UCU University of Leeds BranchPosted on by Alan Smith
An emergency meeting of the branch was help today to establish the branch’s position on the employers’ offer on casualisation, equal pay, workloads and pay (the ‘four fights’ dispute) and on the latest developments in the USS pensions dispute. The meeting is to let our delegates know how to vote on our behalf at a meeting of branch delegates on Tuesday (26 May), ahead of the UCU higher education committee meeting on 27 May. (For more details see Your feedback on next-steps in the ‘Four Fights’ and USS disputes)
No formal vote was taken on the USS pensions dispute, so our delegate will try to vote with the contributions made in mind.
On the ‘four fights’ dispute, members passed the following motion:
Motion 1
This branch rejects the latest ‘offer’ in the 4 fights dispute.
We don’t believe that sufficient progress has been made on any of the key issues in the dispute in the light of the developing crisis in the sector.
Accepting an ‘offer’ that does not give sufficient guarantees to women members on the gender pay gap, BAME members on the race pay gap and to our casualised staff and includes no movement on pay would be to let down the tens of thousands of members who joined our picket lines for 22 days.
This is especially true in regards women/BAME and casualised staff, who were at the forefront of the strikes.
We reject the idea of ‘banking’ inadequate progress.
An acceptance will only be seen as a sign of weakness by employers and encourage further attacks at this critical moment.
UCU University of Leeds BranchPosted on by Alan Smith
Email sent to branch members 20 May 2020
I’m writing with some further information about the two disputes – the reports from the UCU negotiating teams. Please read these if you possibly can before our emergency general meeting 1pm Friday where we will discuss the disputes and elect a delegate to take the branch views to a branch delegates meeting next week which will inform the union’s Higher Education Committee (HEC). The HEC will then take a decision on what the union will do in each dispute, including whether to put the employers’ offer on the Four Fights to a membership ballot, and about balloting for further industrial action. The current position is that the union will re-ballot on both disputes, starting at the end of June or as soon as practically possible thereafter, and ending in September. HEC can decide to continue the ballots as planned or to cancel, postpone or otherwise alter them.
Our negotiators have worked incredibly hard for many months on both disputes and their statements are crucial to these discussions. Our industrial action has pushed the employers to improve on their original offer on the Four Fights, particularly on casualisation and workload, but falls short of what we hoped to achieve, particularly on pay. Issues for us to discuss include whether we think this offer should go to a ballot now, and what should the union seek to negotiate over in the next ‘pay and related issues’ bargaining round which starts soon. On USS, there are encouraging signs of better co-operation from the employers, but no indication that our contribution level will go back to 8% (“no detriment”). For both disputes, we need to discuss whether/how we think further industrial action could be effective, whether we think we could pass the 50% turnout threshold on a ballot over the summer, and whether we think reballoting should continue as planned, be postponed or be cancelled.
I hope you can join us at the Emergency General Meeting (EGM) to discuss this on Friday. Committee members are attending UCU briefings on both disputes to find out more, today and tomorrow, and will be reporting on these briefings to Friday’s EGM.
We have previously elected 5 delegates to Congress (which would have been next week but is of course postponed – the number of delegates is based on branch sizes). At Friday’s EGM we will elect one delegate to attend each of the branch delegate meetings. The delegates could be our Congress delegates, but other members could also volunteer for this. Please let me know by 12 noon on Friday if you would like to volunteer. If there is more than one person offering for either or both delegate meetings, we will hold an election during the EGM using a Poll on Blackboard Collaborate. Both the branch delegates meetings are on Tuesday 26th May (unfortunately this is a university closure day) and last for two hours. They will be run using Microsoft Teams.
– Four Fights branch delegate meeting 10:00 to 12:00
– USS branch delegate meeting 13:30 to 15:30
I will send a further email on Friday with the link to our online EGM.
UCU University of Leeds BranchPosted on by Alan Smith
As members will be aware, the university is proposing to introduce a new policy on audio-video recording (lecture capture) and has consulted UCU on its contents.
Many thanks to those members who responded to our request for feedback: you can find a summary of feedback here. As you can see, a range of views were expressed and the feedback was really helpful to help us understand the wider implications of the policy changes and the attitudes of members towards it.
Broadly speaking, our position is that we support drives towards inclusive education and particularly appropriate support for disabled students, and we recognise that many staff consider lecture capture to be a useful part of their pedagogy. However, we have significant concerns about the misuse of lecture capture for performance management or for replacing staff, and we know that many staff have pedagogic reservations about lecture capture (which should be respected as part of their academic freedom) and others have particular reasons why they are not willing to be recorded, and we consider that both of those sets of concerns need to be respected.
The University has now let us know that they will be amending the draft proposal in the light of our comments, and we are hopeful that some of our concerns will be addressed.
We have not yet seen, and therefore not agreed, any new draft and will be in touch to let you know what we think of it. We suspect that it will be an improvement but that some of our concerns may remain unaddressed.
This amended proposal will then be consulted on by the University, with staff and through the Learning and Teaching Committee structures.
Please engage with those consultations and, if you sit on School or Faculty Learning and Teaching Committees, make sure that the policy is discussed and make your views known. There is a lot going on and these kinds of things can get buried in meeting documents, but this is a really important policy for everyone.
UCU University of Leeds BranchPosted on by Alan Smith
Formatting of the documents including numbering has been affected by transferring to the website and there may be other inaccuracies. For speed, because of the urgency of the consultation, we are getting the text up here rather than trying to correct all the numbering and formatting. Until this is corrected you will still be able to navigate the comparison using the headings. For accurate versions see the staff website and emails from the branch officers.
Current policy
(See note above about inaccurate numbering and formatting)
THE UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS
Policy on Audio or Video Recording for Educational Purposes
This policy was approved by the Senate on 22 January 2014 (S/13/19), subject to some editorial adjustments to reflect points made in the Senate.
Introduction
This Policy deals with the recording – by the University, its students or others – of activities with an educational purpose[1] (“educational activities”). All types of audio or video recordings are covered in all media.
Recording by the University of educational activities is an important part of the University’s strategy to enhance the quality of the student experience (see http://www.leeds.ac.uk/info/130547/student education), and the University sees it increasingly as part of mainstream academic work. The University recognises, however, that occasionally members of staff or students may have legitimate reasons for not wishing to be recorded, especially by video recording; and this policy – which aims to promote responsible recording within a practical framework – therefore establishes a right to opt out of recording.
Recordings by the University may be used for any purpose supporting the University’s educational objectives. This may include making recordings available internally in any media or platform. Subject to the explicit consent of the member of staff concerned, it may also include making recordings available externally in any media or platform and may also involve granting rights to other third parties and generating income. Further details of intended use should be included in Recording Notices (see below).
Deciding when to record
It is to be assumed that all educational activities may be recorded by the University, but recording by students and others is not permitted except as provided in 13-15 below.
The decision as to when the University shall record, which activity is to be recorded, how to record[2] and how best to use those recordings[3], is ultimately the responsibility of the Head of School/Service[4] where the educational activity is primarily based. It is recommended that a decision by a Head of School is made after consideration by the School’s Taught Student Education Committee/School’s Research and Innovation Committee (as appropriate).
University Recording
Consent
Subject to the right to opt out noted in 2 above, staff and students are deemed to consent to the University recording educational activities.
Notwithstanding the provision in 6 above, no recordings of sensitive personal data will be permitted without the explicit (opt-in) consent of the staff or students being recorded. ‘Sensitive personal data’ is defined under section 2 of the Data Protection Act to include generally any data relating to an individual concerning their racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious beliefs or other beliefs of a similar nature, trade union membership, physical or mental health or condition, sexual life, or information relating to criminal offences. See Annex for model express consent form (Document 1).
Editing
Recordings shall include an editing function. If staff or students wish to have a recording edited, they must request a change from the person responsible for the activity being recorded. This request must specify which material they wish to have changed and why they want the change. A request must be made immediately after the recording otherwise it is unlikely to be considered. In cases of disagreement, the matter shall be resolved by the Head of School/Services where the recorded activity is primarily based.
Notice
Schools should inform Students about the recording of teaching activities and the existence of this Policy at induction. Students and staff shall in advance be informed if the University intends to record a particular activity where it is expected that they may be present. Wherever practicable, notification should be sent at least 21 days before the activity is due to take place. Notification may be reasonably general e.g. it could apply to a whole programme or set of modules. Notification should include (1) details of intended use and access (2) a reminder that individuals may opt out of being recorded or ask to edit the recording (3) details of where any opt-out or request for editing should be sent. An example of a Recording Notice is contained in the Annex Document 2).
There shall be a notice in all rooms where recordings are to be made. These notices will remind staff and students that they may be recorded and who they should contact if they wish to opt out of or edit a recording. See Annex (Document 3).
Opt-out
A notification of an opt-out should first be sent in writing to the person responsible for the activity to be recorded e.g. a Module or Programme leader, or to the relevant Director for Student Education. In the case of a member of staff who wishes to opt-out of a recording, the Head of School or nominee may discuss the matter with that person, for example to explore the scope for using audio rather than video recording. In any event, those involved will be mindful of the need for sensitivity and privacy. Unless there is an overriding counter legal obligation e.g. a student with a disability needs to make a recording as part of the “reasonable adjustment” process, the right of staff to opt-out will be respected.
