30 January 2003 Minutes

Boardof Scrutiny

Minutes of the Meeting Held at Noon on

Thursday 30 January 2003 at Selwyn College

Present: Stephen Cowley, Christopher Forsyth, David Howarth, ElisabethLeedham-Green, Susan Lintott, Robin Lachmann, Timothy Milner, Oliver Rackham,Jennifer Rigby, John Spencer, Helen Thompson.

Apologies: Jack MacDonald.

1)Minutes ofthe meetings of 5 December 2002 and 16 January 2003. It was agreed that the Chairman wouldcirculate edited minutes for approval in the next few days.

2)Mattersarising. The Secretaryapologised for not having sent the letter on harassment, and would do so in thenear future.

3)TheDiscussion of Reports held on 28 January 2003. It was reported that the Board’s threespeeches had been delivered. The Secretary had replied to some points raised bythe Treasurer, who had announced that there was to be a committee toinvestigate the inter-relationship between the accounts of the University, thePress and the Local Examination Syndicate (a matter which the Board has raiseda number of times in the past). It was noted that Professor G.R. Evans hadraised the issue of “risk” and the risk committee.

The statutory position of theSecretary-General and the Treasurer.The Board hoped that, following the loss of the vote on the Grace, Council wouldact. The Board was of the opinion that the new Vice-Chancellor should have aninput as regards the long-term solution of this matter.

4)The visitto BoGS. It was reportedthat the problems last summer had been acknowledged, but that Prof. Brown andLaurie Friday were now of the opinion that matters were much better. The originof last summer’s problems lay in the fact that there was an ever-increasingworkload as a result of more and more applications, combined with the loss ofkey staff. Computerisation was being implemented which should help, but it hadbeen stressed that there seemed to be no real strategy within the Universitythat linked, for instance, the increase in the number of programmes/degrees runby the University and the extra places that are consequently needed inColleges. There is no guarantee that in view of the increasing difficulties inplacing students in Colleges that some of last year's problems will notreoccur. Further, this difficulty in placing students might increase if a RAM isintroduced with the wrong incentives. It was agreed that the lack of a strategyfor student expansion should be mentioned in our next Report. The question wasalso raised as to what had happened to the University’s strategy document.

5)The visitto EMBS. It was agreedthat the presentation to the Board had been well prepared. It was reported thatthere was a new procedure for major building projects, however EMBS are notresponsible for including the income flow, and it is not clear that all theexpenditure is accounted for. The Director had agreed to forward an example ofsuch a plan to the Board. The buildings committee seems to be working moreeffectively, inter alia, because ofthe presence of external members. There are now formal procedures for appointingarchitects and builders, and the University jointly chooses subcontractors now(as opposed to leaving that task to the primary contractor).

Themethod of tendering had been described in detail to the Board’srepresentatives. Some expenditure is necessary at an early stage before aReport is laid before the Regent House, e.g. to produce the primary tenders(tendering being a two-stage process). It is apparently usual practice to signthe formal contract after the building has been started, and hence thekey-stage as far as the University is concerned is when a letter of intent issent out (there may be more than one letter of intent if the building isphased).

TheDirector of EMBS had been asked about progress as regards the ground waterpollution on the Downing site. There is apparently a recent paper on theUniversity’s environmental liabilities.

6)Preparationsfor the visit to Registrary and Treasurer on February 11 to discuss Graces onbuildings. The Board notedthat as regards the primate building for experimental psychology, the Reportand Grace did not indicate the likely use of the building. The Board agreed tomake it clear that the Board holds a neutral position on the use of theexperimental psychology building.

Asregards the English building, the Board would like to know the chronology ofwhat happened when, and how the contractual processes tie in with the necessarystatutory processes.

7)RSD: theSecretary’s correspondence with the Director. The Secretary reported on his correspondence with theDirector of RSD concerning what was said at their meeting in Lent 2002. TheSecretary was in the process of agreeing a date for a meeting with the Directorof RSD.

8)Possiblemeeting with the Director of Finance.A meeting with the Director of Finance had been agreed provisionally for 27February. However, that might be a better date for Malcolm Grant to come andtalk to the Board about the outcomes from the Financial Working Party.

Itwas agreed to raise the matter of risk and the risk committee when the Boardmeets the Director of Finance. It was also agreed to question the Director ofFinance on the exact position of the assistant staff pension fund.

9)The WhitePaper. The publicationof the White Paper was noted. Attention was drawn to the facts (a) that 6*research departments are proposed, (b) the HMG accepts that taking theUniversity sector as a whole, students from different social classes but withthe same A-level grades have an equal chance of being accepted into highereducation, (c) that there is a proposal that changes to statutes may no longerhave to be approved the Privy Council.

10)Any otherbusiness. It was notedthat a Sunday Times article alleged that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wasconcerned as to how efficiently and effectively the CMI money had been spent,however there was also an official denial of this allegation.

It was also noted that a student newspaper hadalleged that two members of the University had acted corruptly. It was thoughtthat this was a matter for the audit Committee and not the Board.

Itwas noted that there was a governance report by an external body that had beencommissioned by the University.

11)Date ofthe next meeting. The nextmeeting will be on Thursday 13 February 2003.