Board of Scrutiny
Helen Thompson
Normal
Tessa Payne
2
204
2004-03-08T09:39:00Z
2004-10-15T11:08:00Z
2004-10-15T11:08:00Z
1
758
4325
Social & Political Sciences
36
10
5073
11.5703
0
0
false
false
false
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
Board of Scrutiny
Noon, Thursday 30 September2004
Robinson College
Garden Room
Present:
Stephen Cowley (Acting Secretary), Christopher Forsyth (Chairman), Margaret
Glendenning, Nicholas Holmes, Timothy Milner, Elisabeth Leedham-Green, Saskia
Murk-Jansen, David Phillipson, Jennifer Rigby, John Spencer, Helen Thompson
In
attendance: John Little, Tessa Payne, Nick Pyper
1. Apologies
Roger
Salmon.
2. Minutes of the meeting of 17 June
2004
These were approved.
3.
Matters arising
There were
no matters arising.
4. Ninth Report
The Board
wished to thank Council for their initial response.
Members of
the Board voiced their concern that the Ninth Report was unlikely to have been
read by a large proportion of people due to it having been published during
August, and that consideration should be given to how people might be alerted
to it prior to the Discussion. One way
could be to modify the Notice of elections to the Board which would be
published around 18 October.
It was
agreed that the incoming Chairman would decide how to handle the Discussion on
26 October, taking into account the comments made by members of the Board and
the paper from Roger Salmon.
5. Report on pay and grading
structure
David Phillipson
circulated comments on the Report.
It was
noted that this was a particularly contentious Report. Particular concern was voiced about the
possible fall in salaries of staff categorised as T5 and CS4 as around 80% of
staff on these grades are currently paid more than the maximum of the proposed
new scale. It was also felt that there
was a risk that Directors salaries would not be published. It was agreed that moderation in the
implementation of the recommendations would be critically important.
Members of
the Board voiced their concern about the timing of the publication of this
Report. It was felt that an issue as
seminal as this should allow time for adequate discussion throughout the
University.
It was
agreed that the Chairman would write to the Vice-Chancellor requesting that the
Discussion of the Report is postponed to enable consultation to take place
within the University. If a postponement
is agreed, the Board will return to the Report at its next meeting. In the
event that the Discussion takes place as currently scheduled, it was agreed
that the new Chairman of the Board, or another nominated member of the Board,
should speak first at the Discussion, on behalf of the Board. Other members of the Board would then speak
as individuals.
6. Review of the Personnel Division
and the RSD
The Board
agreed that the Review of RSD was a good report, and that it was now important
to ensure that it was properly implemented.
The Board
felt that the Review of Personnel identified a number of concerns, and that
representatives from the Board should try and see Peter Deer about this and the
Review on Pay and Grading as soon as possible.
It was
noted that Council planned that in future rules should be developed regarding
the production of such reports.
7. Review Committee on ballots
The
Chairman of the Board confirmed that he had agreed to sit on the committee
reviewing ballots as an individual and not as a representative of the
Board. He confirmed that generally the
Committee had been persuaded by a considerable amount of evidence that there
could be justification for a range of voting systems, dependant on the type of
election. However, the complexities of
the explanations supporting the various systems were considerable, and the
Committee had decided on balance to recommend the status quo. It was noted that ballots of Senate members
may still be required in the future, but future identification of Senate
members may be difficult.
It was
confirmed that consideration had not be given to a situation where a Grace, due
to be balloted, was withdrawn by the Vice-Chancellor, and re-presented some
time later.
8. Epron Industries
The
Chairman circulated photos and an accompanying letter sent to him by Professor
Evans. The Board were aware that the
issues raised had already been taken up at a high level and agreed that it
would not be appropriate for the Board to take action on the issue.
9. Plans for the coming year
It was
agreed that the following issues could be considered over the coming year:
Follow up
on the reviews of Personnel and RSD
Money –
budget, expenditure
Reporting
arrangements to the Regent House
Board of Graduate
Studies
Counter-terrorism
Delegation
IPR
10. Chairman and Secretary for the
coming year
The
election of the Chairman and Secretary for the period 1 October 2004 to 30
September 2005 was discussed.
It was
agreed that the formal notice confirming the election of Chairman and Secretary
should indicate how to contact the Support Officer to the Board of Scrutiny.
11. Any other business
The
Chairman thanked members of the Board for their support over the past year.
Professor
Spencer, on behalf of members of the Board, thanked the Chairman for
his work
over the past year.
12. Dates of meetings
The next
meeting will be held on 14 October 2004.