EDV/1160 January 2006
ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS

To:	EDV committee – for discussion and agreement (agenda item 3.1)

From:		James Anderson, vice-chairperson, EDV committee 

SUBJECT:	UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE  

Introduction 

The following paper was tabled at the meeting in October 2005 (EDV/1157). However, it was agreed to postpone discussion until the following the meeting. The one amendment to the paper is the inclusion of an additional action point on academic-related staff (point 6).  
Motion 52 to AUT Council 2005 mandates a re-examination of university governance with the aim of ensuring that all staff are represented in a democratic, self-governing body. This report reviews background material, notes procedural means by which part of this objective might be obtained, and lists some actions which might be taken to further the campaign for better university governance.

Introduction
Motion 52 to AUT Council 2005, see below, mandates a re-examination of university governance with the aim of ensuring that all staff are represented in a democratic, self-governing body. The motion asserts, in effect, that decision making has recently been taken away from governing bodies and centralised around the Vice Chancellor or Principal. This assertion could be tested in a survey. See Further Action  5 ,  on page 5 2.
An email survey of AUT activists was undertaken by Jim Guild and Rob Copeland, see below, but produced just five replies. By contrast a NATFHE survey in 2002, see below, achieved 56% response from Colleges and 81% from post 1992 universities, with 82% of the responses coming from the Clerks of the Courts. It is clear that a survey of university officers is more effective than a survey of union activists. Nonetheless, it might be best to undertake a further survey of activists before surveying employers. See Further Action  5,  on page 5 2.
A search of NATFHE’s web site reveals many documents relating to university governance, but the majority of documents are not available electronically to a non- member. We might consider liaising with NATFHE on university governance. See Further Action 1 ,  on page 5 2.
HEFCE has produced a wide-ranging survey on university governance. It provides more detail than the AUT and NATFHE surveys. HEFCE has also published a guide to university governance under the auspices of the Committee of University Chairmen (CUC). See below. It makes recommendations which LAs might invite their universities to enact. See Further Action 3,  on page  52. In particular, LAs might take an active part in their university’s quinquennial review of governance. See Further Action  3,  on page  52. The Association might also propose improvements to the HEFCE (CUC) guidance to achieve our objectives. See Further Action  2,  on page 52.

Further comment and proposals for improving university governance are sought from EDV members. In the first instance send email to: james.anderson@reading.ac.uk

Motion 52
Academic-related staff annual meeting 
Council recognises
1. 	that universities have centralised their management functions to a limited cadre of senior managers around the Vice Chancellor, excluding, in many cases, senior academic and administrative officers 
2. 	that university Senates are now, largely, powerless and exist to perpetuate the illusion of the university as a democratic community
3. 	that university Councils are now dominated by that same management cadre and independent members who are appointed through a nomination process controlled by that management cadre 
Council believes that governance in higher education is systemically flawed, lacking in accountability and credibility, and in urgent need of radical overhaul and improvement.
Council demands a re-examination of HEI governing bodies with the aim of creating a genuine system of democratic self-governance in accordance with existing AUT policy, and which also includes an appropriate level of representation for all groups of staff.
Activists Survey
An email survey of AUT activists was undertaken in May 2005 by Jim Guild and Rob Copeland, but produced just five replies from Bath, Birkbeck, Glasgow, Newcastle, and Reading. The replies were entirely consistent with the HEFCE Survey below.
NATFHE Survey
Open Governance in Higher Education, A NATFHE survey of Governance in the post-92 Universities and HE Colleges, Spring 2002.
The survey has largely been overtaken by the HEFCE (CUC) Guidance, see below, but one critical point is made. NATFHE recommends that staff members of the governing bodies be recognised as observers on important university committees.
Whilst lay members of governing bodies are recognised as observers, in recognition of the experience and skills they bring to the role, it seems that staff members of governing bodies are not extended the same opportunity. This inequality reduces the ability of the governing body to exercise its oversight and to come to a fully informed decision on matters of university governance. We might carry out a survey to check that staff members are excluded, see Further Action  5,  on page  52, and, if so, propose a re-drafting of the HEFCE (CUC) guidance on this point, see Further Action 2,  on page 5 2.
HEFCE Survey
Committee of University Chairmen, Questionnaire on Governance Issues, Final Report, 1 February 2004.

