13 February 2003 Minutes

Boardof Scrutiny

Minutes of the MeetingHeld at Noon on

Thursday 13 February2003 at Selwyn College

Present: Stephen Cowley, Christopher Forsyth, David Howarth, ElisabethLeedham-Green, Susan Lintott, Robin Lachmann, Jack MacDonald, Timothy Milner,Oliver Rackham, Jennifer Rigby, John Spencer, Helen Thompson.

Apologies: None.

1)Minutes of the meetings of 16 January 2003 and 30January 2003. These were approved.

2)Matters arising (other than ones covered below). It was reported that the report fromthe Office of Public Management (OPM) would be discussed at the next Councilmeeting. The Registrary had asked that the report not be circulated to theBoard before that time. Various questions arose such as why the OPM had beenasked to write a report, if and when the OPM had visited, and who they hadcontacted.

Action: Discuss the OPM report next time we meetthe Registrary.

3)Developments on Governance.

a)The Board’s request for a Discussion. It was reported that the Council had agreed to aDiscussion in April. (It was subsequently announced that the Discussion willtake place on 11 March 2003)

b)The number of signatories required for anamendment. As a result of the wording ofthe Grace on ballots, it appears that whereas 25 signatories are required tocall a ballot, only 10 are needed for an amendment (so forcing a ballot); amember of Council apparently concurs with this view. The Board was of the viewthat if a Syndicate is set up to reform Governance, then one of the membersshould be a constitutional lawyer. The view was also expressed that theChairman should be external, but with experience of Oxbridge and running aUniversity.

c)Reports in the Press. The Secretary outlined his personal dealings withthe press office and the press over the previous two weeks. It was noted thatpress reports suggested that HMG wanted governance reform before they wouldapprove extra funding. It had been suggested to the Secretary that some of thepress reports had arisen from off the record briefings by the University’sPress Office. The Registrary had informed the Secretary that conversationsbetween Ministers and certain members of the Old Schools were confidential, andthat he was not in a position to clarify the reports in the press. There wasgeneral agreement that some of the press coverage was not in the best interestsof the University, and there was concern about the role of the press office. Itwas agreed to write to the press office stating that there were rumours of offthe record briefings, and to ask what had been said if that was true.

Action: The Chairman to write to the Press Office.

4)The visit to the Registrary and the Treasurer. The Registrary and Treasurer had explained thestages that were went through when a new building erected. It appeared to therepresentatives of the Board that the procedure had evolved away from that laiddown in the Statutes and Ordinances, e.g. as a result of the establishment ofthe Planning and Resources Committee, which seems to have taken over rolespreviously performed by the Finance Committee. There was apparently no clearidea about when there should be a Report to the University, and an argumentcould be made that this could not be standardised, e.g. as a result of moneyfor projects coming in at irregular intervals. It was not clear to members ofthe Board whether the central administration had a clear idea why they had toget permission of the Regent House for the erection of buildings, i.e. it wasnot clear that the central administration viewed the Report stage as a useful aspectof our internal system of checks and balances. The idea was discussed of havinga two (or more) stage process, e.g. where there might be two Reports with thefirst one corresponding to outline planning permission.

TheRegistrary and Treasurer agreed that they had attempted to “hide” the primatecentre when initially Reporting to the University. This was done for the bestof motives (e.g. to shield members of staff from animal rights protestors). TheBoard viewed this as a misjudgement, since the nature of the buildings wasgoing to come out when planning permission was sought from the localauthorities.

Keyquestions remained as to who knew the true nature of the building. Thebuildings’ subcommittee?TheVice-Chancellor? The Council? Was the Council aware of the likely controversyand resulting legal costs? How much has the planning appeal cost so far and whois going to pay for it; or was it originally factored into the cost? It wasresolved to write to the Registrary to find out.

Itwas admitted that the Report stage for the English building was late. Itappears that the contract was signed between Discussion and Grace. Howeverquestions still arise. It was resolved to ask to see the letter of intent so asto ascertain when the University was effectively committed to construction, andfor what cost. It was also resolved to ask the Director of Finance, AndrewReid, about income and expenditure to and from the New Buildings Enabling Fund.

