Grenville defends University conduct in Derwent Bar closure
Pro-Vice Chancellor for Students Jane Grenville has defended the University’s conduct prior to the recently-announced cut in Derwent Bar’s opening hours.
Grenville has denied accusations that Derwent JCRC Chair Joe Rankin was not consulted during the planning process, and has stood by the University’s proposals, which will see the bar open for only two major events each term.
Grenville, who has jokingly referred to herself as the ‘PVC for closing bars’, admitted that not inviting Rankin to the Aug 20th meeting – where the announcement was made – was “a foolish oversight”, but revealed that she had spoken with the Derwent Chair since to apologise.
In response to Rankin’s claims that the closure came without any warning to him or the JCRC, Grenville said: “That’s not quite the case. I held a meeting on 19 June with members of the JCR, the Acting Provost and the College Administrator, at which we explored best and worst case scenarios. I was advised by the JCR that the worst they could possibly sustain would be to lose Club D, so I have striven to protect it in the subsequent internal negotiations over closure.”
“He is unsurprisingly angry that a decision has, given the economic situation, been taken in August, when it is not possible for him to park his tanks on my lawn, but the speed and co-ordination of the virtual campaign is impressive and I have to confess to a sneaking admiration for the swiftness with which a rearguard action has been mounted,” Grenville continued.
“He is also angry that he was not invited to the meeting at which we disclosed the situation to YUSU and that is a justifiable anger – it was an oversight and a stupid one. I have apologised fully to him – immediately when I spoke to him on the telephone and subsequently in writing,” she added.
Rankin has previously claimed that he was “cut out of the decision”, and has expressed fears that the announcement was made during the summer break “to make it as easy as possible to push this through”.
Grenville, who helped facilitate the continuation of an evening service at BHenry’s last year, explained that the University felt that the demand for campus drinking would only support five bars, and that Derwent was the most underperforming outlet.
“We still feel that we can support only five bars on campus in total, as the report of the long Bars Strategy exercise of 2006/7 noted. By conceding Langwith to YUSU, we have ended up with six bars open, and we still aren’t getting the punters in, so we still needed to close one,” she explained.
“We contemplated the closure of Alcuin and of Derwent, the two most poorly performing bars. Derwent makes money on Club D, but loses the rest of the time. It is my view, and not that of Commercial Services, that it is important to keep a light on on the north side of the road. The University cannot, in my view, continue to expand outwards and yet concentrate all the services on the central spine – it was bad enough closing Halifax and leaving nearly a thousand students without a social focus,” Grenville continued.
The Pro-Vice Chancellor, however, denied that the success of the Courtyard had spelled the end for Derwent: “I am, of course, acutely aware that the decor of the Courtyard makes the college bars look sad, but alas, the chicken and egg argument about investing in them just has to start with the students using the bars: a University must spend its scant resources on academic investments in times of financial stress. I’d be able to make a better case for reinvestment in bars if they were taking a healthy profit.”
Grenville has also stressed that she “certainly hopes” that the recent decision will not mean the full closure of Derwent Bar. “All under-used bars, whether on campus or out in the big wide world, are under threat. Their fate lies with their users,” she said.
Students who would like to support the campaign to keep Derwent Bar open are encouraged to join the ‘Save Derwent Bar’ group on Facebook.
Loading ...
Surely the bar could stay open every now and again though for things like quizzes or pound-a-pint night? If the Courtyard has a college event or acoustic night then Derwent wouldn’t always be at odds with it?
With regards to her “chicken and egg argument”, I would again like to point to the success of The Courtyard vs the struggles of Langwith bar. Clearly, in this situation, it is obvious which needs to come first.
With you on that Harriet… How could you forget to invite Joe to a meeting concerning his college, would have definitely been in my VIP list.
Shame Jane doesn’t talk much about the YUSU proposal or am I missing something ?
