8 May 2003 Minutes

Boardof Scrutiny

Minutes of the Meeting Held at Noon on

Thursday8 May 2003 at Selwyn College

Present: Stephen Cowley, Christopher Forsyth, RobinLachmann, Elisabeth Leedham-Green, Susan Lintott(for the second half of the meeting), Jack MacDonald, TimothyMilner, Jennifer Rigby, John Spencer, Helen Thompson (for the second half ofthe meeting).

Apologies: David Howarth, Oliver Rackham.

1)Minutes of the meeting of 24 April 2003. Thenotes were accepted.

2)Matters arising.

a)Letter to Anne Campbell MP. Theletter to Anne Campbell has yet to be written.

Action: the Chairman to write to Anne Campbell MP in advance of the 23May 2003 meeting.

b)Requests to the Registrary. TheRegistrary has yet to reply to the question as to whether the Council knewabout the animal experiments in the primate centre at the time when theyapproved the Report. It was reported that enthusiasm for the primate centre wasmuted in certain parts of the University, with some senior members regarding itas impolitic to speak out against the centre. There was apparently an issue asto security and policing that had yet to be settled, with the security officeexpressing concerns as to the possible cost.

The Registrary had also so fardeclined to provide the annexes to the Finance Working Party Report. He hadwritten indicating that he was not sure that we had the right to ask for theannexes. Having reread the relevant Statutes and Ordinances, the Board was ofthe opinion that it did have the right to see the annexes. The Chairman offeredto write to the Registrary expressing this opinion. The Board agreed. TheChairman asked the Board to notify him of topics that need to be raised withthe Registrary at a meeting.

Action:the Chairman to write to the Registrary requesting the annexes to the FWP, andto ascertain whether the Council knew of the nature of the Primate Centre whenmembers signed the Report.

c)IPR. Developments concerning IPR werereported (e.g. a discussion at Finance Committee, and the rumours that aninvestment bank may have been approached concerning securitisation rights).Certain members agreed to conduct further investigations.

Action:David Howarth to talk to a colleague.

d)Visitor Centre. It was reported that thebusiness plan for the visitor centre had apparently not been updated to allowfor the expansion to three business units. It was noted that the Press Officehad put out a release suggesting that the Colleges had approved of the visitorcentre; it was observed that this was not correct.

e)Press Office. There was a discussion as to theneed for a Press Office. The consensus was that the University needed a PressOffice, but that the current reporting structure was not ideal.

f)Finance. It was reported that there wererumours concerning the imposition of a new jobs freeze.

g)Advertisement for Pro-Vice-Chancellors. It wasnoted that the advertisement in the Reporter for new Pro-Vice-Chancellors didnot specify the job descriptions of the posts. A case could be made that thiswas another cart-before-the-horse episode.

Action: it was agreed to include a comment in oureighth Report about the lack of a job descriptions the advertisement forPro-Vice-Chancellors.

3)Accident to the Vice-Chancellor elect (VCE). Theaccident to the Vice-Chancellor elect was noted. According to the Press Officeshe was now well on the way to recovery. The view was expressed that the PressOffice had been too cagey, and a concise factual statement issued earlier mighthave reduced the speculation. It was agreed to write a sympathetic letter to theVCE asking for a meeting at her convenience.

Action:the Chairman to write to the Vice-Chancellor elect.

4)Board of Scrutiny election. There wasa discussion of the forthcoming election and the desirability of there being afull slate. Various candidates were discussed, topics including the needs forgender balance, suitable chairmen, and the filling of the under-35 slot. It wasreported that a colleague was not eligible for the under-35 slot, that anothercolleague was not keen to over-commit himself in his first year in a new role,and that a Bursar was interested in standing. It was also reported that twoother colleagues might be interested in standing. Elisabeth Leedham-Greenagreed to contact a colleague. The Chairman agreed to contact a colleague, andto float the idea to another colleague if the opportunity arose. Jack MacDonaldagreed to contact a colleague.

Action:members of the Board to contact potential candidates.

5)Planning for the 8th Report. TheChairman tabled an outline plan for the report. It was agreed that it would behelpful if the eighth Report were shorter than the Seventh.

a)Response to the Previous Report. It wasnoted that the Council had still not responded to the Board’s seventh Report(one suggested reason for the delay was that Council was finding it difficultto justify the top-slicing the College contribution in the RAM). It was notedthat the Board’s sixth Report had not been acted on as the Board might havehoped. It was agreed to start the eighth Report by noting a few examples ofwhere the Board quite correctly warned of problems in advance but was ignored(e.g. the running costs of buildings, CAPSA, and the failure to include CUP andUCLES in the University’s accounts with the result that the auditors have beenunable to confirm that the accounts are true and fair).

b)Finance. It was reported that thefinancial subcommittee consisting of the Chairman, Jennifer Rigby, SusanLintott and David Howarth would meet on Friday 9 May at Churchill. It was notedthat it might be helpful to see the HEFCE audit letter. The Board agreed to askfor it.

