As the dust settles on the skirmishes of the early part of the week, some reflections on how #USS responded to my analysis. In short, @UCU's motion from June calling for Bill Galvin to resign is looking more pertinent than ever. 1/ @JosephineCumbo @MikeOtsuka @henryhtapper
First, the claim of an "incomplete understanding", and regret that "these views were not shared and discussed with us prior to publication, as the fundamental issues have been addressed in various forms over the course of the valuation". 2/
I'm glad that #USS think they can see inside my head, but their mind-reading appears to have gone awry. I have a very good understanding of their funding proposals, having read pretty much all the documentation they've released over the past 4 years. 3/
They also arranged 'valuation training' for the JNC members, at which, unfortunately, I learnt nothing new. That's more than can be said for the scheme actuary and his colleague, but more on that another time. 4/
On the regulation, I've read the principles there too. True, I've never met with the regulator, but that's a different issue. In any case, I wasn't making "proposals", but pointing out that there was material information relevant to the valuation that had never been released. 5/
And next, the cheek to claim that these views should have been discussed with them before airing them publicly. Where to start? I've been asking for these figures for OVER A YEAR! If they were keen to discuss them, they had a funny way of showing it. 6/
Not only that, but I HAD discussed these findings with them! This was at the JNC's valuation training, before they'd verified the calculations themselves, but three weeks after I'd sent them my calculations asking them to correct any errors. 7/ 
(This was the same training session where their actuaries seemed caught out, but again, more on that another time.) 8/
And wait, what's this? A request for them to run these figures in advance of the 26 September JNC meeting so that they could be discussed? Surely not. Unfortunately, they didn't have enough notice to produce them in time. 9/
I am highly sympathetic to workload considerations, but don't they have a very well resourced head office, and isn't this a pretty quick job? (It was for me.) Perhaps two days' notice was pushing it...
Oh, wait a minute: I'd been asking for these figures for OVER A YEAR. 10/
Oh, wait a minute: I'd been asking for these figures for OVER A YEAR. 10/
I have plenty more I could (and will) say about this week's statements from #USS - that's just dealing with an early paragraph of the first one - but I'll have to return to it another time, as I don't have a highly paid PR team working round the clock on this. 11/
But I will finish by saying that there is substance to what the figures show that can't be dismissed easily by #USS, no matter how they try to spin things. 12/
Perhaps more importantly, #USS's attempts to avoid having to discuss these figures for OVER A YEAR may have had a part to play in the biggest shut-down of higher education in decades. For that, their senior executives need to be held to account. 13/13
