1.1 The review was
established following a discussion at EMG on 26 April 2004 concerning risk
management. No formal terms of reference were specified at that stage. The
review was then subsumed under the overarching Strategic Review (June 2004).
Subsequent discussions with the Vice-Chancellor and the origins of the
Strategic Review suggested that the focus should be primarily on making the
best use of staff and lay member time, whilst retaining an appropriate level of
collegiality, rather than on the formal governance aspects of the committee
structure. Corporate governance arrangements are under review by Internal Audit
this year. A major revision of the guidance from the Chairmen of University
Councils (CUC) on corporate governance has recently been launched (November
2004) but timing has not permitted compliance with the guidance to be examined
in detail.
1.2
The review has taken the form of discussions with members of
the senior management, particularly active lay members of Council, committee
chairs, senior officers, committee secretaries and the 2003/04 Students’ Union
President and VP (Education & Welfare). The AUT Committee has also been
given the opportunity to comment. Those who have contributed are listed in
Appendix 1.
1.3
The current formal committee structure is attached as
Appendix 2. Ad hoc working groups set up to deal with specific issues are
excluded.
2.
Senate and Council
In general, Senate and Council
were regarded as reasonably fit for purpose. Despite their size they were able
to engage in active debate and a number of very useful discussions had taken
place at recent meetings. It was recognised that large formal bodies are not
appropriate for discussion of detailed issues. The membership of Council had
recently reached steady state following an earlier review and it would be
premature to consider further change. Senate had a large membership but made an
important contribution to the maintenance of collegiality.
3. The
Directorates and Faculty Boards
Despite having a major role in
decision-making, the Directorates are not formally part of the Committee
structure. The Strategic Review recommended that the Faculty Boards should be
abolished and the role of General Assembly strengthened. However, some opposition
to this proposal was made at the last Senate and by the AUT Committee on the
grounds of loss of collegiality.
Senate may
wish to consider the following:
Whether, rather than abolishing
the Faculty Boards, they could be made more efficient by reducing meetings to
twice a year and for those meetings to be held back-to-back with a meeting of
the Directorate. Consideration should also be given to enhancing the
effectiveness of the Boards and to the promotion of good communication with
staff.
4.
Joint Committees of Senate and Council
4.1 Resources
and Planning Committee
Widespread concern was expressed
that Resources & Planning Committee seemed to duplicate the work of Council
or its own Sub-Committees. It should be, and occasionally was, an important forum
for discussion of key issues, bringing academic and lay members together to
debate and prioritise the use of the full range of University resources: human,
financial, estate and information. Some individuals felt that there were
insufficient opportunities for effective engagement between lay members and
senior academic staff/University senior management on the medium to long term
planning of the University’s direction. Possible options for the future
include:
(a)
Abolish the Committee and have its sub-committees
report directly to Council.
(b)
Give careful thought to how operation might be
improved, e.g. by reviewing agendas to encourage greater discussion, reducing
long oral reports (see paragraph 7.1), reviewing the membership, holding
meetings in a less formal environment than the Council Chamber etc.
(c)
Replace the Committee with a Joint Council-Senate
Strategy Committee. The focus would be on providing advice to Senate and
Council on major strategic issues. The sub-committees would report directly to
Council.
4.2 Operations Sub-Committee/Operations
Sub-Committee (Budgetary Review)
Significant developments have been
made in the last two years in formalising planning processes and facilitating
co-ordinated and longer term planning. Lay members were now being involved at
an early stage in the cycle of annual budget meetings and operational decisions
were being taken in the context of three year development plans. Systems are
still evolving and at a later date it may be appropriate to consider whether
more formal distinctions are needed between day-to-day operational
decision-making and longer term planning meetings and the individuals who
should be involved at each stage. Opportunities to streamline paperwork and
delegate some decision-making should be examined where the risks to financial
control are minimal.
4.3 Performance Monitoring Group (PMG)
The lay members of PMG find
meetings very valuable and a major contribution to their understanding of the
working of the University. Being a very small group, it provides opportunities
for constructive, in depth, discussion.