All scheduled recordings (i.e. those recordings scheduled via the University’s timetable system) will be automatically published 72 hours after the recording takes place. Users will receive email notification of the intention to auto-publish and will be able to prevent auto-publication if required. Users will be able to publish recordings at any time before the auto-publication is due to take place.
Data Protection
Recordings will often engage data protection rights because they include the “processing” of personal data where individuals can be identified. For example, a video may show faces of those attending. Where the concern is about the likely disclosure of personal identity (personal data) it is recognised that this is an area that may be unfamiliar and requires further guidance on how to proceed.
Unless students are specifically required by the University under a programme of study or research to make recordings, prior consent by the member of University staff managing that activity will be required.
Only in exceptional circumstances will consent be given. An example of an exceptional circumstance could be where a student with a disability needs to make a personal recording. It is to be assumed that where consent is given the recording may only be used for private study. This will not allow for further copying or sharing with other students.
Where a recording by a student is permitted all those present must be informed and have the ability to object and ask for the recording to be edited. The process for notifying and considering objections is as stated above for University recordings.
Intellectual Property
Ownership
In accordance with the University’s Policy on Intellectual Property Rights (see http://www.leeds.ac.uk/secretariat/documents/ipr policy.pdf in general where staff or students make a recording, all rights in that recording (including rights in the sounds made) will belong to the University. The University seeks to respect student and staff rights to be acknowledged as authors and performers. Otherwise, to the extent allowed under the general law, any individual interests in the recordings are waived, allowing the University to act in effect as a custodian, to maximise educational objectives in the general interest of all. The final reminder that a recording is about to commence will reconfirm the position (see Document 3 of the Annex).
Statement of Rights
When using recordings owned by the University students and staff should always assert the University’s rights. Please see Annex for common statement asserting ownership of copyright (Document 4).
Authorship and Identification as Performer
Students or staff should wherever practicable look to assert a right to be identified as an author or performer. Individuals will need to come forward at the time the recording is made and assert these rights. For guidance on when someone should be acknowledged as an author or performer see
https://librarv.leeds.ac.uk/info/1405/copvright/33/copyright explained. Please see Annex for common wording asserting authorship rights (doc 4).
Appropriate Material
Third party material – for example, a YouTube clip or research participant data – may be included in a recording only where it is lawful to do so and ethical requirements have been met. The University does hold licences that allow the use of some third party material, but often permission is limited to internal use only e.g. not outside of the VLE. Additional clearances for both internal and external use may be required. It must not be assumed that since the activity is educational “it will be all right”. For guidance on where further clearance may need to be sought please see https://library.leeds.ac.uk/copyright-for-teaching.
A situation may occur where a recording is challenged by rights holders or deemed unacceptable for other reasons e.g. defamatory in nature. The University may itself, or require others to, edit or remove inappropriate material.
Visitors
It is recognised that the position with visitors (being subject to a University recording or where the visitor wishes to make their own recording), may take some reflection and negotiation with the visitor. The arrangements should be agreed in writing (exchange of email will suffice) and relevant information contained within the notices to be given to other participants (see paragraph 9 and 10). In the absence of such agreement it may be difficult to bring the visitor within the Policy.
As a general default position visitors will retain their rights in a recording made of them or by them. However, the visitor allows the University under non-exclusive licence, the right to use the recording in the most general terms available. In particular the University may use the recording for any purpose, free of charge, in perpetuity and with the right to take legal action against any party breaching the University’s rights. Where the University is to record, the visitor should be given the Recording Notice and final reminder (see paragraph 9 and 10) alongside other anticipated participants. The visitor should also be given the right to object to being recorded and to request an edit of the recording. Where the visitor is to do the recording other participants again should generally have the same rights to object to being recorded and request an edit of the recording.
Safe Keeping
Where a recording identifies individuals it must be stored safely and accessed only in a way compatible with the agreed purposes (and any other stated conditions) e.g. where just for use by members of a particular class a password system may be appropriate. Security measures should be commensurate with the sensitivity of data involved. For more guidance see the University’s Code of Practice on Use of Personal Data and the University’s Information Security Policy.
Training
Further training relating to the implementation of this Policy will be coordinated by the University’s Staff and Departmental Development Unit (SDDU).
Further Help
General queries relating to the implementation of this policy should be sent to the Director of Digital Learning (____).
Specific concerns relating to intellectual property rights should be sent to copyright@.leeds.ac.uk.
Specific concerns relating to data protection and other legal issues should be sent to the University’s Legal Adviser’s Office (______).
Responsibility
The Deputy Vice-Chancellor: Student Education and the University Secretary shall have overall responsibility for this Policy.
ANNEX
Document 1
Sensitive Data – Consent form
Place(s) of recording(s)……………………………..
Date(s) of recordings(s)……………………………..
Activity (e.g. module, programme research activity) being recorded
I agree as follows:
The above recording is to take place in accordance with the University’s Policy on Audio or Video Recording for Educational Purposes.
My contribution to the above activity may be recorded and used in any format by the University [or others [describe].
My contribution contains sensitive personal data relating to [describe]). I consent to my data being recorded and used by the University [and others] for [any purpose] [for educational activities] [describe].
Signed
Dated
Document 2
Recording Notice
We are writing to inform you that [between [ ] and [ ] [on [ ] the University [and [describe any others e.g. other permitted students] will be recording [describe educational activity being recorded.] This recording is being conducted in accordance with the University’s Policy on Audio or Video Recording for Educational Purposes (see [http ref]). Please read the Policy for further background information relating to your rights.
The purpose of the recording is to allow the following use [describe]. It will be accessible by [describe].
If you wish to opt-out of being recorded or wish to request that your contribution be edited please contact [give details] by [date to be inserted].
In accordance with the University’s Policy on Intellectual Property Rights (see http://www.leeds.ac.uk/secretariat/documents/ipr policy.pdf) in general where staff or students make a recording, all rights in that recording (including rights in the sounds made) will belong to the University. The University seeks to respect student and staff rights to be acknowledged as authors and performers. Otherwise, to the extent allowed under the general law, any individual interests in the recordings are waived, allowing the University to act in effect as a custodian, to maximise educational objectives in the general interest of all. If you have any concerns relating to the recording please contact [give details].
You may not record the above activity yourself without obtaining the consent of [ insert contact details].
Document 3
In Room Notice
The activities in this room may be recorded by the University and others acting with the University’s consent. Recording is to be conducted in accordance with the University’s Policy on Audio or Video Recording for Educational Purposes (see
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/secretariat/documents/audio visual policy.pdf). Please read the Policy for further background information relating to your rights. These rights include a right to opt out of recordings and to request an edit of recordings.
If you have any concerns relating to the recording, please contact [give details].
You may not record the above activity yourself without obtaining the consent of [ insert contact details].
“The right of [name of author] to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988”.
[1] Educational purpose means any purpose related to taught student education at the University, and may include research activity or the repurposing of research activity as appropriate. This policy does not however cover the recordings made for purely research or archival purposes.
[2] For example, recording audio and screen capture as a minimum or video, audio and screen capture if preferred
[3] It is assumed recordings will be made available to students via the VLE. Explicit consent from the member of staff concerned will be required for external publication.
[4] Throughout this Policy the Head of School/Service may nominate individuals to act on their behalf.
Proposed new policy
(See note above about inaccurate numbering and formatting)
UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS
Policy on Audio or Video Recording for Educational Purposes
Introduction
This Policy deals with the recording by the University, its students or others of activities with an educational purpose[1] (“educational activities”). All types of audio or video recordings are covered in all media. Unless indicated otherwise “recordings” referred to under this Policy are to both audio and video recordings.
Recording by the University of educational activities is an important part of the University’s strategy to enhance the quality of the student experience (see http://strategy.leeds.ac.uk/), and the University regards recording as part of mainstream academic work. Generally, recordings are only to be used by those staff and students involved in the educational activity.
2.3. The University cannot guarantee the availability of recordings for every educational activity. However, recordings are an important part of the University’s delivery of its educational objectives in the public good. The use of recordings is a well-established practice at many Universities and something that students expect as part of a 21st century University offering. Recordings are often invaluable to those students whose circumstances, including those with disabilities, mean they cannot otherwise fully benefit from the educational activity. Recordings support the Inclusive Teaching Practice baselines (see: https://inclusiveteaching.leeds.ac.uk/), and help to ensure that the teaching requirements of our diverse student population are met.
3.4. The University recognises that sometimes members of staff or students may have legitimate reasons for not wishing to be recorded, especially by video recording. These reasons will be considered and where appropriate, respected. This policy – which aims to promote responsible recording within a practical, legal and ethical framework – establishes a right to opt out of recording, with the agreement of the Head of School/Service.
4.5. Recordings by the University may be used for any purpose supporting the University’s educational objectives. This may include making recordings available internally in any media or platform. Subject to the explicit consent of the member of staff concerned, it may also include making recordings available externally in any media or platform and may also involve granting rights to other third parties and generating income.
