OIA
The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education
Cc: Ms K Worsey HE Policy & Funding Welsh Assembly Government
HEFCW / QAA
Secretary & Academic Registrar University of Wales Lampeter
Interim Vice Chancellor University of Wales Lampeter
Senior Vice Chancellor Federal University of Wales
Initial Evidence to the Pathfinder Project
University of Wales Lampeter & the Federal University of Wales
Addendum II to letter dated 26th November 2008
The Need for a University Commissioner/Ombudsman
Introduction
All of my comments are related to my experience as a student at these above institutions and are based on fact. Where I have stated an opinion I am professionally qualified to do so, or they are in keeping with what a member of the public would say about the conduct of the officers and staff of these institutions. Given the regime change it is for the new office holders to address these issues and respond accordingly. Whether or not this appalling situation could only happen in Wales is arguable, what is certain is that it could only happen in Wales and those responsible get away with it as such conduct seems to be the culture within Welsh institutions.
I have been threatened with legal action, a high court injunction and required to sign an undertaking not to tell the truth for stating these comments in public. However, it seems my offer for them to go ahead has been declined for ‘legal reasons’ specifically that these statements are true and I have freedom of speech guaranteed under the Human Rights Act. I have been falsely accused of malicious harassment by Professor David Austin former Head of School at UWL to conceal the fact that he deliberately perverted a public course of justice namely the students’ complaints procedure.
This could have led to my unlawful arrest and detention, while his accusation was ultimately accepted as being without foundation it was considered justified given my objection and outrage to being stitched up. Subsequent comments by solicitors Eversheds, solicitors acting for UWL have portrayed my complaints in such a way that I must be mentally unstable to actually suggest that these pillars of sociality would do such a thing, a well used and despicable tactic to discredit whistleblowers.
With regard to compliance with procedures, I made a complaint made on the 30th of June 2003. I had to walk into Lampeter police station in early October 2003 and make a complaint under the Malicious Communications Act 1996 concerning what I considered to be an offensive email from Zed Zorichak to force Prof Austin to do anything. When he did do something he prevented the Chair of the IT Department from acting according to procedures, and then played the meetings game in late October 2003 to get around his flouting of the rules and it goes like this.
They deliberately flout the rules then invite the student to a meeting whereby from experience the student is fobbed off. If the student agrees to the meeting then they have accepted the variation in the procedures making it difficult to complain about it later. If the student refuses then the university says it has done all it can but were hampered by the fact the student failed to turn up to a meeting etc. etc. The student is portrayed as having failed to comply with procedures and not the university. A student is not required to attend a meeting nor is such a course of action necessary.
In my case no meeting was arranged, dates were offered, and that was enough for Prof Austin to use against me. This is despite the fact that the rules state that it is for the university to make a response within 10 days, however, that is something they were never going to do when they know the student is right. The meetings game is then followed by the Vice Chancellor playing the end game whereby they state that as all the procedures have been fully complied with they will not enter into any further correspondence.
I wrote to Ms Worsey at the Dept of HE at the Welsh Assembly Administration who contacted Prof Austin on this issue. His response was not only to tell Ms Worsey a pack of lies but he used my complaint to her to justify his unfounded accusation of malicious harassment.
Procedures concerning the conduct of examinations were also ignored; I was intimidated by Zed Zorichak during an examination whereby he threw himself in a seat less than six feet away put his fist under his chin and stared me out for one and a half hours while I attempted to do the exam. The seating was arranged by names fitting numbers and he arranged for me to sit opposite the only empty seat in the room. This was watched by the Examinations Officer Dr Jill Venus who did nothing to intervene; I suggest they were both waiting for me to complain so I could be shown the door.
I complained to the former Head of IT Tony Corner who carried out an inquiry and sent a complaint to the External Examiner. Dr Venus as Examinations Officer failed in her duties on this issue and rationalised the matter by saying that I was the only one that complained, but then I was the only target. A totally different version of events was later concocted, and the complaint to the External Examiner was destroyed.
In his adjudication the former Visitor Bishop Carl Cooper declared he could only hear my original complaint. He excluded the parts about him owing the university £10,000 in legal fees, making a false statement that the was waiting for guidance from the OIA, and colluding with the former the Secretary and Registrar Thomas Roderick to deny me a fair hearing, plus a multitude of other issues too numerous to mention.
The former Secretary and Academic Registrar Thomas Roderick produced a letter of completion stating that my complaint had been dealt with according to the Universities students’ complaints scheme. It is hard evidence as to the extent that Welsh Universities will go to in order to prevent any complaint getting as far as the OIA. Witnesses are invented which includes actions and comments attributed to staff without their knowledge or consent. Any student making a complaint at Lampeter can say goodbye to their education, even if a student wins the retribution will finish them off, and there is nothing the OIA or anyone else can do about it.
