There is absolutely no intention to inhibit the creative and academic freedom of colleagues within the faculty.