Review of Committees 2004

 

1.            Background

 

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.            Conclusions - General issues

 

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