24 April 2003 Minutes
Boardof Scrutiny
Minutes of the MeetingHeld at Noon on
Thursday 24 April 2003at Selwyn College
Present: Stephen Cowley, Christopher Forsyth, David Howarth, RobinLachmann, ElisabethLeedham-Green,Timothy Milner, Oliver Rackham, Jennifer Rigby (for the second half of themeeting), John Spencer, Helen Thompson.
Apologies: Susan Lintott, Jack MacDonald.
1)Minutes of the meeting of 27 February 2003 and 13March 2003. The notes were agreed, andminutes will be produced from them. The Chairman requested that notes/minutesbe produced a little earlier.
2)Governance.The Chairman reported that he had written to Anne Campbell MP and that she hadreplied saying that she would be happy to meet with members of the Board on 23May 2003. It was agreed that the Chairman, the Secretary, Christopher Forsyth, ElisabethLeedham-Green, Timothy Milner, Oliver Rackham and Helen Thompson would attend. The Chairman and Christopher Forsyth would draft a letter to her explaining the current governancestructure with particular reference to any delays or inefficiencies caused byits democratic nature (since it would appear that that the information she hasreceived up to now may have had one particular slant). The Secretary observedthat in the “Joint Report ofthe Council and the General Board on arrangements for the regrading of certainoffices and posts, and for the award of discretionary increments” of 26 Marchit was proposed that “the Council and the General Board be given authority tomake such changes in the arrangements of the scheme as they consider necessaryin the interest of its good management and efficient operation”. A view wasexpressed that having lost the ballot on executive powers for the VC, there wasnow seems apparently a move to government bystatutory instrument or circular. Concern was again expressed about theattitude of senior members of the University to Statutes and Ordinances.
Action. The Chairman and Christopher Forsyth to write to Anne Campbell MP.
Action. The Chairman, the Secretary, Christopher Forsyth, ElisabethLeedham-Green, Timothy Milner, Oliver Rackham and Helen Thompson to meet withAnne Campbell MP on 23 May.
Itwas reported that the Secretary had written on behalf of the Board to theRegistrary concerning external members.
3)Correspondence and possible meeting with theRegistrary. The Chairman reported thatthe requested studies from the Financial Working Party Report had so far notarrived, nor had the Board’s request as to when the Council knew that thebuilding of the Primate Centre might be controversial. The Chairman offered tofollow up this matter with the Registrary. It was agreed that the Chairmanwould seek a meeting (likely attendees are the Chairman, the Secretary, DavidHowarth and Christopher Forsyth) with the Registrary in about 2-3 weeks time.The Chairman asked members of the Board to send him matters of concern.
Action. The Chairman to check with the Registrary on thestatus of existing requests.
Action. The Chairman to request a meeting with theRegistrary in the next 2-3 weeks.
Action. The Chairman to review last year’s report fromMasons.
Action. Members of the Board to suggest topics tobe raised with the Registrary.
Itwas reported to the Board that a senior member of the University was concernedabout the use of SRIF funds, and in particular whether they were being used forthe main purpose intended.
4)Possible meeting with the Director of the ResearchServices Division. There was a furtherdiscussion of the Research Services Division. Views of colleagues were reported.It was noted that a number of colleagues were willing to express viewsconfidentially, but were not willing to be quoted. The securitisation rights ofthe University’s IPR was discussed. It was agreed that the Board would attemptto discover how far this issue had been explored prior to the publication ofthe IPR Report last year.
Action. David Howarth to contact a colleague overIPR securitisation rights.
Action. The Chairman to make further enquiries over IPRsecuritisation rights.
TheBoard needs to try and assess the efficiency and competence of the RSD, e.g.has the division been able to recruit qualified administrators given its recentrapid expansion. Is it achieving its service standard? Who set the servicestandards?
5)Possible approach to the Vice-Chancellor elect. There was a discussion of whether a meeting withthe Vice-Chancellor elect was desirable, and if so, when. It was agreed thatthe Chairman would write to her to ask if she would like to meet us at somepoint, e.g. possibly this term. One subject to be raised at such a meetingwould be a possible Governance Syndicate.
Action. The Chairman to write to the Vice-Chancellorelect suggesting a meeting this term. The issue of a Governance Syndicateshould be raised at such a meeting.
6)Personnel matters. Jennifer Rigby reported on a conversation with theDirector of Personnel. A report on the HERA pilot went to the PersonnelCommittee recently. The report highlighted a number of issues particularlyrelating to the bureaucracy of the scheme and proposed a number of ways tostreamline it.It recommended a changein the weighting of some factors (there is co-operation with a small group ofother universities to tailor the scheme and make it more workable). Overall itconcluded that the scheme was as good as any other currently available.