With regard to the Federal University of Wales, I had to go to an employment tribunal to attempt to force them to implement their policy under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA). I applied under section 47k of PIDA as a degree trainee which is an explicit statement that I am not claiming to be a member of staff. My claim was thrown out as under section 46 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as I had failed to prove I was a member of staff.
Given that I never at any time claimed to be a member of staff you may find this confusing. What happened was that in effect my application was set aside and the application by the university saying I was claiming to be a member of staff was put in its place and my claim was duly struck out. I was ordered to pay £2,000 costs but in the rush to stitch me up they failed to give 14 days notice of the hearing so the judgment was set aside. I decide any further action was a waste of time so I withdrew. They not only make up their own side of events they make up the students as well.
Main Points
1. I do not wish to take away anything that the OIA has achieved on behalf of students, I am pleased that they have been able to be given a fair hearing and their grievances addressed according to the rules of natural justice. However, I must question the role, function and independence of the OIA with regard to a situation that exists in the above institutions that would lead to closure and public loss of confidence in Welsh higher education. It is not the role of the OIA to compensate for a total failure of regulation.
2. As the law stands the only outlet for such matters is the OIA as HEFCW and the QAA claim to be unable to intervene in such a situation. Whether these claims are true are arguable, my view is that they choose not to intervene for fear of the political consequences, and HEFCW being taken into public ownership. However, the QAA has in effect verified the issues I brought to the attention of the Welsh Education Minister in December 2003.
3. The OIA is managed by a company four fifths owned by the universities and was set up with advice from Eversheds who have around 100 of the 130 or so universities in England and Wales as clients. I suggest that the complaints to the OIA were initially kept confidential to prevent these matters from becoming public knowledge to preserve their clients ‘reputation’ and prevent accountability and reform. With regard to naming and shaming the Magistrates Act 1980 should be used for guidance on this issue whereby the victims are protected and not the perpetrator.
4. There needs to be totally independent regulation and adjudication for any system to be credible, particularly as the judiciary do not see itself being involved in these matters. I found this out when I took the Visitor the former Bishop of St David’s Carl Copper to a judicial revue as he twice refused an independent revue of the evidence and his conduct.
5. The Charity Act 2006 comes into force in late 2009 and appointed regulators will monitor the charitable activities of Welsh institutions. The former head of the OIA Dame Deech said that universities fail to understand the concept of natural justice. I would add from experience that the above institutions have no concept of professional standards, honesty, integrity, responsibility, common decency or any of the seven principles required of those in public life. These people are intellectually incapable of understanding the concept of public service let alone ‘charity’.
6. Some universities state that officers and staff who violate procedures are personally liable for their actions and that includes the cost of legal representation. There are rules to this effect under the Company Act 1985 as amended 2005, which apply specifically to Prof David Austin, and the former Visitor Bishop Carl Cooper who owes approximately £14,500 in legal costs. The former Secretary and Registrar Thomas Roderick used solicitors to conceal his corruption from the University Council.
7. The UWL and Eversheds have refused to say how much was spent on Prof Austin concealing his own corruption or why no attempt has been made to recover legal fees from Bishop Carl Cooper. On top of this tens of thousands of pounds has been spent by these institutions on the concealment of corruption. Under the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 I am banned from being able to complain about this fraud and the power of the Auditor General for Wales to intervene was removed.
8. Regarding the Federal University, I have documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 that the General Secretary of the Federal University of Wales Dr Lynn Williams obtained funding from the Audit Committee on the basis of a blatant lie that I was claiming to be a member of staff. He omitted to tell them about his refusal to implement their policy under PIDA, and that I had stated in writing that I was claiming as a trainee and not at any time did I claim to be a member of staff. In my opinion based upon these facts Dr Williams obtained funding by deception.
9. In reply to a subsequent complaint Senior Vice Chancellor Prof Anthony Chapman only served to conceal the conduct of Dr Williams together with the threat that both Dr Williams and the University are now free to take legal action against me. My offer for him to do this was ignored however; subsequent visits to my web site by their solicitors Morgan Cole would seem to suggest that further public funds have been misappropriated to consider this course of action.
10. Further complaints to the Federal University under their financial regulations have also been ignored by the Clerk who is duty bound to investigate a complaint if it involves the other two senior officers.
The Charity Commissioner replacing HEFCW as Financial Regulator
HEFCW has been fully aware of these issues for sometime and my reference to the DTI guidelines which covers HEI’s on the Company Act 2005 concerning Bishop Carl Cooper’s legal fees was responded to with the comment that DTI guidelines are a matter for them. These guidelines are also a matter for the Charity Commissioner who refers to them for guidance to all charities including universities. Unlike its English counter part HEFCW has not been identified as a regulator under the Act and I have already lodged an objection to prevent this from happening.
The response by HEFCW concerning financial irregularities was for me to ask the perpetrator of a possible crime did you do it? A strategy that would empty all the prisons in the country and reduce the crime rate to zero.
