08 February 2012 Dear Sally, Re.

: General Secretary Election I write this open letter, mainly to express disappointment and some dismay at the tone and content of your first message to members. We have known each other for a considerable time, and have worked closely together since the formation of the UCU. That is a relationship that I have valued, and has been one of mutual respect. Your message to members suggests that this was not your perception. It seeks to demonise the grouping in the union whose policies I have supported, as you know, since the formation of the union. Moreover, your thinly veiled political criticism impugns the integrity of those activists who support the policies of the UCU Left. Hence that criticism inevitably expresses doubt about my own motives, and my commitment to the interests of members. I believe this to be a deeply unfortunate turn of events. It damages the union and our current campaigns at a pivotal moment, and it raises the spectre of difficult relations in the future. You have also taken the possibly unprecedented step for a sitting General Secretary of endorsing the candidatures of one particular faction. Even at this late stage, I urge you, as sitting General Secretary, to reconsider this approach. The role of the General Secretary is to speak for all members, and, when possible, to federate differences. Whether they vote for you or not, this is the expectation that most members have of the role. I urge you to return to that approach. You also argue in your message to members that, if elected, you will seek constitutional alterations that will reduce the size and influence of the unions committee structure. I do not need to remind you of the protracted discussion prior to the amalgamation that were necessary to ensure that no one section of the union dominated policy formation. Those discussions also ensured that all sections of the union were represented on its policy-making bodies. I caution against attempting to unravel this carefully constructed balance as it will inevitably impinge on the democracy of our union, and be seen as just such an attempt. There is no necessary reason why electoral campaigns need to be divisive. We can disagree on strategy and tactics without questioning each others motives, and without propagating uncalled-for political innuendo. I urge all, therefore, to step back and revise their promotional material so as to deliver positive campaigns on their policies rather than negative attacks on the politics or the character of adversaries. Finally, thank you for your reply to our invitation to a hustings debate for Brighton and Sussex universities and City College. It is unfortunate that your schedule does not allow attendance. Rest assured that, if Mark does agree to come to speak to us, we will certainly forward your manifesto to members here to accompany notice of the meeting. Our Coordinating Committee at Brighton has already agreed to forward any and all materials from candidates to all members if requested to do so. Fraternally,

Tom Hickey University of Brighton and NEC