Thenext phase in HERA is benchmarking a large number of roles to establishcommonality (this should reduce the number of roles which have to beindividually assessed). The re-grading exercise currently taking place will bedone under the HERA scheme and the existing scheme in parallel.
Itwas suggested that it would be unwise for the University not to introduce ascheme such as HERA given the penalties incurred by the NHS when taken totribunal by the Unions in a series of test cases recently on the issue of payequality.
TheSecretary reported that he had attended an AUT meeting on HERA. Theintroduction seemed to involve vast amounts of time and effort (e.g. a trainedassessor completed about 4 assessments a week). The AUT is against HERA (itrecommends that members do not take part) and has its own scheme for academicand academic-related staff. The Secretary noted that in the unamended HERAscheme research only has 7% of the total marks.
Itwas noted that before an analytical job evaluation scheme like HERA is devisedan organisation should identify its aims (e.g. research and teaching), and thenensure that the job evaluation scheme awards those fulfilling the aims with ahigh rating. The Board was of the view that the HERA scheme (including theparameters) should be transparent, as could be achieved by a full Report and aGrace.
Itwas observed that there are problems with staff management in the University,and that the Board should support efforts by personnel to correct suchproblems. The Board concurred. The Secretary observed that there was a need toincrease the trust of academics in the central bodies, and that transparencyand full disclosure might be a way forward. He noted that the Regent House hadvoted for senior lecturers not to have to sign a new contract, that Council hadside-stepped that vote, but had subsequently made it possible foracademic-related staff to receive the same pay increase by means ofdiscretionary payments without the need to sign new contracts.
7)Planning for the 8th Report. It was generally felt that we had got it rightwith the 7th Report, especially the section on money. It was agreedthat a sub-committee of the Chairman, David Howarth, Susan Lintott and JenniferRigby would meet at 9.30 am on 9 May 2003 at Churchill to work on a first draftof the money section this year. The Secretary would give input as appropriateon the RAM, and he and Christopher Forsyth would work on the governance section(it was noted that the RAM had important consequences for governance). It wasagreed that the Board still see a need for a Syndicate on governance. The Boardfelt that some comment should be made on the way that the governance reform wasconducted, and to note that the Board had played a role in delaying the ballot.It was noted that the University still does not appear to have a clearstrategy. There was a view that the last Report was too long! The Chairmanoffered to produce an outline of the Report for the next meeting on 8 May 2003.
Action. The Chairman to produce an outline of the Reportfor 8 May 2003.
Action. Financial sub-committee to meet at 9.30 amon 9 May 2003.
8)Any other business.
a)Elections to the Board. It was reported that the Registrary had beenreminded to arrange elections for this term. The Board was concerned that thereshould be a full slate of candidates. It was reported that a Bursar had beenapproached. The Secretary agreed to approach two colleagues. The Chairmanagreed to approach three colleagues. Timothy Milner agreed to approach acolleague. Other members of the Board were urged to approach anyone theythought might be appropriate, especially if under the age of 35.
Action. The Chairman, the Secretary and TimothyMilner to approach certain persons in order to suggest that they stand for theBoard.
b)BoGS.The Secretary reported that at his Department’s staff meeting, somedissatisfaction had been expressed about the current performance of BoGS. Heasked if some follow up to the Board’s earlier meeting might be appropriate?
Action. Helen Thompson to check on the progress atBoGS.
c)Visitor centre. It was reported that the Planning and Resources Committee had approvedthe visitor centre at a capital costs of £1.3m. The centre will occupy threebusiness units on Kings Parade. The Colleges have apparently been approachedfor £5000 per annum each. It was not known how many Colleges had agreed to fundthe centre at this level, whether there was a business plan, and if there was,whether the business plan assumed College support. The point was made that thevisitor centre was unlikely to have much impact on the access of underrepresented students, other than rich overseas students.
Action. Jennifer Rigby to discover if there is abusiness plan.
d)Principal Officers. It was reported that no developments had beenannounced.
e)CUC Guide.The Secretary reported that there was a helpful guide explaining the governancestructure at other UK universities, and the Board might like to note theevolution of the University’s governance structure to that of otherUniversities. The Committee of University Chairmen (http://www.shef.ac.uk/cuc/) published theguide. The second edition is online as html at http://www.shef.ac.uk/cuc/guide/01.html,while the third edition is available at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2001/01_20.htm.
f)Administrative help. It was agreed that we would try and obtainshort-term help.
Action: David Howarth to write a personspecification and to forward it to the Chairman.
9)Date of future meetings. The next meeting will be on 8 May 2003, andthence fortnightly for the rest of term.