governance

“Be Very Alarmed!” Introducing the Global GDP Meter

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 27/06/2019 - 11:57pm in

By Brian Czech

Backed by an ominous sound clip and a rapidly churning GDP meter that comes out of nowhere, “Be alarmed… Be very alarmed!” are the opening phrases at CASSE’s new landing page. You’ll see what we mean shortly; please allow us an introduction to describe this new approach.

Illustration of earth as an alarm clock.

When is the last time you were alarmed by a website?

The landing page is actually a 30-second animation prefacing our “regular” website. It is designed to be three things:

  • Alarming
  • Crystal clear
  • Distinctive and memorable

Why Sound the Alarm?

Now it’s true that, no matter how clear you are, you cannot force someone into a feeling or a sense by simply uttering “feel this” or “sense that.” Yet, when Bobby McFerrin sang “Don’t Worry, Be Happy” whose worries weren’t lightened while they listened? McFerrin didn’t demand happiness with mere words; he conduced it with art, effort, and lyrics. His song would never be forgotten by the majority who heard it.

Similarly, we cannot expect the mere words “be alarmed” to actually alarm visitors. That said, with our new landing page, we strive to conduce a sense of alarm, concern, and anxious curiosity.

What You’ll See & Hear

The sound clip that accompanies the animation converts apathy to anxiety in a matter of seconds, reinforcing the terse, tense phrases. Meanwhile the GDP meter comes out of nowhere, surprising visitors expecting a typical website with fixed text and clickable links. Instead, the GDP meter runs rapidly, ruthlessly, and relentlessly, just as real GDP bloats in the real world, thanks in no small measure to the thousands of growth-mongered economic policies operating in and among nations.

Next, visitors see what happens to the environment, the economy, the international community, and national security when the goal is perpetual economic growth. The sequence of photos is like our collective political life flashing before our eyes. We stay on point—as relentlessly as the GDP meter itself—that a perpetually bloating economy is rapidly becoming the biggest threat of the 21st century.

Finally, as the foreboding sound fades, visitors are brought to the regular website with its menu and links. There, they can sign the CASSE position, learn more about steady state economics, or explore CASSE’s organizational network. We expect our visitors to spend a little more time than they would have without the portending preface they’ve just experienced.

Repeat visitors have the option of refreshing the animation, perhaps to investigate the quickly vanishing photos, or proceeding straight to the homepage. That said, even the homepage incorporates the GDP meter, downsized to fit the introductory line. Those with a mathematical or technical bent will even find a page with detailed information, “About the CASSE GDP Meter”.

Coal Mine in Jahria, India — TripodStories- AB, CC BY-SA 4.0 | Tijuana-San Diego border — U.S. Army photo by Gordon Hyde | Kiev, February 18, 2014 — Аимаина хикари, CC0 1.0

Coal mine in Jahria, India — TripodStories- AB, CC BY-SA 4.0 | San Diego-Tijuana border — U.S. Army photo by Gordon Hyde | Kiev, February 18, 2014 — Аимаина хикари, CC0 1.0

Why Should I Care?

Now, at CASSE we are abundantly aware that many critics will scoff and scold, “Bad move!” For at least 15 years, commentators have been promulgating the notion that a “progressive” agenda must be presented in the most “positive” of terms. Meanwhile sustainability has been thoroughly (and unnecessarily) lumped under the progressive agenda. The upshot is that nothing but “solutions” seems to get any traction with many foundations, philanthropists, and self-proclaimed “optimists.”

We don’t buy it, and we never have. As realists, we realize that no one searches for real solutions until they recognize real problems. Despite those who loudly exhort (a bit ironically) “don’t be an alarmist,” our assessment is that not nearly enough alarm has yet been raised about limits to growth. Not enough, not smartly enough, and not persistently enough.

The alarm, of course, pertains not only to limits to growth, but especially the implications of breaching those limits. If a majority of people come to recognize the dire environmental, economic, diplomatic, and national-security dangers of overshoot, they will be far more likely to demand steady-state politics and policies. They’ll also consume more conscientiously and help promulgate a consumer ethic in society—and ultimately international diplomacy.

Check Out the CASSE GDP Meter

So, without further ado, we invite you to our new landing page, the non-“positive” one with the ominous sound and the ruthless, relentless GDP meter. If nothing else, we hope you find it distinctive, effective, and important enough to pass along to your friends, family, and networks. You can help, in other words, to sound the alarm—an alarm that leads straight to the steady-state solution.

