Minutes for meetings of the Board of Scrutiny for the 2001-02 academical year appear below:
The first meeting of the Board in the academical year 2001-2 was held on Thursday, October 11, in the Howard Building, Downing College. Members present: The Senior Proctor (Dr D.J. Chivers), The Senior Pro-Proctor (Mr J.D.McDonald), The Junior Pro-Proctor (Mr T.N. Milner), Dr S.J. Cowley, Dr S.E. Lintott, Mrs J.M. Rigby, Professor J.R. Spencer and Dr H.E. Thompson.
1.) Apologies for Absence: Apologies had been received from The Junior Proctor (Dr V.E.Izzet) and Dr O. Rackham. Dr R.H. Lachmann and Mr D.R. Howarth were on leave.
2.) Election of Chairman and Secretary: The Senior Proctor presided over the election of a Chairman. Dr Susan Lintott was proposed by the Senior Proctor and seconded by Professor J.R. Spencer. She was elected unopposed and assumed the chair. The Junior Pro-Proctor was then proposed as Secretary (for the Michaelmas Term only) by Mrs J.M. Rigby and seconded by the Senior Pro-Proctor. He was elected unopposed.
3.) Minutes of the Meetings on 31 May and 27 September: The minutes of the Meeting held on 31 May 2001 and the minutes of the informal “handover” Meeting held on 27 September 2001 were approved without amendment.
4.) Matters Arising: There were no matters arising.
5.) CAPSA Review: The Chairman informed the Board that the Audit Committee had met that morning but had not yet seen the Review produced by the independent consultants, Professors Shattock and Finkelstein, which was still being examined by lawyers. She further reported that their Review was due to be delivered to the Audit Committee in the week beginning 22 October. A special meeting of Council was likely to be held on 29 October, prior to publication of the Review in the Reporter on 1 November. The Chairman hoped to arrange for the joint reception of the Review by the Audit Committee and the Board of Scrutiny and would contact Professor Badger to discuss arrangements. It was important that the Audit Committee be reminded that the Shattock/Finkelstein Review had been jointly commissioned by the Audit Committee and the Board of Scrutiny. The CAPSA sub-group would be the most appropriate section of the Board to attend such a meeting.
Action: Chairman to seek to arrange this with Professor Badger.
Professor Spencer suggested that the Board ought to meet as soon as the Review had been received, but the Chairman pointed out that a meeting of the Board was already scheduled for 15 November and that would give members an opportunity to prepare possible comments for the Discussion likely to be held on 20 November. Dr Cowley expressed concerns over any “spin” that might be put on the results of the Review, noting the importance of safeguarding the good name of the University. The Chairman felt that any involvement with the University’s public presentation of the Review should be avoided and agreed that the Board should guard the University’s good name when this did not conflict with the Board’s duty to scrutinise and comment.
6.) Governance: A Report to the University on Governance had been promised by the end of Michaelmas Term.
7.) Themes for the Year Ahead: The Chairman took the opportunity to circulate copies of Statute AVII so as to remind members of the Board of its Statutory remit and duties. At the next meeting she would aim to distribute copies of the Board’s Recommendations over the last six years. The Chairman also drew attention to the considerable commitment in both time and effort required to produce the Board of Scrutiny’s Annual Report and she hoped that elements of the next Report might be undertaken by sub-groups. Inevitably, several meetings would be required for round the table editing and agreeing of the Report. It was agreed that it was important to avoid any impression that the Board was engaged in “nit picking” as this provided ammunition for potential critics and detracted from the force of any Recommendations the Board might make.
Professor Spencer asked whether anyone on the Board was skilled in analysing financial accounts. The Chairman described past practice and counselled a common-sense approach; she felt that this would often suffice to identify underlying policy. The issue of a Research Assistant for the Board was raised again and it was noted that funding had been allocated and a job-description provided.
Action: Chairman to investigate progress by the Old Schools on this.
The Chairman outlined a number of potential themes which had emerged from past scrutiny of the Annual Report of the Council, the Abstract of Accounts and the Chest Allocations and she suggested that these might form the agenda for the Michaelmas Term. These were discussed individually.
(I) The Old Schools Scrutiny of the University’s Central Administration, which was likely to develop into two sub-themes:
(a) Staff Morale and its effect on the efficiency of the Central Administration.
