Employer and union reps are currently guaranteed positions on institute of technology and polytechnic (ITP) Councils until April 30, but should they keep that privilege? I say no. (This is the fifth post in a series on ITP Council changes.)

I’m very supportive of employer and union involvement on ITP councils (and I mean both groups, because there are talented people working on education in both unions and employer groups), as they can represent the end-users of vocational education. Of course, just being an employer or a union rep does not guarantee that the individual has the expertise or the support network to make an effective contribution to the Council. Much the same arguments apply as for CEO, staff and student reps.

The nominations to Councils are effectively made by Business NZ (and regional associations) and the CTU, although the ITP is only required to consult with them – the relationships varies, as does the consultation level. I’m not convinced that the CTU and Business NZ have made enough of their involvement over the last 20 years to justify their co-ordinating role. I’m not aware of any work done by Business NZ to support or coordinate their nominees. The CTU has, I understand, hosted some meetings of tertiary education institution (TEI) and industry training organisation (ITO) governing body reps, while I have spoken to a group of EPMU TEI/ITO reps (I hope I helped) - even so, I’m not sure they’ve committed large resources to making the most of their representation. People may argue that current nominees are skills-based appointments and do not need to be supported, but I’d respond that Business NZ and the CTU were given quite specific rights in the Council appointment process and they bore some responsibility to follow through on it to make it work.

The CTU was opposed to the ITP Council changes last year but I’m not aware whether they made a submission to the Education and Science Committee on the bill. Business NZ did make a submission, and did not object to losing their role in the appointment process - they did propose that the nominations process should be open and rigorous. Once the dust settles, I expect that few ITPs will designate employer (maybe 5-10) and union (maybe 5) rep roles on their new councils.

External roles are not just about employers and employees though. Councils could also add in professional bodies (Federated Farmers has a nominee at several ITPs) while they could co-opt anyone – local body politicians and iwi representatives were often given guaranteed roles in Council constitutions. I would expect that 16-20 ITPs will have Maori representatives on their Council under the new arrangements (reflecting the Treaty partnerships that they have developed over time – both ITPs and Maori have committed time to the relationships), but I wouldn’t expect to see any other local body or professional bodies having a specific role (other than farmer reps at Telford Rural Polytechnic, and maybe local body reps at SIT).

While constitutions are unlikely to specify many external roles, many of the new Council appointments will come from employer backgrounds, with quite a few union people (although maybe not one per ITP).