GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1999

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

GA99-P1

Subject: Appointment of Pro-Vice-Chancellors, Deans and Associate Deans

Origin: Acting Registrar

The processes by which Pro-Vice-Chancellors, Deans and Associate Deans are appointed and the terms of their offices contain several anomalies and are out of line with those now in force for heads of departments. To bring them up to date and to introduce elements of flexibility involves alterations to the Charter, Statutes and Ordinances, following a process of consultation which has already involved Senate and Council. Some of the changes will require 75% majorities at Council on two separate occasions and Privy Council approval. The proposals are now put forward to General Assembly for comments, which will be considered by Council.

These proposals aim to:

i.	Standardise the period of office of PVCs, Deans, Associate Deans and Heads of Departments at an initial appointment of 3 years with the possibility of a 3 year extension (or longer in exceptional circumstances).

ii.	Improve the appointment process of PVCs, Deans and Associate Deans by setting up procedures for the involvement of both Senate and Council in the selection process.

iii.	Permit, if required, an increase in the number of Pro-Vice-Chancellors. Future numbers to be determined by Council.

iv.	Make provision for the external appointment of PVCs in specialist areas, should this need ever arise.

v.	Change the name of Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor to Deputy Vice-Chancellor for the purpose of external clarity.

	The drivers behind these proposed changes are:

i.	The period of office of PVCs, Deans and Associate Deans is currently a function of their historical origins in the Ordinances and Statutes. The changing and more demanding role of Deans, Associate Deans and PVCs requires sufficient time to gain experience to be effective.

ii.	Currently, Council is only involved in the appointment of the SPVC. As senior managers such as SPVC and PVCs are drawn from PVCs, Deans and Associate Deans, it is appropriate that Council should be involved in the selection process for these posts.

iii.	Permitting an increase in the number of PVCs firstly legitimises existing practice and provides for future flexibility without recourse to the Privy Council on each occasion. Council would, of course, be required to approve any increase in the number of PVCs on a case by case basis.

iv.	Provision for the possibility of making an external appointment direct to PVC is intended to offer future flexibility, should the need arise in specialist areas: again this would require Council’s approval.

v.	The change in title of SPVC to Deputy Vice-Chancellor is intended to clarify the nature of the post to the external community. General Assembly is invited to express its views on these proposals. Copies of the unconfirmed minutes of the discussions at Council and Senate are attached.

21 September 1999

General Assembly

Extract from Minutes of the 329th (Special) Meeting of Senate held on Wednesday 23 June 1999

99/78 Appointment of Pro-Vice Chancellors, Deans and Associate Deans

(SEN99-P56)

.1 Senate was advised that the proposals concerning the appointment of Pro-Vice-Chancellors, Deans and Associate Deans followed lengthy consideration by the senior management. The aims were to: standardise periods of office; involve both Senate and Council in the selection process; remove the restriction on the number of Pro-Vice-Chancellors; permit direct recruitment to a Pro-Vice-Chancellor post; and retitle the post of Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor as Deputy Vice-Chancellor.

The drivers behind these changes were to: allow post holders to gain adequate experience; to involve Council in the appointment of Pro-Vice-Chancellors and Deans who would be the source of future senior management; legitimise existing practice where we already had more than two Pro-Vice-Chancellors and to provide for future flexibility; to permit greater flexibility by allowing external appointments if required; and to clarify the role of the Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor to the external community.

.2 A member of Senate expressed concern that there had been no widespread consultation about these changes and felt that no recommendation could be made to Council before this consultation was undertaken.

A motion was put to Senate that there should be a wider debate on the proposals before they were put to Council.

A member of Senate had understood previously that this matter would not be taken forward until a new Registrar was in place to conduct a wider review of the Statutes, which did not for example include any reference to Faculties.

.3 In terms of the proposals themselves a number of questions were raised.