6. Recordings should not be used routinely as a performance management tool. However, recordings may for example be used to respond to complaints by students, or be provided where requested by external regulatory bodies for example the OfS or the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.
Deciding when to record
5.7. It is to be assumed that all educational activities may be recorded by the University, but recording by students and others is not permitted except as provided in paragraph 17 below.
6.8. The University’s general position is that where possible all appropriate educational activities will be recorded, but the decision as to when the University shall record, which activity is to be recorded, how to record[2] and how best to use those recordings[3], is ultimately the responsibility of the Head of School/Service[4] where the educational activity is primarily based. It is recommended that a decision by a Head of School is made after consideration by the School’s Taught Student Education Committee/School’s Research and Innovation Committee (as appropriate).
University Recording
Agreement
9. Staff and students are required to familiarise themselves with this policy, and will be deemed to have read and understood it. Any questions or concerns should be raised with the contacts referred to at the end of this Policy at the earliest opportunity.
7.10. Unless the University’s Data Protection Officer has explicitly agreed otherwise 5 no recordings of special category personal data will be permitted without the explicit (opt-in) consent of those being recorded. ‘Special categories” of personal data’ are defined under Article 9 of the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). Special categories of personal data consist of “personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, and the processing of genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, data concerning health or data concerning a natural person’s sex life or sexual orientation”. See Annex for model express consent form (doc1).
Editing
8.11. Recordings shall include an editing function. If staff or students at any stage wish to have a recording edited, they must request a change from the person responsible for the activity being recorded. This request must specify which material they wish to have changed and why they want the change. A request must be made immediately after the recording otherwise it is unlikely to be considered. In cases of disagreement, the matter shall be resolved by the Head of School/Services where the recorded activity is primarily based. Staff are advised to make use of the pause button provided in all rooms with recording facilities, to conduct live editing of recordings. Live editing should be used carefully so as not undermine the general desire to have activities recorded as much as possible.
Notice
12. The University will inform Students and staff about the recording of teaching activities and the existence of this Policy. Information will be given as part of the student contract and the student and staff privacy notices.
9.13. In addition to the above there shall be a notice in all rooms where recordings are to be made. These notices will remind staff and students that they may be recorded and who they should contact if they wish to opt out of or edit a recording. See Annex (doc 2).
Exceptions
14. The University recognises that recording is not appropriate for all teaching and learning activities; for this reason, subject to the caveats in paragraph 17, staff, can with the agreement of their Head of School or their nominee, be exempted from having their teaching activities recorded where they can demonstrate a sound pedagogical, legal or other justifiable reason based on their particular situation.
10.15. A request by a member of staff or student for an exemption from recording must be sent in writing to the person responsible for the activity to be recorded e.g. a Module or Programme leader, or to the relevant Director for Student Education and the relevant Head of School. The request should explain the reasons for the desired exemption from the general practice of recording. The decision on whether to allow opt out will rest with Head of School. Where the Head of School wishes to seek further guidance this can be obtained from the Audio Video Recording Policy Guidance for Heads of School document. Until a decision has been made by the Head of School the default position will be that the recordings will take place.
16. When considering requests for exemption, Heads of School will in particular consider the use of editing and audio-only recording and screen capture of teaching material e.g. power point slides.
Students with a disability who need a recording
If a student with a disability has a requirement to have recordings available this will be respected, even where the member of staff to be recorded wishes not to record. Unless there are exceptional circumstances and an acceptable compromise can be found, recording will take place. Sometimes as an alternative, because of the particular needs of the student, e.g. relating to format, the student shall be permitted to make their own recording e.g. through use of their own laptop or other recording device (see paragraphs 31 to 33).
If there is a student(s) with a disability who needs access to a University recording through the Mediasite system, then the member of staff concerned either (a) makes the recording available to all those attending in the normal way, or (b) they have the option through the Mediasite system to specifically limit access to the recording to the student(s) with the disability who need the recording. For further guidance on how to do this please see [https://it.leeds.ac.uk/it?id=kb_article&sysparm_article=KB0014285].
If the member of staff wishes to elect (b) above then they will still need to have obtained the Head of School’s agreement not to make the recording available generally to the other students present. In addition, because the lecture capture facility will indicate through the red light facility that the activity is being recorded, the member of staff will need to inform all present that the recording is only going to be accessible to those who have a need because of their disability. The purpose of this announcement is to avoid any confusion as to general availability of the recording.
Use of microphones in teaching spaces
Where a lapel microphone is provided in a teaching space, staff must make use of this equipment when talking. The use of lapel microphones enables effective voice reinforcement for students in the room, and provides high quality audio content to enable effective automatic captioning. Use of lapel microphones supports voice protection and avoids the need for students to strain to hear the lecturer. Use of the lapel microphone is likely to be very important to students with disabilities that need to access the recording.
In educational activities where students are asking questions, and these may not be picked up the microphones in the room, staff are expected to repeat questions before answering, to ensure all students present have heard the question, and for the purposes of the recording. Where there is a lot of student interaction in an educational activity, staff may consider use of other digital technologies e.g. Top Hat mobile voting system, VLE tools, Padlet board etc. to record interactivity.
Captioning of recordings
All audio and video recordings of timetabled educational activities will be automatically captioned within the Mediasite system, using speech-to-text technology. Only captions which meet a defined quality threshold will be published to students. Staff and students need to be aware that captions whilst helpful are not a hundred percent accurate. They will often need further correction or analysis. Staff can edit the captions within Mediasite prior to, or after, publication of recordings. Students should seek advice from teaching staff where they have concerns about the accuracy of the captions. Where captions do not meet the required quality threshold, they will not be provided unless an individual student requires them as part of a reasonable adjustment.
All captions will only be provided in the English language.
Where audio and video recordings are made for educational purposes and are not automatically captioned (e.g. Desktop Capture, ad-hoc recordings), staff are responsible for sending the recording for automatic captioning within Mediasite.
Where a student with a disability has a requirement for transcripts from educational activities, captions from recordings may be accessed and used by specially trained staff to create transcripts for individual students.
Speech-to-text technology is not sufficiently advanced to guarantee accuracy. Whilst the University is doing its best by having good technology, it cannot accept responsibility for any inaccuracies. Students should feel free to verify the content of captions with staff. University staff must correct any errors in captions when they are brought to their attention.
Auto-publication of recordings
11.27. All scheduled recordings (i.e. those recordings scheduled via the University’s timetable system) will be automatically published 48 hours after the recording takes place. Users will receive email notification of the intention to auto-publish and will be able to prevent auto-publication if required and permitted. Users will be able to publish recordings at any time before the auto-publication is due to take place.
Data Protection
Recordings will often engage data protection rights because they include the “processing” of personal data where individuals can be identified. For example, a video may show faces of those attending, while audio recordings will include the voices and words of the speakers. Anything done with personal data must comply with the University’s duties under data protection law, i.e. (at present) the GDPR and the DPA 2018. It must also comply with the University’s duties as a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998, and in particular the right to privacy under Article 8(1) ECHR.
The University has carefully considered the data protection rights of staff and students in relation to this Policy. The University’s position is that the processing of personal data governed by this policy on recording is justified because it is reasonably necessary for the effective performance of the University’s public interests tasks (Article 6(1)(e) GDPR) – specifically as regards the provision of educational services. Alternatively, the recording practices governed by this policy would be justified by the legitimate interests of the University (in delivering its educational services effectively) and students (in receiving an optimum university education). Where the recording is a legal requirement, particularly where required to fulfil the University’s legal responsibilities to a student with a disability,
the University has grounds to require the recording in accordance with Article 6 (1) (c) of GDPR. The University has concluded that its approach to recordings is balanced and proportionate.
Where the recording is to include special category data then in accordance with paragraph 10 above the explicit consent of those concerned will be required unless the University’s Data Protection Officer has agreed that other grounds may be relied upon to justify that processing of special category data based on the particular circumstances of that case.
Student Recordings
12.31. Unless students are specifically required by the University under a programme of study or research to make recordings, prior authorisation by the member of University staff managing that activity will be required. If the member of staff does not give consent then the student may ask the Head of School to review the decision that has been made. The Head of School may permit the student to proceed to record where they believe it is reasonable to do so under the circumstances of that case. The Head of School shall be mindful of the possibility of limiting access to that student as detailed under 18 above.
13.32. Only in exceptional circumstances will authorisation for recording by students be given. An example of an exceptional circumstance could be where a student with a disability needs to make a personal recording. Where authorisation is given, this will be on condition that the recording may only be used for private study. This will not allow for further copying or sharing with other students.
14.33. Where a recording by a student is permitted all those present must be informed and have the ability to object and ask for the recording to be edited. The process for notifying and considering objections is as stated above for University recordings.
Intellectual Property
In accordance with the University’s Policy on Intellectual Property Rights (see http://www.leeds.ac.uk/secretariat/documents/ipr policy.pdf) in general where staff make a recording, all rights in that recording (including rights in the sounds made) will belong to the University.