4.4 Information
Services Committee (ISC)
Although many believed meetings
had been better recently, the Committee was not felt to be working well,
although effective management of Information Services in the University was
critical. Issues included:
It was not clear that the Faculty
IT Co-ordinators Sub-Group (FITG) needed to be serviced formally by the
Registry.
It is suggested that the terms of
reference and membership of ISC and its relationship with FITG and user groups
for information services be reviewed further.
4.5 Estates Management Committee
The Committee was generally felt
to work well although the Terms of Reference require better alignment with its
current work. Proposals for revisions will be considered at its next meeting.
4.6 Human
Resources Committee and its Sub-Committees
4.6.1 In formal governance terms, it is anomalous
that Human Resources Committee does not report to Senate and Council via
Resources and Planning Committee.
Consideration should be given to
whether a change in reporting line is desirable or would just add to bureaucracy
without any great benefit.
4.6.2
There was general support for clarifying the focus of HR
Committee as being on strategy and policy rather than consideration of issues
relating to individual members of staff, in particular, professorial
appointments. In the Registrar’s view, there are risks in the Committee having
this combined remit. Procedures for professorial appointments have been
streamlined considerably, however, and some felt that non-academic input into
non-standard cases could contribute to decision-making.
Consideration should be given to
whether the terms of reference of HR Committee and its sub-committees should be
revised to separate responsibility for individual cases and strategic issues.
4.6.3
The Consultative and Negotiating Sub-Committees of Human
Resources Committee play an important role in maintenance of good
staff-employer relations. The Terms of Reference of these bodies require
updating as some still refer to the Staff Review Committee (forerunner of HR
Committee). The Clerical and Ancillary Review Committee has essentially been
superseded by the Hay job evaluation process.
Consideration might also be given
to whether there were benefits to combining one or more of the sub-committees
or having joint meetings on occasion.
4.7
Research Committee and Research Performance
Monitoring Group
Research is not naturally an
activity amenable to governance by Committees. However, no major concerns have
been raised about the current arrangements for Research Committee which meets
once a term. The Research Performance Monitoring Group has undertaken a
time-consuming review of each department which will be completed at its next
meeting. It will be reviewing its longer term role which needs to be considered
in the context of the role of Research Committee.
4.8
Student Services Committee
The Committee is not felt to be
working well but the need for effective co-ordination of student services and
liaison with Loughborough Students’ Union is obvious and of increasing
importance with the growth in international and postgraduate student numbers
and the introduction of variable tuition fees in 2006. Formal membership is too
large, though few regularly attend and there is too much focus on reporting
rather than discussion and future planning. Consideration of which functions
should be included in the definition of student services may be necessary.
Options for discussion include:
(a)
Little change to the formal committee as it only
meets termly but address co-ordination and planning needs through
sub-committees, working groups and informal discussion.
(b)
Review the terms of reference and membership of the
Committee and its sub-committees and ensure agendas reflect major issues rather
than passive reporting.
(c)
Abolish the Committee, remove the sub-committees from
the formal committee structure and use working groups and informal mechanisms
for co-ordination and planning with major issues raised directly at Senate if
necessary. The new arrangements would be reviewed after 12 months.
5. Committees of Senate
5.1
Ethical Advisory Committee
This Committee has been taking up increasing time for its members and
secretary over the last two to three years to meet the growing demands of
research sponsors. Work is already underway to streamline its business where
possible via appropriate delegation of approval to key departments where new
principles are not being established.
5.2
Learning & Teaching Committee (LTC) &
Curriculum Sub-Committee
Meetings are often lengthy though normally only take place once a term.
Our arrangements for quality assurance have been repeatedly commended so in
external terms the committees are working well. A review is already underway on
scope for refinement and streamlining of the approval procedures for new
programmes and modules. The academic dimension of admissions is not currently
covered by any committee except Senate although LTC has occasionally considered
admissions-related items.
It is proposed that LTC’s remit over the academic aspect of admissions is
formally recognised in its terms of reference.