(b) Budgeting and the financial relationship between the Old Schools and the University’s Academic Institutions.
The issues of staff morale and retention and the effect these might have on the efficient functioning of the Central Administration were complex. Several members expressed concern about this aspect of the University’s operation and the impact of recent organisational changes and external regulation. Departmental Reserves were another possible issue requiring attention.
Action: A sub-group of The Chairman, Professor Spencer, Mrs Rigby and Dr Thompson would arrange to see the Director of Personnel.
(II) Progress of CAPSA/CUFS The Chairman pointed out that the University’s Auditors had also acted as consultants and that the Board should be aware of a potential conflict of interest. It was essential that the Board should receive the Agenda and Minutes of the Audit Committee and as a point of principle the Board should exercise its right to call for relevant papers. Professor Spencer remarked upon the need for reliable information on the further development of CAPSA or CUFS (Cambridge University Financial System) as it was now called. The Senior Proctor suggested that the Board should also receive the Agenda and Minutes of the CAPSA Committee. Members suggested possible sources of accurate information about the progress of CAPSA/CUFS.
Action: At its next meeting the Board should consider setting up a meeting with the Director of Finance.
(III) Governance There was further discussion of how this theme might be explored. The Senior Pro-Proctor questioned whether or not the Board should wait until the Report on Governance had emerged before exploring this issue further? It was noted that questions of governance and staff morale might in fact be closely related and that this would provide a potential line to follow at this point. The Board might also examine the roles of the Vice-Chancellor and the Pro Vice-Chancellors. Dr Cowley said that he believed that in addition to the new Directors in the Old Schools, Assistant Directors were now likely to be appointed and that this might be of interest to the Board.
(IV) The Audit Committee
(V) Register of Interests The Board might like to look at the Register of Interests kept in the Old Schools and address the question of which categories of person are currently required to register any commercial interests they may have. This could be done with a view to issues of governance, the Nolan Report etc.
8.) Date and Time of Next meeting: Some discussion ensued as to the best time for future meetings of the Board to start. It was agreed to meet from 12.00-2.00pm. The next meeting would be held on Thursday, 25 October, in Downing College.
The second meeting of the Board in the academical year 2001-2 was held on Thursday, 1 November, at 12.00 in the Wilkins Room, Downing College ( a postponement of the proposed meeting on 25 October). Members present: The Chairman (Dr S.L. Lintott), The Senior Proctor (Dr D.J. Chivers), , The Junior Pro-Proctor (Mr T.N. Milner), Dr S.J. Cowley, Dr O. Rackham, Mrs J.M. Rigby, Professor J.R. Spencer and Dr H.E. Thompson.
9.) Apologies for Absence: Apologies had been received from the Junior Proctor (Dr V.E. Izzet) and the Senior Pro-Proctor (Mr J.D.McDonald). Mr D.R. Howarth and Dr R.H. Lachmann were on leave.
10.) Minutes of the Meeting on 11 October: The Board approved the Minutes after making some minor amendments proposed by Dr Cowley.
11.) Matters Arising: Some discussion ensued arising out of the Minutes. The Chairman noted that the Board could usefully “engage” with the Regent House and publication of the Minutes on the Board of Scrutiny website was one means of doing this and stimulating debate. This might be complementary to the formal process of Discussion in the Senate House. Several members wondered if formal Discussions of the Regent House could evolve as a forum for actual debate as opposed to the delivery of prepared speeches.
12.) CAPSA: (i) Delivery of the Report The Chairman reported progress with the CAPSA Review. Professors Shattock and Finkelstein had wished the external consultants to have an opportunity for a legal review of their Report. KPMG had failed to comment in time and Tate Bramald had requested one change. The Report was received by the Chairman and circulated to members by e-mail on 25 October. The Secretary of the Audit Committee had stressed at that point that it should remain strictly confidential. The Report had then been discussed by Council on 29 October. At this point the Chairman invited the Senior Proctor to give a synopsis of events at Council.
