SENATE

SEN04-M10

Minutes of the 373rd (Ordinary) Meeting of Senate on Wednesday 15 December 2004.

 

 

Professor Sir David Wallace

 

 

Dr B S Acar (ab)

Professor  D J Allen
Professor C J Anumba (ab)
Professor C J Backhouse

Professor J V Beaverstock
Professor M Bell
Dr D G Berry

Dr M C Best (ab)

Professor W R Bowman

Dr E D Brown

Professor P W H Chung

Dr S E Dann

Professor I R Davidson

Ms L E Davis

Dr H Drake
Professor J P Feather

Dr M Fitzgerald (ab)

Dr D Gillingwater (ab)
Professor P Golding
Professor N A Halliwell

Mr J F Harper

Professor R A Haslam
Mr A R Hodgson (ab)

Dr S L Holloway

Mr T Hook

Dr A Jashapara

Professor T Kavanagh

 

Professor F Kusmartsev (ab)

Professor M W Lansdale (ab)

Dr J Leaman (ab)

Professor C M Linton

Professor G Mason

Mr M A Minichiello (ab)
Mrs M D Morley
Professor K C Parsons
Professor I Reid

Dr P M Render (ab)
Professor C D Rhodes
Professor P H Roberts

Professor S J Rothberg
Dr J F Rowland
Mr J Scott

Professor P R Smith
Professor A Thorpe

Professor R H Thring
Professor R J Wakeman (ab)
Professor P Warwick

Mr A J Westaway

Professor T G Weyman-Jones (ab)

Professor C Williams

Professor N Wood (ab)

Professor M A Woodhead

Professor B Woodward (ab)

Ms M M Worshing (ab)

 

 

In attendance:

 

Dr J E M Elliott

Mr H E Jones (for Minute 04/160)

Dr J C Nutkins

Mr H M Pearson (for Minute 04/160)

Mr J M Town                                 

 


04/159  Minutes

It was RESOLVED to confirm and sign the Minutes of the 370th meeting held on 26 November 2004 (SEN04-M7), subject to the following amendment:

 

Minute 04/117.1 – Strategic Review (Recommendation 10)

‘Non-professional Heads’ to read ‘non-professorial Heads’.

 


04/160  Tuition Fees Strategy and Access Agreement

SEN04-P115

Senate received a Tuition Fees Strategy and the draft Access Agreement for submission to the Office for Fair Access (OFFA). The draft had been commented on by the Directorates and by LSU, with minor modifications required as a result, and attention was drawn to some typographical amendments required.  The draft had been submitted to OFFA for informal comment but none had yet been received.  Any revision required following comments from OFFA would be cleared with members of Senate before submission of a revised draft to Council.  In response to a query Senate was advised that outreach activities were developed in partnership with schools and colleges in the region and it was AGREED that this should be made clearer in the document.  There would be a more detailed appendix on outreach activities attached to the document and the Deans of Engineering and Science were asked to ensure that this included all relevant Faculty activities.

 

ACTION:         Academic Registrar, JEME, Dean of Engineering, Dean of Science

 

It was also AGREED that reference should be made to events, particularly sporting events, which brought many youngsters onto the campus helping them to feel comfortable with the University environment.  Following Council on 21 December 2004 the Agreement would be submitted to OFFA.  Formal approval by OFFA could be expected in March 2005.

 

04/161  Strategic Review: Review of Committees

SEN04-P116

.1         Senate received a report intended to provoke debate.  A member expressed the view that over the years there had been a drift upwards and centralisation in policy and decision-making, understandably difficult to resist, and there was now the need to involve more than senior management in decision-making.  Greater collegiality was needed and the involvement of lay members was important.  Staff who would become the next generation of senior management needed to gain relevant experience. Full involvement by members of committees was crucial.

 

.2         It was commented that the distinction needed to be drawn between decision-making, which should be speedy and robust, and policy-making, for which the formal committees were responsible.  Arguably the latter did not work well, the bodies being too large and members in need of training on the committee’s business, and an important distinction had been lost.  Focussed Working Groups to develop policy proposals worked well, but there was a need to bring in other staff, by selection or election, to enable their development, encourage wider involvement and provide balance to the representation of senior managers on such groups.  Elected memberships on committees enabled committees to remain in touch with reality at the grass-roots level.