Action: the Chairman to ask theRegistrary for the HEFCE audit letter.

c)RAM. It was reported that the RAMworking party were planning meetings over the summer; no member of the Boardseemed to be aware as to how far the development of the RAM had progressed.However there was a view that very few in the University really understood theRAM, and that if/when the RAM is implemented then some departments might be infor nasty surprises (e.g. it was suggested that architecture overspends itsteaching “budget” by £0.5 million p.a.), while others argue that they areunderfunded (e.g. the vet school).Itwas decided to note in the Report that the RAM formula has important parametersthat can be adjusted to change the outcome significantly, that the RAM containspolitical decisions, and that to a certain extent it conceals the spending ofthe central bodies/services. It was agreed to ask for recent papers on the RAM,e.g. what is the revised formula.

Action:the Chairman/Secretary to ask the Registrary/Director of Finance respectivelyfor new papers on the RAM.

Action:the Secretary to forward questions to Tim Milner for a colleague.

d)UAS. It was suggested that somecomment on the UAS might be appropriate, e.g. on the cost effectiveness of theservice (e.g. how is this measured, who sets the criteria, etc?). It was notedthat when the Report on the UASwas presented to the University a coupleof years ago, there was little discussion of the costs of the reform.

e)Buildings. There was a discussion concerningnew buildings. It was noted that the Registrary and Treasurer had admitted toproblems. A question arose as to when the new “project model” had beenintroduced for building plans. I was agreed to ask the Director of EMBS forclarification. In the Report it was agreed to emphasise that the proceduresfollowed needed to be in conformity with the University’s regulations. If thelatter was inappropriate then they should be changed.

Action: the Chairman to contact the Director of the EMBS asto when the “project model” had been introduced.

f)Governance. It was agreed to ask theRegistrary for documents concerning the implementation of the Shattockrecommendations regarding the hierarchy of accountability and the clarificationof the relationship between the PRC and the Finance Committee. A view wasexpressed that too many senior administrators spend too much time at committeemeetings with the result that sometimes it is unclear which senior officers areresponsible for what.

i)There was a discussionof the OPM report on governance. This has not been published. The Boardresolved to ask who had commissioned the report. The Board also wondered whyproposals on governance were put to the University before the OPM report hadbeen delivered.

ii)In its eighth Report itwas felt that the Board should comment on the competence of process as regardsgovernance reform.

Action: the Chairman to ask the Registrary as to theprogress in drawing up a hierarchy of accountability (especially as regards thePRC and the Finance Committee) and to ask for the OPM report.

g)Principal Officers. There wasa discussion as to developments in the Treasurer and Secretary-General saga.The Board wondered whether there was any succession planning being consideredby the central bodies in case the posts became vacant. The Board was of theopinion that it was important the persons appointed to senior posts should havethe relevant competencies.

h)Strategic Plan. The Board noted that therewas apparently still no University strategic plan, a point that would need tobe emphasised in the Report (e.g. with respect to graduate numbers).

Action:the Chairman to ask the Registrary as to the progress of the strategic plan.

i)RSD. It was noted that there was notmuch the Board could say about the RSD. A visit had not taken place since itwas hard to find examples that could be quoted (various sources did not want tobe quoted). A view that been heard that the library was not particularly satisfiedwith the RSD. Members of the Board with quotable examples were again urged tocontact the Secretary.

Action:members to send quotable examples to the Secretary of any problems with theRSD.

j)Press Office and Communications.

i)IPR. It was recalled that in hisspeech during the IPR discussion that Mike Clark had noted that in a pressrelease the Press Office had claimed that the RSD had made a significant sumfrom spin-offs without making it clear that the research was done, and thecontracts signed, well before the formation of the RSD. It was agreed to notethis in the eighth Report.

Action:the Secretary to check details of Mike Clark’s claim with him.

ii)Visitor Centre. As noted above, a press releasehad been put out suggesting that the Colleges were supporting the visitorcentre. This was not in fact the case.

iii)Governance. The Boardwere far from clear that the press office’s interventions had been helpful overgovernance.

k)Appointment of the new Vice-Chancellor. It wasthought appropriate to comment favourably on the process that selected the newVice-Chancellor. To that end it might be useful to know where her name camefrom, e.g. the headhunters or a personal recommendation.However, it was also thought worth pointingout that there had been a leak, the source of which had not been identified.This was the second time in a year that there had been a major leak (the firsttime being over the CAPSA reports).

l)Personnel. There was a brief discussion ofanalytical job description schemes, such as HERA. It was noted that theUniversity was pursuing the HERA option. The Board’s view was that thejustification for choosing that scheme should be made clear, and that theprocess by which the decision was made should be transparent. It was agreedthat Jennifer Rigby should contact the Director of Personnel to determinewhether such a process will be followed, to ask if the AUT job evaluationscheme had been considered.

Action:Jennifer Rigby to contact the Director of Personnel re HERA and the AUT scheme.

m)Council Minutes. In order to hear ofdevelopments within the University in a timely manner, the Board resolved toask for Council Minutes (both reserved and unreserved) to be forwarded to theChairman automatically.

Action: the Chairman to ask the Registrary forthe Board to be put on the distribution list for full Council Minutes.

6)Any other business.

7)Date of next meeting. The nextmeeting will be on 22 May 2003.