The University of York’s Vice-Chancellor, Professor Brian Cantor, has claimed nearly £135,000 in expenses in the last three financial years in figures obtained by Vision. This represents a startling 50% increase in the amount he claimed in the three years beforehand, where the Vice-Chancellor had already claimed £90,000.
Travel expenses have made up the bulk of these expenses. In the last two years alone, Cantor managed to claim £57,590 in plane tickets, a marked increase from 2006/07 where only £12,252 was reimbursed.
Professor Cantor refused to comment on his expenses. In a statement from the university, the amounts have been justified on the grounds that York is an international institution and that travelling all over the world is the nature of the job.“[T]he Vice-Chancellor lead[s] an organisation with a £225m income, educating 12,000 students and employing 3,000 staff with all the demands that entails. York has a hard-earned reputation as one of the world’s leading universities, which in turn brings significant benefits to our students. International travel is a necessary part of maintaining and developing that global standing.”
However, in the last financial year, the £50,542 claimed by the Vice-Chancellor dwarves other top public sector workers. Mark Thompson, the Director-General of the BBC, a corporation with an income of £4.6 billion, claimed just £15,919 in the last nine months gone. In fact Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University, Professor Andrew Hamilton, managed to get by on only £26,957 in the same time period as Cantor; yet Hamilton is in charge of a higher-ranking university with an income in excess of £676 million and with a massive student population of 20,330.
Cantor’s expenses data was received after Vision filed a Freedom of Information request to the university demanding a “Full breakdown of all expenses, both paid for directly and those reimbursed by the university, of all staff at the University of York with the word “Chancellor” in their title … for the last three financial years available.”
Cantor’s claims from the University also paled the other top members of staff. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor and the six Pro-Vice-Chancellors claimed, all together, £92,225 over three years, compared to £134,857 for the Vice-Chancellor alone.
York University uses a travel management company located near campus called NYS Corporate, to arrange a large amount of their air and train travel, as well as to book accommodation for staff. We presented our findings to a former lecturer at the university who regularly used the service. She stated: “The fact that the travel costs are so high doesn’t surprise me in the least bit. There was no incentive to book things cheaply. I would often buy train tickets the day before a journey, knowing I would be fully reimbursed. Plane tickets would often cost an astronomical amount when they were booked soon to the departure date.”
As part of this investigation Vision filed the same request to several other universities. Unfortunately York failed, unlike these other universities, to list specific claims, and are deferring their full response for at least another month.
At a time of recession, with the ominous signs of the University having recently cut the porter service, reduced cleaning services and with the prospect of a removal of the tuition fee cap looming large, this story absolutely disgusts me.
I don’t need to see a full list to know instinctively that Cantor’s expenses will be in many cases, unjustified- just compare them to the other Vice Chancellors. The fact that the University are dragging their heels suggests that the detailed amounts will be less than justifiable.
Last month, I tried to find out whether the University had any funds for a small grant to cover travel costs to enable me to take up a work experience placement in London, and was told no such fund exists (although most other Universities have dedicated grants etc. available). Similarly, the Access to Learning Fund were forced to reduce last year the amounts of awards made to students in financial difficulty. While it seems there isn’t a couple of hundred quid to help me out, there’s a good few grand for Cantor to jet around the world- and he’s already got an amazingly well paid job, superb benefits and lives (I think I’m right in saying) rent free? I’m just trying to get a foot on the ladder.
While students are facing the prospect of paying yet more- ostensibly to make up what are so often called ‘subsidised’ tuition fee cost- in reality it would seem that the money will be used for Cantor to take flash jollies- and getting bugger all themselves, either directly in terms of improved teaching, facilities or welfare.
Cantor can well predict ‘dark times ahead’ for the uni- but it’s alright, cause he can just pop off to ‘improve our international standing’ for a few days.
He should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.
no wonder we can’t afford 24 hour portering!
I’m sure that the University would like to improve their students’ “employability” and by providing such travel funds, as mentioned by Kelly, maybe they’d succeed in doing so. They tell us so often that work experience is crucial yet without sufficient support, many students simply can’t afford to undertake placements. I am sure that the funds would be far and away from the vice chancellor’s expenditure.
Picked up by BBC and the York Press:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/8689855.stm
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/8170732.University_of_York_chief___s___135k_expenses/
Just to let you know, he does work for a number of companies where he is highly paid, including Rolls Royce, and any salary paid is donated to the University. I’m sure that that covers his expenses…
Well it doesn’t really, does it? Even if that’s true, if he’s donated money he can’t just claim it back. I don’t hand the RSPCA a tenner and ask for a couple of quid back for the parking. It could however explain the sheer amount claimed back; maybe he thought he was entitled to it?
