5 June 2003 Minutes

Boardof Scrutiny

Minutes of the Meeting Held at Noon on

Thursday5 June 2003 at Selwyn College

Present: Stephen Cowley, Christopher Forsyth, DavidHowarth (until 12.50pm), Robin Lachmann, Elisabeth Leedham-Green, TimothyMilner (until 12.35pm), Oliver Rackham, Jennifer Rigby, John Spencer, HelenThompson

Apologies: Jack MacDonald, Susan Lintott.

1)Minutes of the meeting of 22 May 2003. Thesewere approved subject to a minor change.

2)Matters arising.

a)Visit to Anne Campbell MP. The Boardhad a good meeting with the local MP. She listened and appeared to be wellinformed e.g. she appeared to have read at least parts of the CAPSA Reports,and she was aware of the breakdown of trust between the central bodies andsignificant parts of the rest of the University.She did not like ballots, and believed that they were a problemin that they slowed down decision-making. The members of the Board presentagreed that if only the process leading to decisions and the Council workedefficiently then there might not be a demand (Anne Campbell might say need) forballots. She noted that we both elect Council, and can then vote on theirdecisions; she seemed to think that it was sufficient to elect Council. Inparticular she was concerned about the range of policies/subjects that neededto be graced; she possibly seemed to think that only changes of Statute shouldbe graced.It was noted thataccountability in the University appears to mean say “sorry”, and then continueas normal. She was keen that the Vice-Chancellor be given powers. The Boardemphasised that if the Vice-Chancellor was to have further powers then theremust be checks and balances (e.g. it must be possible to sack theVice-Chancellor) and he or she must be made more accountable.

Action: the Chairman to write to AnneCampbell to thank her for the meeting.

b)Board of Scrutiny elections. Membersreported that they had encouraged their colleagues to vote. The Chairman hadwritten to a number of Heads of Department and Heads of House asking them toemphasise the importance of voting.

3)The Board’s appeal over the refusal of the ViceChancellor’s to provide the studies from the FWP Report. There wasa discussion of both a draft letter to the Vice-Chancellor and a draft appeal.It was agreed to ask the Vice-Chancellor if the procedure he had followed incoming to his ruling had been correct. It was also agreed to tone down theletter and appeal slightly.

It was agreed to send the letterand appeal to both the Vice-Chancellor and Council before the meeting of Councilon Monday 9 June 2003. The Board expressed their thanks to Christopher Forsythfor the time he has spent on this matter.

4)The Eighth Report.

a)Allocations Report. It was noted that itwould be best if some comments on this years Allocation Report could be made inour Report. It was reported that the Allocations Report would be discussed byCouncil on Monday 9 June 2003, and might be published that following Wednesday.(Secretary’s note: now due to be published on Wednesday 18 June 2003).

b)OPM Governance Development Needs. This wasa report commissioned by Council to comment on governance arrangements, and inparticular how Council functioned (and was thought to have cost approximately£20,000). OPM interviewed members of Council and a few other senior members ofthe University. The Board’s opinion was that the people consulted were too veryrestrictive. Many of the recommendations just echoed back the views of theselected few that were interviewed, although other conclusions did make sense(e.g. where they echoed Shattock) and there was the odd home truth (e.g. theCouncil should question why they lost the governance vote). The report seemedto take no account of the democratic nature of the University, and took atop-down approach. The Board was surprised at the timing of the report, afterthe governance proposals had been decided but before the outcome of the votewas known. It was agreed that any quotes we used from the report would be runpast the Registrary first when he saw the draft eighth report. The Secretarywas asked to lead discussion of the report at the next meeting.

Action:the secretary to produce a summary of the report before the next meeting.

c)HEFCE audit letter and other financial matters. Therewas a discussion as to whether we needed the permission of the Registraryand/or Council to quote from the HEFCE audit letter. It was agreed that as inthe past we would write the Report and then forward a draft to interestedparties for comment. It was agreed to copy both the HEFCE audit letter and themanagement letter to all members of the Board.

Action: the Secretary to copy the management letterto members of the Board. Jennifer Rigby to copy the HEFCE audit letter tomembers of the Board.

Susan Lintott had written a very helpful summary ofthe HEFCE audit letter and the minutes of the Finance Committee. It was notedthat the HEFCE audit letter included an assessment of the University’sadministration. There were four classes, with the bottom class being a fail. Ineach unit of assessment the University scored a third. It was noted that theTQA/SR results for teaching were published in the Reporter and it was resolvedto suggest that a similar procedure was followed for the assessment ofadministration. It was agreed that we should refer in our Report to some of thekey comments made in the HEFCE audit letter.

It was re-iterated that the Finance Working Party(FWP) Report seemed to have an over reliance on the RAM (indeed, the FWP Reportseemed to be self-contradictory on this point). It was noted that given theparlous state of the University’s accounts the University needed more than justgood housekeeping.

It was believed that the Finance Committee had sentthe draft allocations for 2003-04 back to the PRC indicating that the projecteddeficits were too large. It was not known what had happened but the Boardawaited the allocations report with anticipation.

It was agreed to include more from the managementletter in our Report. It was also resolved to ask the Registrary for theprogress report on matters raised in the management letter.

5)Any other business.

a)Primate Centre. There were indicationsthat another grace would be proposed over the summer vacation.

b)Milton Road. Professor Evans had emailed theChairman and Secretary over a piece of experimental equipment in a buildingthat the University was thinking of selling. The Board expected that dueprocess would have been followed, but the Chairman agreed to informally checkwith a colleague.

c)Trumpington Street. It was reported that certainUniversity buildings on Trumpington Street were for sale. The Secretaryreported that there had been a discussion of this sale on the ucam.change.governancenewsgroup. In particular the question had been asked if the University hadcorrectly obtained permission for the sale of all the properties since a numberof different graces had been concerned. It was decided to take no furtheraction at this point.

d)Disposal of equipment. Douglasde Lacey had drawn the Secretary’s attention to the fact that thousands ofpounds worth of equipment seemed to be thrown in skips when buildings wererefurbished. He found this strange given that there was often not enough moneyfor essential equipment. The Secretary agreed to take with matter up with theDirector of Finance.

Action:the Secretary to email the Director of Finance over the disposal of equipment.

e)HERA. The Secretary explained that asa job analysis scheme, HERA would determine salaries. He noted that there hadbeen many studies that suggested academics were underpaid, e.g. even the PrimeMinister accepted that we were 40% underpaid. If HERA was consistent with this,then the results of the analysis should indicate this underpayment. However, ifthis was the case then academics might argue the case in court using the HERAoutput. He was therefore of the opinion that it was highly unlikely that theoutput from HERA would predict that academics are 40% underpaid. However, ifthat was so and the HERA output were accepted, then it would mean that withouta job re-analysis academics would be trapped with their current inadequatesalaries. It was agreed to raise this issue with Peter Deer, but after theeighth Report had been finalised.

6)Date ofnext meeting. The next meeting will be held at noon on 19 June 2003. TheSecretary sent his apologies in advance.