 

.3         Senate was reminded of the devolution of some responsibilities to the Faculties, which had met with some resistance at the time.  Departments also had devolved responsibilities and an important role in democracy and debate.  Involvement in Departmental committees could encourage involvement in University committees.

 

.4         The case was made for a leaner structure of committees and their membership, and the need to determine which committees did/did not need elected representation.

 

.5         The following views were aired on individual sections of the report:

 

            Senate and Council

 

·         It was not appropriate in governance terms for lay members of Council to become too involved in the day-to-day running of the University.  Their responsibility was to monitor the work of the University’s senior management.  The current balance of lay member involvement was about right.

 

The Directorates and Faculty Board

 

·         Faculty Boards provided the only democratic involvement at Faculty level.

·         Membership of Faculty Boards could be reduced but the Boards should remain.

·         The proposal for Faculty Board meetings to be held back-to-back with meetings of Directorates was supported, though the time commitment placed on Directorate members with this approach would need to be borne in mind.

·         The strengthening of the Faculty Boards could prove useful in broadening the discussion base and developing the new generation of senior managers.

 

Resources and Planning Committee

 

·         The absence of a Strategy Committee was a priority matter.

·         Option (b), with exploration of option (c) in the paper, was preferred, with more policy discussion and less formal reporting.

 

Student Services Committee

 

·         The Committee was currently not effective.  A way forward would be considered in conjunction with LSU.

 

ACTION: PVC(T), President LSU

 

Estates Management Committee

 

·         The opportunity should be taken to ensure co-ordination on disability issues with all relevant sections of the University.

 

Ethical Advisory Committee

 

·         The Committee was crucial in influencing research and protecting the University and those involved in research.  Delegation of approval should only happen where there was no significant risk.

 

Ordinances and Regulations Committee

 

·         It was important that changes to Ordinances and Regulations were looked at critically before their submission to (Senate and) Council.

·         The Committee should be strengthened to have responsibility for the Charter and Statutes.

·         The Committee had not prevented the present convoluted nature of the Regulations.

·         There ought to be better ways to review Ordinances and Regulations changes that did not necessarily involve academic staff.

 

Health, Safety and Environmental Committee

 

·         The Committee had no executive powers or budget and was advisory only.  Would a change in constitution/powers help in situations where an eventual management decision did not comply with the Committee’s recommendation?

·         The Committee had a large membership for good reason, was well chaired and successful in bringing together academic and non-academic staff.

·         Further reflection on the effectiveness of the Committee was required.

 

ACTION: Registrar

 

General Issues

 

·         The University’s decision-making structure was relatively transparent, which was a key factor.  Though more representation could be helpful, and the balance between management, staff and lay members might need addressing, there was no perfect model.

·         Agendas should be used to distinguish matters for decision and policy issues.

·         There was a need for induction of new members of committees on the governance of the University and the committee structure.

·         The workload model should incorporate staff time given to the University in its widest sense, such as involvement on committees.

·         Elected representatives should not regard themselves as representing a constituency, but should see their priority as contributing to the achievement of the work of the committee.

·         Wider involvement by staff in decision-making could be achieved by routes other than committees. Agendas and papers could be made more widely available for comment, though care would be needed in relation to sensitive areas.

·         Time spent writing discursive minutes could be time better spent by limited administrative resources on more pro-active matters.

·         The University’s Freedom of Information commitment should be borne in mind with any move away from discursive minutes of meetings.

·         It was AGREED that in future committee agendas and minutes the first names of members should be used and titles dropped.  Nameplates for Senate would be reinstated.

 

ACTION: Academic Registrar, JEME

 

The Academic Registrar would formulate with relevant colleagues mechanisms to take forward the proposals in the report in the light of comments received from Senate and Council.

 

ACTION: Academic Registrar

 

04/162  Date of Next Meeting

Wednesday 26 January 2005 at 9.15am (if necessary)

Wednesday 2 March 2005 at 9.15am

 


Author – Jennie Elliott

Date – December 2004

Copyright © Loughborough University.  All rights reserved.