Neil Sands
The University of Auckland has postponed a key vote on its proposal to merge the law and business faculties after complaints about a plan by the university council to deal with the matter behind closed doors.
The council was due to consider the merger at a meeting today (Monday), but the exact recommendation being put forward by vice-chancellor Dawn Freshwater was unknown as the matter was set to be discussed and voted in secret.
Law School staffers, who vehemently oppose the merger, had criticised the “veil of secrecy” around the meeting, and it is understood The Law Association of New Zealand (TLANZ) also raised concerns in a letter to the chancellor Cecilia Tarrant.
The university’s plans changed late on Friday, when Freshwater reversed her previous position and proposed that the council should discuss the matter in public, sources told LawNews.
However, since there was insufficient time to prepare and distribute updated agenda papers before Monday’s meeting, the matter was deferred to a date yet to be determined.
The university’s senate, which provides advice to the council, has already overwhelmingly rejected the proposal by 120 vote to 51 and a university-appointed review committee failed to give it clear backing.
In addition to Law School staff, students, alumni and the broader legal profession, including eminent judges and TLANZ, strongly oppose the plan which is viewed as a takeover by the business school rather than a merger of equals.
Real public interest
Prior to the university’s U-turn on debating the matter in public, LawNews asked why it was being dealt with behind closed doors, given the high levels of interest in the matter.
The university responded: “Some parts of the university council meetings are not open to the public to protect privacy and maintain confidentiality.”
In its letter to Tarrant, TLANZ is understood to have objected to the secret ballot, saying the issue was of real public interest to stakeholders and the community, as well as pointing to broader concerns about the university’s consultation and consideration process.
It rejected the university’s reasons for excluding the public, pointing out that an open debate would not jeopardise anyone’s privacy or prejudice any negotiations, and there was no risk the information being discussed could be used for improper gain.
The Tertiary Education Union (TEU) has not ruled out seeking a judicial review if the university council approves the merger plan, saying it should have been immediately dropped after the senate vote.
Law School staff, speaking on condition of anonymity, say other parties are also understood to be considering legal action.
They say major donors are believed to have expressed concern to the university.
In 1999, the TEU’s forerunner, the Association of University Staff, successfully sought a judicial review in the High Court that scuppered plans for a radical restructure at the University of Waikato, including its law school.
Critics of the University of Auckland’s proposal have raised fears it could lead to an exodus of experienced academics and jeopardise the faculty’s status as New Zealand’s top-ranked institution for legal education.
They also criticise the “problematic” consultation process staged by the university and question the “vague” case put forward for the merger, saying it lacks evidence or any attempt at cost-benefit-risk analysis.
The university’s review committee, which itself faced criticism because it contained no practising lawyers or barristers, has made a series of recommendations aimed at making the proposal more palatable if it proceeds.
They include keeping the law and business schools’ academic programs autonomous, a U-turn on splitting the Law School’s public and private law departments and maintaining the Law School’s “unique identity”.
* LawNews is an editorially independent publication owned by TLANZ
0 Comments