Action: The Chairman to write to the Registrarysuggesting a two stage Report for the primate centre, with the second stage tocome.

Action: The Chairman to ascertain who knew the truenature of the primate centre and when, and to ask about legal costs.

Action: The Chairman to ask to see the letter ofintent re the English building, and to ask for information concerning cash flowto/from the New Buildings Enabling Fund.

5)SAWAG. Itwas not clear the degree of influence SAWAG had on the VC. It may be that itproves helpful to the VC to be seen to be meeting senior academic women in theUniversity. The Board was informed that there is to be a BP seminar wheresenior women from BP and the University will discuss matters. It was agreedthat Jennifer Rigby, Helen Thomson and Elisabeth Leedham-Green would arrange a meeting with SAWAG. TheChairman would forward an email to JenniferRigby.

Action: Meeting with SAWAG to be arranged. The Chairmanto forward an email to Jennifer Rigby.

6)Deputy Directors. The Secretary reported that it was not clear to himthat all the Deputy Directors could be paid on the professorial scale since therelevant Ordinaces had not been passed. The question was raised as to whetherDeputy Directors were needed. It was reported that this level of management hadbeen eliminated from the City Council.

There was a discussion of the accountability, orlack of it, of the central bodies for expenditure. The University needstransparent accounting where the costs of the central bodies are clear; thereshould certainly be a business plan for the central bodies with costs justifiedeach year. Central support services need to demonstrate that they are providingvalue for money and that an outside contractor would be more expensive. It wasagreed that this should be a theme in our eighth Report. The idea was floatedthat the individual divisions of the UAS should produce an annual report (cf.the annual report for computing service). One of the problems here is that thecurrent annual reports are not effective at controlling expenditure, and annualreports tend to be backward looking, whereas the University needs forwardlooking business plans. One of the key points would then be who decides what isin the business plans, and assessing whether the business plans provide valuefor money. Would this be a job for the Treasurer, or should the Audit Committeealready be ensuring that we get value for money? Should we be investigatingwhether the Audit Committee is doing its job?

Action: The Secretary to write to the Registraryabout the Deputy Directors’ salaries. Action: At the meeting with Andrew Reidask about the role of his Deputy Director.

7)Any other business.

a)The subject of University nursery places wasdiscussed. It was observed that there should be an increase in such places inthe foreseeable future, but the real issue is childcare rather than nurseryplaces. There is apparently a scheme where staff can be paid in vouchers, andso reduce their National Insurance liability. It is not clear that theUniversity is participating in this scheme that could help the lowly paid. Itwas resolved to ask the Director of Finance why the University are not involvedin this scheme, and if not, why not.

Action: Ask the Director of Finance about the NIreduction scheme for childcare.

b)The Board had received an email suggesting that theHERA reassessment of roles was proving time consuming. The question arose as towhether this was the ideal time to be performing a potentially expensive pilotstudy when we are in deficit. Since job evaluation costs money would analternative approach be to wait until there was specific external pressure,e.g. the need to defend an equal pay claim, before acting since this might costless in the long run. There was also a rumour that the job evaluation schemewas being applied to academics, whereas those who visited Peter Deer a year agohad thought that it was only going to be applied to assistant staff initially.Jennifer Rigby will follow this up. It was noted that job evaluation schemestend to reward those with managerial responsibility, and are less good forprofessionals, e.g. lawyers, lecturers.

Action: Jennifer Rigby to contact Peter Deer re thescope of HERA.

c)It was agreed to seek a meeting with Malcolm Granton the 5 March. Jennifer Rigby, Stephen Cowley and John Spencer to attend. Itwas agreed to ask for the FWP Report to be sent to us after the Council Meetingof 24 February 2003.

Action: Meeting with Malcolm Grant to be confirmed.Ask for a copy of the FWP Report to be delivered after 24 February 2003.

d)Concerning secretarial help it was agreed that wenow needed a person spec.

e)Members of the Board were requested to come up withquestions for Andrew Reid.

8)The next meeting will be on Thursday 27 February2003 at Selwyn College.