22 May 2003 Minutes

Boardof Scrutiny

Minutes of the Meeting Held at Noon on

Thursday22 May 2003 at Selwyn College

Present: Stephen Cowley, Christopher Forsyth, RobinLachmann, Elisabeth Leedham-Green, Susan Lintott, Jack MacDonald (from 12:30pm), Timothy Milner, Oliver Rackham, Jennifer Rigby, John Spencer, HelenThompson

Apologies: David Howarth.

1)Minutes ofthe meeting of 8 May 2003. The notesof 8 May 2003 were accepted. The Secretary apologised for the fact that theminutes were behind on being placed on the WWW. It was agreed that somethingshould be done about the support officer.

Action: David Howarth to write a person specificationand to forward it to the Chairman.

2)Mattersarising.

a)Visit toAnne Campbell MP. This is to takeplace at 14.00 on Friday 23 May 2003 at Alex Wood Hall, Norfolk Street. Thedelegation will consist of John Spencer, Christopher Forsyth, Timothy Milner,Helen Thompson, Elisabeth Leedham-Green, Stephen Cowley and possibly SusanLintott. It was agreed to meet at the Hall at 13.55. It was agreed that wewould start by explaining the rôle of the Board of Scrutiny including some ofour successes (e.g. the only official body to warn of CAPSA prior to go-live,our concerns about the accounts as regards CUP and UCLES). It was agreed thatwe would make clear that the Board agrees that we need a principal officer andexternal members. However, there must be appropriate checks and balances toensure that the principal officer is accountable, and that the external membersare informed and independent. The proposals that were voted on were flawed; assuch their rejection actually indicates that our governance is working. TheBoard accepts that there is a need to tackle delays, but these are not to dowith the democratic aspects of our governance.

Action: the Chairman toemail members of the Board the second letter sent to Anne Campbell.

b)PrimateCentre. In response to the Board’squestion as to whether members of the Council knew of the use of the primatecentre, the Registrary had replied that members of Council thought it wasinconceivable that they did not know.

c)The ViceChancellor’s refusal to provide the studies from the FWP Report. The Chairman had been informed that a letter fromthe VC was coming concerning the refusal. There was a discussion as to how tomake a representation under Stature K5, and in particular of the time limit of30 days.

Action: theChairman to notify the Board once the letter has arrived.

d)IPR. It was noted that there seemed to be widespreadconcern within the University re the possible securitisation of IPR. It wasagreed that we would call for a public statement on this matter in the eighthReport. It was also agreed to question, at some point in the future, theDirector of RSD on this point, and to ask possibly for all correspondence withPrice Waterhouse.

Action: call for a publicstatement re the possible securitisation of IPR in the eighth Report. TheChairman and Robin Lachmann to question the Director on RSD on this matter.

e)Letter tothe Vice-Chancellor elect. A letterhad been sent to the Vice-Chancellor elect wishing her a rapid recovery. It wasreported that she will be in Cambridge during June but will be busy. A meetingbetween her and the Board may be possible in July.

f)Board of Scrutiny election. It was reported that a number of those that theBoard had approached to stand had agreed to. It was agreed that once the votingforms had been sent out members of the Board would encourage colleagues tovote.

Action: members of the Board to encourage colleagues tovote in the elections for members of the Board.

3)FinancialMatters.

a)Budget. It was reported that apparently the FinanceCommittee had not accpeted the allocations for the forthcoming year, and hadasked the Planning and Resources Committee to think again. The Chairmanreported that the terms of reference of the Finance Committee and the PRC arestill under review; nothing has been reported yet.

b)FinancialModel. The Secretary reported on aconversation that he had had with the Director of Finance concerning theproposed financial model. The DoF had said that the financial model would cost£215000 to develop, most of which will be covered by a donation (a question wasraised as to why the cost was referred to as approximately £800000 in theFinance Working Party Report). There was a discussion of the relative merits offinancial models (e.g. it was suggested that the model should be validated byrunning it forward from say, 1983, and seeing how accurate it was). It wasagreed to ask the DoF for the “selling points” of the financial model.

Action: theSecretary to ask the DoF for the selling points of the financial model.

c)The HEFCEaudit letter. It was reported thatthe Registrary did not initially understand our first request, but he had sinceprovided HEFCE’s interim response to its audit. The ratings of theadministration by HEFCE were noted. It was observed that apparently HEFCE thinkthat the University needs a CEO. It was agreed to point out to HEFCE that theBoard exists.

4)Governance:External Members of Council and Membership of the Regent House. It was noted that the Council had proposed a schemeof appointing two external members of Council using a nominating committee withequal numbers drawn from the Council (including the Vice-Chancellor) and thenomination board. The Secretary reported that the Council had not apparentlyconsulted internal experts on non-executive directors (and their appointment)as the Board had suggested. It was reported that the Secretary had written inan individual capacity to the Registrary concerning the part thatacademic-related members of staff could play in the activities of the RegentHouse.