(ii) Advance Publicity Concerning The Report: Members of the Board expressed grave concern over the attempted “news management” of the Report prior to its appearance in the Reporter on 2 November. An article had appeared in the Times Higher Education Supplement on 26 October which appeared to suggest that the writer had some knowledge of what was in the Report. The Chairman had visited the Registrary earlier in the morning and ascertained that Dr Mead had indeed spoken to the THES. Dr Thompson wondered if the THES had not in fact seen the Report, but had been able to “stitch together” a piece using comments from the Registrary and the contents of the Vice-Chancellor’s speech on 1 October. Professor Spencer asked the Chairman if, in her opinion, it was the case that any University officer had divulged confidential material to the Press and the Chairman thought that the answer to this had to be yes.
(iii) The Press Conference: The Chairman had also spoken to the Press Office on 30 October. They were intending to hold a Press Conference in London on 2 November and hoped that the Chairman would join the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrary on the conference podium. The Chairman was most reluctant to do this and sought the advice of the Board. Mrs Rigby pointed out that the Board must do nothing that might compromise its independence and there was general acceptance of this position. Dr Cowley remarked that there was a real danger that the Board would get sidelined in the ensuing flurry of publicity. He had also spoken with the Press Office who had confirmed that copies of the Report would be released to selected journalists before the Press Conference on 2 November and that they might “jump the gun”. It was agreed that the Chairman and Professor Spencer would attend the Press Conference in London, but only as observers. The |Chairman reminded members that the Report had been to the Audit Committee and the Board of Scrutiny and to highlight this and to stress its independence, the Board might wish to circulate its own Press Statement.
(iv) Press Statement By The Board of Scrutiny: The Chairman tabled a draft statement which was then discussed at length and revised by those present. The statement sought to identify the most important conclusions of the Report; namely the failure of principal officers to take responsibility for CAPSA, the failure of the University to make proper use of its own experts and the failure to take notice of the Board’s warning about CAPSA in June 2000. The statement would also draw attention to the unwarranted delay in the publication of the Board’s Sixth Report until September 2001, after the activation of CAPSA. The statement would end by expressing the Board’s view that the Report on CAPSA revealed a bypassing of democratic accountability that now required the strengthening of such democratic scrutiny and control, not its removal.
(v) Future Action: There was some debate as to the virtues of releasing the Board’s Press Statement directly, but it was agreed that the Board should inform the Vice-Chancellor and the Press Office of the Board’s intention to make its own statement and ask the Press Office to release it at the London Press Conference. If the Vice-Chancellor or the Press Office sought to have the Board’s Statement amended, the Chairman would negotiate.
Action: Chairman to contact the University Press Office and arrange for the release of the Board’s Statement.
13.) Other Business: There being no time to proceed with further business from the Agenda, the Chairman circulated a summary of the Board’s past recommendations to the University. Dr Rackham pointed out that the CAPSA Report had raised a number of questions as well as answering them and he circulated a list of further questions relating to CAPSA which members might like to consider for future discussion.
14.) Date of Next Meeting: The next meeting of the Board would be on 15 November or before if necessary.
The third meeting of the Board in the academical year 2001-2 was held on Thursday, 15 November, at 12.00 in the Wilkins Room, Downing College. Members present: The Chairman (Dr S.E. Lintott), The Senior Proctor (Dr D.J. Chivers), The Senior Pro-Proctor (Mr J.D. McDonald), The Junior Pro-Proctor (Mr T.N. Milner), Dr S.J. Cowley, Dr O. Rackham, Professor J.R. Spencer and Dr H.E. Thompson.
15.) Apologies for Absence: Apologies had been received from the Junior Proctor (Dr V.E. Izzet). Mr D.R. Howarth and Dr R.H. Lachmann were on leave.
16.) Minutes of the Meeting on 1 November: The Board approved the Minutes after making various amendments.
17.) Matters Arising: Members discussed the handling of the Board of Scrutiny’s Press Statement on CAPSA for the University’s London Press Conference on 2 November. The Chairman pointed out that the failure of the University Press Office to distribute the Statement as they had originally agreed and the subsequent special issue of the Statement at the Board’s further request had in fact only served to draw attention to the Board’s independent views.
