A LAW requiring the election of University Court chairs has been criticised after a tiny number of eligible voters took part.
Only 2.2% of the electorate took part in a Dundee University election won by Ronnie Bowie, which amounted to 0.7% of students.
Scottish Tory shadow education secretary Liz Smith said: “These turnout figures bring in to question whether the new electoral system will be fully effective. It also means that those who are elected have a very limited mandate and that, in turn, draws into question accountability."
In 2016, Holyrood passed legislation backed by the SNP Government which had the aim of bringing greater accountability to universities.
Reforms included trade union representation on University Courts and the direct election of chairs, which supporters hoped would present a counter-balance to principals.
Students and staff would get a vote in the elections, which were presented as a democratisation of campus life.
Angela Constance, at that point the Education Secretary, described the passage of the Bill as an “important day” which would ensure “greater openness and transparency”.
She said: "Every voice on campus will be heard as part of elections for chairs, or senior lay members, with staff, students and union representatives involved in the whole recruitment and election process.”
However, the legislation was enacted despite criticism from Universities Scotland, which represents the principals.
The umbrella body was “extremely concerned” that chairs who did not have the confidence of governing bodies could be elected, an outcome they feared could create “conflict”.
Three years later, universities have either held their first elections or are preparing for a campus-wide ballot.
Of the 20,345 individuals who were eligible to vote in the poll at Dundee University, only 455 actually voted, a turnout of 2.2%.
An internal University document drilled down further into the figures. It revealed that while 79.1% of Court members voted, the number fell to 8.3% for staff and 0.7% for students.
The minute made clear that “disappointment” had been expressed at the low turnout: “Members agreed that in democratic terms it was arguable whether the requirements of the Act in relation to the election of the Chair provided a satisfactory platform for engagement in and awareness of institutional governance.”
It added: “Members noted that the University was potentially unique in being in a position where the incumbent Chair was standing for election, and that this may have impacted on both the number of applications and voter turnout, meaning that analysis relative to the sector would be valuable before drawing conclusions.”
At Aberdeen University, Esther Robertson was elected as “senior governor” – equivalent to a chair – after 7.46% of people voted. Nearly 20,000 staff and students were eligible to vote, but fewer than 1500 exercised this democratic right.
Smith added: “The Scottish Conservatives said at the time that the Scottish Government’s governance reforms were likely to place additional burdens on the sector without improving transparency in a way that was both workable and more democratic. We have not changed our view.”
Liam McCabe, president of the National Union of Students in Scotland, said: “NUS Scotland fully support all efforts for student and staff involvement in key decision-making, ensuring universities are representative and inclusive of the communities they serve.
“As democracy is embedded in the culture of our institutions in the future, we would hope and expect to see student turnout in these elections grow. We implore institutions to widely advertise these elections, ensuring maximum turnout, accessibility and accountability.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here