Recordings by students will be owned by them, subject to the conditions in the University’s Policy on Intellectual Property Rights (“IP”). Where a student is to be the owner of the IP the student grants the University a free, irrevocable non-exclusive licence to allow the University to complete its commitments to the student e.g. relating to the supervision and assessment of the student’s work.
15.36. The University seeks to respect student and staff rights to be acknowledged as authors and performers. Otherwise, to the extent allowed under the general law, any individual interests in the recordings are waived, allowing the University to act in effect as a custodian, to maximise educational objectives in the general interest of all. The final reminder that a recording is about to commence will reconfirm the position (see doc 2 of the Annex).
Statement of Rights
16.37. When using recordings owned by the University students and staff should always assert the University’s rights. Please see Annex for common statement asserting ownership of copyright (doc 3).
Authorship and Identification as Performer
17.38. Students or staff should wherever practicable look to assert a right to be identified as an author or performer. Individuals will need to come forward at the time the recording is made and assert these rights. For guidance on when someone should be acknowledged as an author or performer see http://library.leeds.ac.uk/info/138/copyright and licences/55/copyright-the basics/5. Please see Annex for common wording asserting authorship rights (doc 3).
Staff leaving the University
39. As with any teaching material staff leaving the University are not permitted to delete recordings in the belief that it belongs to them. Teaching material belongs to the University and is likely to be needed by other colleagues and students involved in the programme.
Downloading and Retention of recordings
Owners of Mediasite recordings can allow users to download recordings from the Mediasite system. There may be further conditions required at the time, but as a default where downloading is permitted the user accessing the downloaded recording may not (i) edit the recording unless they were the person responsible for the recording; (ii) share the recording with others; and (iii) only use the recording for private academic study.
Recordings (both timetabled and non-timetabled) should be kept for a period of 2 years. Recordings that are timetabled will be automatically deleted after a final holding notice period of 90 days before. Staff should receive final notification before permanent deletion occurs. This will give staff a final opportunity to preserve the recording if there is a compelling need (for more information, see: https://leeds.servicenow.com/it?id=kb_article&sys_id=27beae89dba6b744c9ca18fe3b961962).
Non-timetabled recordings of educational activities produced using the Mediasite system will not be automatically deleted. Staff and students (where students are permitted to download recordings) will need to manually delete the recording after 2 years.
Appropriate Material
18.43. Third party material – for example, a YouTube clip or research participant data – may be included in a recording only where it is lawful to do so and ethical requirements have been met. The University does hold licences that allow the use of some third party material, but often permission is limited to internal use only e.g. not outside of the VLE. Additional clearances for both internal and external use may be required. It must not be assumed that since the activity is educational “it will be all right”. For guidance on where further clearance may need to be sought please see http://library.leeds.ac.uk/copyright-forteaching.
19.44. A situation may occur where a recording is challenged by rights holders or deemed unacceptable for other reasons e.g. defamatory in nature. The University may itself, or require others to, edit or remove inappropriate material
Visitors
20.45. It is recognised that the position with visitors (being subject to a University recording or where the visitor wishes to make their own recording), may take some reflection and negotiation with the visitor. The arrangements should be agreed in writing (exchange of email will suffice) and relevant information contained within this policy should be drawn to the attention of the visitor so that an approach can be agreed and/or any concerns discussed.
21.46. As a general default position visitors will retain their rights in a recording made of them or by them. However, the visitor allows the University under non-exclusive licence, the right
to use the recording in the most general terms available. In particular the University may use the recording for any purpose, free of charge, in perpetuity and with the right to take legal action against any party breaching the University’s rights. Where the University is to record, the visitor should be given the Recording Notice (see paragraph 13 and 14) alongside other anticipated participants. The visitor should also be given the right to object to being recorded and to request an edit of the recording. Where the visitor is to do the recording other participants again should generally have the same rights to object to being recorded and request an edit of the recording.
Safe Keeping
22.47. Where a recording identifies individuals it must be stored safely and accessed only in a way compatible with the agreed purposes (and any other stated conditions) e.g. where just for use by members of a particular class a password system may be appropriate. Security measures should be commensurate with the sensitivity of data involved. For more guidance see the University’s Code of Practice on Use of Personal Data and the University’s Information Security Policy.
Training
23.48. Further training relating to the implementation of this Policy will be coordinated by the University’s Organisational Development and Professional Development unit (OD&PL).
Appendix Further Help
24.49. General queries relating to the implementation of this policy should be sent to the Dean of Digital Education (______).
25.50. Specific concerns relating to intellectual property rights should be sent to copyright@leeds.ac.uk.
26.51. Specific concerns relating to data protection and other legal issues should be sent to the University’s Legal Adviser’s Office (_____) or the University’s Data Protection Officer, dpo@leeds.ac.uk.
27.52. If any part of the University’s recording equipment is not working this should be immediately reported to the IT Service Desk (computer facilities) or Facilities Help Desk (audio video facilities).
Responsibility
28.53. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor for Student Education and the University Secretary shall have overall responsibility for this Policy
Version 1 (for consultation) April 2020
ANNEXES
Document 1 Special category Data – Consent form
Name of staff/student (Print)
Place (s) of recording(s)
Date(s) of recording(s)….
Activity (e.g. module,
programme research activity) being recorded
I agree as follows:
The above recording is to take place in accordance with the University’s Policy on Audio or Video Recording for Educational Purposes.
My contribution to the above activity may be recorded and used in any format by the University or others [describe] for [describe purpose].
My contribution contains special category personal data relating to [describe].
I have had opportunity to raise any concerns in relation to the recording.
I consent to my data being recorded and used as described above.
Signed
Dated …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
8
Document 2
In Room Notice
The activities in this room may be recorded by the University and others acting with the University’s consent.
Recording is to be conducted in accordance with the University’s Policy on Audio or Video Recording for Educational Purposes (see http://www.leeds.ac.uk/secretariat/documents/). Please read the Policy for further background information relating to your rights. These rights include a right to opt out of recordings and to request an edit of recordings.
You may not generally record the activities yourself. However sometimes students with a disability will be permitted to make their own recordings.
If you have any concerns relating to the recording, please contact [give details].
“The right of [name of author] to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988”.
[1] Educational purpose means any purpose related to taught student education at the University, and may include research activity or the repurposing of research activity as appropriate. This policy does not however cover the recordings made for purely research or archival purposes.
[2] For example, recording audio and screen capture as a minimum or video, audio and screen capture if preferred
[3] It is assumed recordings will be made available to students via the VLE. Explicit consent from the member of staff concerned will be required for external publication.
[4] Throughout this Policy the Head of School/Service may nominate individuals to act on their behalf. 5 Under GDPR there can be occasions where recordings of special category data do not need consent, but these should be exceptional and will require close scrutiny and additional actions to protect the privacy of those concerned.
UCU University of Leeds BranchPosted on by Alan Smith
Summary of informal member feedback on the senior management proposed changes to the lecture capture policy
The general policy on recording and the loss of the automatic right to opt out
Significant unease about new point 6: using lecture capture material for performance management. This was by far the most common point made in this section. The caveat ‘routinely’ does not reassure staff and the belief that they are under surveillance through lecture capture is making staff far less comfortable with being recorded. A concern frequently raised is that of student complaints that are unreasonable and/or politically motivated, and the implications for academic freedom. Staff warn that this provision could have an inhibiting effect, making them more likely to lecture from a script and less likely to teach in a more interactive, relaxed and personal manner
There is some concern about bullet point 5 and the ability to make recordings available outside of the learning and teaching context in which they were made. This causes anxiety about using captured lectures inappropriately, to replace absent staff, striking staff or staff who have left. Staff believe that lectures are and should be captured for the purpose of teaching a particular course of study in a particular year, not for wider use. There is also concern about the recognition of authorship of material: whilst the university does formally own our intellectual property including that which we hold in our lectures, there should nevertheless be recognition of authorship when the university uses our materials.
Opposition to the opt out process. Some respondents indicated that they use lecture capture, sometimes or always, but are concerned about themselves and others being forced to do so and to go through a process in order to opt out. Specific issues raised include intrusion on professional and pedagogic decision making; the administrative and bureaucratic burden for heads of school and other school leaders; and the amount of power this gives to a head of school with little accountability, giving rise to the possibility of bullying and/or junior and precarious staff feeling unable to make the case for opt-out
Concerns about the pedagogic justification for lecture capture, either generally or relating to specific types of teaching, and about the lack of evidence that lecture capture improves student learning. This raises a concern that the driving force being the new policy is not the improvement of student learning;
Point 10: the view that recordings will frequently if not always include special category data, through people appearing on screen or through personal disclosures in a lecture or seminar. It seems impossible, or very cumbersome, to exclude it from a recording without inhibiting the quality of teaching and discussion;
Concern about the appropriacy of lecture capture for different types of teaching – the policy suggest that all teaching events, not just lectures, should be captured. Staff considered that the appropriacy of lecture capture as a support for students varies depending on the way learning is organised within a session, and requiring lecture capture for interactive seminars in particular is considered by some to be inappropriate. Staff also referred to concerns about student consent to being recorded in interactive sessions given the likelihood of mention of special category data, and the inhibiting effect that recording could have on student participation.
