Vice Chancellor's luxury lifestyle comes to an end - De Montford

Maybe, but which ones?

I've covered the property.

As regards travel, well, to what extent did those foreign VC engagements advance the university's standing/ international community/ any other objectives? I don't know. In individual cases I might myself think they were a waste of money, but if the decisions were made properly by appropriate people I can't really object.

Maybe they weren't: maybe he invented nonsense commitments to get himself some more fancy holidays. If that's the case then I agree it wasn't in the institution's best interests, but I can't conclude that from what's in the article in OP. Seems to me it's pretty normal for such people to be involved in some foreign engagements.

What else... the 'occasional driver'? For what -- to get him to university events? That doesn't seem out of kilter with the seniority of the office, does it?

@Fullofsurprises

De Monfort is a great uni for china and pakistan students to gain entry with ease for their degree and masters programmes. Best part? Most of them can't even speak, read or write english. China students need a British degree or masters so that they can go to Canada, Australia or America to work and then settle down. Pakistan students just want to stay in UK so they can send money back home to Lahore to buy more land and build more houses for their relatives and friends.

Where did you get this info from?

A £2,685 contribution towards his Ivy club membership.

Where did you get this info from?

Yes, which, as discussed, is quite usual for such offices.



Isn't really any different from making his salary £352,685, is it? Which, since we're at £350k anyway, seems a little like hair-splitting.

Hearsay like all her other claims.

My international friends went to De Monfort. Anyway it's a national phenomenon. It's really easy to get into a UK uni which is outside of the top 30. There may be some initial resistance such as rejection of the first application etc but the second time round is always easier to get in.

Again, where did you get this info from?

Oh joy, oh rapture unforeseen. Audrey is still active on TSR

It's entirely different. How about giving him a champagne allowance of £5,000 a year? Or maybe a £5,000 entitlement towards having a duckhouse renovated? Because 'it really isn't any different from making his salary £355,000, is it?'

I think you're being a bit disingenuous here...

It appears she makes random assertions.

I really don't see how it is different. I don't know why it was structured in that way, but I can't see in what way it could be more objectionable than just paying him that much extra. Perhaps you can explain it to me.

If you're objecting to his remuneration package, the flat and the club membership are obviously insignificant next to his salary.

I was editing my post as you wrote your reply. See above. You're attempting to argue that the only consideration is the 'base cost' of these perqs, and that the cost is 'insignificant' when compared to the total remuneration package. This is why I'm suggesting you're being disingenuous.

When one thinks back to the MPs expenses scandal of 2010, what do people remember? Not the exact 'values' of what was claimed for, but that otherwise well remunerated MPs were claiming expenses for duck houses and tennis court cleaning. The exact amount of the misappropriate claim, when compared to the salary was immaterial. It was what the money was being used for which created the ire.

Most reasonable people would feel that if you're being paid £350,000, then you should be paying your own club membership, and not having it paid for by your employer. And, to make it worse, you are the figurehead of an organisation overwhelmingly funded by public money and are allowing, or condoning, the use of this public money to your own personal benefit, with very marginal (if any) benefit to your organisation. Is this 'proper'? Do you think most 'normal' people would be ambivalent about this?

This isn't controversial.

I am arguing that it cannot be more objectionable, if it is objectionable at all, to pay someone £5000 in particular goods or services than it is to pay them £5000 without any such restriction. I am yet to see you connect that in any coherent manner to your allegation of disingenuity.

The important thing about the expenses scandal was the dishonesty involved in the claims. Dishonestly claiming a second flat as an expense is very different from being given a second flat up front as part of your remuneration. If people's ire was otherwise directed that is because people did not clearly analyse the situation.

Perhaps there was some purpose for the university in making that membership part of the package.

Perhaps it was thought good for the university to give the VC somewhere to develop particular connections that could be used for the benefit of the university.

Perhaps none of that is true. I can't see that in either case paying for someone's club membership to the tune of £x is worse than giving them £x.

I don't accept that the money going towards the club membership was 'public money'

I'm not interested in general suggestions as to what 'normal' people would think. Make an argument.

No, not at all. Part of the scandal was that well-remunerated public sector workers were seen with their snouts in the trough claiming money for unnecessary luxuries.

Claiming as expenses, rather than receiving as set perks.

I'm not going to spend any more of my evening on this. Your approach to this is extremely woolly and seems largely based on what other people's visceral reaction might be.

The club membership simply forms part of a compensation package that has to be assessed in the round.