By John Kelly, EIS/FELA president

THE Herald’s reporting of the proposed “outrageous 17 per cent pay hike” for Robin Ashton, executive director of Glasgow Colleges Regional Board (GCRB), is timely and significant.

The board of GCRB has backed down after interventions from the Scottish Parliament’s Public Audit Committee and Deputy First Minister John Swinney. However, serious questions have to be asked of those involved in this debacle. GCRB was set up as a regional body to help run the city’s three further education colleges. In Lanarkshire there is a similar set up to oversee two colleges.

But in Lanarkshire there is no executive director. Instead, a chairman leads the region with remuneration capped annually at some £20,000. GCRB currently pays its executive director £81,000 and the board’s decision to award him a pay increase would have taken his salary to £95,000. Many of us have supported the need for regional boards but, when reports from across the college sector make it clear that it has never been so poorly funded and with many institutions reporting dire financial situations, the GCRB pay proposal was staggering.

The interim chairman of the GCRB, Grahame Smith, who is also general secretary of the STUC, had defended the pay rise, even suggesting that it could have been higher. Meanwhile, Dr John Kemp, interim chief executive of the Scottish Funding Council (SFC), told the Public Audit Committee that he had decided not to intervene to stop the pay increase despite having the powers to do so.

Apart from the obvious concerns of so many “interim” individuals being involved in governance of further education, this case highlights at least two long running scandals in the sector: failure of governance and lack of transparency.

The Herald has reported on these issues. Senior management pay across the sector needs a wider spotlight shone on it. Many principals earn more than Mr Swinney and First Minister Nicola Sturgeon. Surely those involved in this botched proposal must take a good hard look at themselves. While Dr Kemp welcomed the GCRB decision to back down, we have to ask why did he not act himself. We have heard this story before in the case of John Doyle, the former principal of Coatbridge College, who took an inflated pay-off while the SFC stood by.

Questions also have to be asked of the role of Mr Smith in supporting an indefensible decision. Mr Smith said last week that the executive director salary was £25,000 less than it could have been under an evaluation of Mr Ashton’s role and 40 per cent lower than the highest paid college principal. This would suggest he supports the proposal.

As trade unionists, we find it unacceptable that the leader of the STUC seeks to defend an enormous pay hike for a senior executive while thousands of trade union members across colleges are in dispute with management over pay and conditions.

In his defence of the decision,

Mr Smith uses the word “responsibility” but we feel he has a responsibility to trade union members and would ask him to consider his position on the GCRB and to take a hard look at his role as general secretary of the STUC.

Mr Swinney’s intervention is timely but it only highlights the problems we face in further education, a sector that needs funding, transparency and leadership. We fear that this fiasco further damages the sector; one that is essential to the lives of many of our young people.

John Kelly is president of the EIS/Further Education Lecturers Association. Co-authored by Pam Currie, vice president and Charlie Montgomery, salaries convener.