Boardof Scrutiny

Thursday 19February 2004

RobinsonCollege

Garden Room

Present: Mantas Adomenas, Stephen Cowley, ChristopherForsyth (Chairman), Nicholas Holmes, Elisabeth Leedham-Green, SaskiaMurk-Jansen, Timothy Milner, David Phillipson, Jennifer Rigby, Roger Salmon,John Spencer.

Apologies: HelenThompson.

1)Minutes of the meeting of 12 February 2004

TheBoard confirmed the minutes.

2)Matters arising

a)Administrative support.The Chairman reported that matters were progressing and that he had completedthe role description form. This now awaited grading by the Personnel Divisionand then final approval by the Registrary before advertisement.

b)The University’s strategy. There was a discussion of the University’s strategy (basedon a working paper produced by David Phillipson after Roger Salmon’s earlierdraft). Inter alia there was adiscussion of graduate students, the affordability of housing near Cambridgefor University staff, the means by which Professors are elected, and the “worldclass” status of the University. It was agreed that David Phillipson wouldrevise the working paper.

3)Meeting with William Brown, George Reid and Tim Mead.

There followed ameeting with two members of Council and the Registrary. In an earlier letterthe Registrary had raised two issues: whether the Board should continue toproduce one “blockbuster” annual Report, and precise remit of the Boardaccording to Statutes and Ordinances and the original concept in the WassReport.

The extract fromthe Wass Report that recommended the establishment of the Board of Scrutiny wascirculated. George Reid noted that if the Board was doing its job thencriticism of the central bodies might be anticipated from time to time.He drew attention to Statute A,VII,1:

“1. There shall be in the University a Board of Scrutiny,which shall in each year scrutinize on behalf of the Regent House the AnnualReport of the Council, the abstract of the accounts of the University, and anyReport of the Council proposing allocations from the Chest. In addition theBoard shall perform such other duties, and shall have such powers, as may bespecified by Ordinance or Order.”

He also notedthat the Wass Report anticipated that the members of the Board would engage inthe Discussions of the Reports, and that by delaying its annual Report untilthe end of the year there was a lack of immediacy.

Members of theBoard noted that there was little time between the publication of the Reportsand the Discussions for the Board to perform an in-depth analysis. In the pastthe Board has been careful to investigate its facts before publishing itsReports or making comments in Discussions. Members of the Board were open tothe idea that the Board make more substantive remarks on the Reports at theappropriate Discussion, however more time would be needed between the time thatthe Board saw the Reports and the Discussion. One way forward might be for theBoard to see draft the Reports in draft form.

Members of theBoard also drew attention to two of the Board’s Ordinances:

“1. It shall be the duty of the Board of Scrutiny toscrutinize on behalf of the Regent House each year the Annual Report of theCouncil (including the Annual Report of the General Board to the Council), theaccounts of the University, and any Report of the Council proposing allocationsfrom the Chest

2. In carrying out their scrutiny of the documents specified in Regulation1, the Board shall have the right toexamine the policies of the University and the arrangements made for theimplementation of those policies, and to report thereon to the RegentHouse.” (emphasis added)

The Boardinterpreted the second of these to justify, say, its investigation into CAPSA,and the interest it has taken in the RAM. Both these issues are examples wherean informed, but delayed, response was appropriate. It was suggested that theappropriate time to make comments on the RAM was at the time of the AllocationsReport. A concern was also expressed that unless it was careful the Board mightdecisions pre-empt Council.Members ofthe Board stressed that that was not their intention. The Board’s role wasinquisitorial not policy-making.

The Registraryemphasised the need to obey Statutes and Ordinances. Members of the Boardagreed.

Professor Brownasked if the Board saw itself playing a similar role to Council as aparliamentary select committee plays to government. Dr Cowley expressed theview that there was a difference between a select committee that monitored adepartment, and the Public Accounts Committee or the Public AdministrationCommittee. He thought that the latter two might be a good analogy.

There was adiscussion about Discussions, and as to whether they could be made moreeffective. It was agreed that Discussions might be improved if informed membersof the Regent House, such as members of the Board, contributed to them. It wassuggested that if a member of the Board contributes to a Discussion they shouldstate their membership of the Board at the start of their contribution. DrCowley expressed the hope that responses from Council to such contributionswould take a positive tone. It was suggested that sometimes it was difficult tounderstand the points being made in certain contributions.

There was abrief discussion of the Board’s draft paper on the working of Council. Aquestion was raised as to whether it was appropriate for the Board to commenton the workings of Council. Members of the Board observed that the workings ofCouncil were referred to in the Annual Report of Council. Moreover, the reviewof the working of Council grew out of the Shattock on Finklestein Report. Itwas reported that there was now more time to discuss policy issues at Council,e.g. this year there had been detailed discussion of fees, the primate centreand the RAM. There was also a brief discussion of the relationship between thePlanning and Resources Committee and the Finance Committee. The Board waspleased to learn that proposals would be published in the near future. It wasagreed that the Board should meet with the Registrary at a later date todiscuss the draft paper in more detail.

It was notedthat there might be room for improvement in the organisation of papers forCouncil, e.g. in focusing attention of members of Council on key points bymeans of fuller agenda notes (cf. the papers prepared for certain othercommittees). It was noted that the University needs a more formal businesstimetable that is actually observed by committees of the University. There wasa discussion on the frequency of meetings of Council and whether this mightimprove the processing of business by Council.

It was agreedthat the Board’s aims are the same as those of Council, and that a system of“opposition” would not be good.

There was adiscussion of the Council responses to the Board’s earlier Reports. It wasobserved that the Board had advocated the consolidation of the CUP and ULCESaccounts, and the abolition of the chest/non-cheat distinction, for a number ofyears before Council acted on them (e.g. after pressure from external bodies).Members of the Board thought that a forthright agreement or disagreement mightbe more helpful than a more bland statement.

There was adiscussion of the Council’s response to the Board’s eighth Report, covering itstone and topics such as the primate centre and the assistant staff pensionscheme. Dr Holmes, a recently elected member of the Board, noted that theCouncil had described the Board’s report as “alarmist” on this point. However,the recent agenda of the personnel committee indicated that the managers werenow seeking a top-up of £12.6 million, together with an increase incontributions to 22.5% of salary; this was in line with the Board’s Report.

It was notedthat there could be great benefit from open government in developing trust. TheRegistrary noted that since the Press read Reports and contributions toDiscussions, there is a need to be careful what is said lest it bemisunderstood.He expressed the viewthat the balance between Council and the Regent House was not yet right, and notedthat Wass has envisaged enhanced authority for Council. It was suggested thatthere was a need to improve trust between the Regent House and the centralbodies.

In summary:

§The Board would like to see the draft Annual Reports ofthe General Board and Council before they are published so that it could makemore substantive comments at the time of the Discussion of these Reports.

§The Board would also like to see improved dialoguebetween the Council and Scrutiny.

§The Board would view it as helpful to discuss with theRegistrary its working paper on the effectiveness of Council, in particular therôle of Registrary.

The Boardthanked the delegation from Council from attending. The meeting was viewed ashaving been productive.

4)Date of the next meeting: 26 February 2004