Especially since the other professors at the school, Jenny Dixon and Errol Haarhoff, find it impossible to say anything other than “Yes Lord Pretty, thy bidding shall be done”. These two people are supposed to be the people at this school to champion free thinking.

Its about time Errol and Jenny stood with John in calling for shaman’s head on a pike.

Shaman needs to go (i’d say ‘home’ to Sydney, but they don’t want her back either).

Death To The NICAI !!!

Note to Sharman Pretty, Stuart McCutcheon, Raewyn Dalziel et al -
Interested in promotion and marketing? Talk to Mary-Kate and Ashley.
NICAI is a turd that will offer no lustre no matter how hard you polish.
Own that dream.

The cause of this whole chaos is obvious and thanks to Prof. John Hunt who have pointed out so bluntly.

PBRF - performance based research fund - is poorly suited to an architecture school. Im not an expert on PBRF but i know Its a funding system designed to get lecturers/tutors continuing research etc etc upon which the funding is allocated.

In architecture - we are have high resource requirements. We require 24/7 access to studios with drawing boards, computing gear and expensive software (that we can not afford to personally run on personal computers). We require a workshop and modeling tools (such as laser cutter). PBRF does not acknowledge that some schools will require a greater fund to maintain these types of resources than other schools which dont require half as much.

Also - architecture lecturers/tutors do not give 1 hr lectures. They need to spend entire days in studio classes. They have less time to conduct their research.

Similarly - architecture has a heavy involvement with the profession. Many of our tutors are practitioners who are not carrying out research for the university. Therefore the staff that are lecturers at architecture school have a much greater load in terms of research to compensate for these practitioners teaching in our school.

PBRF is against us in most ways.

We do not want the present Head of School to experience the same difficulties that our previous Head of Schools have had to deal with over the last 4 years of NICAI’s existence.

This is ultimately what the Student arguement is about.

For the Faculty and the Dean to consider our teachers’ concerns.
To support them effectively on all levels.

Academically, admistratively and for a working environment that does not hamper their ability to work and teach effectively.

Unfortunately the Faculty is not providing this situation.
The University and the Vice-Chancellor have been told by the Staff that this is the case but choose not to listen.

The University is playing a dangerous game, and are not acting on the responsibilty that they owe the Students and the Staff, by choosing to either not understand the situation or even worse ignore the situation completely.

It is our opinion that, inevitably the Faculty and University Heads are waiting for the ’storm to blow over’ and for the time when it can withdraw its psuedo-attempt to really deal with the problems that are concerning the School of Architecture and Planning.

We see ultimately that the system determining School management, and it’s enforcement by the NICAI Faculty and the Dean needs to be seriously assessed. This goes down to deep questions on how each Deaprtment is allowed to make decisions for themselves ….

Pasted below is an email sent to Prof Dixon the week following her appointment:

———————————————————————————–
Dear Professor Dixon,

We the student body wish to inform you that we are delivering a letter to the Vice-Chancellor on Monday.

It has been signed by a large number of the Architecture and Planning student body.

The letter contains concerns we have with the University’s attitude towards the school.

Our complaint is not with the Staff of the School, but with the greater University.

We look forward to seeing you when you return.

Yours faithfully

Society of Space
Student Body
School of Architecture and Planning

At the time it was argued by the University that the two Deaprtments should be placed together due to the similarities academically. However it is clear that this was just an exercise in University administration by the University as both Departments opposed the merger.

The students of Architecture wish the system governing our School be changed.
We apologise if it appears that we are attacking Prof. Dixon personally, as we are not.
We however do feel that if both Departments are to work effectively then Co-Heads of School from each Department would be a better option.

Making such statements drives a wedge effectively between the planners and architects in this current situation. Did planners moan when Peggy (an architect) was appointed? Did they moan at the inappropriateness of an architect leading a Planning School? No.

To constantly criticise the ability of a Planner to lead an Architects school betrays an arrogance that is not needed or welcome.

The NZIA need to condemn this appointment publicly.

DOWN WITH NICAI

1. This is by no means the fault of the school. The school of architecture is not the party controlling our funding, resourcing and staffing issues. The school is questioning the management of the NICAI faculty and the dean. The faculty - NICAI - need to learn. They need to change their attitude, not the school. The school see a clear potential in further promoting and improving our already excelling school, we are simply having issues in directing the vision of the faculty along that positive path.

2. Our degree will not be worthless. We still have passionate staff and passionate students who will continue to learn and achieve valuable degrees regardless of the poor attitudes of the dean and faculty.

Tragic. This is what a regime in its death throes looks like. It hadn’t occurred to me that it was THAT bad already. Thanks for pointing that out, Christopher.

Fair enough, but i think my point is that the dean or faculty or whoever appoints heads of schools, managed to do so in such a short time. You therefore have to question that decision. The transition from Errol to Peggy took well over a year. The issue is not with the new head, but those who appointed her.

An attitude that only architects are properly qualified to head the school is the quickest way to destroy the whole school through sowing negative feelings between architects and planners.