Overall, some respondents are clearly opposed to all lecture capture in principle. Others expressed support for the general goals of lecture capture, particularly in terms of supporting disabled students (but also more generally), but objected to the aspects of the policy which involve using lecture capture for purposes other than student learning and support, and objected to the use of a captured lecture outside the specific module for which it was delivered.
Lecture capture and disabled students
There is substantial support and understanding amongst responses for the needs of disabled students and for the role of lecture capture in providing for those needs. The majority of respondents taking this view, however, felt that the policy could be improved whilst still supporting the students who need it.
The policy prioritises students over staff, assuming that opting out of lecture capture is a matter of ‘want’. It does not provide a mechanism for reconciling the rights of disabled staff with the rights of disabled students, but instead assumes that the rights of students will always take precedence. The same is true for other circumstances where staff may have a genuine need not to record or not to publish the recording widely;
Staff indicated a keenness to engage more flexibly with reasonable adjustments for disabled students, including ones more appropriate and effective for the pedagogy used. Many staff were happy with making recordings available only to the students who need it (although there are some concerns raised about the effectiveness of communication to staff of Assessments of Needs). Others who had concerns relating to the lectures being controlled on the university system wanted to be able to consider other means of recording;
Concern was expressed over the announcement prescribed in s 19. It requires staff to declare publicly that they have been authorised not to provide captured lectures, which in turns constitutes a declaration that they have a reason for that – if that reason is private, personal or sensitive this will be a difficult thing to do – they may have to field questions or be aware of speculation. There are better, more natural, ways of handling this situation.
Concerns referred to in the previous section about the HoS authorisation process, in terms of autonomy, bureaucracy and workload, were raised here as well.
Use of lapel microphones
General support for the principle, although some respondents felt that the policy was unnecessarily prescriptive and specific and could perhaps be contained within guidance instead. There was some concern about the complexities of recording interactivity, suggesting that further guidance and training would be of assistance, but also connecting to concerns above about the impact of recording interactive classes.
There were many comments about broken mikes, dead batteries and the overall poor quality of some provision in lecture theatres, leading to poor audio even if the provided equipment is used. Some staff do not know how to use the mikes. In addition, lapel mikes are difficult to wear for those not wearing a suit, and other forms of microphones should be explored.
Captioning
General understanding and support for the value of captioning, but respondents had significant concerns, often from experience, around the accuracy of captioning. Particularly problems are noted for staff without Southern English accents; staff who teach using technical terms or terms of art (which is most staff) and staff who teach in foreign languages. Leading on from this, there is significant concern about the workload involved in requiring staff to correct errors in captions and the risk of releasing significantly inaccurate captions.
Autopublication
We asked a more specific question here in order best to understand current practice and the implications of the change. Most staff who do not edit cite lack of time as a reason for this, together with a ‘clunky’ and difficult to use editing system, particularly when one is working from home. For some staff, not editing creates a more authentic recording which is what they want to provide. A few staff are unaware of the editing function or how it works. For staff who do not edit, reducing the turn around time will have no impact, and several respondents supported the need for students to be able to access recordings more quickly.
For those who edit, it is more of a problem – and some staff edit diligently to improve the quality of the recorded lecture or to remove sensitive data. There is some concern that the new proposed policy, particularly in relation to requiring recording of more interactive classes and the exclusion of all special category data. Particular comments were made about the disproportionate impact of the reduction on staff who work part time, or who become ill after the class, or whose class falls at the end of the working week.
Data protection and student recordings
A number of responses harked back to points in the first section to the effect that special category data may well be frequently included in recordings and that given that the requirement for consent is particular significant.
There is some concern about allowing Heads of School to override staff on the matter of the consent to student recordings, particularly because no parameters are given for this. There are also concerns about the lack of clarity on detection and enforcement measures against unauthorised student recordings.
Intellectual property
The University’s IP policy vests ownership of IP rights in the university as part of our employment contract. Many members are uncomfortable with this and feel that the policy goes too far in permitting the university to exercise ownership rights over material which, whatever the formal legal position, is traditionally understood as closely associated with the creative and intellectual work of the individual academic and is thus highly personal. New point 39 caused concern, both for its somewhat aggressive tone and for what appears to be a threat to use recorded materials after a member of staff leaves; a particular concern relates to the possibility of making staff redundant or not replacing resigning or retiring staff and instead relying on recorded materials.
Reasons for opting out
A range of reasons were given. Concerns were expressed over IP rights, surveillance culture, including a fear of being targeting for discrimination or because of the expression of political views, using captured lectures to break strikes and the extra pressure which recording places on new and inexperienced lecturers, which can be detrimental to mental health. Some respondents felt that recording would change their teaching style and in particular that they would personalise and humanise their lecture less. Others opt out for sessions or modules where there is frequent use of sensitive information or of material under copyright.
Many respondents cited pedagogical reasons. Aside from the concern that they would teach less well when recorded, the most common concern was the tendency of recording to stifle discussion and interaction, particularly, although not exclusively, when sensitive or personal issues are discussed. Some participants also mentioned reduced attendance and the consequent risk of less effective learning coming from a recording.
Positives in the policy
Staff who answered this question used it to make positive comments about inclusive practice and support for disabled students in particular. Some welcomed the good intentions of the policy in terms of inclusive practice, but regretted provisions which seemed aimed at other goals.
Negatives in the policy
Staff who answered this question raised a range of issues, mostly discussed above.
Surveillance and the use of recordings for disciplinary purposes
Workload, often specifically around captioning but also editing
Respect of ownership of material
Use of material after a staff member has left or during strike action
The protection of staff rights and interests, often in relation to protected characteristics
That at the start of May the University began a consultation of members about the change to the Audio Visual Policy 2014.
That the UCU had already passed a motion on lecture capture in the academic year 2019-20 expressing many concerns about its use in teaching and highlighting the inappropriate use of lecture recording by management to carry out disciplinaries against members of staff by ‘fishing’ for evidence from the recording rather than starting disciplinary following students complaints.
That the new policy further expands and legitimises management use of lecture capture to carry out performance management and disciplinaries in breach of the local agreement reached with UCU that audio visual recording will not be used for this scope.
The implications of the new policy in terms of increased workload for staff (producing and editing the audio visual material) are missing from the policy which shows little consideration of staff’s terms and conditions and H&S.
That there is not consideration of the pedagogical effects of lecture capture: e.g. the lack of synchronous interaction and its impact on student learning, critical thinking, lower attendance etc. already evidenced and cited in the same policy.
That video and voice capture may be valuable in supporting students with certain accessibility needs.
That equality and inclusion of disabled staff and students is very important.
That the balancing of legitimate rights and interests against the goals of lecture capture raises complexity that ought to be acknowledged and navigated with care.
That disabled staff and students likely use lecture capture in different ways and to different ends. They should be actively involved in creating a policy that plays a major part in the university reasonable adjustments strategy.
That evidence about the experiences of disabled staff and students should be sought and used to inform this important aspect of the university’s approach to inclusion.
That access to recordings of teaching may be an important plank in a strategy for inclusive learning but it doesn’t of itself make the learning environment inclusive. It lends itself to the sharing of accessible information rather than the cultivation of accessible learning environments.
As a good standard practice all teaching staff should be encouraged to let the student record the audio of their lecture upon request and for exclusive use of disabled students, but this should still not exclude the possibility of opting out for special categories if they wish so.
The branch believes
That the right to opt out from lecture capture should be dependent on the will of the individual member of staff and student, and not be automatically processed or be left to the discretion of the head of school/service as outlined in the new policy.
The new policy may give rise to differential treatment of staff and students across campus and also create sense of isolation among colleagues who are being pressured to opt in.
That the language of the new policy creates a hierarchy between staff and student rights, which reproduces the idea of students as customers rather than learners and is disrespectful of the work, safety and academic freedom of staff. It especially imposes non-negotiated terms and conditions on staff not currently determined in our contracts (e.g. university ownership of our performance right, currently broadly associated with copyright and broadly considered under the ownership of the University).
That the new policy removes the editing power from the author to the unspecified ‘person responsible for the activity being recorded’ and gives an undefined, but certainly too short window of time for the staff and student to request any change. This has detrimental implications in terms of workload and removes control of the author over their own content.
We believe that the university has not conducted Equality Impact Assessment or Health and Safety Risk Assessment regarding these new proposals (e.g. requirements on disabled staff or victims of domestic abuse for example). We believe there are major equality issues that the new policy raised for staff and students who do not wish to be recorded.
That the University’s assumption that it owns the Intellectual Property of its staff’s research used in teaching is contrary to law, since the University is not a signatory to contracts entered into with academic journals or individual publishers. In fact, the University subsidizes Gold Open Access publishing precisely because it has no contractual or other rights in respect of these publishing agreements, some of which have been entered into prior to employment with the University of Leeds.
That there are major implications in terms of use of copyright materials used in our face to face teaching if we move these on line (e.g. photographs, graphics, videos, case studies used in our slides and teaching materials) and that the University has not sought to indemnify staff should they be sued for doing so.