The V-C is an over-paid scrounger who pleads poverty on stuff like
portering but then miraculously finds an endless pot of money for
last-minute flight-bookings charges and inflation-busting salary
hikes for himself and his cronies, going back years. Why is he
spending university work time on working for Rolls Royce? It can’t
be because he wants to earn us money, because if he cared about our
finances then he wouldn’t rip so much money off us. I suspect his
motivation is something to do with keeping his hand in with the world
of industry so he can get himself lucrative consultancy work once he
retires, in the manner of ex-ministers and the like.
This the same Rolls Royce that is an arms dealer and that the university invests a lot of money in? Seems like the university doesn’t gain much out of this relationship. And if he’s earning that much then surely he shouldn’t be allowed any expenses? £250,000 per year is enough of a wage to allow for the flights – especially if he’s earning money from other people too, right?
~ – I don’t know about any of the other relationships throughout the Uni, but in Computer Science at least Rolls Royce (and many other defence companies) pour a fortune into the department. I’ve been taught by some of the leaders in the field because of this funding. Burns and Wellings in particular quite literally wrote all the books on safety critical systems which among other things go into the engines for jets (including passenger ones!). Just Google their names.
Obviously, this doesn’t cover the moral issue of the fact Rolls Royce do produce items for the military too. And obviously, Cantor is a materials expert not a Comp-Sci. But still. We definitely do benefit.
Or I do at least ;)
Come on, can you really say you were surprised to find this out?
Never mind about you getting some fancy lecturers or whatever.
Bombing peasants, or whatever Rolls Royce do, is not cool, and
is unjustifiable enough that… well, perks for undergraduates
don’t justify any of it, and shouldn’t really be put on the plus
side at all. Kind of tasteless, if you ask me. Dead babies in
mud huts and all that. Not good. Returning to the main point …
Cantor is a shameless, greedy, self-serving careerist. It’d be
nice if the person in charge of a university could be more into
education and students than brazenly lining his own pockets.
Eau Rouge – yes, I was surprised, actually. I didn’t know that
Cantor was THIS greedy. Good on Vision for investigating it.
there are some numpties here.
Rolls-Royce are great engineers and provide lots of employment here in the UK.
They don’t make weapons of any sort.
Rolls Royce only makes engines. You may as well call the screw and bolt manufacturers that go onto F16 baby killers. This whole RR and BAE are evil, baby killing corporations has got rather old, hasn’t it? I’ve heard that people staged a scene in front of BAE’s stall in the careers fair, despite the fact that a company that actually manufactures rockets occupied the stall right next to them! But they were not bothered at all…
Concerning Cantor, it does seem that he spends more that he should. However, I only say this because of the comparison to other VCs. We must keep in mind that his job is to represent York, and as such he does have to travel. Also, remember that he is an expert in his field, and he could easily have a job paying much more than the one he has. Finally, it seems that he is quite good at what he does. Under his tenure, York has been climbing the league tables and has been included in the top 100 universities in the world. He’s probably better than Oxford’s VC, whose university is now ranked lower than UCL!
In other words, it’s a simple matter of economics: he has a lot of bargaining power and he’s good in his job.
A.
“it seems that he is quite good at what he does. Under his tenure, York has been climbing the league tables”
This is quite simply not true. Cantor took over in 2002, since then we have either fell in the rankings or remained static. For consecutive years, many league tables put us as the best university outside Oxbridge and London at 6th. Since Cantor’s tenure, York’s ranking has been more erratic having dropped to 16th at one point. In recent years we have re-entered the top 10 but lower than where we were 10 years ago.
For some reason, we have dropped in UK tables, but have a look at our performance in international ones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_york#League_tables
From 137 to 70 in 5 years… not bad!
A.
I usually read Nouse but just read this here and realised that it’s the same lonely people writing on both… Sad face.
“This whole RR and BAE are evil, baby killing corporations has got rather old, hasn’t it?” Quite right. RR only build the engine, not the entire fighter.
And Cantor doesn’t drop the bombs himself. And ethics are, like, SO 2009.
I don’t know how they calculate the international tables, but they don’t
bear any resemblance to the pecking order on the national lists, which are
the ones which matter most. The world ranking is some kind of anomaly,
and York never mentioned the existence of that list until it found some way
of climbing higher up it. It’s all just spin and selective statistics, and
students shouldn’t buy into it. Cantor has in effect been awarding himself
enormous bonuses for presiding over a significant drop in the league tables
which really matter, and justifying this by citing a table which has far
less significance. If we had really improved as much as the international
tables suggest, or indeed improved at all, why did we drop in the UK tables?
Because UK institutions are all getting so much better, and worldwide ones
are getting so much worse? I doubt it. Cantor’s self-awarded bonuses,
year after year, are unjustifiable, as are his ridiculous expenses claims.
“And ethics are, like, SO 2009.”
