ABERDEEN UNIVERSITY & COLLEGE UNION
Minutes: General Meeting
Date: Wednesday 25 January 2012
Time: 1 - 2pm
Venue: Regent Lecture Theatre
Chair: Mr Mike McConnell
Invited Speaker: Mr Terry Brotherstone, Mr Mark Whittington
In attendance: As per attached sheets
Minutes: Sue Bateman
Apologies: T Argounova-low, J Armstrong, M Aspinall, M Beaton, A Bowman, A Brown, S Cannon, P
Cash, S Cornelius, L Craig, M Critchley, K Friedrich, N Haites, G Hale, K Harrild, Z Hickman, J Hunter, M
Jubb, C Laennec, A Ludbrook, A Lumsden, K Lumsden, B MacGregor, A Marcus, C McCaig, D
McCausland, G Nixon, A Oelsner, L Ostertag, K O’Sullivan, S Paterson, M Pinard, D Pirie, W Pirie, M
Porter, G Prescott, K Quinn, T Redpath, Z Riches, T Rist, A Rodger, I Russell, F saunders, R Scott, R
Schulz, H Sinclair, J Skakle, T Smith, K Sprohar, D Stead, S Thomson, J Tuckwell, G Waiter, K Wilde, N
Will, T Wills, S Wong
NB: MEETING INQUORATE
1. Welcome: The Chair welcomed members to the meeting.
2. Approval of minutes from 7 December: Deferred.
3. Branch Activity Update: Mr Mike McConnell updated members on recent activity – most of
which included policy reviews. He provided an overview of what was included in many of
these reviews.
4. Governance Review: Mr Brotherstone advised that he was currently unable to inform
members about the outcomes of the Governance Review as the final report would not be
released for a week and he was required to maintain confidentiality until this time. However,
he was able to inform members about the background to how the review was established,
the constitution of the review panel and the expected actions which would follow the review.
He referred to the importance of the discussion and debate that should follow its publication.
He outlined the areas addressed in the recommendations but not the recommendations
themselves. He advised UCU members to read the final report when released and asked that
they get involved and also encourage others to engage in public discussions about the 18
recommendations made in it. He stressed the importance of transparency and increased
input by staff into the way that decisions are made. Mr Brotherstone concluded by advising
members that the proposals should create increased interest in the governance of
universities but would not revolutionise the way that they are run.
Questions and Answers
“What are the timescales for implementation?”
Following next Wednesday’s launch discussions will take place during the spring and we
would hope that there will be UCU events organised to facilitate member engagement.
There is no absolute requirement for the recommendations to be accepted by the Cabinet
Secretary but lobbying can continue if required.
“Is the issue of University mergers included?”
Not directly – they are neither covered nor not covered – there is a different tenor to this
report than the Browne report.
“You referred to the need to conduct further research into Higher Education – what would
this involve?”
The review panel found it difficult to find information about what has happened in the sector.
Some universities have carried out some research but some of this is out of date. HE is an
important part of society and the economy and we hope that, along with the other
recommendations, the need for further research will be picked up and progressed.
5. USS
Mr Mark Whittington (Aberdeen UCU Pensions Officer) explained the current situation with
regard to USS. He advised that Mr Godfrey Brown and Mr David Watts would be attending
the forthcoming conference to represent the local membership. Mr Whittington summarised
the background to the issue, the problem with the current CARE scheme and provided
comparisons to other public sector schemes – including TPS and the detrimental effects of
the current USS CARE scheme on future pension entitlement. He talked about the results
that the negotiations had achieved to date and the recent proposal from the employers to
review the new CARE scheme. He showed the motion that was subject to approval or
amendment and advised that the key point for members was about the suspension of the
current action whilst the review is taking place. The view of UCU “left” was also discussed.
Mr Mike McConnell advised the meeting that AUCU needed to ascertain the branch’s views
on the motion and due to the inquorate General Meeting this would be through a survey of
the membership about their attitudes towards the proposals and urged those present to
participate in the survey.
Members discussed the following issues:

The need for clarity over the expected outcome and process required if action were
to be suspended

The importance of supporting the negotiators and concerns about halting the
possibility of negotiations if the employer’s terms are not met

The need for USS to provide similar benefits to other public sector schemes –
particularly TPS where staff can move between institutions and transfer pension
benefits between these two schemes

Concerns about the legality of suspending and then resuming action

The implied acceptance of other aspects of the USS changes if action is suspended

Retrospective application of improvements backdated to 1st October 2011 when
they were imposed

Timing – the impact of working to contract on the university’s activities
Mr McConnell advised that delegates from the conference would report back to members
on their return.
MEETING CLOSED 2.05PM