Effectiveness Review of Swansea University Council

P1213-805

Background

The University carried out its first effectiveness review in 2005. This was followed up by a session at the 2007 Council Awayday and in 2009 by a self-assessment questionnaire based upon the Committee of University Chairs’ 2009 publication “What is an Effective and High Performing Governing Body in UK Higher Education?”. Rather than undertake another similar exercise, the University asked me to carry out an effectiveness review to provide an external perspective.

Methodology

I was at the University from 12 noon on Monday 3 December 2012 until around 1pm on Tuesday 4 December. This allowed me to observe the meeting of Council on 3 December and to have individual meetings with the following:-
Chair of Council
Treasurer/ Chair of the Finance Committee
Chair of the Audit Committee
Another lay member of Council
Vice-Chancellor
Registrar; Administrative Secretary and Deputy Administrative Secretary
Two of the Pro-Vice-Chancellors
Former Senate-appointed member of Council
The Students’ Union representatives on Council (informal meeting)

I was given access to agendas and minutes for Council meetings in the past two years, papers for the most recent meetings and an appropriate selection of other background material (including relevant Internal Audit reports carried out by the Joint Internal Audit Unit), all of which I have reviewed. I have been mindful of the CUC Governance Code of Practice (last revised February 2009) which is the key defining document for UK higher education governance; and the useful additional CUC document to which reference is made above.

This report and its conclusions need to be seen within the limitations of what can reasonably be deduced from an engagement with the University during the limited period I was on site and from reading the material provided. It is not, therefore, a systematic analysis of all aspects of governance. I can, however, confirm that the material I requested was willingly provided and that I have no reason to consider that the picture I have gleaned is not representative.
This report sets out my observations, an overall conclusion and some areas to which the University may wish to give further consideration in the future.

Performance monitoring

The CUC Code of Practice provides that key functions of any HEI governing body are

‘approving the mission and strategic vision of the institution, long-term business plans, key performance indicators and annual budgets, and ensuring that these meet the needs of stakeholders…’ and

‘Ensuring the establishment and monitoring of systems of control and accountability, including financial and operational controls and risk assessment’.

The University has set itself a bold ambition in its 2012-17 Strategic Plan. Its second campus will be a key aspect of this, as is the aim to become a research-intensive university in the UK top 30. These will require careful and sustained oversight by Council to monitor the achievement of the step change improvement in performance across the University to which the Plan makes reference.

I asked several interviewees how effectively they considered these roles were carried out by Council. KPIs are reported to Council at each October meeting. Council is provided with regular updates on about 30 key actions for the year, as well as on other major initiatives (such as currently the Science and Innovation campus). A balanced scorecard approach has been introduced, and a named individual is accountable for each of the 30 actions. The awayday provides a good opportunity for engagement and several interviewees spoke positively about it. The Chair also has a strong personal focus on outcomes. Together these provide good evidence of performance monitoring by Council; I would particularly commend reports on the 30 strategic actions as providing a good way of maintaining a strategic overview.

As an example of strategic engagement on the most significant recent initiative, I was provided with a timeline for the campus expansion project, which I discussed with Professor Iwan Davies who has lead responsibility for it. I understand that Council has been briefed on the project at every meeting since March 2008 and that there has been good engagement on it. More regular informal meetings took place at key stages with the Chairs of the Finance and Audit Committees, to facilitate more detailed communication and probing with honest sharing of difficulties when they arose. Whilst a review could (and probably should at an appropriate point) be undertaken of how the project has been handled, to identify any learning points, I discerned no concerns from those I met and from the paperwork I saw, which is a very positive reflection on a very challenging project.

I asked most interviewees their views on how the management/ governance ‘divide’ was handled/ worked at Swansea. No responsessuggested a problem and most were very positive, with several commenting on an improvement in recent years. One lay Council member felt greater use could be made of the expertise Council members have from the world of business, particularly to speed up action and would have liked even more strategic analysis than the awayday, for example, provided. Others spoke very positively about the awayday, the programme for which seemed good; I would commend the value of such more informal but structured interaction annually. The ‘triangular’ relationship between Chair of Council, Vice-Chancellor and Secretary is a very important one: all three spoke positively about it and I was fully satisfied that this appeared to be working very effectively. Management/ governance issues always remain important to watch, but I amfully content that management vs governance issues appear to be operating effectively.

Council membership

At 28 members, the Council is just slightly larger than the recommended CUC size (max 25 members). This is not an urgent or essential issue to address, but could be adjusted in due course. The number of Council members appointed by Court could be reduced. There might not be the same value and need for a future Chancellor to be a member of Council. To preserve the lay member/ staff balances, relevant PVCs could become in attendance only. A review of membership would also provide the opportunity toreviewhow the second student place should be used.

Of higher priority is to try to achieve a good gender (and ethnic) balance amongst Council members. This is an issue that many universities (including my own) and other corporate bodies struggle to achieve, but it was good to see its importance highlighted at the meeting which I attended, both by a lay member and by the Students’ Union. There is scope for ensuring that Council’s membership is refreshed at a faster rate than it has been historically and to address the issue of the small number of members who have served for more than two terms of four years. Whilst experience needs to be valued, fresh insight is important and also provides the opportunity to address diversity considerations. The skills survey suggests a good representation of relevant skills amongst Council members. The University now follows best practice in advertising for new lay Council members. It takes advantage on occasions of the opportunity to assess the contribution an individual may make as a prospective Council member by appointing them initially to serve on a committee.