The Charity Commission will therefore regulate the charitable activities of Welsh Universities and that includes all funds being spent on charitable purposes. Having setup a charity myself I am aware of the strict guidelines that apply and cannot recall the provision of legal fees for officers and staff to conceal their corruption being a permissible charitable purpose, its commonly known as fraud.
Therefore, the Charity Commission will deal with my complaints to this effect and their decisions will be made public with any criminal offences reported to the police. In that respect current post holders now being made fully aware of the situation need to consider their position.
Roles & Tasks of a University Commissioner/Ombudsman
1. The main task would be to ensure that Universities play it by the rules as these institutions are proof that Welsh Universities cannot be trusted to regulate themselves and the situation of them being above the law has to end; universities should be introduced to the concept of accountability.
2. Moreover the practice of Welsh Universities obstructing, perverting and making up the rules within student complaints procedures and other regulations to suit their own ends also has to stop.
3. Whistle blowing procedures for both staff and students should be in place in all Welsh Universities, this is another function that could be undertaken by the Ombudsman instead of the Auditor General.
4. The arcane method of dealing with student dissatisfaction by stitching them up and threatening to sue them must end, along with medieval acts of retribution against those who complain.
5. The obstruction to natural justice manifests itself by students venting their feelings on soft targets, graffiti, vandalism, and not so petty theft. The student mindset that any sort of complaint is a waste of time and that those who do are only digging a hole for themselves has to change.
6. By their own admission the regulators HEFCW and the QAA have no jurisdiction to intervene in these matters and in my opinion what powers do exists are being ignored to conceal blatant corruption. The public lambasting of Lampeter by the QAA does not represent any sort of pro-active regulation in the interests of students.
7. The role of a Commissioner or Ombudsman should include the regulatory duties as defined by the Charity Act 2006 instead of the Charity Commission.
8. The huge amounts of debt that students incur as part of their education puts them at a disadvantage and open to sexual predation; if they owe a Welsh University any money they would have no compunction in petitioning for bankruptcy to conceal their corruption. Therefore students should be designated vulnerable consumers to protect them against this sort of behaviour.
9. The use of charitable or public funds to pay for solicitors to make threats against students to conceal corruption has to stop, and in my opinion the conduct and market dominance of Eversheds should be subject to an inquiry by the Office of Fair Trading.
10. Given the advice by Eversheds to the OIA and the current situation of confidentiality given to the perpetrator in order to protect their reputation, brings the independence of the OIA into question.
11. All lecturers should be subject to the same regulation as others in the teaching profession and students should be able to report examples of misconduct to some kind of regulatory body.
12. The University Commissioner/Ombudsman should not only regulate the way decisions are made but also answer any complaint under Administrative Law that stipulates that public institutions should act in a ‘reasonable’ way.
13. In the case of Lampeter whereby a code of conduct exists it should be enforced and staff trained on issues of common decency to other people so that students can be treated with some respect.
14. University Councils should also be accountable for their conduct to ensure joined up corporate governance and that officers are telling them the whole truth and not concealing corruption.
15. Lecturers should all pass a proficiency test with regard to the use of anti plagiarism software; recent research substantiates my comment that you could train a monkey to do better than the standards at UWL.
16. However, it is blatantly obvious that the software was manipulated; I have dubbed the blatant use of anti plagiarism software to discredit students with false allegations as being the plagiarism game, which is played by UWL without any fear of losing. There is the obvious question of how many students have been victims and how many are going to make claims?
17. With regard to natural justice, it is for universities to prove any accusation against the student together with full disclosure of evidence at the time the accusation is made. It is not for the students to have to prove their innocence against unfounded allegations when every conceivable obstruction to do so has been placed in their way.
18. Permission should be sought by all parties from the Commissioner/Ombudsman to instigate legal action or any action arising from the original proceedings.
19. Solicitors must act for the University as a corporate body and not on behalf of corrupt officers concealing their own corruption. Where such conduct leads to a loss for the university then solicitors should be held accountable.
20. The use of solicitors to give students a going over and threaten court action to prevent them from telling the truth must stop. The requirement of students to sign undertakings not to tell the truth again clearly violates their right to complain to the OIA.
21. All of these functions would be best served by a University Commissioner/Ombudsman independent of government and the universities, to ensure compliance with the rules and the law while adjudication should still be dealt with by a separate body.
22. While maintaining academic independence Universities should be subject to the same public scrutiny, standards in public life, and right of complaint not just from students but from members of the public as those that apply to local councils. The appropriate intervention of the Auditor General in cases of financial mismanagement should also be included.
None of my submissions are confidential; I will publish them to the internet in due course together with the response if any from current post holders. I have a mountain of evidence in support of these comments so if anyone wants to challenge me in the courts then please go ahead, I am beginning to find juvenile threats of legal action somewhat tiresome.
Trevor Mayes
