This sounds innocuous, and the university only existing because of, and for, the students is a truism. Meeting as many students as soon as possible seems a worthy goal.
But is it really? Should he have other priorities? Is he in danger of falling into a former vice-chancellor Harlene Hayne trap?
Sure, much blame can be put on the government funding vice being turned tighter for many years. This causes ever-larger teaching loads, intense pressures on research, and constant stresses all round.
The disastrous and prolonged general staff restructuring, and the centralising of support services, were supposed to save money.
It largely failed in that goal, while also alienating staff across most areas.
The feeling grew that management did not and would not listen, that layers of paperwork and requirements indicated a lack of trust, increased the bureaucracy and drained resources better spent on the frontline. It seemed the university administration centred on and was driven by "operations" rather than "serving" the frontline staff and through them the students themselves.
While restructurings in large organisations are almost inevitable, this damage should never be underestimated.
The point is that Mr Robertson’s primary priority should, paradoxically, not be meeting students but — somehow — turning around staff morale.
For it is the staff who teach the students, who interact with them, who provide the quality teaching that a university relies on.
If his academic staff are performing below their best, if the best of them give up and leave, if quality cannot be attracted, and if their low spirit is transmitted directly and indirectly to the students, then the students themselves suffer.
Prof Hayne, herself, showed admirable concern for students. Notable was her determination to improve and make safer the student culture.
But there was a sense that staff did not feel she was in it for them.
Mr Robertson should not follow the same path. Even if academics are notable for their questioning and demanding natures — even their lack of realism in the face of financial facts — their welfare is critical.
This is like, say, the principal of a large high school. Although the school exists for the pupils, the staff are the conduit for pupil attainment.
Mr Robertson has a gigantic task. He looks as though, sensibly, he will not rush into change.
He is smart and personable, and his heart is in the right place. He will be working and rooting for the interests of his and Dunedin’s beloved university.
He is a former Otago student and Otago and New Zealand student president. Not being an academic should not be material.
But what does matter is the morale of the academic and other staff who work for and with him. It is they who will deliver the programmes and lead the research. It is they on whom the students depend.
*****
A stark example of how we all, including coaches, players and sports reporters, follow trends — whether we are aware of it or not — appeared in commentary around the rugby test in Dunedin last weekend.
Civis lost count of the number of times he saw or heard the latest common phrase "both sides of the ball" — as in meaning players’ contributions on attack and defence.
Thankfully, Civis only once read "the ball" referred to as "the pill".
This linguistic abomination should be permanently kicked to touch.