““We still feel that we can support only five bars on campus in total, as the report of the long Bars Strategy exercise of 2006/7 noted. By conceding Langwith to YUSU, we have ended up with six bars open, and we still aren’t getting the punters in, so we still needed to close one,”
Why not ‘cut costs’ by cutting some of the red-tape and worthless administrators within York that makes any decision making, nion impossible?
Comment edited by a moderator.
I don’t like the idea of closing any campus bars closing, but if it’s a choice between Derwent and Alcuin, surely it has to be Derwent that stays open? Apart from anything else, Derwent offers hot meals, a service which is not provided by Alcuin.
As Harriet points out, this “chicken and the egg” argument is highly flawed. She’d be willing to invest more in bars if they were making a profit? The reason they’re losing money is that the University hasn’t invested in them in the past. Instead they chose to revamp Langwith bar into the Courtyard, which makes “makes the college bars look sad”. A bit more prior investment in college bars and we wouldn’t need to see the closure of our beloved bars.
“Derwent offers hot meals, a service which is not provided by Alcuin.”
yes it does.
The University doesn’t unfortunately seem to have recognised that live sporting fixtures are and should be a huge money maker, and I’m sure that the purchase of a Sky/ESPN package with this facility would bring in the students. Nevertheless, although the closure of Derwent Bar is a blow, of more importance surely is the ushering in through the back door of another proposal; namely, the closure of both Vanbrugh and Derwent porters’ lodge at night. The final decisions will be made conveniently before students have returned, but in all likelihood Langwith porters’ lodge will be returned to 24 hours, and then have to deal at night with an area spanning Barabara Scott Court, round Eric Milner White Court, through Vanbrugh, Langwith and Derwent, and then across to the ‘Derwith’ extension. For a university which prides itself on looking after its students, surely this is a travesty of welfare?
Furthermore, both the first meetings about the closure of porters’ lodges and the decision about Derwent Bar were made before the end of the summer term; many of the the students still on campus found out about it around the end of July, so it’s amazing that the University has taken so long to reveal the truth about one and is desperately trying to mask the other!
“Grenville, who has jokingly referred to herself as the ‘PVC for closing bars’”
Is there any provision for a vote of no confidence for Jane “PVC against students” Grenville?
At least Grenville doesn’t hide behind anonymity when giving opinions…
It seems that yet again the university are going for a half hearted approach to bars. Personally I would rather see a bar closed outright than ‘reduced provision’ as all that means is that students don’t know when the bar will be open. There have been many arguments across the three or four articles relating to the story which I agree with, social areas, welfare arguments, timing.
What annoys me most is that there is no solution from the university other than to leave dead space in a college for 5 evenings a week. Why not get innivotive?
“a University must spend its scant resources on academic investments in times of financial stress”
- fair enough. Why not close the dining area, chuck up a wall and create a lecture hall? A lecture hall provides more teaching space, there is already a data projector and screen (paid for and upkept by Derwent JCRC). What it also provides is a captive audience throughout the day which the Courtyard and V bar benefit from. The lecture hall could then be opened up for events such as club D and in the evenings could be bookable for societies, creating more space on campus, something else beneficial for students. With this you still have an upstairs cafe bar, throw in some comfortable, nice seating and you have atmosphere. You could then open up the lecture hall also for live sport (like what happens in the Courtyard).
To me this makes sense, a solution which, whilst is not ideal for everyone, suits. The loss of the canteen would only be for daytimes as it stopped offering a night food service last year and the university would probably be able to recoup some money from the catering equipment or redeploy it.
Also, as an aside, as far as I am aware (as a sabbatical last year) YUSU were completely unaware of any such plans before the summer.
@Anon Police
Really…You honestly reckon none of the comments on the other articles…
@ Anon Police.
Irony.
Woo… debates about the fact that people are anonymous between people who are anonymous where no resolution can be reached and each answer is shorter than the last.
I’m not going to get involved with the debate itself – I’m 100% confident that the picture Nouse has presented to us between the articles is only one of many angles but I want to step in and defend Jane Grenville against ‘Anon’, as I know most here would. She’s not even remotely a “PVC against students” but rather meets regularly with various student groups or individuals and takes their opinions to the University, from what I understand, have read and have heard from various people in JCRCs and other groups.
