Board of Scrutiny

Noon, Thursday 6 May 2004

RobinsonCollege

Linnett Room

Present: Stephen Cowley (Acting Secretary),Christopher Forsyth (Chairman), Nicholas Holmes, Elisabeth Leedham-Green,Saskia Murk-Jansen, Timothy Milner, David Phillipson, Jennifer Rigby, RogerSalmon, John Spencer.

1.Apologies. HelenThompson (on leave).

2.Minutes of the Meetings of 11 March 2004 and 22 April 2004. These wereapproved subject to minor corrections to be approved by circulation.

3.Matters Arising.

3.1.Discussion with the VC. The national press reports of 5May 2004 concerning University developments in NW Cambridge were discussed.There had been surprise in parts of the University when these stories hadappeared. Then consensus was that the press had picked up old news as a resultof the Council’s publication of the local plan. There was nothing here ofparticular concern to the Board.

3.2.Administrative Support: Appointment of the Board of Scrutiny SupportOfficer. Threeapplications have been received. The applicants have been set a task and willbe interviewed on 10 May 2004.

3.3.Discussion on the Consultative Report of the Council on the FinanceCommittee and the PRC. The speech made by the Chairman was noted.

3.4.Assistant Staff Pension Scheme (ASPS). There wasa discussion over the recent rise in contributions to the ASPS, both by theUniversity and by the assistant staff. The Board was of the view that the riseswere justified, but that the University should have picked up on the problemearlier, and that the change does not seem to have been introduced in anoptimal manner, e.g. the assistant staff should have been warned about thelikely increase earlier (such as in the summer of 2003, at the time of theBoard’s eighth Report). The Board was concerned that this problem had not beenidentified before, say, the Finance Working Party reported. The Board agreed toask for details of the last two actuarial valuations of the ASPS.

Action: The Chairman to ask for the last two actuarial valuations of the ASPS.

3.5.Strategic Issues. The Board had received consultation papersreferred to at the previous meeting by the VC; the Chairman was pleased toreport that the papers had been received promptly. There was a brief discussionof the papers, which covered, inter alia, future finances (includingconsolidation of chest and non-chest expenditure) and student numbers (althoughit was noted that a statement on the cost of accommodation looked optimisticfor building in Cambridge). The papers were more detailed than similar paperscirculated widely at Oxford and UCL, but possibly lacked some of the overallvision and aims.The Board thought thatgiven the difficult decisions that probably lie ahead, there might be value inwider consultation (onthe lines of Oxford and UCL). The Board debated as to whether the firstiteration should have been a discussion of overall strategy before proceedingto more detailed papers, although it was agreed that an understanding of theUniversity’s financial position must inform strategy.

3.6.Acting Secretary. It was agreed to inform the Registrary that DrCowley was Acting Secretary.

Action: The Chairman to write to the Registrary to informhim that Dr Cowley is the Acting Secretary.

4.Preparation of the Annual Report. There was a discussion ofthe overall shape of the forthcoming Report. It was agreed to follow previousReports with a short introduction (and list of acronyms) at the start, followedby a discussion of the University’s finances (including the forthcomingAllocations Report). It was agreed that the fact that the RAM is a politicalmeans of distributing the deficit, and does not allocate income as earned,should again be emphasised (since the RAM might not therefore necessarily sendsensible price signals). It was suggested that there should be discussion ofthe consequences of the RAM, e.g. noting that the cutting of academic postsmight be counter-productive as a result of the loss of RAE QR income. The factthat the RAM might help instil good practice, e.g. over the use of space and inachieving value for money, should also be mentioned. The Board was unclearabout the financial model of the University currently being developed:the relationship of the RAM to the financialmodel, who will use the model, and how it will be used. It was agreed that theActing Secretary would write to Andrew Reid on the matter. It was also agreedto ask for the draft risk register, with a view to commending it. It was alsoagreed to ask for the legal advice the University has received concerning thedistribution of trust capital as income.

Action:The Secretary to ask Andrew Reid for the draft risk register, and for astatement of the relationship between the RAM and the financial model.

Action: TheChairman to ask for the legal advice the University has received concerning thedistribution of trust capital as income.

Subsequentsections of the Report will cover buildings, personnel matters (including staffmorale) and governance. It was noted that on HERA, etc., we do not have recentinformation, and it was agreed to contact Peter Deer. On governance issues itwas agreed to cover the extension of K9 to allow delegation to an individual,the updating of Ordinances following the passage of Graces, and a mechanism bywhich the Board might have more time to study the Annual Reports of the Counciland the General Board before the Discussions on them. It was also agreed toinclude a section of the possibility of the University appointing a generalcouncil to provide legal advice to the University (since it might be argued thatthe present system possibly involves a conflict of interest). It was alsoagreed to comment on the outcome of the Lambert report.

It wasagreed that if possible the Report should be shorter than previous years andwritten in self-contained sections. The Chairman agreed to produce acut-and-paste draft for the next meeting.

Action: TheChairman to ask Peter Deer whether there are any further papers available onHERA and related matters, and to produce a cut-and-paste draft of the Reportfor the next meeting.

5.Visit to Management Information Services Division (MISD). This will take place on the morningof 14^th May 2004. The Chairman, Secretary, Elisabeth Leedham-Greenand Timothy Milner will attend. Topics of discussion might include: CUFS (e.g.status report, lessons learnt), CamSIS, the Shattock proposals for a mergerwith the UCS, the bulk purchase of computer equipment, future developments(e.g. payroll).

Action: Chairmanto forewarn MISD of topics.

6.Visit to the Director of the EMBS. The notes of the meeting were circulated.

7.Any other business.

7.1.Stipends. There wasa discussion of stipends. It was agreed that the system for determiningstipends and benefits should be fair and known, including the range of benefitsavailable to different positions If there was to be a change to remunerationlevels then this should be after an open policy decision.

7.2.HEFCE letters, Finance Committeepapers and other papers on the consolidation of accounts. It wasagreed to ask for HEFCE letters referred to in recent Audit minutes, and to askfor Finance Committee papers and any other papers on consolidation of accounts.

Action: TheChairman to ask for the aforementioned papers.

7.3.Investments. It wasagreed that Roger Salmon would write to Andrew Reid including his investmentpaper and asking for the necessary figures.

Action: RogerSalmon to contact Andrew Reid.

7.4.IPR. It wasreported that the Board had been approached concerning the IPR debate. It wasagreed that the Board would make no comment.

8.Date of next meeting. This will be on 20 May 2004 at noon in the Garden Room,Robinson College.