Review
of Committees 2004/05
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. An initial draft of this report was discussed at Senate (15
December 2004) and Council (21 December 2004). The report has now been
re-organised to incorporate comments from these meetings.
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. Conclusions - General issues
2.1 In considering the Committee structure,
it is helpful to draw a distinction between operational decision-making bodies
and those whose primarily function is, or should be, to discuss and agree
policy and strategy. The former are likely to work best as relatively small
groups meeting regularly whereas the latter responsibilities reasonably sit
with formal University Committees to ensure that the broad direction of the
University is agreed in a collegial setting. Focussed working groups work well,
however, for formulating policy documents for consideration by formal
committees.
The Human Resources Working Group
and Human Resources Committee are a good example of how this distinction can
work in practice. However, there is a risk of increasing the number of
committees if the principle is applied across the board. Committees which are
largely operational, such as the Directorates, may also be used to advise on
Faculty views on policy and strategy at University-level.
Further consideration is needed on
whether the University wishes to extend this principle more widely in its
committee system. The balance between members of the senior management team and
other staff on key operational committees might also be reviewed as a means of
increasing trust in the decision-making process (also see 2.3 below).
2.2 The contribution of lay members to the
work of University Committees and working groups is much appreciated.
2.3 Senate and Council debated the general
issue of membership and representation on Committees at some length. There was
a widespread feeling that key committees and working groups are too frequently
made up of the same people from the senior management 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. It was also recognised that there were few incentives for staff to
become involved in committee work and that new members would benefit from a
more thorough briefing to enable them to make a significant contribution from
the outset. Committee Chairs, especially lay members, needed more information
on the reporting lines of their committees, both to other committees and to
University officers. Diversity of committee membership has been a matter of
concern for some time and Senate and Council reaffirmed the importance of
continuing to strive for balanced representation (how should we do this
– ask Equal Ops S-C to consider further, workload model issue could help here).
There are no simple answers to these issues but the following suggestions have
been made:
(a)
The use of hoc working groups is a good way of involving
more staff and potentially using the expertise of lay members.
(b)
Briefing materials should be developed for committee
members/chairs including specific information for each committee. This might be
supplemented by meetings/informal training sessions as appropriate to the body
concerned.
(c)
Departmental workload models should explicitly include
membership of University committees and major working groups within the
category of “other activities” which are not explicitly teaching or research. A
corollary of this is that, with the exception of the large senior bodies such
as Senate and Council, all members should be expected to make a pro-active,
creative and constructive role in the committee or working group’s business.
(d)
Agendas and papers for appropriate committees might be more
widely publicised on the web to encourage comment and awareness amongst
non-Committee members.
The discussions at
Senate and Council placed considerable emphasis on collegiality and
facilitating participation. This is clearly desirable and the suggestions above
may be helpful but the University needs to be realistic about this issue and to
ensure it manages itself efficiently. Large committees rarely work particularly
well and there are arguments for a leaner structure with smaller formal
committee memberships. Further discussion of the right balance might be desirable here.
2.4 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.
2.5 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. Council (21 December 2005)
and Resources and Planning Committee have adopted the approach of receiving the
report towards the end of the agenda and if considered successful this
approach should be adopted by Senate.
2.6 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.
2.7 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.
2.8 The situation with quora for all senior
committees should be reviewed. Some do not have quora, others may have quora
which are no longer appropriate.
2.9 The Academic Registry should draw up a
brief guidance document on Committee servicing at Loughborough 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 support of the Freedom of Information Act is
ongoing. The following should be included
(a)
Formatting and style for committee agendas, papers and
minutes – agendas and papers should make clearer what the Committee is being
asked to do with the item and which body will consider it next (if appropriate).
(b)
Advice on compliance with the Freedom of Information Act.
(c)
Guidance on archiving
(d) Reference to
recommendations 2.3 (b) and (d) above.
2.10 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. A small number of members of Senate
and Council were concerned about this recommendation as they felt it important
to have a record of the background and context of decisions. There may have
been some misunderstanding of what is proposed. It is suggested that any key
information reported at meetings (but not in the papers), the main reasons for
decisions and any major contrary views should continue to be recorded. Whilst
no attempt would be made to keep a full record of debates on a routine basis,
items on which the Committee’s views were sought would still need fairly full
minuting.
(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.
3. 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. Senate agreed that
in future its minutes and papers should use the first names of members rather
than titles and that name plates should be reinstated. Council is also adopting
the former practice and already uses name plates.
4. 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, Senate has
voiced concerns about this proposal and broadly supported the following
proposal at its meeting on 15 December 2004 (though concerns were voiced about
the impact on Directorate members):
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.
5.
Joint Committees of Senate and Council
5.1 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 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. A greater emphasis on policy and
strategy matters and less formal reporting was desirable. Senate and Council
agreed that option (b) below should be tried in the first instance with (c) the
next option and finally (a).
(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 2.6), 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.
5.2 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.
5.3 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.
5.4 Information
Services Committee (ISC)
Members believed meetings had been
better recently, but the Committee was not generally felt to be working well,
although effective management of Information Services in the University was
critical. Issues included:
·
The membership being too large (16 plus DISS Directors in
attendance)
·
Operational user issues creating a distraction from
strategic matters
It was not clear that the Faculty
Information Technology Group (FITG) needed to be serviced formally by the
Registry though the Group clearly fulfils an important function.
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.
5.5 Estates Management Committee
The Committee was generally felt
to work well. Proposals for revisions to the Terms of Reference to ensure
better alignment with its current role have now been approved.
5.6 Human
Resources Committee and its Sub-Committees
5.6.1 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.
5.6.2
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.
5.6.3
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.
5.7 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.
5.8 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.
Senate agreed that a review of
governance and co-ordination structures for student services should take place
in conjunction with the Students’ Union. Professor Bell (Chair of Student
Services Committee) is taking this recommendation forward.
6. Committees of Senate
6.1 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. Following a review of the scope to delegate some
responsibilities to academic departments, it has been agreed that no major
changes should be made. The critical role of the Committee is widely acknowledged.
6.2 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.
6.3 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. At the Senate meeting a member suggested the Committee’s remit should be extended to cover the Charter and Statutes but this proposal did not appear to have widespread support.
It is therefore recommended that
the Committee be abolished (the Chair has no objections to this.)
7. Committees
of Council
7.1 Health,
Safety and Environmental Committee
The Committee is very large but
meets infrequently. Views have been mixed regarding its effectiveness. It is
well chaired and successful in bringing together academic and non-academic staff.
Its role is advisory and there has been at least once recent instance where an
issue became problematic as a result.
Senate asked the Registrar to
review whether there is scope for improving the Committee’s effectiveness in
discussion with the recently appointed Health, Safety and Environmental
Officer. Greater clarity on reporting relationships and responsibilities in
relation to University officers would be welcomed.
7.2
Treasurer’s Committee
Subject to successful revision of
the current Resources and Planning Committee (see section 5.1 above), it should
be feasible for this Committee to focus on “Treasury” matters, e.g. the proper
investment of capital etc.
Dr Jennifer Nutkins
Academic Registrar
December 2004
(revised 8 February 2005)
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 Hazlehurst, lay member of Council
Sir Brian Carsberg, Chair of Council
AUT Committee via Dr D Berry