University of York Students’ Union

• Home
• Marketing
• Market Place
• Calendar Service
• YUSU Mail
• Site Map
• Login

• MAIN MENU
• Organisation and Governance Review - Moving YUSU Forward
• Section Menu »
• Organisation Audit Outcomes
• What is Governance?
• Why do we need to change?
• What do we hope to achieve through this process?
• Trustee Boards
• What is a constitution and why does it matter?
• Tell us what you think!
• Focus Groups
• Timetable for Governance Reform
• Useful links and files

Organisation Audit Outcomes

Home > Organisation and Governance Review - Moving YUSU Forward > Organisation Audit Outcomes

In Summer Term 2007 the Union Executive earmarked some money in the budget
to have a piece of consultation work carried out. The aim of this piece of work was to assess the workload of the Academic and Welfare Officer and establish whether the position should be split into an Academic Affairs Officer and a Welfare Officer. 
 
The work was commissioned in December 2007 with an independent, external consultant who has considerable expertise and experience within the voluntary sector. She was asked to look at officer workloads and carry out an organisational review.
 
The consultant carried out various pieces of consultation work over the course of three months. She interviewed current and past officers, held focus groups with non-
sabbatical officers, talked to union staff and university staff. 
 
The consultant delivered her findings back to the union in April 2007.   The full report may be downloaded by clicking here.

Officer Findings

President

The role overlaps with the academic brief. Strategic work is hampered by various operational elements such as administering the SSHH campaign and booking conferences and travel.

Academic and Welfare Officer

The consultant interviewed past and present officers who identified a number of areas of concern and possible development.

• support to individual students
• co-ordinating groups and events such as the Student Parents network
• the current post holder was very conscious that the President was covering some of the academic work that should be in the A&WO role
• the is inadequate time to prepare for meetings which reduces YUSU effectiveness
• there is considerable potential to increase academic campaigns, e.g. around avoiding plagiarism.
• developing Board of Study representatives offers a route to improving departmental understanding of issues that affect student achievement
• improved promotion of services to students who were unaware of the support services YUSU offered
• improved levels of support to the liberation officers
• improved media work on welfare issues. The current post holder felt she should be involved in more strategic planning, especially around academic research
• developing improved relationships and collaborative working at all levels with the Student Welfare Services (SWS)

Other sabbatical officers and non-sabbatical officers all felt that the A&WO role was particularly overloaded and stressful. They felt that it was beyond the remit of any one person and as a result the post holder tended to focus on either the academic or welfare elements of the brief to the detriment of the other. All agreed that splitting the role would bring YUSU considerable benefits, freeing the President’s time and allowing YUSU to deliver effectively and consistently in two areas vital to student. In holding this view all acknowledged that with the growth of the university the A&WO role could only increase.

The general opinion from the NUS and other unions was that the workload of A&WO role was so extreme that is was unhealthy for the post holder. The practical reality was that the post holder tended to focus on one side of the role to the detriment of the other. Every University contacted but 1 had split the role and all saw these two ongoing functions as vital areas of delivery. The benefits reported by other unions included:

• the union was able to deliver effectively on academic and welfare work and had a higher profile in these area with students and the University
• the union had developed better relationships with the University / Student Welfare Services, including delivering joint campaigns
• The union was more effectively delivering its equality and diversity functions which most had merged with the welfare role^[1]

Both officers had developed teams of student representatives who were able to take forward relevant work across a wide range of University forums.

The option to split the Academic and Welfare Officer roles was put forward by the 2004 Audit^[2]. At the time the pressing issue was the need to professionalise the Union’s advice to individuals, but the report noted that the workload was well beyond the reach of any one individual. Since then the case for splitting the role seems to have increased. Failure to do so will risk compromising the health of the post holder and the effectiveness of YUSU. Without taking this step YUSU will deliver inconsistent services which vary from year to year depending on the interests and competencies of the officer and will be failing to address a very real student need, on which the student body places, importance.

Services and Finance Officer

The Services and Finance Officer brief covers a wide range of areas including the financial, commercial and non-commercial services and elements of the democratic function. The current post holder has particular business and IT expertise. There are peaks in the Services and Finance Officer Role such as Freshers Week and Gradball but even quiet weeks are unacceptably busy. There is no space for the role to take on the work required for Heslington East. The current function is highly pressured and unviable in the future.

