University governing bodies have been accused of ¡°rubber-stamping¡± predetermined outcomes, with a culture of ¡°secrecy and fear¡± preventing them from holding leaders to account.

A report published by Australia¡¯s National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) describes university governance as ¡°opaque¡±, ¡°intolerant of criticism¡±, and ¡°detached from the reality of staff and students¡±.?

It says researchers had identified ¡°very few instances of what would be deemed as appropriate (or ¡®good¡¯) governance¡±.

Based on a survey of elected staff representatives on public university governing boards from 12 public universities, the report says that more than half (59 per cent) describe the culture on boards as ¡°very negative¡±, with some describing it as ¡°toxic¡±. Others say there is a culture of ¡°bullying, intimidation and exclusion¡±.?

ÌÇÐÄVlog

One respondent tells the report: ¡°There is a culture of suspicion and silence. People also feel afraid.¡±?

Seven in 10 (71 per cent) say that they are not permitted to report back on what is discussed to staff, despite being elected to represent them. Some 90 per cent say agendas and minutes are not publicly available, and a further 67 per cent say that meetings were closed to observers. Even when observers are allowed, there are restrictions on access, and permissions are required.

ÌÇÐÄVlog

Respondents describe governing body decisions being made ¡°behind closed doors¡±, with one likening their governing body to a ¡°kitchen cabinet¡±.

Several note that they were excluded from some of the business of their governing board?owing to their roles as staff representatives, with respondents saying they were ¡°actively dismissed¡±, ¡°not allowed on subcommittees¡±, and even ¡°asked to leave the meeting¡± before certain agenda items were discussed.

University governance in Australia is facing increased scrutiny, with a Senate committee inquiry set up in February to examine issues such as financial reporting, compliance and the composition of governing councils.?A separate governance council has also been established to primarily look at?executive pay.?

Alison Barnes, national president of the NTEU, said that the findings confirm ¡°what staff have been saying for years ¨C university governance is completely broken¡±.

ÌÇÐÄVlog

¡°Decisions are being made behind closed doors by people with no connection to the daily realities of staff or students,¡± she said.

Consequently, 57 per cent of respondents did not believe their contributions had a genuine impact on decisions reached by their governing bodies, with many believing that results were ¡°predetermined¡± and the governing bodies were simply a ¡°tick and flick¡± exercise.

The report says that ¡°board members have the right to open and frank discussions outside the formal meetings of the board¡±, and calls for ¡°improved transparency of governance, including the publication of papers, materials and other data related to governance (including any key performance indicators)¡±.?

It further recommends that universities reform board membership with an increased proportion of staff representatives and fewer external members, who don¡¯t have ¡°appropriate experience, skills or expertise for a public sector organisation¡±.

ÌÇÐÄVlog

Barnes said that boards have been used to ¡°rubber-stamp decisions that have harmed the people who make education and research possible¡±.?

She continued: ¡°Governance reform isn¡¯t optional. It¡¯s essential to allow our public universities to pursue their core teaching and research functions and ensure they act as a public good.

ÌÇÐÄVlog

¡°Governments, regulators, and university leaders must act now to restore transparency, accountability, and trust in our higher education system.¡±?

juliette.rowsell@timeshighereducation.com