 

Brian Czech is the founder and executive director of the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy. He is the author of three books, Supply Shock, Shoveling Fuel for a Runaway Train, and The Endangered Species Act, as well as more than 50 academic journal articles. He served as a conservation biologist in the headquarters of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from 1999-2017 and as a visiting professor of natural resource economics in Virginia Tech’s National Capitol Region.

 

The post “Be Very Alarmed!” Introducing the Global GDP Meter appeared first on Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy.


Papua New Guinea PM pushes proposal for social media regulation, citing need to stop ‘fake news’

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 25/05/2019 - 7:10pm in


Students in IT class at the Hohola Youth Development Centre. Flickr photo by Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (CC BY 2.0)

The Papua New Guinea government has set its sights on regulating social media in order to combat the spread of online hoaxes and fake news. Critics and journalists have warned that it could lead to the curtailment of free speech.

Prime Minister Peter O’Neill has instructed the Ministry for Communications and Information Technology to review how the government can regulate social media to protect citizens affected by the circulation of fake news.

“It is destroying our people and destroying our society. We’ve lived in peace and harmony for thousands of years without social media,” he said during a media briefing.

He cited a recent incident in which rumors spread on Facebook that multiple girls and women in the town of Port Moresby had been kidnapped, and that the perpetrators had been apprehended by police. In response, a large crowd of people gathered outside the local police station, clamoring for information and justice for the girls and women. The alleged kidnapping was later confirmed to be a fabrication.

Prime Minister O'Neill seemed particularly interested in finding ways to hold Facebook accountable for its role as a catalyst for the spread of false information. He added in a media interview:

They make revenue in countries like ours, but do not pay a cent in tax, and leave behind a lot of damage to communities.

Facebook does not even have a local office in Papua New Guinea, and that is an indication of how serious they are about making a contribution to our country, and to properly manage the sensitive issues that we are raising.

This is not the first time that the government has threatened to control social media. In 2018, there were reports about a government proposal to ban Facebook for a year because of issues related to fake news and privacy violations. It generated public backlash and authorities later backed away from plans to ban the popular social media platform.

O'Neill’s announcement also coincided with some members of parliament threatening to file a resolution of no-confidence against the prime minister, whom they have accused of exerting too much control over government departments. But a political crisis was averted after O'Neill secured the support of the majority and the parliament was adjourned until 28 May 2019.

The plan to regulate social media was also revealed to be more than just an anti-fake news measure after Minister for Communications and Information Technology Koni Iguan complained about the posting of “indecent graphics” of the prime minister and the attorney general. He said that his office is preparing a measure that will deal with Facebook posts like these.

Governor of Oro province Gary Juffa advised the government not to proceed with its plan:

We are all subject to abuse and gossip and rhetoric and though we maybe upset or hurt by it we need to ensure we protect the rights of our people to express themselves as that's an essential aspect of democracy is about – freedom of speech. If we have issues we can report it to the Police or take civil legal action.

Blogger Sylvester Gawi reminded O'Neill that the violence at the Boroko police station should be attributed to the “undertrained and underresourced police force that continually discharged firearm without any accountability.” He also said that the planned social media regulation is “adopted from Communist China.”

The fact is you can't control platforms were information is circulated, attempts to do such undermines the role of democracy and freedom that is enshrined under the constitution of our country.

Journalist Scott Waide rejected the proposal to restrict Facebook:

There is a general agreement that there are a lot of people who use Facebook to spread fake news. They should be investigated and prosecuted using the cybercrime act if law enforcement has the capacity to do it.

But to ban Facebook has wide-ranging implications including direct government interference on the freedom of speech of Papua New Guineans and their right to hold their leaders to account.

Whether or not these officials are driven by political motivations, the Papua New Guinea government will hardly be alone in its desire to rein in social media. From Germany to Egypt to Singapore and beyond, laws have been approved that seek to curb disinformation and hate speech online. While some of these laws implicate the speakers themselves, others place legal responsibility on social media companies.

Germany's Network Enforcement Law, informally known as NetzDG, imposes a system through which large social platforms (mainly Facebook) are required to remove hateful content from their site within 24 hours of receiving notice, or face monetary fines. But the law has a critical flaw: it does not help companies determine what is — and what is not — actually hateful, often leaving companies to err on the side of censorship. In a similar vein, efforts to curb false information have not put forth systems for determining, by due process, what is and is not false.

Time will tell whether the Papua New Guinea's communications and information technology ministry will devise a unique solution to what has thus far been an intractable problem for governments and societies worldwide.