18.) CAPSA-Interviews with Principal Officers: (i) Interview With the Vice-Chancellor. A meeting with the Vice-Chancellor had taken place at the Old Schools on 12 November at 2.30 p.m. The Chairman, Dr Rackham and Professor Spencer attended on behalf of the Board. The meeting had lasted for nearly one hour. Dr Rackham felt that he had come away with the impression that the Vice-Chancellor felt genuinely shocked by the CAPSA debacle and that Sir Alec would be prepared to take public responsibility for it at the forthcoming Discussion. The Vice-Chancellor had denied responsibility for the THES article apparently quoting his reaction to the CAPSA Review and had implied that the Report might have reflected some preconceived notions about Cambridge. Dr Rackham thought it surprising that the Vice-Chancellor had apparently not realised that CAPSA would “blow up” at an earlier stage. Professor Spencer remarked that Sir Alec had seemed to accept that proper legal advice should have been sought at an earlier stage. Dr Rackham had sought to obtain the Vice-Chancellor’s views on the relative merits of “ad hoc” and standing committees.
(ii) Interview With The Treasurer. A meeting with the Treasurer had taken place on 13 November at 2.30 p.m. in the Old Schools. The Chairman, the Junior Proctor and Dr Cowley had attended on behalf of the Board. The meeting had lasted for nearly two hours. Mrs Womack had seemed anxious to avoid accepting responsibility for the Finance Director during the early years of the CAPSA project. The Chairman had pressed her on the question of legal advice about the CAPSA contracts and it had not proved possible to obtain a clear answer as to what advice had been taken. Even at this stage there appeared to have been no legal review of the University’s contract with Oracle. The Treasurer had suggested that she had not been informed of the potential problems with CAPSA and that there had been no “managerial systems” in place to ensure adequate reporting. Both Professor Spencer and Dr Cowley felt that there was evidence which suggested that warnings about CAPSA were available prior to the disastrous “go live”.
(iii) Interview With The Registrary. A meeting with the Registrary had taken place on 14 November at 4.15 p.m. in the Old Schools. The Chairman, Dr Cowley and Professor Spencer had attended on behalf of the Board. The meeting had lasted for one and a half hours. It had been very calm in mood and Dr Mead said that it was he who had signed the CAPSA contracts on behalf of the University. He also accepted that the tendering process had been poorly conducted but assured the Board that procedures had since been improved. The Registrary acknowledged personal responsibility for the failure to allocate adequate office accommodation to the CAPSA Team at an earlier stage. It appeared to Professor Spencer that CAPSA had been undertaken without a proper understanding of either what it would cost or where its costs would fall. Some discussion about governance had ensued. Dr Mead accepted that the Council had not been functioning properly. He defended the need for “Directors” as a means of achieving the necessary degree of oversight and avoiding scenarios such as the occasion when he had been required to attend Chelmsford Crown Court to plead guilty to a Health and Safety charge against the University. The Registrary stressed that in his view the Treasurer had been responsible for the then Director of Finance during the early stages of the CAPSA Project.
19.) Any Other Business: There was some further discussion about the roles played by the Principal Officers and their share of responsibility for events. The Board then considered any immediate further action which it might take. The Senior Pro-Proctor suggested that the Board should follow a line of enquiry prompted by Dr Rackham and investigate whether anyone at the Judge Institute of Management Studies had expert knowledge of the installation of financial systems such as CAPSA. The Chairman tabled some draft comments for publication in the next Reporter. Dr Rackham advised the Board on procedure. It was agreed that the Board might wish to comment at the Discussion on CAPSA scheduled for 27 November. The Chairman requested the indulgence of the Board in maintaining as flexible an approach as possible to such statements. She reminded members of the tight publication deadlines demanded by the Reporter.
20.) Date of Next Meeting: The next meeting of the Board would be on 29 November.
The fourth meeting of the Board in the academical year 2001-2 was held on Thursday, 29 November, at 12.00 in the Howard Building, Downing College. Members present: The Chairman (Dr S.E. Lintott), The Senior Proctor (Dr D.J. Chivers), The Senior Pro-Proctor (Mr J.D. McDonald), The Junior Pro-Proctor (Mr T.N. Milner), Dr S.J. Cowley, Mrs J.M Rigby, Professor J.R. Spencer and Dr H.E. Thompson.
21.) Apologies for Absence: Apologies had been received from the Junior Proctor (Dr V.E. Izzet). Mr D.R. Howarth and Dr R.H. Lachmann were on leave.
22.) Minutes of the Meeting on 15 November: The Board approved the Minutes without amendment.