That the University’s assumption that it may similarly retain recordings of staff after their contract of employment ends is contrary to law, since it relies upon contractual rights and obligations that are no longer lawful. Retention of such material amounts to a restraint of trade upon academics and it contrary to academic freedom which is the overarching principle of all academic contracts under Statute.
Routine recording plus scripting and captioning is only one model of inclusive practice. It lends itself to the delivery of information rather than the sharing of ideas / a learning experience.
The university should promote and develop a multi-dimensional approach to inclusivity and develop a range of alternative solutions about the relational aspects of inclusive practice as well. This proposed model of inclusive practice is limited and risks impacting the wider student experience
The branch resolves:
To reject the new policy as it is currently drafted, and either (i) to maintain the current one with any minor adjustment to further encourage colleagues to record audio for disabled students, or (ii) to negotiate an improved version.
A staff/disabled group ongoing forum should be established to develop a range of alternative strategies to develop effective inclusivity and not use LC as a panacea solution for disabled students’ obstacles to learning, including the disabled working group of UCU and LUU.
Any proposal for blended learning should first seek the opinion of teaching staff taking consideration of both workload and pedagogical implications, and that all members of staff should be invited with reasonable notice to actively engage in the design and delivery of teaching online or through pre-recording.
That in the exceptional context of online teaching delivery next academic term 2020-21 because of students unable to attend in person or reach campus because of the pandemic, the staff member author of any teaching content should retain the right to chose the modality of delivery (synchronous or asynchronous, recorded or not) and when not possible have the absolute autonomy of editing and removing the file with a reasonable time window (72 hours as for the current policy).
UCU University of Leeds BranchPosted on by Alan Smith
This is the detailed response sent from the branch to University of Leeds senior management at the start of the consultation on the proposed changes by management to the agreed lecture capture policy.
The current policy, negotiated with UCU, is generally popular and successful. It maintains a right to opt-out, subject to the existence of a counterveilling legal obligation (e.g. to provide a reasonable adjustment for disabled students) and would therefore seem, if applied properly, to comply with the University’s legal obligations under the Equality Act. If 82% of lectures are currently recorded, that means that over 82% of staff are currently prepared in principle to record their lectures (as some staff record some but not all lectures). Our members’ consultation indicated that more staff would be prepared to record lectures if firmer assurances could be given about use of those lectures outside of their immediate context (i.e. as part of a module or programme of study, in a particular year), if staff were given more control over the use of their lectures such that they are treated as owners of the material they produce, and if staff were given guarantees against misuse of that material. Instead of proposing an updated policy that addresses these concerns, the University proposes a policy that not only exacerbates some of those worries, but also that moves the basis of lecture capture policy away from the principle of consent (and thus buy-in by staff) and towards an approach of coercion, containing threats as to the use of recorded material beyond their immediate context. This would be a problem at the best of times. At a time of global crisis, when the sector and the institution are under unprecedented threat, and where employment relations within the institution are already poor, this approach is very disappointing indeed. We need the University to engage with our concerns meaningfully and to commit to reaching an agreed outcome, rather than imposing an policy on staff without our agreement, even if doing so means being unable to have a finalised policy for Senate in July. We believe that it is possible to reach agreement on a policy which represents an improvement for all parties on the previous, already very good, policy;
The justification for a new policy outlined in the context section has a significant gap; a lack of evidence of the pedagogic value of lecture capture. We need see a more explicit and better evidenced pedagogic defence of lecture capture, specifically on the impact of lecture capture on student learning. The document refers to evidence that lecture capture reduces attendance (without explaining why that is not a problem) and makes no reference to the significant developing literature around best practice in the use of lecture capture.
We also need to see an Equality Impact Assessment of this proposed policy. We envisage disproportionate impacts on, amongst others, disabled staff, staff with mental and physical health conditions, migrant staff, staff who have experienced harassment, stalking and domestic violence, trans staff, female staff and BAME staff. We need to understand how the university plans to mitigate those disproportionate impacts and, in particular, how it intends to fulfil its Equality Act duties towards staff.
Introduction
We think there are good reasons why one might wish to distinguish between audio and video recordings. Many staff who have concerns about lecture capture are far less concerned about audio recordings than about video recordings. What is the justification for treating them the same throughout the policy? We would particularly like it to be made clear, under the current circumstances, that staff working from home are not required to make video recordings.
Final added sentence: remove the word ‘Generally.’
The purpose of this lengthy new clause is unclear, other than the first sentence: the rest repeats what is already asserted in the introduction (and as such lacks evidence as to the pedagogic benefit of lecture capture). It does carry the implication, however, that all ‘educational activities’, not just lectures, need to be recorded. We see significant issues with this, some of which are raised throughout the document, but key points are (a) significantly higher likelihood in interactive classes that special category data will be recorded; (b) likelihood that recording will change the dynamic of a class, making students less willing to contribute and causing them to expect a transmission pedagogy, which may not be what the lecturer/tutor is aiming for; (c) significant technological difficulties in recording, for example, break out groups and staff and students moving around; (d) inadequacy of a recording as replacement or support for learning through discussion. As well as the technological and legal concerns, we need to see specific evidence that recording interactive classes has pedagogic value and that it is a necessary reasonable adjustment for disabled students.
This provision substantially removes autonomy from staff and we would like to see the previous formulation retained. Without prejudice to that position, we need a more precise understanding of what circumstances will be considered ‘appropriate’ to be respected by the Head of School/Service and on what basis the Head of School/ Service will be required to give agreement. Leaving matters to the discretion of individual Heads of School/Service will not improve consistency around the university (Context; point 9). Failing to respect the university’s legal and moral obligations towards staff will not provide a practical, legal and ethical framework for decision-making. We note in particular that some Schools have made, after proper deliberation, decisions to opt-out collectively from lecture capture (with opt-ins of individuals allowed) – how will they be dealt with?
Needs to be updated in the light of the change made to 2.
Remove the word ‘routinely’ from sentence 1 and replace ‘should’ with ‘will’. Remove ‘for example’ and be precise about what purposes the recording can be used for. We need the statement that recordings will not be used for performance management, including disciplinary proceedings, to be unconditional. Under what circumstances might external regulatory bodies request recordings? We assume this will be exceptional, in which case that word should be used. We are particularly concerned about the rise in complaints from students that are politically motivated or framed and need to see the University’s commitment to academic freedom reiterated here.
Deciding when to record
No comment, subject to our reservations about recording interactive classes
Appropriate educational activities- who decides what is appropriate and according to what criteria? We believe that that that judgment should lie within the academic freedom of staff in terms of the pedagogy that they adopt, subject to the requirements of inclusive education.
University recording
Agreement
What provision will be made during staff induction and through staff training to facilitate this? We think that there are currently significant gaps in staff understanding of the existing policy and of the functioning of the lecture capture system.
Given that the policy is to record ‘all appropriate educational activities’ this seems to assume that recording special category data will be exceptional. We disagree. Video recordings routinely capture special category data (e.g. racial or ethnic origin religious beliefs). Staff may reveal special category data about themselves as part of a normal human interaction within a lecture or seminar, and students may also do so, particularly in interactive sessions. Requiring staff to exclude special category data from teaching events would involve significant changes in teaching approach in some cases, thus interfering with academic freedom, and the consent procedure seems impractical in the case of students. If staff do not consent to the recording being made, on what basis does the University intend to process and store this special category data?
Editing
Live editing is very difficult in practice. The pause buttons are very stiff and often unresponsive, and unusable for staff with some impairments. Live editing also disrupts the class and is difficult when ‘in the flow’ of delivery, particularly when one finds lecturing stressful or anxiety-inducing. We do not, therefore, consider that it is practical to rely on live editing.
Notice
No comment
No comment
Exceptions
How does the first sentence tally with point (10)? We believe that the decision whether or not to record should be in the hands of the staff member concerned. Without prejudice to that position, we note that this provision gives a great deal of power to Heads of School with little guidance as to how it should be exercised and we need more precision as to what counts as ‘a sound pedagogical, legal or other justifiable reason.’ The wording also implies that an individual can ask for an opt-out based on their situation, but it is not clear whether it is possible for an individual to choose to record some classes and not others based on the content of the class (e.g. specific pedagogy, reliance on copyright material or images, particularly sensitive content). Please clarify this point. Finally, for some staff, explaining the reason for wishing to opt-out may require disclosing personal and sensitive information they would otherwise not wish to disclose to their Head of School, and provision should be made for this. We consider the best provision to be the current policy, where no explanation has to be given for an opt-out, as that respects staff privacy.
This is a bureaucratic process which will create further workload for Heads of School – there should be a cost/benefit analysis of this. In addition, there should be a timeframe for a decision, otherwise staff may be obligated to record when they have good reason not to because a Head of School has not had time to make a decision. Also, please clarify why the request has to go to the module leader/programme leader/ DSE if the decision maker is the Head of School, particularly given the point made above about the sensitivity of some reasons for seeking opt out.
It’s not clear why this is the only consideration for Heads of School to be mentioned in the policy itself – there are many other things they need to consider. Either all of the considerations for Heads of School need to be in the policy, or they all need to be in the guidance (which we need to agree).