The Crisis of Higher Ed Realpolitik: a Visit to Connecticut

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 10/04/2019 - 1:52am in

You never know exactly where contradictory visions of higher ed are going to have an edifying head-on collision.  There was one last week in New Britain, Connecticut, where I had gone to speak at the annual meeting on shared  governance and student success of the Connecticut State Colleges and Universities system. It was organized by the wonderful program committee in the photo at left (photo thanks to Wanda Warshauer).

The overriding issue was the CSCU president's proposed consolidation of the state's community colleges into one college (with three regions, three presidents, twelve campus "CEOs" etc), a plan that continues to roil the system in spite of having been critiqued last year by the regional accreditor.  Meanwhile, in the morning, I called for a massive expansion of higher ed's social benefits, which I said would involve state buyouts of tuition and the funding of many more tenure-track instructors as well as more widely distributed research.   At lunch, Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-CT), of the first-year congressional cohort that includes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, gave an excellent twelve-minute summation of the social power of education.  The question is, she said, were your students "important enough to you for you to stand in intercession until they could stand on their own" (11" here).  How do we free education from its current policy shackles? This is one of the great questions of our time.

Let's go in the order of the day.  At 9 am, my lecture argued that higher ed is undermining itself by focusing on only the most familiar fraction of its value, individual wage benefits.  Policy discourse leaves most of the story blank.

What's missing are the "external" or public pecuniary / monetary benefits (upper right quadrant), and all the non-pecuniary or non-market benefits, which are themselves more than half the total.  The focus on job training and wages by major is miseducating the public about what integrative higher learning really does.

The next hour featured a student panel that proved the point about non-monetary effects. Five students of varying ages described their non-traditional journeys to graduation over the kind of obstacles that our anti-social public policies have made all too common. The family of one speaker, who'd wanted to be a computer engineer, lost home and work in the 2008 crash when he was in the 7th grade.  The family spent years living in by-the-week motels as they went from city to city and state to state looking for permanent jobs. Meanwhile, their son never attended formal school again, until a GED program and various CSCU instructors helped him back into the system.

On the same panel a 53- year-old single mother said that after years of working she went back because "I got tired of other people controlling my livelihood. I knew that I could do more, be more.  I wanted to help people, and knew that I could be of greater help."

Three other speakers related their own struggles for education. The common issue: higher ed is about knowledge, capability, personal development.  It addresses a large and varying set of non-monetary issues.  Better pay plays an accepted but minor part, and on this panel was not central enough to mention.

I noted that none of these working-class students at working-class colleges mentioned that pecuniary metric du jour, upward mobility.  They focused on  Bildung, a word nobody used. It is mass Bildung: arguably the core higher ed goal is Bildung for all.

This brought us to Rep. Jahana Hayes. Her pre-Congress career was as a teacher, one who started as a teenage mom and then as a community college student who worked three jobs before graduating from Southern Connecticut State College, who then taught for years before becoming Connecticut Teacher of the Year and then 2016 National Teacher of the Year,  after which she ran for Congress, thinking it was a test run to prepare the ground for somebody else to run and win in 2020.

Her talk was anchored in a deep personal sense of the power of teachers to negate their students' self-worth with dismissive talk or treatment--or to make it possible for them to fully inhabit the world.  I came from a place, she said, where we were told in a range of ways you are nothing, your community is bad, your people have no value.  She said,

I have to remind people at every turn: nobody chooses to struggle. . . Our responsibility as leaders, as the adults, as the community is to hold people up until they can stand on their own, and then send them off so they can pull someone behind them. . . That's what happened in my life, when people stepped in. . . .

She said,

Everything I learned about school, I learned at school.  We have so many people who touch down on campuses like this, and for the first time have real conversations, with fidelity, about controlling the narrative about their education.  Just because they're not having those conversations at home doesn't mean their families don't care about them. Maybe it means, just maybe, that they don't have the ability or the capacity to control those conversations. 

I grew up in a family where my grandmother could not have been more loving, could not have been more giving, could not have been more invested in my success.  But she didn't know how to translate that level of investment, that level of commitment, that love she had for me, into a conversation that was academic. So as a teacher, I always stood on the premise that it's not kids' responsibility to learn different, it's my responsibility to teach different. And I think that if we always lead with that--that everybody has value, that everybody has a gift, that everybody gets to be here, and should have access,

and then she paused because she was on the verge of tears. So was I.  The whole room started to applaud.