Societies and Communications Officer

The relatively new role has provided support for our 100+ societies. The operational element of the job is preventing the officer from attending to more strategic work. Areas of the communication function work very well but other areas present problems. Society ratification should be handed over to staff with officer oversight or moved online. Many other unions look to staff support for societies rather than an officer role.

Student Development and Charities Officer

The role has been a new development within the union. The officer feels the work supporting RAG and delivering Kids Camp has gone well. However the role seems to be structurally flawed and under utilized. As such the officer spends around 20% of her time helping other officers and projects. The role also includes six weeks outside of union delivering Kids Camp.

Athletic Union President

The role seems to be mainly operational offering direct support to sports clubs. There are particularly busy peaks in the year which coincide the seasonal pattern of the societies officer. The Athletic Union President is not heavily engaged with university structures but there is significant scope for more engagement and strategic work. The AU has significant staff support and in general is much less pressured.

Other Findings

Splitting the Academic and Welfare Officer to create an Academic Affairs Officer and Welfare Officer

The union will need to ensure the two officers in build time to update each other on relevant issues. With the reduced face to face support work delivered by the A&WO it might be possible for the two staff to share an office, using the small meeting room for 1-1 work. Alternatively (cost allowing) the A&WO office could be knocked into the larger space, bringing the officers more into the general team.

Creation of a Student Activities Officer

Essentially merging the current roles of the Student Development and Charities Officer and Societies and Communication roles. The officer would benefit from significantly enhanced staff support. The officer would be responsible for strategic oversight and decision making whilst operational elements would be dealt with by staff.

Creation of a Student Activities Office

There are natural linkages between the sports, societies, student development and charities functions which are not currently being exploited. All three officer roles working in these areas deliver similar support to different groups. All need staff support to help with ratification and general development queries and all have developed or have potential opportunities linked to student volunteering. Ignoring the current restrictions of premises, the development of a staffed Student Activities Office which pools existing activities staff, with perhaps some additional hours offers apparent benefits:

 

• it would provide one port of call to student seeking support about activities
• it would merge staffing allowing effective use of staff resources and resolving issues about staff cover throughout the week
• whilst staff would keep particular specialisms, it would naturally extend the range of staff with a knowledge of subject specific processes
• it would remove officers as the first line of enquiry, allowing them to focus on development functions
• it should reduce the “silo” mentality which appears to exist in some areas of YUSU

Elements of flexibility would need to be built in to ensure that at times of high pressure Activities Office staff could be used (appropriately) to support other Union functions. Ideally this office would not include activities officers who would be based with the rest of the team. Basing them in the Activities Office risks their continued over involvement in operational activities and would be hinder the development of a strong sabbatical team.

The only apparent venue within the currently overcrowded building for such an office would be the under-utilised AU office. The A&W office could be used but this again risks the over involvement of Officers in operational delivery and is probably not big enough. Moving the AU president into the main officer space would be unpopular with the AU, but would resolve a range of space difficulties and give a home to the Activities Function.

Moving the Athletic Union President into the Open Plan

By moving the Athletic Union President upstairs the union could create a student activities office which would house all staff responsible for supporting sports club, societies, volunteering, fundraising and events. This would improve contact and work between the Athletic Union President and the rest of the sabbatical team.

Volunteering and Fundraising

The union must continue to support and develop the volunteering function within the union. Such activities offer students transferable skills. Some volunteering functions, particularly Kids Camp require a level of professional expertise which is not present in the union and as such the union should look to safeguard the future of the project by looking to collaborative working. It was also mentioned that there whilst fundraising goes on within the union as part of RAG it is not allocated to sections of the union desperate for more funding such as Kids Camp.

Managing our Commercial Ventures

The appointment in 2007/8 of a Service and Finance officer with good skills in finance and business management seems to have brought forward opportunities for commercial development, raised staff expectations that the union will develop a more commercial focus.

The 2005-10 Strategy plans to appoint a non-commercial manager (and other posts) in 2008 – 10 and a commercial manager in 2011. If the per capita method of calculating the block grant is retained it should by £30-35,000 a year. However, some of this income will be needed to fund agreed costs of living rises that tend to exceed inflation increases on the block grant. The union will need to think carefully about what additional staffing it can afford and which it needs first. Given existing workloads, it is unlikely that current management levels have the capacity to develop additional bar and catering functions.

