Boardof Scrutiny

Thursday 22April2004

RobinsonCollege

Garden Room

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

Apologies:Helen Thompson (on leave).

1)Welcome to the Vice-Chancellor (VC). The VC made some introductoryremarks, inter alia touching on the practical and political difficultiesassociated with animal experiments. She indicated that she would be providingan annual report to Council relating to the goals that she herself set at thebeginning of the year. She noted that she would withdraw from Council for thediscussion of her report.

The VC also observed that sincethe establishment of the Board, there had been a significant increase in theamount of time that the Central Bodies were required to spend on accountabilityissues, e.g. there were very many more requests from HEFCE and other externalinstitutions than before. In addition the Audit Committee had a revisedmembership, the University now had a committee on risk management, and ofcourse there were still Reports and Discussions. An argument could be made thatthere was too much time spent being seen to be accountable (i.e. too muchscrutiny with a little ‘s’), and too little time spent moving forward.

Members of the Board agreed that there was a dangerof too much scrutiny (especially given the apparent accountability maniaspreading across Europe), were keen to work together with the central bodies,and agreed that the Board should focus on major issues rather than minutiae. Itwas noted that members of the Board should, on the whole, be better informedthan average members of the Regent House given the access the Board has todocuments. Several members of the Board also observed that the Board had a goodtrack record of identifying problems, and it might be of benefit to theUniversity if the Board’s Reports were given greater consideration. The VCnoted that there was a difference between identifying difficulties and correctingthem, e.g. the consolidation of accounts was proving to be time consuming; theBoard agreed.However, she hoped thatfuture Reports of the Board would be dealt with constructively by the centralbodies.

The Board noted that its recent Reports hadapparently been successful in being the instrument in explaining the financialposition, etc. of the University to the Regent House; the point was made thatthe central bodies ought to be able explain itself. Given the pressure ofbusiness on Council, it was suggested that Scrutiny might find it easier to seethe wood for the trees; the point was made the as a result of the Council’sretreat, etc., matters might be improving on that front. The VC emphasised thatthe central bodies were developing a strategic plan for the future, but thiswas very much work in progress and was not covered by a single document similarto Oxford’s recent draft plan. The VC emphasised that planning documents hadgone out from the central bodies for consultation, and issues were bubbling upfrom the compilation of the risk register. A strategic roadmap for theUniversity was being developed that the University should hear more about inthe next year. Several members of the Board had not been aware of thesediscussions of broader issues, and wondered whether it might be helpful theRegent House might also be informed of them.

There was a discussion of the need to control theUniversity’s resources, especially its finances. It was emphasised that whilemoney is a trigger, and that an integrated financial plan should help withstrategic thinking, it was important not to lose sight of the aims of theUniversity, and for the need for the University to continually evolve. Therewas still a large amount to be done, and the University and Colleges needed toensure that they were not doing more than they could afford. A combination ofrevenue increases, efficiency savings, and a change in the mix of what theUniversity and Colleges do, were all likely to be ingredients in getting theUniversity and Colleges on an even keel.It was going to be difficult to keep everyone happy.

It was emphasised that the Board needs to be carefulin its Reports, so that the press cannot twist phrases out of context.

The VC left after about 90 minutes. The Boardthanked her for a positive and fruitful meeting.

2)Minutes of the Meeting of 11 March 2004. The Board agreed that correctionsto the agreed thatcorrections to the minutes of the meeting of 11 March 2004 should be emailed tothe Acting Secretary.

3)MatterArising.

a)AdministrativeSupport. The Chairman reportedthat three applications had now been received for the position of supportofficer. It was agreed that the Chairman, Acting Secretary and Jennifer Rigbywould form the selection committee. It was agreed that a task would be set forthe applicants.

4)Discussionon the Consultative Report of the Council on the Finance Committee and the PRC.There was a discussion of the draft speech. Itwas noted that the VC was not to be a member of the PRC, that the proposed PRCwas possibly too large to make effective decisions, that the Chairmen of theSchools would sit on the RMC, PRC and GB, that it had taken nearly two and ahalf years (since the CAPSA reports) to come up with these proposals, and thatthe Board was firmly of the opinion that the committee structure should be inOrdinances but not in Statutes. It was agreed that the Board would not make arecommendation as to the restructuring of the committees, but it would pointout that there were at least two alternative models. For instance, a case couldbe made that the Chairmen of the Schools should not be on PRC, but should maketheir cases for funding to the PRC. It was agreed that we should observe thatjust because you are not in the room, does not mean that you are not consulted.It was agreed to move the paragraphs on buildings towards the end of thespeech.

5)Preparationof the Annual Report. Because of a lack of time,most of the remaining items of the Agenda were deferred until the next meeting.

a)BlueBooks. The Chairman noted that he now hadthree copies of the blue book. Jennifer Rigby asked for one of them to be sentto her.

b)PressOffice. It was agreed to mention the PressOffice in the forthcoming report, and in particular whether it should be morefully integrated into the UAS.

c)Planning. It was agreed to ask for the consultation documents that have been circulated bythe central bodies.

d)Comments. It was requested that comments on the draft sections of the Report becirculated by Tuesday 27 April 2004.

6)Date ofthe Next Meeting. Thursday 6 May 2004 atnoon in the Linnett Room (not the Garden Room), Robinson College.