She said,

it's amazing how raw this is for me, because. . . there were so many people, when I was a high school dropout, or I was a teenage mom, or I was a community college student, who had just given up on me and written me off. And I tell you, we can't write people off.  We can't decide that they're done. What we have to do is figure out how to put them back on track, and get them in the pipeline, and on the road to success and that road is going to look different for everybody.  There are different ways of doing and being.

And once you are graced with--when I started this journey I did it because I was the beneficiary of so much undeserved grace. Now I have a responsibility--I have a responsibility to use my voice, to use my platform, to use my experiences, to use my struggle, to help insure that somebody, even if it's one person, does not have to endure the same things. To help change hearts and minds, so that the people on the other side, who have already made up their minds, they have an opinion about who certain groups are, what certain groups do, how certain groups feel--about how people act--to help them change that opinion. . . .

In a conference the other day . . . I had to remind people that I was a SNAP beneficiary--not because I didn't want to work, but because I was underemployed, working three jobs, going to college full time. So  when you think about someone receiving SNAP benefits, I hope that you now begin to think that that person can become a Congresswoman. There are so many people in this room, there are so many people on this campus, there are so many people in this community, who are in the journey.

Jahana Hayes would not deny education as job benefits, even as that was subsumed by education as a journey whose supreme value she had proved.  I was struck by her fully democratized idea of value--"everybody has a gift"--that cannot be dealt with through standardization, which is, as an administrative reflex, itself bound up with marginalization.  Thus we get to her principle of "teach different." And that is essentially what every talk I heard all day was doing.

In the afternoon, I went to the panel on "Creating a Family-Friendly Campus," with presentations about basic issues like easily accessible lactation rooms and free child care by Meredith Sinclair, State Senator Beth Bye, and Fiona Pearson, who previewed arguments from her forthcoming book, Back in School. 

There was also Laura McCarthy's presentation on transition programs for what are sometimes called at-risk students.  The programs initially had low retention and completion rates. The instructors did a reoganization based on their immersive experience, and these rates got much better.  Here are some principles:

Free -- hmm, interesting idea. In conjunction with the others, which are all Hayes Principles. Mass Bildung.

Here's what we the instructional masses looks like--with Wanda again playing Waldo, and CCSU president Toro on the left.
And there was also the look on Jahana Hayes's face when I said, "at some point we'll be needing you back in education." 
"I do miss it," she laughed.

I said she showed why her crew could change the frame in Congress: they could end the hollowing out of social structures precisely by invoking the capabilities of absolutely everyone.  It's the Great Refusal of racist and related social stigmas on which neoliberalism depends.

At the end of the day, the Faculty Advisory Committee to the Board of Regents had a session on the issue overhanging the day--the president's CC consolidation.  It seems to have started with the claim that the consolidation could save tens of millions of dollars on a half-billion or so of a system operating budget.  It led, however, with the motto of "Students First," arguing that consolidation would allow simple student access to multiple campuses.  I mentioned above that the regional accreditor seriously challenged the proposal last year, but it is back in retooled form, with a simultaneous plan to conform all 12 campuses' curricula to a Guided Pathways template.

My own limited reading on the issue didn't explain what problem they have to which the solution is consolidation + Guided Pathways.  One good newspaper overview is here.  A faculty petition with concise opposing arguments is here.  The systemwide update document is here, where a slide summary starts on p 39; a key slide at 47 claims the system must be consolidated to solve a student registration process with 35 separate steps.  (One faculty member told me the slide is "ridiculous"; another said, "even if the 35 steps are real, students to whom it would apply constituted 1.12 percent of the student body in Fall 2018" . . . with an average of 1.3 percent.)

The consolidation uses the faculty's language of "student success," but otherwise is a managerial initiative that seemed unrelated to the educational issues we were discussing.  It felt to me like a legacy project.  The system president who's championing the plan, Mark E. Ojakian, was the previous governor's Chief of Staff when, in 2011, he was assigned to create the current CSCU system by pushing the community colleges into a common structure with the four-year campuses. No one had much good to say about the results then--nor could anyone point me to evidence of financial savings.  That same governor later appointed Ojakian to be the president of the system he'd created, and now he's back for a second rearrangement of the arms and legs of his creature.

I spoke to him briefly at the start of the day: he was pleasant but uninvolved, and disappeared quickly (unlike the chair of the Board of Regents, who stuck around and chatted with me and various attendees).  The consolidation was not developed in consultation with faculty and staff on the campuses.  Hence the head-on collision between unrelated models of problems and solutions coming from frontline people on the one hand and a politically-wired system office on the other.  The results are predictable: demoralization and confusion, and a low chance of meaningful results.