Students with a disability who need a recording
Appropriate reasonable adjustments for disabled students are clearly important, both legally and ethically, and we are fully supportive of this requirement and the broader intention to make our university more inclusive. However, this section does not fairly balance the needs and rights of disabled students against the needs and rights of disabled staff. Many, if not most, classes will contain at least one disabled student, and virtually all Assessments of Needs mention lecture capture as a key strategy. This section will therefore impact most, if not all, staff. We are particularly concerned about the word ‘wishes’ in the first sentence, when contrasted with the language of requirement and need, suggesting that opting out is a matter of personal caprice, rather than relating to the needs and requirements of individual staff. Overall this provision seems to create a situation where student rights trump staff rights. We need instead one in which solutions are tailored to the needs of the individual student and staff members so both sets of rights are respected. We suggest that dialogue between teaching staff and DSAS staff, as well as more general dialogue with students, will be required to create the constructive atmosphere in which this can work.
See 19
This procedure seems unnecessary, punitive and exposing, bearing in mind that staff may have important, sensitive and personal reasons for not wishing to make their recordings generally available. There are better, more natural ways of managing this. It may also be exposing for students.
Use of microphones in teaching spaces
We are supportive of this policy. We note, however, that staff frequently find broken or missing equipment or batteries that have run out. If this policy is imposed as an obligation, provision must be made to ensure that staff have good quality, functioning and sanitised equipment to fulfil their obligation safely. Calling an IT tech is not a good regular solution as it takes time out of a class. Lapel microphones are difficult to wear for those who don’t wear suits, and women more frequently wear clothing that is inappropriate for lapel microphones. We encourage purchase of more suitable, more inclusive equipment.
See our comments about recording interactivity. It is not clear how this applies to a typical discussion based seminar or one where breakout pairs or groups are used. We believe that significant further training will be required before most staff are able effectively to record interactive sessions. We also question the pedagogic value of recording interactive sessions, whilst appreciating that the use of microphones and the repetition of questions is important in the session itself for students with hearing impairments; recording often makes students more likely to treat the class as based on transmission pedagogy, which could cause them not to learn effectively from it.
Captioning of recordings
Again, we are supportive of the intentions of this policy, but have substantial concerns about the accuracy of captioning, particularly for staff who do not speak in ‘standard’ English accents, for technical terms and terms of art and for foreign languages. The workload implications are considerable if the captioning needs substantial correction. Who is responsible for establishing whether a particular set of captions meets the quality threshold? Workload concerns are heightened by the shortening of the auto-publication time (below). We understand that a pilot is being carried out and would need to see the results of the pilot, understand how broad it has been and whether it has covered some of our areas of concern, and understand the steps that are to be taken as a result to see what can be done to prevent this from creating an unreasonable workload.
What about classes which are not delivered in the English language? Or where quotations or texts in other languages are used?
No comment
No comment
Again, this has workload implications if the captions are inaccurate.
Auto-publication of recording
We understand that the majority of staff do not edit, and for them this may have no impact. Our consultation suggests that the main reason for not editing is lack of time. Those staff who do edit do so assiduously, mainly to remove sensitive information, including special category data, copyright material or private conversations before or after the class begins. They would find it more difficult to do so, noting the comments under (11) on the unworkability of live editing. We note that in some disciplines the need to edit is great, and will become greater if opt-out is not possible (due to regular use of sensitive data, or regular use of copyright material) and that some Schools use SES staff, rather than academics, to undertake the editing process. This policy also impacts disproportionately on part-time staff, disabled staff, who may find the editing software harder to use, and staff who teach in the latter part of the week (given the emphasis on calendar days not working days). We understand the motivation behind the proposal but it needs more flexibility. Note also comments under (11) about live editing.
Data Protection
See below
This represents a move away from using consent at the lawful basis for the processing and storing of data – please clarify that this is the case. Assuming that is the case, we need more explanation about why the process of gaining buy-in and consent of staff to lecture capture has been abandoned and why other bases are being used instead. In particular, in our view, the justifications other than consent or legal obligation require more evidence than has been given about the overall pedagogic benefits of recording classes (and legal obligation will only apply if the recording is required as part of a reasonable adjustment). Please also tell us who will be holding the data – the university or another company? If another company, where is the company based? What purposes will the data be used for? How can individuals access and seek to amend the data?
See above point 10 – we consider that video recordings in particularly contain special category data as a matter of course, and that many classes will routinely involve sharing of special category data. If staff consent is not given, on what other special condition is the university relying to authorise the processing and storing of special category data of staff?
Student Recordings
Under what circumstances might it be justifiable for a Head of School to overrule a staff member’s refusal to consent?
What action will be taken against students violating these rules?
Does this include the staff member?
Intellectual Property
On this entire section, we observe that the default legal position in relation to performers rights is that they are held by the employee in the first instance, not by the employer (unlike copyright). We note that the JISC guidance on legal issues around lecture capture (https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/recording-lectures-legal-considerations) states that any assignation of performance rights to the institution needs to take place as separate documents rather than incorporated into contracts. We therefore do not consider that the University’s Intellectual Property policy assigns performance rights to the employers, that they remain with the employee and that this thus requires any recording of teaching to be made only with the consent of the member of staff teaching.
Staff leaving the University
The form of words here is strange and hostile. Leaving aside the IP position, the current policy does not prohibit the deletion of recordings and thus staff doing so are not doing anything wrong. Is the intention to prohibit staff from deleting material, and if so why? We need more clarity on why the University considers that it might need teaching material once a staff member has left, particularly if the staff member leaves at the end of the academic year. We need an explicit exclusion of the possibility of using captured lectures without the consent of the academic concerned in any context outside of the module and academic session in which the recording was first made, and particularly exclusion of the possibility of using the recorded teaching of staff once those staff members have been made redundant or otherwise left as an alternative to continuing to employ that staff member, or to employing a replacement staff member, to teach the material.
Downloading and Retention of Recordings
Are there any circumstances where staff might be required to make recordings downloadable? Is the default that recordings should not be downloadable? What action will be taken against students or graduates violating these rules? When reference is made to Mediasite recordings, does this include both timetabled and non-timetabled recordings?
What is the justification for storing recordings beyond the end of the academic session in which they are made?
What justification exists for the difference? We are particularly concerned about this given that online teaching provided from home during the COViD-19 situation is likely to involve using non-timetabled recordings exclusively. What mechanisms exist to remind students and staff of these obligations, particularly where students have left the university? What action will be taken against students or graduates failing to comply?
No comment on the remainder
We finish by noting that the current situation, with the likelihood of online learning moving into next year on an exceptional basis, requires particular provision within this policy and other policies, in order to give staff control over material which they are creating exceptionally, and in order to give staff autonomy to make decisions about delivery of material which work for them and their students.
UCU University of Leeds BranchPosted on by Alan Smith
In the event of difference between the web version and the minutes agreed at the branch general meeting 14 May, the latter is the correct version. (Formatting is the most likely difference.)
General meeting
Tuesday 28 April 2020, 1pm – 2pm Video meeting
Minutes
Chaired by branch president Ben Plumpton
Agreed to restrict speeches to 3 minutes for movers and 2 for debate.
Minutes of the previous meetings
7 November 2019 EGM. Minutes agreed.
22 January 2020 EGM. Minutes agreed.
2 March general meeting. Minutes agreed.
Local update
Update on local discussions with university senior management. We are meeting with HR regularly. We’re concerned about how frequently we’re being informed about decisions rather than being consulted on them. We’re not being involved in the decisions of the university executive group (UEG) – we’re being frozen out of decisions about how the university proceeds. Fixed term contracts is a priority – we’ve asked for extensions for all staff. The university made a minor extension to the end of May for most but we are trying to impress upon them the urgency of extensions for all staff as soon as possible particularly while the job market is frozen. There has been confirmation about how furlough will apply to universities, which is being worked through – the government says the scheme doesn’t apply where there is public funding. They have confirmed they will top up the government’s 80% of salary to 100% for furloughed staff. They are still exploring which staff can be furloughed. We’re asking them to pay for visa extensions and NHS surcharges.
On working from home, many staff are unable to do a full day’s work. HR are supportive face to face but haven’t changed the guidance to be as supportive as it should be. We’re pushing for better support and equipment for everyone, especially those needing reasonable adjustments. The University is treating is as temporary. Our advice is if it’s not safe stop and contact us. University has issued survey – we had no involvement or consultation – there are no demographic or equality questions. We have done our own survey which is better and in more depth so we can make more use of the data.
Sprung on us last week was that the university would like to introduce a new lecture capture policy. We are being consulted we have many concerns we will be circulating a draft.
We need everyone who has influence to use it however they can – officers and committee are working very hard, let’s all work together and make our presence felt.
Get in touch with us if things are happening. Decisions are being made at UEG and a lot of things are being worked out are school and faculty level.
National update
UCU Congress was due to happen in May but has had to be postponed due to coronavirus and we don’t yet know what alternative arrangements will be made. UCU’s UK committees are continuing to meet electronically.
Negotiations on the ‘Four Fights’ and USS disputes are continuing. Further information is expected soon about the next steps, including a mechanism for branches to feed into the Higher Education Committee on these disputes.