How about actually responding to my point instead of resorting to sarcasm? Why should the engine manufacturers be considered baby killers, whilst the same does not apply to the manufacturers of glass that goes on fighter jets? Or why not blame radar producers as well? How about those who develop the seats? I do not see how my argument makes me unethical. If you talk with anyone who knows me personally, they will tell you that I am a very ethical person – I just do not buy this whole ‘let’s blame Rolls Royce’ thing going on, because it is entirely baseless.
What makes you think that national tables are better researched or more valuable than international ones? It is indeed all a spin of statistics, but the same can be said for the national tables.
A.
Aris, is it not time to move on to pastures new?
That was a 2nd. “Anon”, by the way.
Companies which make large-cost components of jets have a lot
to be blamed for. Companies which make the smaller, cheaper
components should likewise take responsibility, but to a lesser
extent than the ones who make major, ultra-costly things like
the engine and the body. There’s nothing wrong with calling
companies baby-killers if that’s what they help to do.
I hate messageboards. You say one thing, and then have to spend
20 minutes a day for the next week explaining the obvious to people
who for some reason can’t think of counter-arguments to their own
points. People should think for a minute before posting stuff …
and then preferably not post at all.
The national tables tend to agree with each other, more or less.
The world league is suspiciously erratic. I haven’t researched
the criteria for the world list, and don’t intend to. I have
more pressing things to do. But I already have enough basic
information about it to be able to see that there is something
dodgy about it all.
Can’t be bothered to argue after today. Right now I’d rather
spend non-work time on sitting outside in the shade somewhere
and listening to music or something.
Aris –
1) Cantor supports a company which is heavily involved with the arms
trade. But 2) other components and companies are involved with the
arms trade as well. So 3) Cantor isn’t doing anything wrong.
Great logic there.
“Aris, is it not time to move on to pastures new?”
Yep – so how about we drop this whole Rolls Royce thing?
“Companies which make large-cost components of jets have a lot
to be blamed for”
You are so naive… The world is so interconnected, that if we follow your logic, we are all to blame for something at some point. Speaking of which, I recall having a debate in front of a 100 person audience at the Union, at which I reminded people that the banks they use (HSBC and Barclays most notably) invest hundreds of millions in the arms trades. Your very deposits are invested in BAE stocks. Yet, out of all these people, only one changed their bank to the more ethical Co-op. It is easy demonstrating against the arms trade and posting anonymous comments online, but no-one bothered putting themselves through the trouble of changing their accounts. Is this not hypocrisy?
M: exactly, that’s what I said. Well done.
My point was that how come that no other companies get the blame? My point was that students need something to shout about, so they just pick one company arbitrarily and demonstrate against it. My point was that this is all very hypocritical. It’s high time people grew up.
A.
So you DID say that X being as bad as Y makes X okay. That is
totally ridiculous.
RR got mentioned because that happens to be the particular arms-
related company which our Vice-Chancellor works for.
Deary me, York will never rise in the league tables if they keep admitting people like you…
I did not say that, I just asked ‘if Y is as bad as X, then why do I never hear any protests against Y?’ Probably because a well known name such as RR makes for an easy target.
In my opinion however, RR are not evil: they are a company that produces engines, period. No weaponry, no targeting software, none of that. The fact that some military corporations also purchase their products does not make them evil. Besides, I don’t even know which companies do use their engines – it may well be that it is companies that only provide weaponry to developed, stable countries and not to oppressive regimes. One of their main clients is the Ministry of Defence, not some country using weaponry to oppress their people.
Now, how about you grow up a bit, and stop complaining about the ‘big evil corporations’, which, after all, contribute far more than you do to society? [including providing jobs, income through taxes etc, and let’s also remember that RR was one of the UK’s main suppliers during the World Wars].
A.
“Well done”, “it’s high time people grew up”, “York will never
rise in the league tables if they keep admitting people like you”,
“grow up”, “…contribute far more than you do to society”. You’d
be easier to take seriously if you didn’t keep veering off into of
all those petulant, over-easy, ad hominem little asides.
“Why I never hear any protests against Y”. Y was not mentioned in
relation to the above story because X was involved and Y wasn’t.
And you would be easier to discuss with if you actually answered to any points instead of focusing on how I structure my arguments. You skipped my whole point about RR not being evil. But of course, you are likely to skip stuff if you have nothing to say on them, right? Besides, it’s not like you have stuck to the point – you were the one to resort to sarcasm and misconstruction of my points.
A.
Aris,
You seem to think yourself so academically superior that you can talk down to people. It’s not pleasant for anyone to read and it’s certainly not smart.
I would also suggest you invest a little time reading up about the arms trade, in particular Rolls-Roycle plc and BAE Systems. Especially in the case of BAE, you’ll find they do sell to areas of conflict and to customers considered by the Foreign Office’s Human Rights report to be ‘major countries of concern.’ If you’d like to visit the Campaign Against Arms Trade website you’ll be able to find some great stats and information.
Warmest Regards
A
Campaign against Arms Trade website, sounds like a reliable, impartial website