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 J V Beaverstock 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 Dr M Fitzgerald
(ab) Dr D Gillingwater
(ab) Mr J F Harper Professor R A
Haslam 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) Dr P M Render
(ab) Professor S J
Rothberg Professor P R
Smith Professor R H
Thring 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.