5)CambridgeMIT Institute and the National Audit Office (NAO). The Chairman had contacted that NAO over a reportin the Sunday Telegraph (since also picked up by the Guardian) suggesting thatthe Treasury had not carried out the tendering for the contract correctly. TheNAO had informed him that they had not published a report, but had just writtena private letter to an MP. It appears that the press had blown up this letterfor its own purposes. It was noted that there had apparently been no rebuttalfrom the University’s press office; the view was expressed that in this casethis might have been the best course of action.

6)The Press Office:Visitor Centre. It was reported thata member of the Board has been asked to join the project working party for thevisitor centre. The Colleges first heard of the project by means of a letter inMarch 2002.Since then there had beenvarious changes to the project, e.g. a change from two to three business units.There had been various draft business plans at different stages, but it was notclear that the plans had kept up with changes to the project. There had alsobeen an information trip to the USA (cf. CAPSA). There appears to be a casethat the procedures adopted have not been ideal; e.g. at the beginning theprinciple of whether the University needed a visitor centre (and what it wasfor) should have been decided, and there should have been commercial input. Itappears that the current proposals have been put forward without sufficientinformation (e.g. a lack of commercial input) to make a proper decision. It wasthought that a full business plan has yet to be presented and it was not clearwhether there would be a recurrent funding need. It was suggested that Heads ofHouse were not happy, and that at present the Colleges were adverse to theproject. It was agreed that the Chairman would seek the views of a Head ofHouse.

Action: the Chairman to contact a Head of House re thevisitor centre.

7)Performanceof RSD. There was a discussion ofthe performance of the RSD. It was noted that it was important to draw adistinction between the different roles of the RSD, e.g. the arrangement anddrawing up of research contracts, and the licensing of IPR. The Board had beenpassed a letter from a Chairman of a School to the Research Policy Committee.The letter was critical of the performance of RSD on a number of fronts. It wasagreed that the Chairman would consult a contact for further examples ofinteractions with RSD.

Action: the Chairman to consult his contact for examplesof the performance of RSD.

8)Response tothe Seventh Report. It was notedthat it took the Finance Committee until January to consider the Board’sseventh Report. It was not clear that either the PRC or the Audit Committee hadever considered the seventh Report, and it was believed that the Report had notfeatured on the agenda of Council until recently (it was agreed to ask for Councilminutes in order to check this). It was noted that many of the Board’srecommendations had been acted upon in the period between publication of theReport and the Council’s response, although this was not necessarily clear fromthe Council’s response. It was agreed to note this timing explicitly in theeighth Report.Suggestions in theReport that were not explicitly posed as recommendations were either notcommented on and/or acted upon, e.g. induction procedures for newacademic-related staff and some of the Board’s recommendations regrading theRAM.

9)The EighthReport. It was agreed that the Boardwould need to meet regularly until the Report is submitted.

a)Governance. Timothy Milner would draft the section ongovernance.

b)RSD. The Chairman and Robin Lachmann would try and drafta section on RSD. Comments on RSD should be sent to Robin Lachmann.

c)UASdevelopment plan. It was reportedthat a member of the Board had a copy of the UAS development plan. It wasagreed to make a comparison between the plans and the implementation. It wasnoted that the needs requested in the plan were reduced as part of last year’sthe cost savings exercise. There did not appear to be a cost benefit analysisor a detailed business plan. The claim that Cambridge spends less onadministration and central services than other Universities was noted. It wasthought that this claim does include departmental administration, but not thecost of Colleges’ administration. It was noted that the recent increase in thenumber of academic-related staff from 239 to 285 was relatively large comparedwith the increase in academic staff.

d)The draftReport. A draft Report tabled by theChairman was discussed. It was agreed to aim for a crisper start (since thefirst page looked rather defensive), and to move the discussion of the Board’streatment by Council and the Vice-Chancellor to the end. The question arose asto when the Allocations Report was due to come out this year, since it might behelpful to refer to it.

e)CamSIS? There was a discussion of CamSIS, e.g. how much hasbeen spent (this was thought to be about £200000 at present, but the finalbudget was thought to be about £8 million). It was agreed to attempt to findout what the Colleges know about CamSIS, to determine whether they are happywith progress.

f)Finance.It was agreed that there were a number of comments in the auditor’s managementletter that could bear repeating, e.g. the lack of a strategic plan (it wasnoted that the draft of last year was a strategic plan without a strategy).There will be a meeting of the Board’s finance subcommittee at 9.00 am on 30May in Churchill College.

10)Any otherbusiness.

a)Ethnicpolicy. The Council’s Report onethnic policy was noted. A question was raised as to whether the Report wasoverkill; it was thought that given the political climate there was little theBoard could contribute.

11)Date of nextmeeting. The next meeting will be onThursday 5 June at Noon.