It also seems like an example of the sort of pragmatism that finds its problems under the proverbial lamppost, and so ignores the bigger problems in the shadows.  It doesn't actually seem pragmatic to me.  So I used my talk to insist that debates in higher ed today were not between realism and idealism, but between two kinds of realism.  The dominant one is a realpolitik, whose opening move is always to cast its opposition as well-intentioned but naive about real-world rules.  But what this move is really trying to forestall is actualy a competing realism.  I called this "public realism" (still fussing with terrminology).  Public realism is much more ambitious than realpolitik, wanting among other things adequate funding for all of higher ed's nonpecuniary effects, which means high quality instruction and research at what are now thousands of underfunded open access institutions much like the ones Ojakian wants to consolidate.

Consolidation is a realpolitik distraction from the real issue, which is that Connecticut, though the No. 1 richest state by our preferred funding metric of personal income, has cut its funding for its CCs by nearly 12 percent just in the last four years.  The longer trend is dismal: though Connecticut appropriations are above national averages, they are still 19 percent below their 2008 levels, while tuition is 41 percent higher.  Here's the SHEEO wave chart for CT:
A group of faculty described this root problem in an editorial that should be read in full:

In an historical context, the apparent fiscal crisis that precipitated the [Board of Regents’] Students First plan grew out of years of declining levels of state support for higher education that became especially acute in the aftermath of the 2008-2009 economic crisis. The state’s eroding budgetary condition imposed fiscal austerity on the system that simultaneously resulted in increases in students’ costs/debts and cutbacks in student services and opportunities.  Full time professors were replaced by adjuncts; retiring academic advisors were not replaced; hours of operation were reduced.

Educational quality declines when capacity declines: it's realpolitik's own idealism to think otherwise.  

The Connecticut system's related root problem is that it's not affordable.  From the California vantage, Connecticut charges very high tuition for community college- over $4400 a year.  (True, it is half the tuition charged by community college in New York State, but I'm sure we can agree that $10,000 a year for first-rung local college is insane.)

Ojakian might thus have been expected to focus on two things as president: lowering tuition and raising state allocations in wealthy Connecticut.   (He could also have taken care of student bureaucratic hassles the old-fashioned way, by quietly instituting a common application form, which I'm told by faculty and students was promised when he formed the system back in 2011.) But these two issuse are not the leadership's focus.  The day's last session was dominated by faculty distress at a process that they feel is headed in the wrong direction in part because they have been excluded from it.

I'd said that we had been avoiding the effort to fund public colleges as public goods, which had meant the path of "multiple revenue streams" (aka privatization).  The key point is that none of these have  worked out as promised. I counted 12 types.

 There are exceptions to the rules in the "reality" column, but I believe these are the general rules.  Most relevant to consoidation is the second item from the last: I mentioned UCPath as a disaster that emerges from a type top-down standardization that blocks local efficiencies and if anything increases costs while making everyone's job harder. Decentralization is often more efficient than consolidation: UC Berkeley's failed Operation Excellence is UC's Exhibit A (see Section 3 for a 2016 update).

There are some things we can do to avoid these mistakes.  A simple one is policy rooted in history and evidence. Can you show that your last reorg saved a lot of money? Do you have an example of positive top-down curricular standardization?  If not, do you have a detailed plan that convinces the people actually doing the education? If you have none of these things, talk to people all over the system and try out something else.

Another is telling the truth about the damage these public-private hybrid models have already done.  It's the old Step 1 beginning: first admit you have a problem.  We have a national higher ed realpolitik, that failed.  Frontline faculty and staff have faced this. Top level admin should do the same.

The third thing we can do is a full reframing of higher ed along public good lines.  Virtually everyone I heard speak that day, from Jahana Hayes on out, already sees the transformation that would come from that.

Has Reading milked its dairy trust?

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 12/02/2019 - 3:04am in

Back in December, I made an offer via Twitter to look over the accounts of any universities where academics and/or students had any concerns about what was happening.

A member of staff at Reading approached me. A quick look at the latest financial statement (for 2017/18) flagged up a few issues. The main one was contained in Note 19 “Creditors: Amounts falling due within one year”.

reading amounts

It looked as if the University was committed to paying £120m to the trusts for which it acts as sole trustee.

That seemed unlikely. It was not as if the University was in a position to produce such sums and anyway the figure included for 2017 indicated that a slightly smaller sum had been in the same category in the previous financial year.

