Monday, October 03, 2005

More on Salient

Public Address's Keith Ng has a little more on the ex-patre injunction taken out by VUW against Salient. He's not allowed to say why it has been taken out - only that

censored censored censored were going to injuncted injuncted injuncted because embargoed embargoed embargoed

According to a Salient press release, the injunction was taken out because the story used information from leaked university documents.

Fortunately, VUW doesn't have any sort of injunction against me. And according to my sources, the documents reveal that Vic plans to hike fees by an amount requiring government approval. The reason for secrecy obviously being that they don't want it getting out until the students are all safely distracted with exams.

Salient will be in court in a little under two hours to argue their case. Hopefully the inunction will be lifted and their story can be distributed. If not, I'll be happy to post anything that mysteriously makes its way to my mailbox...


The prevailing theory of those 'in the know' downtown is that the injunction will be lifted, although there's some confusion as to whether the HC hearing in front of Young J today (he of the famous Dunne v TV3 decision) is the substantive one, or merely to set a date for one.

Regardless, VUW just bought themselves a whole lot my publicity for what is a fairly minor story really.

Posted by Anonymous : 10/03/2005 01:13:00 PM

Critic has the dirt here. The university is planning a 5 - 10% across the board fee rise. You can see why they wanted to keep that under the lid...

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 10/03/2005 02:14:00 PM

thanks for the link I/S.

Can anyone enlighten as to why the VUW has to run a 3% surplus, or did I read that bit of the article all wrong?

Posted by Span : 10/03/2005 03:26:00 PM

Three percent?

I think the argument from my day was this was enough to maintain reserves, and also to account for any "hiccups" caused by inaccurate income forecasting or unexpected costs.

They don't have to maintain a three percent surplus (but certainly are required to, over time, not run in the red). The exact amount of surplus is determined by council.

Posted by Matt : 10/03/2005 03:36:00 PM

I've just done an interview for the One News story tonight, pointing out that VUW have shot themselves in the foot.

They filmed my computer screen as I flicked though the Critic story, Keith's blog, NRT and Kiwiblog. So there *might* be a little TV fame going around ...


Posted by Anonymous : 10/03/2005 04:23:00 PM

Well, I've done some digging and blogged for the first time in a while.

My conclusions and findings are at:

Posted by Matt : 10/03/2005 06:44:00 PM

Good work I/S - keep the stupid uni's honest.

Posted by Genius : 10/03/2005 07:12:00 PM

I don't have any particular inside info but I believe enrolments are down at VUW and things are tight. There is lots of pressure on Schools to cut spending. I think the overseas student bubble has burst.

Personally, I am not against fee rises per se. Keeping the cost down for students is only one factor that should be taken into consideration. Ensuring adequate resources so that students have a quality learning environment and that staff are not stretched too thin and overworked is also important. But its certainly not a good look being seen to try to suppress free speech .

Posted by Amanda : 10/04/2005 09:03:00 AM

Looks as though Critic's been forced to take their copy down. I have it listed, until told otherwise in legal form, at my blog, here

Posted by Matt : 10/04/2005 03:55:00 PM

Typical VUW nonsense - they were about as useless as a spare dong at a muff diving competition when I was there back in the early 70's, have maintained that rep jealously over the years and still prove to be as idiotically arrogant as they come. Should adopt a new motto 'if we can stuff it up, we will!' or something similar.

Posted by Anonymous : 10/06/2005 09:35:00 AM