Motion 1: Securing staff on casualised contracts
Casualised workers make up approximately 70% of researchers nationally in HE, and between 25-30% of the teaching staff in many universities. Like everybody, casualised university workers are struggling with the global crisis brought on by COVID-19, and are particularly likely to see our contracts terminate (while our Vice Chancellors are continuing to pay themselves salaries of £253,000 on average — many much more — from taxpayer money). There is no indication that this pandemic will be over any time soon, and some estimates suggest it could affect us up to 18 months or longer, which will take us through the next academic year at least. This does not even reflect longer-term economic impacts beyond the immediate tragedy of the pandemic itself. While this crisis continues, casualised staff members across the university — often the lowest paid on campus — must not be forgotten, and should receive guaranteed income along with permanent staff.
This branch recognises:
that universities have already agreed to address casualisation due to the inordinate amount of suffering it causes, which will only be intensified by COVID-19
that casualised staff whose contracts are ending will find it almost impossible to secure employment during a global pandemic, especially when university hiring is expected to freeze. This impacts international staff disproportionately whose immigration status are tied to their employment status. International staff face the threat of ‘legal limbo’ which is compounded by “No recourse to public funds”.
that casually employed university workers (including hourly staff, fixed-term staff, and PhD students/GTAs) perform crucial, often poorly compensated, work, and deserve the same security as permanent colleagues, including contract renewals, extensions, or continued pay for the duration of the crisis
that departments are going to need increased capacity as a result of the crisis, given potential illness of colleagues and the switch to remote working, making the work done by casualised staff even more essential
This branch therefore demands an immediate contractual guarantee of two years of work at or above the current level of remuneration, for all casualised university staff.
This branch resolves to:
Call on members to support the @CoronaContracts campaign and to sign the national open letter on casual contracts: https://coronacontract.org
Call on our University to support the principle of guaranteed employment for two years for all casualised staff and, if necessary, to seek to apply the government’s job retention scheme to all eligible precarious staff, which must be topped up by our University to cover 100% of wages
Call on our university to support the welfare of research staff on fixed term contracts who are funded by external research bodies. Where any projects are adversely affected, the university should work with research bodies in order to ensure any/all extensions are funded and any/all gaps in income are covered
Call on our University to enter into full and open consultation on any proposed redundancies, including redeploying staff instead of terminating them, and to confirm that staff on fixed term contracts will not be discriminated against or automatically dismissed and support international staff on visa extensions and renewals
Call for protections for postgraduate students including extensions of scholarships, protections around access to paid work, suspension of fees for self-funded students and students in their fourth year of study, and to suspend deadlines and annual reviews
Moved by Arunima Bhattacharya. Seconded by Steven French. Carried.
Motion 2
This branch notes:
That COVID-19 has created a significant crisis in Higher Education, with reports that Universities are likely to be very badly hit financially;
That the core reason for this is the current HE funding model which makes university funding largely dependent on student fees, and a consequent strategic approach taken by institutions such as Leeds which creates high dependence on international student fees specifically;
That there is a legitimate concern that universities, including the University of Leeds, will try to impose job cuts and major restructures under the guise of emergency COVID-19 planning
That the most vulnerable staff, particularly staff on casualised contracts, on visas, and with disabilities, caring responsibilities and mental health, are those most likely to be impacted by badly thought- through responses to the crisis;
That Durham University is reported already to be planning wholesale moves towards online teaching as a response to COVID-19, which is unworkable in terms of staff expertise and workload; is pedagogically undesirable and is very likely to be an insufficient response to the challenges posted;
This branch:
Urges the University to engage in meaningful consultation with campus trades unions about the University’s response to the COVID-19 crisis
Resolves robustly to defend jobs and working conditions throughout the crisis and beyond
Resolves in particular to resist any strategic or organisational changes, in particular to modes of teaching, which are not wholly justified by the emergency measures required to respond to the COVID-19 crisis
Agrees to send a message of solidarity and support to Durham University UCU in fighting off deleterious management plans
Request that the university open their books in good faith (in case of threat of redundancies or pay cuts) and to mitigate against job losses. Including an account of current and future investments and what is planned, re buildings etc and details around governance restrictions on reserves.
Moved by Chloe Wallace. Seconded by Adam Booth. Amendment moved by Kate Hardy agreed. Motion as text above carried.
Motion 3
“Leeds University UCU notes the detailed equality and mutual dignity policies attached and linked below.
The University however, breaches its own policies by setting non-binary trans staff up to be dead named by the university and their colleagues through its failure to provide gender choices beyond female/male.
We note that dead naming is not a theoretical policy, it is currently happening to staff in this university.
We note that the University has systems that do not link properly; thus deadnames remain in the systems. Deadnaming is an act of violence.
This branch insists that the following choices are offered to all staff.
Female / Gender Fluid / Male / Non-Binary / Other (If Other is picked, no further definition is requested.)
We further note that the university states that its guidance on trans staff is ‘under review’. We are unaware that staff unions have been involved or informed of this review of policies which form part of our terms and conditions of service.”
Moved by Megan Povey. Megan’s amendment proposed by Simon Joyce, seconded by Alan Roe, carried. Motion as text above carried.
Motion 4: Home working cost reimbursement
The government website indicates an amount of £26 per month that employers can pay to employees working from home (without paperwork to account for the extra electricity etc). https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/employment-income-manual/eim32815 . Leeds University UCU demands that the UoL does this for all staff with effect from 23 March 2020.
Proposed by Lesley McGorrigan, seconded by Alan Roe. Carried
Motion 5: Carrying over annual leave
Leeds UCU demands that the UoL agrees for staff to carry over annual leave not taken during covid-crisis to the next two years, as outlined on this Government documents for some workers:
Proposed by Lesley McGorrigan, seconded by Alan Roe. Carried.
Any other urgent business (please notify the president before the start of the meeting)
Action short of a strike ends today.
Reminder to fill in branch survey.
If members wish to raise any matters arising from previous meeting at the next general meeting, please could they email ucu@leeds.ac.uk to let the president know.
UCU University of Leeds BranchPosted on by Alan Smith
The branch officers have decided to hold an online Emergency General Meeting about the proposed new lecture capture policy next Tuesday 12 May, 1pm – 2pm. We’ll send out details for how to join the meeting nearer the time.
The emergency general meeting will be a single topic discussion meeting about the proposed changes to the lecture capture policy, to inform the UCU negotiating team who will be meeting with senior management on 13 May for consultation on the proposed changes.
It would be useful if you could complete the form in the email from branch president Ben Plumpton (sent Thursday 30 April) with your comments about the proposed changes by this Friday 8 May.
This is a separate meeting from next week’s Annual General Meeting (Thursday 14 May, 3.30pm – 5pm).
All general meetings for all UCU members in the University of Leeds branch.
UCU University of Leeds BranchPosted on by Alan Smith
Nominations are open for the branch committee for the next academic year, including all branch officer positions. UCU members elect a branch committee every year around the Annual General Meeting to shape, lead and facilitate the branch member-led campaigns and activities.
It really matters that the committee is representative, in the diversity of people and in role and contract types. When you’re thinking about which colleague to nominate or whether to stand yourself please take a moment consider the tendency to over-representation of white men on committees in general.
If you’re interested and would like to know more, please get in touch with the branch administrator or one of the current committee members (optional!). You don’t have to have experience of being a union rep to be on the committee.
Nominations are open now for all the elected committee roles for the 2020-2021 academic year*:
Ordinary committee members (14 spaces)
President
Vice‑president
Treasurer
Honorary secretary
Membership officer
Equality officer
Campaigns officer
Health and safety officer
Anti-casualisation officer
Some ordinary committee members are likely to be asked to take a lead on particular issues by the new committee. These roles are not elected separately, so if you want to take the lead on one of the following issues it would be helpful if that was written on your nomination
Ordinary committee member (postgraduate members rep)
Ordinary committee member (migrant members rep)
Ordinary committee member (migrant postgraduate members rep)
Ordinary committee member (women members rep)
Ordinary committee member (black members rep)
Ordinary committee member (disabled members rep)
Ordinary committee member (LGBT+ members rep)
Ordinary committee member (pensions rep)
Ordinary committee member (environment rep)
Nominations for all committee positions must be sent to the branch administrator by 3.45 on Wednesday 13 May (the day before the AGM).
The UCU office is closed because of the covid-19 lockdown so we are not accepting paper this year. Please email your nomination to a.j.u.smith@leeds.ac.uk.
You don’t need to give reasons for your nomination, just please make clear what role you are nominating them for. Anyone who receives two nominations and emails me to confirm they accept the nomination is a candidate. If no election is needed the candidate will be declared elected unopposed at the AGM; if an election is needed that will be arranged by the committee after the AGM.
(*1 August 2020 – 31 July 2021; the committee or general meetings can appoint up to 4 additional members to the committee)
The branch rules go into more detail about the roles of different officers, election processes etc.
Some of the website tools used on this website set cookies on your browser. The website should work fine if you DISABLE all except the necessary cookies. If you click “Accept” you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Activity (e.g. module,