Whatever the process, the new head has had more experience operating in the clearly political climate that exists in faculty management. Her skills are what are needed now.

How come the new head of school, who is not even architecturally educated - a planner - can be appointed so quickly - 3 days. Peggy was the result of a lengthy international search.

Also - selected for her clear visions, new ideas and approaches - and it would seem had to resign due to the faculty preventing any of these clear visions, ideas and approaches from being achieved.

Speaking informally, and representing my personal opinion:

The sentiment at the architecture school at the University of Auckland is that the school is being mismanaged, and that has manifested in the dubious handling of physical and human resourses here.

Regarding Professor Deamer, she is one, and the highest caliber, of a series of well respected teaching staff that have left the School without any official statements, although the unspoken understanding is that they are not happy with the Faculty management, to say the least.

The misalignment boils down to uncompatible priorities between the Faculty management and the School. The Faculty seems interested in things like course structure, staff-to-student ratios, expensive studio furniture and equipment, etc. The School, both the staff and students, are more interested in course content, staff caliber, productivity and accessiblity of studios and studio equipment, etc. The University management are following metrics and objectives that are not sufficiently aligned to producing practical, positive results for the School.

To any sensible person assuming the company of other sensible people, this would not be a problem that cannot be easily solved through dialogue and collaboration. But if you read through all the posts in the blog, you will find that there is very little confidence left amongst the University staff and students in the University management\’s capacity for sensible dialogue and collaboration. Don\’t think that we haven\’t tried.

From the very brief time that we have had the pleasure of having Professor Deamer as our Head of School, we agree with you that she is indeed a fine educator, and that is why we are making sure that her departure will not be unnoticed by the profession and the public. We would also like to ensure that we will not continue to lose educators of high caliber, and we would like the University management to do a better job.

Again, the above is my personal, informal and probably biased opinion of the situation at hand, and should not be construed as a official statement by any party. But, as you say, the street news and context would be appreciated.

SCKC

one of our major concerns is the frustrating style of management a la sharman and it’s impact on our staff and our learning environment.

btw medicine is lumped into the fac of medical and health sciences and they haven’t all that enthused about it ever since it was established

I was fortunate to study with Peggy when she was the Associate Dean and Professor at the Yale School of Architecture. She\’s one of the best teachers I\’ve ever run into in my 9 years of higher education.

What I want to know is this: what are the rumors? I see the articles posted here, but they\’re ultimately not very informative to someone who\’s not on the ground there. They\’re all just Official Statements repeating news of the Deep Misalignment. What is the conventional street wisdom about this misalignment?

Some street news and context would be greatly appreciated.

Don\’t think she realises that this is not going to simply blow over.

I don\’t think we have actually gone to the common media yet, its almost immature that she has !

Well, she has started it now … Letters to the editor - here we come !

There is only one solution to this situation the Architecture School Needs to break away from the umbrella group of NICAI….

Take its deserved position along side other independent professional faculties ie Engineering Law and Medicine.

WE do not need the meddling of the NICAI, who sole purpose seems to be to market is self with no regard to the schools under its control.(just try finding the school of architecture web site) good luck..

It is an insult to profession for us to lumped under the same umbrella as Dance and Music and ridicules to think an oboist has the faintest idea what the needs or direction the Architectural school should take.

Our needs are Unique, as the practices of Architecture requires an understanding of both ART and SCIENCE ..

save our school

(continued from first entry)
. . . As I hear it one of the sources of “irreconcilable differences” was because she [Deamer] insisted on continuing to teach in studio and not go to endless management meetings which I think she was right to insist on. You don’t get someone of her calibre over here and stick her in meetings all the time. It surprised me that Auckland was able to get her, those East Coast US architecture people don’t like to be separated from New York at all. Auckland is unlikely to get anyone near her abilities in the future - and not just in Architecture, the University will have taken a hit in terms of its international reputation by their treatment of her. It was unprofessional and plain embarassing.

I’m sure Mr or Mrs McKeown works hard in order to pay lots of taxes, but calling an academic who works for a private institution a public servant is a little bit of a stretch. Likewise calling taxpayers ’shareholders’ is going a little bit far in any context.

Still, it’s entertaining eh?

That’s interesting. I heard that staff were shocked by what had happened and how it happened in terms of the resignation and having to clear her office by the end of the weekend. In fact it’s perhaps the only thing to have united all the staff there for many years!

I don’t know about what she [Pretty] closed but she certainly didn’t eliminate studio. As I hear it one of the sources of

Peggy Deamer is one of the best teachers I’ve ever had, I’d love to hear the story behind this … any NZ kids reading?
- sevensixfive, Aug 30, 07 | 6:04 am

I hope that regardless of what Professor Pretty has to say or offer at the meeting on Tuesday, that we remain persistent at achieving resolution of these issues via the Vice-Chancellor and not Professor Pretty. As I see it, Professor Pretty IS THE ISSUE.

Persistence is difficult as architecture students especially in the latter half of the semester. But we have to be, its the last straw.

If it is important enough, the Vice-Chancellor should either fly back now, or make a statement immediately