Unfortunately many decisions are being made and will be made that some may disagree with; the University is having to cut back on spending and cut off as many risk-taking enterprises as possible because of the economic conditions. Many projects will appear to slow down as funding is used as thinly as possible but it doesn’t mean that the University doesn’t care about the issues or that the individuals making the decisions wouldn’t prefer it to go the other way. These are harsh times; if the headline were that Big D and Club D are vetoed by the University then the same criticisms would come. Who knows what the possibilities were? We all know that Jane would defend students to the point of exhaustion and those that aren’t in constant meetings with her (including myself) will have to trust that she is doing a very difficult job – defending the university to students and representing students to the university – to a high standard. Either way, we’re not able to ‘no-confidence’ her so we should stop just using her as the easiest scapegoat we can find.
‘Thanks’ came a small battered voice from the attic of Hes Hall.
Also thanks to everyone for the positive suggestions that have been made – I’m about to go into a meeting to talk about the YUSU proposal in detail so watch this space.
One comment on porters, if I may. As far as students are concerned, porters are there to let you into your rooms if you have lost your key. We can’t afford one per 300 students, as we used to in the (very far distant) good old days before there were any cuts to unversity funding but we are making sure that they are evenly spread and that the outliying colleges are not disadvantaged. College Welfare Teams are there to provide welfare – we have very good coverage across all colleges at c. one CWT member per 150 students. Security are there to deal with incidents and intruders (helped by the porters). We’re not stinting on nightime cover, but it is differently configured.
I couldn’t disagree more that porters are simply there “to let you into your rooms if you have lost your key”.
What about the fact that they are often the first point of call when students are in trouble – before the matter gets referred to the college welfare team? This is especially true with incidents that happen late at night. What about the service they provide regarding taxi fares? What about postal collection stuff?
Ref Jane’s comments. I think your in cloud cookoo land if you believe in what you are saying about Porters and Security. I agree totally with Tom’s comments.
Re: ‘One comment on porters, if I may. As far as students are concerned, porters are there to let you into your rooms if you have lost your key’
Yet another Hes Hall incumbant who has very little idea of how the collegiate system they seem to sell so well works
Can I take that the incoming cash cows parents are fully aware of the ‘proposed’ closures to lodges and receptions, and that should you lose your key now that a maybe a longer wait, or even longer walk to replace it.
Was that really Jane Grenville?
Anyone fancy a pint?
I think this highlights the inadequacies of College Welfare Teams.
As the only Chair who came from a welfare background ive tried to improve the welfare provisions in Langwith but have come up against a lot of diffuculty despite Nouse saying we were the best college for this provision.
In Langwith the absence of 24 hour portering meant we had to strive for better welfare from the team that was actually meant to deliver the service. There is now a common room dedicated to the Welfare Team, and there are regular meetings between student welfare (JCRC reps) and college welfare (tutors, provost, dean) to ensure an even provision of welfare.
The problems that arise with welfare, that i have faced in both my term as a welfare rep and chair are:
1. Lack of funding for extensive welfare provision.
2. Lack of training for both student welfare teams and college welfare teams.
3. Unpopularity of welfare campaigns (by which i mean the opportunity cost to the general student population who often see it as a lot of resources spent on the minority)
Training is key, I always felt inadequately trained (and i still do as the person who is meant to be at the top of the college food chain) to deal with any of the welfare issues i have to deal with on a daily basis.
On that note, nor are porters trained for such situations.
It is important to note that “Welfare” and “Safety and Security” are not te same thing but only overlap slighlty. CWT should be better funded and trained to deliver the welfare side; and porters should be in charge of the safety and security of students (which of course overlaps slightly with welfare).
Agggrrr this is a bit of a hobby horse of mine but…
The biggest reason why students see it in terms of an opportunity cost (as you put it, a lot of resources spent on the minority) – is because the term “welfare” is always used in a florid and rather meaningless way.
