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

Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#21
Report 1 month ago
#21
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
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?
Enitlement to rent-free accommodation on campus, having already received a £64,000 pay increase. A £2,685 contribution towards his Ivy club membership. These perqs are not what a reasonable person would consider proportionate.
0
reply
BlueIndigoViolet
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#22
Report 1 month ago
#22
wow, bleed these fat cats dry...
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#23
Report 1 month ago
#23
(Original post by Audrey18)
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?
0
reply
Audrey18
Badges: 21
#24
Report 1 month ago
#24
(Original post by Wired_1800)
Where did you get this info from?
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.
0
reply
TimmonaPortella
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#25
Report 1 month ago
#25
(Original post by Reality Check)
Enitlement to rent-free accommodation on campus, having already received a £64,000 pay increase.
Yes, which, as discussed, is quite usual for such offices.

A £2,685 contribution towards his Ivy club membership.
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.
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#26
Report 1 month ago
#26
(Original post by Wired_1800)
Where did you get this info from?
Hearsay like all her other claims.
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#27
Report 1 month ago
#27
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
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.
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? Or maybe £5,000 towards designer shoes. Because 'it really isn't any different from making his salary £355,000, is it?'

I think you're being a bit disingenuous here... The difference between having an (arguably inflated) base salary and receiving perqs only tangentially related to the salaried office in addition to this salary are obvious, both in nature and their acceptability.
Last edited by Reality Check; 1 month ago
1
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#28
Report 1 month ago
#28
(Original post by Notoriety)
Hearsay like all her other claims.
I guessed so
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#29
Report 1 month ago
#29
(Original post by Audrey18)
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?
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#30
Report 1 month ago
#30
(Original post by Wired_1800)
Again, where did you get this info from?
Oh joy, oh rapture unforeseen. Audrey is still active on TSR :shock:
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#31
Report 1 month ago
#31
(Original post by Reality Check)
Oh joy, oh rapture unforeseen. Audrey is still active on TSR :shock:
It appears she makes random assertions.
0
reply
TimmonaPortella
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#32
Report 1 month ago
#32
(Original post by Reality Check)
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...
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.
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#33
Report 1 month ago
#33
(Original post by Wired_1800)
It appears she makes random assertions.
She is random...totally random. Maybe she's a bot.
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#34
Report 1 month ago
#34
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
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 claim, when compared to the salary was immaterial. It was what the money was being used for which created the ire. This isn't to suggest that the money was misappropriated in this case, but that's not the point. The point is that there are more considerations than just 'cost', when considering remuneration.

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.
Last edited by Reality Check; 1 month ago
1
reply
TimmonaPortella
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#35
Report 1 month ago
#35
(Original post by Reality Check)
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.
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.

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.
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.

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?
Most reasonable people, as defined by you, apparently haven't thought this through properly.

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

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', but, if it was, then so was his entire salary, some of which in the absence of the club membership may well have gone towards... a club membership. Some of it would certainly have gone towards accommodation, if the compensation package did not also include that.

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

This isn't controversial.
And that isn't an answer to anything I've said.
Last edited by TimmonaPortella; 1 month ago
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#36
Report 1 month ago
#36
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
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.
Then you would condone him being 'paid' via escorts? Or trips to a lapdancing club? They're alternative 'goods' and 'services'. Given you're being so strictly academic about this, after all. It's a ridiculous argument, that doesn't remotely hold water.

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.
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. Trying to be all 'legal' about it doesn't change that. Caesar's wife...



Perhaps there was some purpose for the university in making that membership part of the package.
Perhaps, but probably not

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.
Even less likely.

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.
See my comments regarding escorts and strippers.

I don't accept that the money going towards the club membership was 'public money'
Where do you suppose it came from then? The tooth fairy?

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

I think it's you who's struggling with a coherent argument here as to why it is acceptable for a VC of a lacklustre university to be given a £2,600 allowance from public funds towards a private club.


And that isn't an answer to anything I've said.[/quote]
0
reply
TimmonaPortella
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#37
Report 1 month ago
#37
(Original post by Reality Check)
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.
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#38
Report 1 month ago
#38
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
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.
:lol: No, it's based on your poor argument regarding remuneration. Never mind.
Last edited by Reality Check; 1 month ago
0
reply
BlueIndigoViolet
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#39
Report 1 month ago
#39
This is why the working people cannot stand by while these capitalist fat cats tread on our backs. Workers of Britain unite!

Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win!!!

0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#40
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#40
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
The club membership simply forms part of a compensation package that has to be assessed in the round.
The point is that they actually approved (one assumes) a membership of the Ivy (amongst other things) as a perk for him, which is utterly ridiculous and wasteful of the university's resources and indicates an attitude of slurging and bling-hunger amongst both him and the other senior managers there. I suspect that they were all pals together, signing off each others's bloated claims and lavish expenses. All part of the money-go-round that is today's university senior management roller coaster.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Biology Paper 3 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (333)
15.61%
The paper was reasonable (1164)
54.57%
Not feeling great about that exam... (460)
21.57%
It was TERRIBLE (176)
8.25%

Watched Threads

View All