Notes prepared for Tuesday 4 September by Student Body of School of Architecture.
Room 518 – 1:30pm
The following points were raised by students in attendance.
Student Meeting with:
Dean of NICAI, Professor Sharman Pretty
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor Raewyn Dalziel
Head of Architecture and Planning, Professor Jenny Dixon
Meeting is in response to letter delivered to the Vice Chancellor’s office 29th August 2007. Letter is signed by 373 Architecture and Planning Students.
——
Our issue here today has come about through the resignation of Prof Peggy Deamer which happened on the 17th of August 2007. This was 10 days after the last Dean’s forum.
We are here not to bring back Prof Deamer.
We are here to ask for more transparency in the handling of our School.
For more collaboration with the students when making key decisions which affect our education.
- Peggy Deamer resigned from our school and quoted a Deep Misalignment with the Faculty. The faculty has never explained this misalignment: What was Prof. Deamer’s vision for the School? What is the Faculty’s vision for the School? What were the points of misalignment? How are successes and failures of the vision measured? Does the vision for the School align with what the architecture profession believe is fit for a school of architecture, considering that, without the approval of the profession, the School would be worth nothing?
- Why did we have to come to you, under these circumstances, to ask for this information that is critical to the wellbeing of the School? Why are the students not communicated to in a timely and effective manner, even on such important matters as this? Why does the Faculty default to non-communication?
- Communication between the school and Faculty have been documented as not being effective. This has been demonstrated in:
NVP report – National Visiting Panel of the Australian Architecture Program Accreditation and Recognition Procedure
“The panel … observed a resistance to participate in consultative processes brought about by a perception that contributions to the consultative process were largely ignored. This process has been consultative but not collaborative.” NVP report page 5 – 2006
Staff
It is shocking that a culture of fear exists within this school. Staff who have given us their support but are unwilling to speak openly for fear of losing their job. This becomes even more offensive when reading the recent media reports.
Email
Staff who are fed up with the treatment of the School are now leaving. Profs Vale, said one of the reasons for their departure “was due to the lack of support from the faculty. Our reasons for going to Victoria … It provides a supportive environment “
How can the School operate effectively at all if there is no trust and goodwill between the Faculty and the staff and students?
Without collaboration how is it possible for the Faculty to know what is good for us?
- A stated goal in the NICAI annual plan 2007 is :
“Recruit and retain high quality staff and student body, striving to create equal opportunities for all those of ability to succeed in a University of high international standing” Point13 - Page 10
“Create and maintain an outstanding learning environment” Point 9- Page 8
“Engage Alumni and friends in mutually supportive and productive relationships” Point12 – Page10
“Create and promote a student environment that is welcoming, enjoyable, stimulating, encouraging students to reach their full potential within a climate of academic excellence.” Point14 – Page11
“Create a culture that encourages academic and general staff to meet their full potential” Point15 – Page11
Question: Why are the actions of the Faculty so contradictory to its stated aims ?
- The NVP outlines some serious issues concerning the relationship between the Faculty and it’s mismanagement of valued staff members.
“The panel identified significant challenges currently facing the Faculty and the School that largely hinge on the matter of human resource management:
- There is a significant schism between the vision for the School held at the level of the office of the Dean and a confidence in and ownership of that vision at School level
- The panel observed that there were significant opportunities for the School in the University’s NICAI vision but that management of that change between Faculty and School has resulted in a disenfranchising of staff and students in the School. Some of these staff themselves command significant Australasian and international reputations for their research work
Is the departure of Deamer another symptom of this “human resource management” problem? If this problem continues, is the School and Faculty ultimately sustainable?