23.) Matters Arising: The Chairman reported that the Vice-Chancellor had contacted her prior to the CAPSA Discussion on 27/11/01and provided details of how he intended to conduct the proceedings.
24.) CAPSA Discussion: A Discussion of the Shattock/Finkelstein Report had taken place in the Senate House at 2.00 on 27/11/01. The Vice-Chancellor had taken the chair and there had been a very high attendance. The Vice-Chancellor had adjourned the proceedings at 4.15 and the Discussion was due to recommence at 2.00 on 4/12/01.
(i) Comments By The Registrary. Members considered the remarks made by Dr Mead and the revelation shortly before the Discussion that legal advice about CAPSA had been taken on behalf of the University. It was suggested that this advice might have been sought by an external consultant, but that it had not been brought to the attention of Principal Officers at the time and had only come to light in response to the Board's questions. The Chairman suggested that further consideration of both this issue and the apparent suppression of the Board's Fifth Report could be left for later discussion.
It was now clear to the Board that the Registrary had been told what was happening in the run-up to “go live” and the consequent debacle. At the Discussion Dr Mead accepted that he had failed to scrutinise the “go-live” decision properly, but he protested that he (and other Principal Officers) lacked the authority to “go it alone”. He maintained that authority, responsibility and accountability could not be separated. The Registrary described his staff as “professional administrators”; staff who both expected to engage in dialogue with academics and to be scrutinised by them.
Members of the Board were unconvinced that this represented an adequate response to a disaster as serious as CAPSA.
Comments By The Treasurer. Members then examined the speech made by the Treasurer, Mrs Womack. The Treasurer had begun by accepting unequivocally that she was responsible for the Finance Division. She stated that when she assumed office in 1993, there were only two qualified accountants on the staff of the Financial Board and it was essential for the University to adopt a more informative and sophisticated form of accounting. The Treasurer sought to emphasise that she believed that she had never been given a proper job description and that 90% of her time had been spent attending committee meetings. In consequence she had placed too great a reliance upon her senior staff and in particular on the new Director of Finance appointed in May, 1999. The Treasurer had described the period from March to July in 1999 as “a mess”. Mrs Womack had welcomed the proposed reorganisation of the Central Administration and had expressed regret that it had come too late to prevent the pain and anxiety generated by CAPSA.
The Board was most concerned that the Treasurer had apparently allowed such an unsatisfactory state of affairs to persist for so long and felt that it indicated a serious lack of resolve and leadership on the part of a Principal Officer. Members then discussed the qualifications and experience necessary for a Principal Financial Officer.
(iii) General Responses. Members gave some more general responses to the comments made at the Discussion. The Board found it worrying that the Council had decided to make statements about the proper response to the CAPSA Report without awaiting and considering the comments currently being made at the Discussion. Members made further points which they hoped would be raised in the second part of the Discussion on 4/12/01.
25.) Any Other Business: The Chairman drew the Board's attention to the Council's response to the Sixth Report of the Board of Scrutiny. This was unsatisfactory and would be considered at another meeting.
26.) Date of Next Meeting: The next meeting of the Board would be on 17 January, 2002.
The fifth meeting of the Board in the academical year 2001-2 was held on Thursday, 17 January, at 12.00 in the Wilkins Room, Downing College. Members present: The Chairman (Dr S.E. Lintott), The Senior Proctor (Dr D.J. Chivers), The Senior Pro-Proctor (Mr J.D. McDonald), The Junior Proctor (Dr V.E. Izzet), The Junior Pro-Proctor (Mr T.N. Milner), Dr S.J. Cowley, Dr R.H. Lachmann, Mrs J.M Rigby, Professor J.R. Spencer and Dr H.E. Thompson.
27.) Apologies for Absence: Apologies were received from Dr O. Rackham. Mr D.R. Howarth was on leave.
28.) Election of Secretary: The Junior Pro-Proctor, having been elected for the Michaelmas term only, resigned the post of Secretary. Dr R.H. Lachmann was proposed as Secretary by the Chairman and seconded by the Junior Pro-Proctor. He was elected unopposed.
29.) Minutes of the Meeting on 29 November: The Board approved the Minutes without amendment.
30.) Matters Arising: It was agreed that discussion of the paper on CAPSA prepared by Dr O. Rackham should be postponed to a time that Dr Rackham could attend.