5.3 Ordinances and Regulations Committee
Given the University’s current priorities, it has to be questioned whether academic staff time is best used reviewing changes to Ordinances and Regulations which in almost all cases will already have been scrutinised by another Committee before submission to Senate.
It is therefore recommended that
the Committee be abolished (the Chair has no objections to this.)
6. Committees
of Council
6.1
Health, Safety and Environmental Committee
The Committee is very large but
meets infrequently. Views have been mixed regarding its effectiveness.
It is proposed that the size of
the membership be reviewed and the Committee consider whether there is scope
for improving its effectiveness in discussion with the recently appointed Health,
Safety and Environmental Officer.
6.2
Treasurer’s Committee
Subject to successful revision of
the current Resources and Planning Committee (see section 4.1 above), it should
be feasible for this Committee to focus on “Treasury” matters, e.g. the proper
investment of capital etc.
7.1
A significant number of people felt that the long oral
reports at the beginning of Resources and Planning, Senate and Council were not
good use of members’ time and result in the Committee behaving passively. Both
PVCs are willing to review the approach to their reports. If a change is
thought desirable, possible options include:
(a)
A starred written report including the current data
reports and the comments made verbally at the meeting. Any substantive items
the PVCs wished to raise for discussion would then become full agenda items.
(b)
The reports remain as unstarred items but the items
reported only verbally at present are included in the papers, with little or no
verbal report, but the opportunity for committee members to ask questions.
7.2 Effectiveness of all committees
might be improved if they briefly reviewed their terms of reference and the key
issues which they will be addressing in the coming year (as far as these can be
foreseen) at their first meeting in the academic session.
7.3 Some feel senior committees are too
frequently made up of the same people so there is limited scope for new
discussion/ideas and for other staff to gain experience for senior management
positions. It also increases the burden on this small group of staff. Ad hoc
working groups are an obvious way of involving more staff and potentially using
the expertise of lay members.
7.4 The Students’ Union representatives
involved in the review were generally satisfied with student representation on
University committees and student involvement in the committee structure. It is notable, however, that student
representatives are sometimes difficult to identify for some committees,
particularly when a postgraduate student is required. The current Union Executive may wish to comment further on
this.
7.5 A formal schedule of delegations from committees and individuals to other committees/individuals needs to be drawn up as a matter of urgency to comply with good governance practice and to help identify responsibilities for practical purposes.
7.6
The Academic Registry should draw up a brief guidance
document on formatting and style for committee agendas, papers and minutes to
share good practice, increase consistency and assist the training of new
members of staff. This could build on the existing guidance document for
committee members which is no longer widely circulated. The guidance should
appear on the Committees website, the updating of which in preparation for the Freedom
of Information Act is ongoing. The document would include advice on compliance
with the Freedom of Information Act and revision of the current practice of
Ordinary and Special Agendas may need review in this context.
7.7 Although some economies of time have been achieved in
formal University committee servicing in the last few years, it continues to be
a time-consuming task for staff in a number of administrative departments. This
is time which might be better spent on more pro-active activities which
directly support teaching and research. It is therefore proposed:
(a)
That consideration be given to moving away from the
current discursive style of most formal committee minutes, to focus on
decisions and actions. For some committees this may require some change of
practice in relation to reporting to senior committees.
(b)
That the practice of numbering meetings (e.g. this is
the 372nd (Ordinary) meeting of Senate) and of the chair signing
minutes be discontinued.
Dr Jennifer Nutkins
Academic Registrar
6 December 2004
Appendix 1
Individuals Contacted as part of the Review
Vice-Chancellor
Deputy Vice-Chancellor (twice)
Pro-Vice-Chancellors
Deans
Director of External Relations
Directors of Estates, Personnel, Student Guidance &
Welfare
2003/04 Students’ Union President and VP (Education &
Welfare)
Faculty Board Secretaries, Fidelma Hannah & Roy Frost
DISS Directors (comments only recently requested and still
awaited)
Mr Alan Woods Treasurer (twice)
Dr C Woodruff, lay member of Council
Mr P Haslehurst, lay member of Council
Sir Bryan Carsberg, Chair of Council
AUT Committee via Dr D Berry