Analysis of the income of other Unions show considerable scope to increase income. The new bar function should return a profit of between £40-70,000 and sponsorship income could reasonably be increased to £25,000 per year. Employing a Commercial Manager now seems to offer considerable benefits. Initially funded from reserves, it should cover its costs by Year 2 even allowing for capital costs of the bar renovation. The post holder could:

 

• provide sufficient management time and skills to develop a holistic focus to the Unions current and developing commercial operations
• lead on the development of the Heslington East venue and other commercial opportunities which may come out of University Expansion
• ensure that gains made by the current finance and services manager are maintained and developed
• maximise growth in current shop and marketing functions
• manage all staff delivering commercial operations
• help the Union towards its target of generating 40% of its own income by 2011
• free the General manager to focus on non commercial issues, including the governance review and communications functions

Development of a YUSU advice centre

YUSU is the only support agency on campus which can provide support to students with academic problems^[3] and is the provider of choice for younger students^[4]. YUSU is only supporting a tiny proportion of the 10 – 12% of all students who the Special Cases (academic appeals) process^[5]. The success rate of the Welfare Co-ordinator^[6] demonstrates the effectiveness of YUSU’s advocacy which increases the number of students gaining their required level of qualification. Whilst the University meets the welfare needs of overseas students, YUSU supports their academic issues. Overseas students are particularly vulnerable to cultural differences which lead to accusations of plagiarism and can make up ¼ of the students YUSU supports with special cases. The potential number needed support is likely to be much larger.

YUSU’s stated vision to develop an Advice Centre within its new venue will need to be developed through joint working with the Student Welfare Service (SWS) to avoid duplication. The SWS and YUSU appear to share a largely complimentary vision about future work, with academic and pastoral support at its centre. However, both organisations felt they needed to increase their contact and joint working. YUSU does not appear to receive any meaningful financial support for overseas and there are grounds for asking the University to fund academic support to overseas students.

 

Academic Appeals

YUSU continues to use the A&WO and other officers where necessary, to deliver academic appeals. Both staff and officers feel that “student representation” is empowering to users and particularly effective. All preparation work is done by the Welfare Co-coordinator and officers receive a detailed brief. The SWS were open to either YUSU officers or staff representing, but had seen the advantages of student representatives on some occasions. Other Unions used a mix of officer and staff representation though the trend seemed to be towards staff representation. This could be a shift in role YUSU would want to consider if workloads continue to be excessive.

 

Democracy

The democracy function including organisation of Union General Meetings and elections is currently divided between three officers. The President, Services and Finance Officer and Societies and Communications Officer. There is a requirement for a staff support function as a Membership Services who would take on such work as co-ordinating Union General Meetings and taking and uploading minutes.

 

Communication

In other unions the communication function sits with the president with significant staff support. For example Reading University has recently employed a communications manager for example.

 

IT Function Support

YUSU is making considerable use of IT throughout its work. Its website is a major method of communication with students and the union has moved to electronic delivery of student elections. Plans are afoot to make greater use of the website to sell tickets. This development has been ad hoc. Progress has depended on the skills and capacity of individual officers within a given officer team or the union has employed students to deliver individual pieces of work. The union does not have a coherent IT strategy or an IT manager. The union has an urgent need to develop an IT strategy and to either contract or employ IT management for regular technical support and ongoing development.

 

 

Relevance of Governance Review to Officer Changes

The Charity Commission places responsibility on a trustee board to set and maintain vision, mission and values of the charity and develop its long-term strategy^[7]. This should require the board to review the current Strategic Plan. The new board will want to be certain that Union’s planned services are meeting the needs of all students, as opposed to a particular section, e.g. students who like sports, or students who want cheap entertainments. As it moves forward the Union needs to be confident that it has answered questions such as:

• what are the current and likely future needs of our members
• what services do our members think about our current services
• what do our members want from us
• do our services currently meet these needs and how can they be improved

 

The answers may lead to changes in sabbatical roles which supersede this review. The Several Unions contacted demonstrated a trend to restructure officer roles away from functions linked to specific student activities such as “Rag Officer, and Sports Officer into more generic and operational roles which reflected wider need^[8]. The charity commission will require the Union to develop a competent board, whatever the mix of skill or lack of skill of its annually elected officers. The probable solution will involve election or co-option of people with “expert” skills. Creating sabbatical roles which manage operational areas such as finance and commercial services may then seem unnecessary. Refocusing officer roles on outward facing interaction with the student body, University and wider community would seem a more appropriate use of officer talents.