I am writing to clarify some of the issues raised in Whistleblowers in recent months, particularly two relating to the old school of management at the University of Hull.
The first of these relates to the circumstances under which ten students (not 12 as was claimed in The THES, January 28) in the department of accounting and finance were raised from a third-class to a 2:2 degree in June 1996. This was done in consultation with the external examiner and the chair of the student progress committee and received overwhelming support from a departmental meeting. Only then were the revised grades made public. My memory of the departmental meeting is supported by three senior members of the department, who stated at the time in a memorandum to the academic registrar: "We strongly resent the implication that we and our colleagues would have acceded to any changes in marks or grades on the basis either of financial considerations or fear of being seen to disagree with the dean, and we must stress again in conclusion that we were motivated entirely by concerns of natural justice."
However, the Association of University Teachers complained and the then vice-chancellor called for an investigation, which concluded that the new awards were indeed correct but that they should have been changed by a reconvened examination board.
The vice-chancellor issued me with a formal reproof. I never had an opportunity to see the report of the investigation or to make any representations in my defence, and after I appealed, the vice-chancellor agreed that the reproof would be removed from my file and assured me in writing that he had treated the matter as confidential, that no copies of the letter of reproof were ever distributed and that the letter had now been destroyed.
The second inaccuracy in your articles is the supposed trading loss of around Pounds 500,000 in the department of management systems and sciences (a constituent part of the school) while I was dean of the school. This is entirely erroneous, for MSS always produced an operating surplus. But it did build up an accumulated deficit of around Pounds 500,000 because the university allowed it to recruit additional staff without reference to the dean. The school of management as a whole had an accumulated surplus of close to Pounds 1 million when it was disbanded.
From 1994 onwards I drew the attention of the university to the deteriorating financial position of MSS. The vice-chancellor eventually called in Coopers & Lybrand to investigate. Its report, which as before was not made available to me, identified some debatable claims within MSS for taxis and telephone expenses, both of which I had already reported to the internal auditor and the finance office. Subsequently, I was reprimanded by the vice-chancellor, though again no formal action was taken. To receive a reprimand for matters I had brought to the attention of the university was so bizarre that I was too astounded to appeal.
Overall, I cannot understand why Whistleblowers has devoted so much space to me during the past few months. But the experience has disproved two common adages: there is such a thing as bad publicity and there can easily be smoke without fire.
R. J. Briston