It was suggested that it might be unwise to appoint more senior academic staff to Pro-Vice-Chancellor posts given the research objectives to which the University was committed.
It was felt that the additional salary costs would not be insignificant.
The lengthy periods of appointment suggested the establishment of management rather than academic posts.
Pro-Vice-Chancellors may have ex-officio membership of Senate and Council and their membership might unbalance the representative complexion of those bodies.
It was suggested that Committee Chairs were very well placed to take forward the University's business.
It was noted that in exceptional circumstances an external appointment to the post of Pro-Vice-Chancellor could be made and this was at variance with the principle that the University would benefit from the experience of its senior staff. Nevertheless it was noted that this might be appropriate in certain specialised areas where the University lacked the relevant expertise.
A member suggested that it would be wise to cap the number of Pro-Vice-Chancellors and suggested a limit of 15.

.4. A further motion was put that Senate was not prepared to recommend the proposals to Council at this stage.

.5 One member observed that much of the criticism was aimed at consultation and little had been said about the proposal itself.

.6 One member observed that the proposals fall into three categories

One was a rationalisation of the status quo, we already operated with three Pro-Vice-Chancellors, and the legitimising of existing practice was to be welcomed.
The second was the increase in the democracy of the appointment process by involving Council and an act of ensuring that appointment processes were fair and equitable and which involved Council should also be welcomed.
The third category was permissive and allowed the University flexibility in the number of Pro-Vice-Chancellors. The proposals introduced greater flexibility into governance which should be welcomed.

.7 Some members of Senate felt that the proposals represented operational changes and reflected the need for greater management support.

.8 Senate's concerns about the consultation process were acknowledged. Senate, however, was advised that this was the commencement of a consultation process which would also involve General Assembly. The proposals would be submitted twice to Council to ensure a full debate. Senate was advised, however, that it was not within its remit to prevent the proposals being submitted to Council on 14 July.

.9 It was noted that there was not a unanimous view on the proposals themselves. With respect to the matter of consultation it was felt, however, that it was unnecessary to consider a motion concerning the consultation process, since Senate's views would be transmitted to Council. Accordingly the two motions on the table were withdrawn. Senate wished TO ADVISE Council that it believed there should be a wide process of consultation before a final decision on the proposals is taken.

General Assembly

Extract from Minutes of the 260th (Special) Meeting of the University Council held on 14 July 1999

99/72. Appointment of Pro-Vice-Chancellors, Deans and Associate Deans

COUN99-P46

.1 As part of an initial consultation process, Council was being asked to offer comment on proposals concerning the appointment of Pro-Vice-Chancellors, Deans and Associate Deans. The proposals incorporated amendments to The Charter, Statute VI and relevant Ordinances. Formal approval would be required at two subsequent Council meetings and Privy Council approval would be required for the changes to Charter and Statutes. The Minute of Senate's discussion of the proposals on 23 June 1999 was received.

.2 The Acting Registrar outlined the following aims of the proposals: to legitimise existing practice on the number of Pro-Vice-Chancellors (PVCs); to standardise the period of office of PVCs, Deans, Associate Deans and Heads of Departments; to make provision for the external appointment of PVCs or Deans; to involve Council in the appointment of PVCs and Deans; and to revise the title of Senior PVC to Deputy Vice-Chancellor for the purposes of external clarity. The Privy Council office had been approached concerning the changes that would be necessary to the Charter and Statutes. They had considered these as minor and had offered assistance in their drafting.

.3 Council was informed of the consultation process that would be instigated before formal approval of the changes would be sought. The proposals would be put to General Assembly before their first formal consideration by Council in October. It was undetermined whether Senate would be consulted further.

.4 A member questioned why a title change was being proposed for the SPVC without revising other titles within the University for the purposes of external clarity. The need to review the Charter and Statutes to bring these in line with inter alia the current Faculty structure was highlighted. Council was informed that such a review would be undertaken in due course.

Return to Agenda