3 July 2003 Minutes
Board of Scrutiny
Minutes of the Meeting Heldat Noon on
Thursday 3 July 2003 at Selwyn College
Present: Stephen Cowley, Christopher Forsyth, ElisabethLeedham-Green, Susan Lintott, Timothy Milner, Oliver Rackham, Jennifer Rigby,John Spencer, Helen Thompson
Apologies: David Howarth, Jack MacDonald, Robin Lachmann.
1)Minutes of the meeting of 19 June 2003. Thesewere approved.
2)Plan for the Eighth Report. It wasnoted that the Report should go to Council for the 21 July meeting. This wouldmean that a draft copy should go to the Registrary on Friday 11 July. In thelight of this it was agreed to meet on 10 July 2003. There was then adiscussion of the draft report.
a)It was agreed that we need to get to the meat of the reportquickly. It was therefore agreed to move paras 3-6 to a new section towards theend and to incorporate para 7 into the financial section. Susan Lintott waswriting a section on the accounts (e.g. commenting on the fact that they werenot true and fair).
b)It was agreed that the Board needed to make clear that itswork had been hampered by not receiving the full reports of the Finance WorkingParty, but that this point should be made towards the end of the Report(although flagged earlier).
c)It was agreed that we should observe that the Universitystill did not have joined-up budgeting. It was agreed to ask the Director ofFinance about progress on this point, and to ask how this compared with earliergoals.
d)The Chairman and Secretary had received an email noting thatSRIF funding was for equipment as well as new buildings, and that Cambridge wasseemingly concentrating on buildings (possibly at the expense of departmentsthat needed equipment). There was a discussion as to whether this was wisegiven the past cost of overruns and extra running expenses of new buildings. Itwas agreed to check facts with colleagues, e.g. as to what extent EPSRCequipment funds have been rolled into SRIF.
e)There was a discussion as to exactly how large the projecteddeficit was predicted to be.It wasagreed that there was an urgent need for a meeting with Andrew Reid.
Action: Secretary to arrange a meeting between theChairman, Secretary and Susan Lintott with the Director of Finance.
f)Regarding the RAM it was agreed that there was still a needfor a debate on small departments. It was noted that although departments, etc.has done very well in the RAE, etc., it was those departments, rather than thecentral administration that were being asked to bear the burden of the cuts.The administration needs to be under the same financial disciple as theacademic departments and cannot excuse itself from economies.
g)It was agreed that we need to ask the Director of Financeand the Registrary about the progress on Shattock and Finkelstein’srecommendations, and to then comment on them in the Report.
h)It was agreed to emphasise the need for a sensitivityanalysis of the RAM before it is introduced. The need for a strategic plan alsoneeds to be emphasised, e.g. there is a need to identify proper funding of coreactivities and not to waste money on opportunistic activities that are notcentral to the key aims of the University.
i)It was suggested that one of the main problems at present isnot with governance per se, but with the bit between governance andadministration. It was agreed to make a favourable reference to Oxford’s NorthCommission of Inquiry as a considered means of reforming governance (ratherthan looking for quick fixes).
j)There was a discussion of the Press Office, and inparticular of Mike Clark’s comments on the Press Office during the IPRDiscussion in October 2002. The Chairman agreed to follow up this matter withDavid Secher and the Press Office.
It was noted that the Press Officehad recently circulated a media guide recommending that in dealing with thePress members of the University not say anything off the record. A discussionof the way that the governance proposals were explained to the Press ensured.It was agreed to again emphasise in our Report of the need for the Universityto present its case honestly and transparently. There was a discussion of theleaks at the time of the election of the new Vice-Chancellor. It was agreedthat although what happened was deplorable, there was little to be gained byraising the issue again.
k)There was a discussion of the proposed visitor centre, andin particular the chronology of events. It was thought that the idea was firstproposed in March 2001, that the College Bursars had not initially beenenthusiastic, that some form of business plan had been drawn up towards the endof 2002 (after the involvement of consultants and a visit to the USA), but thatafter revisions to the proposal, the business plan had not been updated(possibly when it went to the PRC in March 2003). It was thought that theproposal had been put forward as self-financing, but if so there was a questionas to why the Colleges had been asked for £5000 each (it was not known if thiswould be recurrent). It was noted that if we were to comment on the VisitorCentre then we would need to be sure of our facts. However, it did seem thatthe proposal had not evolved in a coherent manner and that the aims of theproject were not clear (e.g. would a visitor centre in the middle of Cambridgereally improve the access of students from the East End of London, or from theNorth East, etc.). It was not clear that the messages from CAPSA had beenlearnt.
3)Any Other Business.
a)A meeting has been arranged with the Vice-Chancellor electon 17 July 2003. It was agreed to send her the draft report.
b)It was noted that Dr Branson was retiring. Arrangements forhis successor do not seem to have been finalised.
c)I was noted that while the University has serious financialproblems, Imperial is apparently in the black.
d)The financial difficulties of University Assistant Lecturers(UALs) were commented on. It was noted that UALs were to be abolished, but thatit was still very difficult for newly arriving staff at almost all levels to beable to afford housing.
4)Date ofnext meeting. The next meeting will be held at noon on 10 July 2003.