When you talk about ‘welfare provision’ – talk about specifics. Safe sex campaigns, ‘nicked it’ campaigns, out of hours listening services etc. These are things that resonate with students.
Rant over.
Sam – what DO you actually mean by “welfare”? I’ve never really understood what JCRC welfare reps. and College welfare teams actually do, when both the Student Union and University have professional, fully-trained welfare advisors.
Jane (above):
The idea of ‘welfare’ does not exist outside a university bubble. In the real world, people just crack on with their lives if they have problems making friends, or go to a shrink. Not whimpering off to the nearest ‘JCRC Rep.’
Jane Grenville:
You didn’t once address the issue of Derwent Bar in your typically uninsightful post. You make the comment that in this ‘climate’ the upkeep of bars on campus cannot continue, so I ask you this: Why not take a cut from your salary that funds you doing nothing but stapling together paperwork and sending pointless emails to other pointless beaurocrats at this university?
JCRC Welfare reps are given training at the beginning of their term of office to help them. The main outcome is that you should signpost people on to those who know what theyre doing (i.e the Union and Uni welfare that you speak off who are fully trained).
However through my experience, especially in Langwith where everyone knows everyone, someone comes to you because they know you and because you are their age, not to be signposted on.
The bulk of the work of welfare reps on JCRCs is nothing to do with the campaigns run centrally from YUSU, which Tom, I believe are often unpopular with JCRCs, but rather with the work they do within the college just being an active point of call for students in trouble.
Just to clarify what I meant by college welfare; dean, college tutors, provost, administrator etc.
I remember struggling very much to gain any support for campaigns such as resources or help for mentally disabled students, or the more recent gender neutral toilets. The only ones students really care about, are the ones that affect the majority, safe sex, party safe, “nicked” etc.
And to “Jane” above, what I mean by welfare is a pro active service that is there as a point of call for students that find something daunting and upsetting. Its not about the campaigns or the minorities and majorities. Its about a service that is flexible enough to help those that are seeking help (or at least be able to pass them on to fully trained individuals who can). As a JCRC Welfare Rep its about being the unpopular voice who says “wait, have you thought about what that poster may say to this group” or “what about those who dont drink” or many other things that are often overlooked by JCRCs which in my opinion are often to small to represent the college population in its entirety.
“The bulk of the work of welfare reps on JCRCs is nothing to do with the campaigns run centrally from YUSU, which Tom, I believe are often unpopular with JCRCs, but rather with the work they do within the college just being an active point of call for students in trouble.”
Hang on Sam. I never said about *YUSU* run campaigns. In fact, the only time I’ve ever seen ‘nicked it’ run was by the College Welfare Team in Goodricke College 2007/8.
My point was about the ridiculously fluffy use of the term ‘welfare’. It’s good to see that you’ve taken it on board though….
My apologies for misunderstanding you Tom.
In my year as a welfare rep I was given lots of stuff from YUSU like UV pens and door handles about security. I assumed you were talking about that campaign.
Also I completely agree of the problem of the use of the word welfare, and how this is often used to hide behind or promote some other motives (e.g. the use of “welfare” as a reason not to have the summer ball on campus).
But is a problem I think can be solved through more intensive training to those who provide the service in order that at least they are all on the same level to what their job actually entails.
Perhaps if the Hes Hall massive used the bars and catering on campus instead of the Charles and Browns, and show some brand loyalty this whole charade could have been avoided.
It still makes me laugh that a pint is cheaper in the village than in a campus bar. Perhaps Ms Grenville should stay late one night, do a Rapunzal from her tower and see the mass exodus on the FTR to the cheapness of town.
Jeremy Vine summed it up quite well, if the PVC’s were worth anything they would still be working in industry, and not killing the HE machine like most of them did the Health Service.
As for welfare, until you have a rep on campus 24 hours who is easily contactable then the Porters Lodge will remain the first call for welfare issues.