Thread by @etymologic

"A Tale of Perfidious Infamy!"
or
How @UniversitiesUK botched, bungled and biased its September 2017 survey of #USS employers. 👇 (THREAD)

Recall: In October, UUK reported that 42% of #USS employers had REJECTED the level of risk proposed by the USS trustees - based on Question 3 of an online survey. UUK received 116 responses from "#USS employers".
henrytapper.com/2017/12/03/you…

The 42% claim informed the JNC deliberations. In Jan, the JNC voted to end the Defined-Benefit scheme. It came down to the Chair's casting vote.
The 42% claim was repeated in a formal document: "UUK's response to the USS Technical Provisions consultation"

1.3 "Any percentage statistics reported in this note are based on the September survey."
2.4 "A significant minority (42%) of survey respondents want less risk to be taken - including some of the very largest employers"
Conclusions: 10.2.c "42% would like to take less risk".

This 42% figure is now under scrutiny, from 4 angles:
1. Who responded?
2. Was the survey manipulated?
3. Why did UUK count unauthorized responses?
4. Who on earth are the 42%?

1. Who responded?
@MikeOtsuka found that "one third" of 42% is made up of Oxbridge colleges. That's 16 colleges.
King's College (Cambridge) has stated that its survey response, made by the Bursar, was NOT the authorized view of the college.
kings.cam.ac.uk/news/2018/stat…

This is unlikely to be an isolated case. The Intercollegiate Bursars Committee encouraged its members to respond to the Sep 17 survey to REJECT risk. And ALL those responses made by a Bursar, rather than the Governing Body, should be regarded as unauthorized. It might be all 16!

Question 2 of the survey read as follows: "Confirm that ... [this is] ... the authorized view of the institution."
A diligent Bursar will have answered No to this question.
In fact, Cambridge Univ and, it seems, Oxford Univ also replied NO to this question!

My former college said that the online survey notification just NINE days before the deadline (though the survey questions were released earlier). There was simply no time to put together a college view. It is likely that the only college responses came via the Bursar, not the GB

Now recall that UUK received 116 responses. There are 68 post-92 Universities, and 16 Oxbridge colleges rejected risk. That still leaves ~32 "#USS employers" unidentified. Who were they? We don't know for sure, but ...

... perhaps the pre-1992 Unis (mostly on the TPS), charities, learned societies HE bodies & consortia, companies, childcare centres, learned societies. Even USS, UUK & its HR wing the UCEmployersAssocation are "#USS employers" which may have responded:

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @etymologic view original on Twitter

For example, Louise Richardson, VC of Oxford, is a director of *four* others #USS employers:
* Said Business School
* Oxford Uni Endowment Management Ltd (with £3 billion of assets)
* The Russell Group
* UniversitiesUK

As well as 30+ colleges, Cambridge has other #USS entities, e.g.:
* Office of Intercollegiate Services Ltd (feat. King's College Bursar)
* The Cambridge Venue Company Ltd (feat. several other Bursars)
* University of Cambridge Dental Practice Ltd

Most likely, the tiny #USS employers did not respond to the survey. But *until* we know the identity of the remaining ~32 entities we can't be sure that the survey responses were not manipulated. UUK must release the list, in the interests of trust & transparency.

3. Why did UUK count unauthorized responses?
This I find baffling. Recall that Cambridge & Oxford (probably), our two most prestigious universities, replied NO to question 2. Cardiff did too & others. Q2 was set *specifically* to check that an institutional view had been reached.

Now we learn, via FT Pensions Correspondent @JosephineCumbo, that UUK "did not keep track of whether the responses were authorised". Come on! It was Q2 in your own survey! This shocks me. It looks like bad faith.

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @JosephineCumbo view original on Twitter

One possible interpretation is that UUK chose to count unauthorised views to boost its key number to 42%. If it *did not* include unauthorized views, it would have lost Cambridge, Oxford, and (I presume) 16 Oxbridge colleges from the 42% figure, as well as up to ~32 others.

In short, by including unauthorized views, UniversitiesUK boosted the key figure to 42%. Without unauthorized views, it would have been lower. @UniversitiesUK - if I am wrong on this, PLEASE challenge this claim and respond publicly.

Which brings us to ... Q4. Who on earth are the 42%?
So far, we know of just ONE authorised institutional response that rejected risk: Bristol Uni ... mostly because Unis have resisted legitimate FoI requests, see here: whatdotheyknow.com/user/neil_davi…

Recently, we are seeing self-governance steps at both Cambridge & Oxford to challenge the unauthorized views in the September survey. Academics are "taking back control", and ...

All eyes will be on the Sheldonian in Oxford's at 2pm on Tuesday. Rumours are afoot of a Exec move to delay self-governance until April, by coordinating 20 members to stand up in opposition. Such cynical moves, if attempted, will surely turn Oxford dons against their VC and SMT.

Finally, a challenge for institutions to have the courage of their convictions:

Calling all institutions in favour of rejecting the September level of #USS risk! Please - come forward now and argue your case in public. The time for lurking in the shadows is over! (Ends).

Correction: In tweets 10 & 11 I got pre-92 and post-92 the wrong way around, and referred to the TPS, when I meant "Government-backed pension scheme".