The HEFCE survey had a response of 79 out of 114, 69%, of institutions surveyed. Its key findings are as follows. The parenthetic comments at the end of each bullet point are the author’s personal interpretation informed by background knowledge.
1. 	71% of institutions have reviewed their governance.
2. 	All university bodies now claim to have unambiguous legal authority for the governance of    their university.
3. 	Governing bodies have been reduced substantially in size. (There is no evidence that the reduction has been disproportionate amongst traditionally disadvantaged staff groups.)
4. 	Lay members of governing bodies are typically between 50 and 70 years old with very few  younger than 40 or older than 70.
5. 	Most governing bodies have at least 20% female participation.
6. 	Most governing bodies have less than 5% ethnic minority participation.
7. 	Most governing bodies do not formally appraise the effectiveness of individual members of the governing body (nor is there evidence of regular sex and ethnicity monitoring).
8. 	Governing bodies are adopting a more strategic perspective with considerable attention being paid to the measurement of the institution’s performance. (In other words, there is strategic re-organisation of teaching, research, technical and library support – driven by the RAE and league tables!)
Most importantly, the survey identifies future areas to be surveyed, leading to the publication of further guides, as listed next. (The Association might seek to give evidence to inform this process. See Further Action  2,  on page 5 2.)
1. 	The extent to which governing bodies are responding to the diversity agenda.

2. 	Role descriptions for chairs [of committees], treasurers, and other officers.

3. 	The effectiveness of committee structures and committees in the context of the Lambert recommendations and the role of committees vis-a-vis executive management in achieving institutional objectives. (This is an open door for the Association to present its concerns on university governance. It is, perhaps, the best focus for a campaign meeting the objectives of Council Motion 52. See Further Action 2,  on page  52.)

4. 	Good practice in the design, execution and implementation of effectiveness reviews and an assessment of their efficiency in achieving reforms of real value.

5. 	Effective engagement of the governing body and its members in the strategic planning process. (This is an open door for the Association to present its concerns on university governance. See Further Action  2,  on page 5 2)

6. 	Effective measurement of the performance of an institution.

HEFCE (CUC) Guidance

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2004/04_40a

Guide for Members of Higher Education Governing Bodies in the UK
The Guidance gives LAs a procedural means to obtain some of our objectives. An LA could raise a Guidance issue in its JNC or governing body with the expectation that the university will follow the Guidance. The Association might also seek to have an influence on future Guidance. See Further Action  2,  on page  52. The following excerpts are examples of Guidance that might be exploited in this way. LAs could be encouraged to review the Guidance in preparation for a local campaign on governance.
1. 	
	1.	Page 6, paragraph 14. “The proceedings of the Governing body shall be conducted in as open a manner as possible, and information and papers restricted only when the wider interest of the institution or the public interest demands, including the observance of contractual obligations.” (The Association might propose that papers are circulated via the institutions intra-net in advance of the meeting so that general members of the university can feed information to the governing body. Thereby improving the knowledge base on which decisions are taken. See also bullet point 6 below.)

2. 	Page 11, paragraph 2.7. “The institution should draw up standing orders to regulate those aspects of the conduct of governing body business that are not already prescribed by the statutes or articles. Additionally, the institution’s standing orders can usefully reiterate the relevant provisions of the statutes or articles in order to consolidate all the material for ease of reference.” (If any university has not published standing orders for its governing body then this is a way to put pressure on them to do so.)

3. 	Page 15, paragraph 2.29. “Membership of committees provides a particular opportunity for members of the governing body to contribute their expertise to the institution and to learn more about aspects of its operations.” (LAs and the Association might ask for this opportunity to be applied equally to staff members of the governing body by having staff observers on the committees. And especially on any committees that may have subverted the role of the Governing body!)

