Back to La Trobe University

Appeal to release La Trobe's Marketing and Engagement Review to staff

Posted 18 December 2012 by Serena O'Meley (La Trobe University)

Staff in the Division of Marketing and Engagement were asked to participate in a review of their work area which was conducted by external consultants.  Senior management refused to release the outcome of the review with the stated reasons for concealing the document changing on no less than three occasions. 

NTEU believes it undermines the confidence of the university community to participate in reviews if documents are kept secret, the terms of reference apparently shift midway through the process and if individuals are singled out in what should be an assessment of the broader work area.

NTEU is appealing the decision to reject a Freedom of Information request as follows:

12 December 2012

Ms Natalie MacDonald
Vice President (Administration)
La Trobe University
BUNDOORA  VIC  3086

Dear Natalie,

Re:  Freedom of Information Request 341/07  - Appeal

NTEU, on behalf of its members, sought the release through FOI of the Marketing and Engagement Strategic Review.  I attach for your information the terms of reference for the Review.

NTEU appeals the grounds that Ms Fiona Rowley (FOI Officer) has provided for rejecting the request, as follows:

Section 30 Exemption & Section 35 Exemption

There are assertions in these two exemptions that the release of the Review is 'contrary to the public interest'. 

Senior management has not provided sufficient detail about why the release of the Review would be contrary to the public interest, particularly in light of the fact that such reviews are a frequent occurrence within the University and the discussion papers are usually circulated to staff. 

NTEU believes that it is contrary to the public interest to refuse to release the Review because it is likely to make people less willing to participate in such reviews in the future, especially if there is a belief that their open and considered feedback will not be treated with good faith.

The claim for FOI exemptions on the basis of an unsubstantiated claim relating to the public interest also represents a further shift by senior management in the stated grounds for refusing to release the Review.

Following the completion of the Review, Professor Rosenberg met with staff and advised them that the documentation could not be released because this would breach the consultation requirements of the managing change provisions in the collective agreement. 

When I challenged Professor Rosenberg in relation to this statement during a meeting with him on 18 October 2012 he acknowledged this was not a correct interpretation of the managing change requirements set out in the collective agreement.  He told me that the real reasons he made the decision to withhold the Review were because, 1) it had "highly critical" things to say about individuals, 2) management doesn't agree with all of the "strong recommendations" in the report, and 3) he didn't want people to be unnecessarily "worried".

Section 33 Exemption

This exemption pertains to release of the personal affairs and identified opinions of individuals. 

These privacy grounds should not have been a factor given that Professor Rosenberg gave staff the following categorical assurance,

"The review will focus on the adequacy or otherwise of the Division's budget and the efficiency with which resources are utilised.  I stress to you that this review is not about Divisional or individual performance – it is well recognised that the Division has achieved excellent results over the past few years.  The review will be quite short and we hope to have a report in about four weeks" (email dated 29 June 2012).

The terms of reference for the Review do not provide a brief to stray into the realms of the assessment and performance of individual staff members.  If “highly critical” information is contained in the Review and it is not released to named individuals then they are being denied their natural justice rights to respond to adverse material against them.  This could be construed as a breach of the collective agreement, which has discrete performance management and assessment procedures. 

The last sentence of Professor Rosenberg’s email (extracted above) implies that the Review would be released to staff; they participated in the Review trusting that this would be the case.  The failure to release the document is exacerbating a sense of anxiety and lack of control amongst staff regarding the direction of their work unit. 

NTEU would expect that a professionally compiled report would be at some pains to aggregate the opinions of individuals for the purpose of focusing upon the terms of reference.  If the document is not released because of privacy concerns it calls into question the validity of the entire Review, which appears to have significantly exceeded its terms of reference.

Request for release of the Review

During my meeting with Professor Rosenberg on 18 October 2012 I suggested that he could provide a redacted copy of the Review if this was necessary to meet NTEU’s request for its release.  In addition, I suggested to Professor Rosenberg that if he disagreed with the conclusions of the consultants that he could provide a statement to staff about those elements of the Review that were in contention.  These offers continue to stand.

Everyone is acutely aware that the contents of the Review will strongly influence the direction of a pending restructure of the Division of Marketing and Engagement.  In fact, this restructure is being preempted by what appears to be a recommendation of the Review to create a new Chief Marketing Officer without recourse to the consultation requirements of the collective agreement. Staff deserve to be informed and consulted by senior management in a timely and considered fashion about the implications of the Review and the future of the Division.

In order to maintain confidence in the internal processes of the University, and in recognition of the importance of good communication and transparency in decision-making, I ask that the Review be immediately released to staff. 

Yours sincerely,

Serena O’Meley
Branch Industrial Organiser

cc:  Virginia Mansel Lees (Branch President)

Review of the Resourcing, Efficiency and Practices of the Division of Marketing and Engagement

Terms of Reference

i.           Review the current level of resourcing of the Division of Marketing and Engagement, in light of:

• The cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the current structure
• The number of staff and levels of these staff allocated to the various functions covered by the Division
• The quantum and allocation of the non-salary budget to cost centres

ii.           Undertake a qualitative and where possible a quantitative comparison of the resourcing with other similar universities (size, market position, competitive set, history etc.).

iii.           Investigate how the current budget compares to other service sectors such as health insurance, banking etc. (as percentage of total revenue).

iv.           Analyse the size and location of the market we need to reach in order to achieve the University’s goals, and estimate the cost of the required media and advertising campaigns to reach this market.

v.           Review the efficiency and effectiveness of the current schools liaison model, with particular regard to the appropriate number of contacts with schools required to generate leads and increase the number of conversions to achieve targets, as well as an estimate of the resources required to undertake this work.

vi.           Review the relationship between central and faculty marketing and recruitment functions with regards to the balance of resourcing, the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the current model
Specifically review the resources currently allocated to postgraduate marketing and recruitment.
Recommend any changes to the level of resourcing, the structure of resourcing for the Division and the Divisions’ practices that the University would need to make to achieve the goals established by the University for 2017.

Strategic Analysis – Resourcing efficiency and practices

For each critical activity:

• What is its relative strategic importance compared to: 1. other M&E activities; and, 2. Other non- academic activities, i.e. how does it rate across the University?
• What are the implications of not providing the service?
• Can it be provided in a different way?
• Are resources being used in the best way?
• Is the University getting value for money?
• Are the needs being met? How do you know?
• Can the service be provided more effectively? More efficiently?
• Is there any duplication or overlap?
• Is there something not being done that should be done?
• Is the service being provided at the right level?
• What would be the benefit of a 20% increase in funding?
• What would be the impact of a 20% decrease in funding?

Other
(211 KB) - PDF

La Trobe Freedom of Information Appeal (Marketing & Engagement Review)

Published: 17 Dec, 2012
Tags: la trobe, LTU, marketing and engagement, review,

Staff in Marketing and Engagement at La Trobe were asked to participate in a review but were not given the final report. This letter appeals the decision to refuse release of the report on FOI grounds.