Board of Scrutiny
Thursday 29 January 2004
Present: Mantas Adomenas, Stephen Cowley, Christopher Forsyth (chair), Nicholas Holmes, Elisabeth Leedham-Green, Saskia Murk-Jansen, Timothy Milner, David Phillipson, Jennifer Rigby, Roger Salmon, John Spencer, Helen Thompson.
2. Minutes of the meeting of 15 January 2004
The Board confirmed the minutes after some minor amendments to the wording.
3. Matters arising
3.1. Administrative support
The Chair reported that after an e-mail exchange with the Registrary, he was now corresponding with the Director of Personnel on appointing an administrative support officer for the Board. He noted that the Director of Personnel had informed him that the Role Analysis and Remuneration Manager would liase with him to grade the post.
The Board agreed that the post would be twelve months in the first instance and thereafter renewable, and chose a sub-committee of the Chair, Jennifer Rigby and Helen Thompson to make the appointment.
3.2. Meeting with the Council
The Board agreed that it meet a delegation from the Council on 19 February 2004 at noon.
3.3. The building maintenance fund
Nick Holmes reported that he had been in correspondence with the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Planning and Resources. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor had made clear that the Planning and Resources Committee intended to leave the maintenance budget as it was allocated and that the University has agreed to reallocate the SRIF 2 money to existing projects. Consequently, up to £6 million worth of planned maintenance projects will not now go ahead. Pro-Vice-Chancellor is satisfied that at the present time, the maintenance budget is sufficient.
The Board agreed to follow developments. It further agreed to consider some questions raised in Its discussion of this issue about EMBS and energy purchasing.
ACTION: Nick Holmes to continue his correspondence with the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Planning and Resources
3.4. Invitation to the Vice-Chancellor from the Board
The Chair reported he had written to the Vice-Chancellor to invite her to one of the Board’s meetings during the remainder of the year.
3.5. The clarity of Council papers
Roger Salmon reported on his review of the Council papers for Lent 2003. He raised a number of issues about the utility of the papers to helping the Council to make effective decisions and provide direction to the University.
The Board agreed that Roger Salmon would provide a written report for a future meeting where the Board would decide how to proceed with this issue.
The Chair reported that he had written to Prof. Cornish about the possibility tax liability to the principal inventor on assigning patents rights to the CUTS and received a grateful reply.
3.7. Audit management letter
The Board agreed to ask for the audit management letter.
ACTION: The Chair to write to the Registrary and request the letter.
4. Progress on Shattock and Finkelstein: Part One Internal Discussion
The Board agreed to ask the Registrary about: (i) whether the University’s management had Received from Robson Rhodes a table of the Shattock recommendations with an assessment of progress made; (ii) his judgement about Robson Rhodes’ comment that there has been limited progress in defining, at either committee level or individually, the accountabilities within the University; (iii) which recommendations of Shattock and Finkelstein, he deemed the most Important.
5. Any other business
There was no other business
6. Progress on Shattock and Finkelstein: Part Two Discussion with Registrary
The Board met the Registrary to discuss the University’s progress in implementing Shattock and Finkelstein.
7. Date of the next meeting: 12 February 2004