The accounts offered no explanation. I would have expected to see something either in this Note or in that devoted to “Related Party Transactions”. This prompted me to look back through Reading’s previous financial statements.  I had to go all the way back to 2014/15 to see the first clue:

“Included in other creditors is an amount of £40.9m owing to the University’s endowment trusts (2014: £13.2m). This total increased significantly in the year due to land disposals by the trusts.”

In subsequent years, the amount owed to the trusts increased rapidly, climbing to £87m and then the £107m of the 2016/17 accounts. What I now know is that this reflects the manner in which the proceeds arrived from the sale of land at Shinfield belonging to the National Institute for Dairying Research Trust: £20m in 2014, £50m in 2015 and a further £50m in instalments over the next 3 years.

The University spent these sums and noted that it owed NIRDT the £120m. In a statement issued on Saturday in response to our Guardian story the University argues that the sales were fully documented in its accounts.

“The University is confident that it has responded appropriately to the issues relating to the sale of land that formed part of the assets of the National Institute for Research in Dairying trust. The details have already been set out in the University’s published financial statements.” (9 February 2018)

I don’t disagree. But what is missing from all recent financial statements is any account of the loans, which the University says were made to itself by the Trust. The University has nowhere disclosed the terms of the loan and, although it told me interest was payable, it was not able to say what interest was due and indeed whether any had been paid.  The terms of the loans should have been published in the accounts and declared in the notes devoted to “related party transactions”.

There are prima facie conflicts of interest when a trustee is also the beneficiary of a trust. In this case, Reading appears to have accepted that it should have acted differently …

“The appropriate governance arrangements are now in place relating to the university’s management of the trust …” (my emphasis)

but is still being less than clear regarding how the matter is going to be resolved. I was told that two independent panels with legal representation have been convened: one to represent the interests of the trust, the other, the university. And that the university has also informed the regulators of what Office for Students called “a reportable event”. OfS said it had received this notification “recently”, but would not give any more specific timeframe.

There is obviously a broader question about what this means for the university’s finances and whether such a loan should be thought of as a “real debt”. I take that to be part of what needs to be resolved. Since the trust is designed to fund research at Reading, it is never going to be in trust’s interests to precipitate a brutal reckoning, but it seems clear that the loan is on generous terms (rolled over and increased each year) and isn’t being used solely for agricultural research. This indicates two sets of questions: was the conflict of interest properly managed? should the loan have been approved and extended annually?

Setting those questions aside, and returning to the finances: it is clear that the university has used proceeds from the sales to cover over problems in the last few years (deficits from ordinary activities of c. £20m in each of the last accounting periods).* It is not all clear what additional pressure may be put on the university’s position when the matter is fully resolved. (If anyone knows more about trust law and potential precedents, feel free to comment below).

More broadly, there is a question regarding how appropriate it is to “consolidate” the accounts of related trusts into university statements. NIRDT accounts do not appear to be published. Since it is a trust connected to an “exempt charity” , its accounts do not appear on the Charity Commission website; since it is not a company, there is nothing at Companies House. Reading does produce an annual statement regarding the investments held by another of its trusts, the Research Endowment Trust, but does nothing similar for NIRDT. Does anything prevent OfS from requiring universities to also publish the accounts of such trusts? (Again, if anyone with more knowledge in this area wants to comment, please do so below).

Judging from my inbox, this story has wider pertinence. My offer is still there. Please email if you want me to have a look at something.

*update: while over £110m was spent on acquiring fixed assets.

The OfS should make university governance a top priority

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 31/08/2017 - 9:01am in

Many of the criticism's recently levelled at universities could be fixed with improved governance, but will the new regulator be sufficiently ambitious to ensure reform? Jim Dickinson suggests some ways forward.

The post The OfS should make university governance a top priority appeared first on Wonkhe.

Any other business – Are governors asking the important questions?

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 19/07/2017 - 10:00pm in

Tags 

governance

Ant Bagshaw spoke to Andrew Bush, an experienced Advisor and Internal Auditor with KPMG, to get his take on how universities could deal with the most pressing issues for their governors.

The post Any other business – Are governors asking the important questions? appeared first on Wonkhe.

Navigating Social Enterprise ‘Tensions’

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 25/02/2015 - 10:33am in

ACNC Makes Unique Deal With Charity

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 05/02/2015 - 10:27am in

Board Engagement Critical to Sustainability Success

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 14/01/2015 - 10:41am in