31.) Report on meetings with Officers:
The Chairman, Dr S.J. Cowley and Prof. J.R. Spencer reported on a meeting they had had with the Vice-Chancellor on 8 January, the aim of which was to obtain his views on the CAPSA Discussions. The Vice-Chancellor had declared himself satisfied with the Discussions, which he felt to have been balanced and took the opportunity to reiterate his confidence in all of the Principal Officers. He was unable to tell the representatives of the Board whether lawyers had been consulted concerning possible action against KPMG or Oracle. The issue of the possibilities for fraud which CAPSA presented was raised, as was the University's present expansion programme and its implications for the University's long-term financial position given that the accounts for the previous year were expected to show a deficit of approximately £10,000,000.
The Chairman also reported on a meeting she and Dr Cowley had had with the Registrary concerning the new administrative arrangements which were due to come into force after 1 January.
32.) CAPSA: Next Stage: The Board agreed that its report on CAPSA should be completed during the Lent Term. The Board as a whole were of the opinion that, despite the sanguine attitude of the University's senior administration, there remain a number of important issues pertaining to CAPSA which have not yet been satisfactorily addressed. The Board did not wish to start considering its final report until after the 21 January meeting which has been arranged between members of the Board and the Audit Committee and Profs Shattock and Finkelstein. The Board are also awaiting Council's definitive response to the CAPSA report.
33.) Council's Response to the Sixth Report of the Board of Scrutiny: Discussion of this topic was postponed until the next meeting.
34.) The Report of the Council: The Board started its consideration of the Annual Report of the Council. Although a number of important issues were identified for possible consideration in the Board's Seventh Report, it was felt that it was difficult fully to assess the report in the absence of the Accounts. The Board will continue its consideration of the Report of Council at the next meeting.
35.) Any Other Business: It was decided that representatives of the Board should try to complete its series of meetings with Principal Officers and Directors before the end of the Lent Term.
36.) Date of Next Meeting: The next meeting of the Board would be on 31 January, 2002.
The sixth meeting of the Board in the academical year 2001-2 was held on Thursday, 31 January, at 12.00 in the Wilkins Room, Downing College. Members present: The Chairman (Dr S.E. Lintott), The Senior Proctor (Dr D.J. Chivers), The Senior Pro-Proctor (Mr J.D. McDonald), Dr S.J. Cowley, Dr R.H. Lachmann, Dr O. Rackham, Mrs J.M Rigby, Professor J.R. Spencer and Dr H.E. Thompson.
37.) Apologies for Absence: Apologies were received from The Junior Proctor (Dr V.E. Izzet) and The Junior Pro-Proctor (Mr T.N. Milner). Mr D.R. Howarth was on leave.
38.) Minutes of the Meeting on 17 January: The Board approved the Minutes without amendment
39.) CAPSA: Meeting with Finkelstein & Shattock: Members of the Board and the Audit Committee had attended a meeting with Profs. Finkelstein and Shattock on the 21 January. A number of matters were discussed but the Board were particularly concerned about two issues. The Board notes that Prof Finkelstein was of the opinion that it would be appropriate for the University to take legal advice regarding the role of KPMG in the CAPSA saga. Prof Shattock stressed that CAPSA represents a relatively small problem compared to some of those which would face the University if it did not address the issues of governance he had raised in his report.
40.) Meetings with Principal Officers and Directors: Dr Cowley, Dr Lachmann and Mrs Rigby had met with Dr David Secher and Mr Simon Jones in the Research Services Division on the 30 January. The RSD now consists of 48 people whereas 10 years ago there were less than 10 people fulfilling the same functions. The Board was pleased to be told that Research Council grant applications were now being turned around within 24 hours, but were concerned that adequate data would be collected and accounts made available to justify the recurrent funding that such a large unit was going to need.
The Chairman reported that the Accounts were now published and that Andrew Reid would be give a presentation on them at the next meeting of the BoS .
41.) Council's response to the Board of Scrutiny's Sixth Report: The Board found the response of the Council to the Sixth Report worrying . The Board considered the Chairman's tabled notes on a Response to the Council's Response to the Sixth Report and discussed whether it should form part of the Seventh Report or should be published as a Notice. The Board's preliminary view was that it should be published as a Notice.