It was clear from information provided to me that Council members attend Council meetings regularly. I was advised that the confidentiality of items discussed at Council was well-respected and that collective responsibility was practised. The declaration and register of interests would appear to be appropriately handled. When an effectiveness survey of Council members was carried out in 2005, the response rate was only 30%. In 2009 the response rate was still below half (48%). I would consider these responses to be low and potentially not sufficiently representative. I would urge that, in return for such surveys continuing to be carried out infrequently to avoid ‘survey fatigue’, all Council members are pressed to respond to ensure that the results are as useful as possible.

Observation of a Council meeting

The Council meeting which I observed appeared to provide good opportunities for interaction when Council members had a view they wished to express and such views were carefully reflected upon. Several Council members commented to me that they welcomed now having more opportunity to contribute than may have been the case in years gone by. I observed a healthy dynamic between Council members. Whilst the meeting gave me no concerns, I have three observations that may be useful. First, several appointments were made by Council during the meeting based solely on an oral presentation. It was inevitable that no paper could be circulated in advance as these were only discussed by the Nominations Committee that afternoon. However, a tabled paper (a) would have reduced the amount of biographical material to be read out and (b) would have given any Council member with any concern about a proposed appointment slightly more time to consider/ formulate that concern. Second, the presentation on the accounts was clear but there would be value in considering whether a much shorter presentation on the accounts (and budget) might be a better use of meeting-time (and attract better engagement). Third, I was surprised that the auditor did not also attend the Council meeting to provide assurance in person to Council. I gather this occurs at Court instead, but as the responsibility for approving the accounts lies with Council the assurance is perhaps better located at Council than Court.

Senate and Committees

Committees have been separately reviewed in the past and will need to be again. They were not a primary focus and I will therefore make just two comments. First, the Vice-Chancellor set out in 2003 several very good principles for overhauling the committee structure, such as ensuring that each provides added value. There is evidence that much has been achieved. I sensed an appetite to go even further when the time is right. For example, several universities have found that it is not necessary to have an HR Committee, even just in the area of policy. The fact that most of my interviewees volunteered that the finance and audit committees were particularly strong caused me to reflect on what that might be saying about others.

Second, Senate has a crucial role in the governance of a university and the CUC Code of Governance sets out that the governing body shall not less than every five years ‘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 and its committees’. I was advised that there had not been an effectiveness review of Senate for many years. Senate is large (about 300), with low attendance (with the quorum of 25 sometimes not reached). I appreciate that there may be a desire not to review it immediately, and that the management board is providing an effective focus for debating many academic issues. Nonetheless, I would advise that a review over the next five years should take place, which could provide real opportunities to improve the way in which Senate operates and is perceived.

Communication

Induction and briefing arrangements seemed appropriate and effective. I was shown the induction material made available to new Council members. Several Council members commented on the usefulness of the briefing sessions which took place immediately before Council meetings, not least that these enabled lay Council members to have more interaction with current students than might otherwise occur.

Communication about Council meetings is provided through the minutes of Council meetings being available to all staff; and through a piece appearing in the staff newsletter. The latter has just been revived and I would encourage this development as a way of ensuring that the crucial role played by Council is recognised and communicated appropriately amongst the many staff (and students) who have never been to ‘the Abbey’. Linking lay members with Colleges and key administrative areas seems to have been positive in both directions and to have avoided the problems to which such arrangements can give rise. This may in turn continue to encourage interest in Council membership by able and influential members of the university community.

The Secretariat for Council meetings is carried out to a high standard. I detected no signs of concern. The Administrative Secretary should be encouraged to continue to press for all papers for discussion at Council meetings to be available in time for circulation in the mailing a week in advance of the meeting.

Conclusion

In conclusion, based on this review, I believe that the University can derive assurance that its Council is performing effectively. The CUC framework for reviewing an effective governing body describes the outcomes of an effective governing body as requiring certain enablers (particularly commitment to effective governance, vision, culture and values; effective structures and processes; effective information, communication and performance management) and effective board room dynamics. I have observed these to be in place. I would like to thank Martin Lewis and Louise Woollard for making the arrangements which ensured this review went smoothly.

Mark Humphriss 18 January 2013

Summary of suggestions for future consideration

That an effectiveness review of Senate should be carried out within five years.

That new Council members should be appointed when the normal maximum term has been reached unless there are strong reasons to do otherwise.

That the size of Council should be reduced in due course, if possible to 25 members.

That diversity considerations should remain high on the agenda of the Nominations Committee.

That consideration is given to whether the number of committees could be further reduced.

That sustained steps should be taken to ensure a good response to effectiveness review surveys.

The Nominations Committee could table its recommendations with background information.

1 to 1 occasional review meetings between the Chair and other Council members (not only lay) should take place at least every three years.

The time spent on certain presentations to Council should be reduced and the auditor should attend Council when Council is asked to approve the accounts.