6 March 2003 Minutes

Boardof Scrutiny

Minutes of the ExtraMeeting Held at Noon on

Thursday 6 March 2003at Selwyn College

1)The Governance Discussion. This was aspecial meeting called to prepare for the Discussion on Governance that hadbeen called for by the Board.

It was agreed that the Chairmanwould seek to speak first on behalf of the Board. He would then speak on hisown behalf.

In his opening statement it wasagreed that the Chairman would indicate why the Discussion has been called, andnote that the Board was not proposing how the University should be reformed,but suggesting mechanisms by which any reform might be taken forward. A repeatof the recent procedures was thought not to be in the best interests of theUniversity.

There was a discussion of MalcolmGrant’s lecture on the GM commission (that he chair). It was noted that over GMthere was a lack of trust between the public and HMG. It was thought that somein the University might learn from the transparent procedures and consultationprocesses being followed by the commission

It was agreed that we would referin favourable terms to the seminar roadshows and some of the other aspects ofconsultation over governance. However there was a feeling on the Board that thecentral bodies had simply noted that there was a range of opinion expressed inthe consultations, and then proceeded to do what they would have done anyway.

It was noted that the attempt tosteamroller the reforms through had lead to a series of ballots that wereunduly complicated. It was thought that the options could have been presentedin a far clearer manner. Moreover, the drafting of the Graces had beeninadequate (possibly as a result of the undue haste), with the result thatthere was a need for a number of them to be resubmitted.

There was a view that thegovernance proposals had not really addressed many of the key problems facingthe University, e.g. such as the need for a clear hierarchy of accountabilityas identified by Shattock and Finkelstein. It was recalled that at one of the CAPSAroad-shows Malcolm Grant had admitted that the governance reforms would not inthemselves have prevented another CAPSA.

It was agreed that the Boardshould emphasise that it believes in accountability (cf. some of AnneCampbell’s remarks), but that it thought that the proposals for an executiveVice-Chancellor did not address this issue adequately; one person cannot runthe whole university.

There was adiscussion of what the Board believed to be wrong, or not working, within theUniversity. It was thought that the need to pass Graces does not significantlydelay procedures. The real delay is in the plethora of subcommittees; there isan urgent need to clarify (and simplify) the committee structure. Further, asremarked by Debbie Lowther in the CAPSA Discussion, the papers for committeesare not conducive to effective governance and/or administration. There is aneed for the UAS to act as an effective Civil Service. The Officers shouldthink about problems and then present options in a coherent manner so thatacademics can make a decision (as happens at the Library Syndicate). A view wasexpressed that were not enough good senior civil servants able to prepareposition papers so that business could be processed more efficiently; thiscontributed to the lack of strategy.

It was also notedthat the same people are on very many committees, that some senior officersseem to spend almost their whole time attending committees, and that many ofthe committees are too large.

It was agreed that we should indicatethat the Statutes and Ordinances have their merits. For instance, there is arequirement that, to all intents and purposes, a business plan is prepared fora new building. Hence if Statutes and Ordinances had been followed theUniversity might not be running such a large deficit.

It was observed that theGovernance Committee had been somewhat secretive, and that its membership hadnot initially been published. In this context there was a discussion of thetype of person that the Board might like to see on any Syndicate that might beestablished. Those appointed would need to have both the necessary timeavailable and the experience to do a serious job, Moreover they should commandthe confidence of the Regent House. It was thought that there was a need tore-establish trust between the central bodies and the Regent House in general,but especially over governance. There was a general view that the Chairmanshould be external. As to timing, the Board felt that no major initiativesshould be undertaken before the new Vice-Chancellor was installed.

It was observed that the RAM andgovernance were intertwined. It had been suggested that a strategic processwould come out the RAM; however, the view of the Board was that governance andstrategic issues should have been settled before the RAM. Unfortunately,because of time constraints, that might not now be possible.

It was agreed that the positionsof Secretary-General and Treasurer ought to be resolved before the newVice-Chancellor arrives. It was thought that the next Treasurer (if there is tobe one) needs to be a financial strategist.

The view was [again] expressedthat the Press Office ought to be more like the BBC than Millbank (or whereverthe Labour Party’s spin unit has now decamped to).

There was a brief discussion of the interventionsof politicians (e.g. Gordon Brown and Margaret Hodge), explicit or otherwise,in the debate over governance.