42.) Annual Report of the Council: The Board continued its consideration of the Annual Report of the Council with the aim of identifying issues which would need to be addressed in their Seventh Report.
43.) Drafting of CAPSA Report: The Board discussed the issues which it wanted to bring attention to in its Report on CAPSA. It was agreed that the CAPSA sub-committee should start work on drafting the report.
36.) Date of Next Meeting: The next meeting of the Board would be on 14 Febuary, 2002.
The seventh meeting of the Board in the academical year 2001-2 was held on Thursday, 14 February, at 12.00 in the Wilkins Room, Downing College. Members present: The Chairman (Dr S.E. Lintott), The Senior Proctor (Dr D.J. Chivers), The Senior Pro-Proctor (Mr J.D. McDonald), Dr S.J. Cowley, Dr R.H. Lachmann, The Junior Pro-Proctor (Mr T.N. Milner), Dr O. Rackham, Mrs J.M Rigby, Professor J.R. Spencer and Dr H.E. Thompson.
45.) Apologies for Absence: Apologies were received from The Junior Proctor (Dr V.E. Izzet). Mr D.R. Howarth was on leave.
46.) Minutes of the Meeting on 31 January: The Board approved the Minutes.
47.) Meetings with Principal Officers and Directors: The Chairman had met with the Registrary to discuss the the funding for the recruitment of a Support Officer, which had been agreed last year. The Registrary had not secured sufficient funding from the Needs Committee to cover the costs in the current year. He, nevertheless,agreed to cover the costs from discretionary funds until such time as permanent funding was secured, providing that the hourly rate paid was no greater than that paid to Administrative Officers and provided that the expenditure represented value for money. The Chairman had asked for a budget that would accommodate the costs of training of the sort recommended by Professor Shattock for members of University committees. The Board agreed to approach a number of possible candidates.
Mrs Rigby submitted a report of the meeting between the Director of Personnel, herself, Dr Cowley and Dr Thompson.
48.) Governance: The Board noted the consultation paper which the Council has published on Governance. The BoS thought it regrettable that the Joint Committee on Governance had not been constituted as a University Committee with a suitable breadth of representation. The Board has real concerns about the consultation process which has been initiated by Council to consider these proposals. Nonetheless, the Board felt that this process should be completed and further, revised proposals submitted before a Discussion should be held. In order to monitor the consultation process, members of the Board will be present at each of the seminars which are to be held. The Board was somewhat surprised that its views on the proposals had not been canvassed by the Joint Committee on Governance.
49.) Presentation by the Director of Finance: Mr Andrew Reid kindly found time to come and talk to the Board about the Accounts.
50.) Date of Next Meeting: A further meeting of the Board will be held on 28 February at which the Board’s report on CAPSA will be discussed.
The eighth meeting of the Board in the academical year 2001-2 was held on Thursday, 28 February, at 12.00 in E3, Downing College. Members present: The Chairman (Dr S.E. Lintott), The Senior Proctor (Dr D.J. Chivers), The Senior Pro-Proctor (Mr J.D. McDonald), Dr S.J. Cowley, Dr R.H. Lachmann, The Junior Pro-Proctor (Mr T.N. Milner), Dr O. Rackham, Mrs J.M Rigby, Professor J.R. Spencer and Dr H.E. Thompson.
51.) Apologies for Absence: Apologies were received from The Junior Proctor (Dr V.E. Izzet). Mr D.R. Howarth was on leave.
52.) Minutes of the Meeting on 14 February: The Board approved the Minutes.
53.) Governance: The BoS has now received the full set of minutes of the Governance committee. The Chairman and Dr Cowley, both of whom had read the minutes, felt they shed some light on the processes which led to the current proposals. Members of the BoS reported back on the various Governance seminars which they had attended: there was a general feeling that there is disagreement at all levels about the precise direction in which the proposals are intended to take the University. It was agreed that the BoS should aim to submit a paper on these issues by 20 March.
54.) CAPSA Report: The CAPSA working group submitted a first draft of its report. Other members of the Board would comment on this with a view to a final version being produced for the next meeting of the BoS.
55.) Presentation by the Director of Finance: Mr Andrew Reid was kind enough to attend again so that he could answer further questions regarding the University’s accounts and the operation of the Finance Division.
56.) Date of Next Meeting: A further meeting of the Board will be held on 14 March.