4. 	Page 18, paragraph 2.50. “Vacancies for lay/independent members and co-opted members should be publicised (including a job specification and a clear indication of the skills, knowledge and experience required) within and outside the institution. Staff and students, as well as members of the governing body, should be invited to submit names to the clerk of the governing body for transmission to the nominations committee. Some institutions coopt promising candidates for governing body membership onto committees of the governing body to establish the suitability of those concerned for membership of the governing body itself in due course.” (If any institution does not have a Nominations Committee, or one that does not accept nominations made by staff, then this Guidance might provide a way of achieving these objectives.)

5. 	Page 19, paragraph 2.55. “The statutes of the pre-1992 HEIs normally provide for membership of the governing body by representatives of the academic staff and students (and in some cases non-academic staff); this is integral to the nature of governance in those institutions. In some institutions these categories of members can be excluded by decision of the governing body. However, the representation of staff and students on the governing body is important in all institutions, and it is strongly recommended that governing bodies do not exercise their power to exclude such members. If, nevertheless, a governing body does decide to exclude them, it should record formally in its minutes the grounds for its decision, and should publish these grounds within their university and inform the Funding Council.” (If any group of staff or students is not represented, then an LA could use its JNC to check that this fact, and the grounds for it, have been publicised within the university and have been reported to the Funding Council. This might provide a lever to shame a university into adopting better governance.)

6. 	Page 20, paragraph 2.56. “The general principle applies that students and staff of the institution should have appropriate access to information about the proceedings of the governing body. The agenda, draft minutes if cleared by the chair, and the signed minutes of governing body meetings, together with the papers considered at meetings, should generally be available for inspection by staff and students.There may, however, be matters covered in standing orders where it is necessary to observe confidentiality. Such matters are likely to concern individuals or have commercial sensitivity. Good practice for all institutions might include placing copies of the governing body’s minutes on the institution’s intranet and in its library, reporting on decisions in a newsletter, and ensuring that the annual report and accounts are circulated to academic departments and the students’ union.” (The Association might propose that papers are circulated via the institutions intra-net in advance of the meeting so that general members of the university can feed information to the governing body. Thereby improving the knowledge base on which decisions are taken. See also bullet point 1 above.)

7. 	Page 21, paragraph 2.60. “The governing body should review its effectiveness regularly. Not less than every five years it should undertake a formal and rigorous evaluation of its own effectiveness, and that of its committees, and ensure that a parallel review is undertaken of the senate/academic board and its committees. Effectiveness shall be measured against both the Governance Code of Practice (Part I of this document) and the Statement of Primary Responsibilities (Part II, paragraph 1.2).The governing body shall revise its structure or processes accordingly. In reviewing its performance, the governing body shall reflect on the performance of the institution as a whole in meeting long-term strategic objectives and short-term key performance indicators.” (LAs and the Association might use the quinquennial review to negotiate the improvements in governance we seek.)
Further Action
1. 	Liaise with NATFHE on university and college governance.

2. 	Propose improvements to the HEFECE (CUC) Guidance.

3. 	Ask LA JNCs to take an active part in their university’s quinquennial review of governance.

4. 	Ask LAs to check the HEFECE (CUC) Guidance and bring motions to their governing bodies to enact best practice.

5. 	Conduct a survey to discover how decision making has been taken away from governing bodies and centralised.

6. 	To campaign to ensure the representation of academic-related staff on governing bodies.  
Conclusion
EDV might undertake a survey of LAs to discover to what extent management committees have been set up that usurp the traditional decision making of the governing body. If this survey is not effective we might survey the institutions themselves. We might encourage LAs to use the HEFCE (CUC) Guidance in their local negotiations on governance, especially if their quinquennial review is due. The Association might also make representations to CUC to improve its Guidance. We might ask the NATFHE observer to our next meeting to explain the governance issues in NATFHE’s sector – which may well be more serious than in our sector.
A campaign on Governance might be tied to a campaign on Professionalism and thence to Pay.