ECUB 17/01
Minutes
Board meeting, 20 October 2016
Equality Challenge Unit
Company limited by guarantee
43rd meeting of the board of directors
20 October 2016, Bluebell Room, Wallace Space, 2 Dryden Street, London, WC2E 9NA
Chair
= Janet Beer
Board members
= Margaret Ayers
= Chantal Davies
= Patrick Johnson
= Geoff Layer
= David Malcolm
= Jane Norman
= Colin Riordan
= Nigel Seaton
Observers in attendance
= Peter Vokes, HEFCW (by phone)
= Fiona Waye, UUK
ECU secretariat
= Juliet Adams, head of resources
= Sarah Dickinson, head of equality charters
= Gary Loke, head of policy
= David Ruebain, chief executive
Apologies
= Stuart Croft
= Halena Gauntlett, SFC
= Jane Johns, HEFCW
= Donna Rowe Merriman
= Mary Stuart
Item 1 – Welcome
1. The chair welcomed members to the 43rd meeting of the board and noted apologies.
2. The chair asked those present to declare any conflicts of interest. Geoff Layer declared an interest in relation to forthcoming discussions regarding the Bell review due to sitting on HEA’s board.
Item 2 – Minutes of the last meeting
3. The minutes of the last meeting held on 7 July 2016 were received and accepted without further comment.
Item 3 – Matters arising
4. The head of policy noted that ECU had received an advance copy of the report to the social mobility advisory group which included a recommendation to the minister to use ECU’s race equality charter.
5. The head of policy noted that a joint publication with UUK and the EHRC on new guidance on the intersection of PREVENT and the public sector equality duty would be published in November, with the EHRC taking the lead.
6. The head of policy noted that ECU had decided not to print the annual statistics reports as planned and they will be published online only to save money. However, ECU would still print the mini stats booklet to accompany it.
Item 4 – Board matters
7. The company secretary noted that following on from the July board meeting, there were various outstanding appointments to resolve due to the annual rotation of members.
8. The board approved the appointment of Stuart Croft, vice chancellor and president, University of Warwick, for his first three-year term. It was noted that Stuart would replace Colin as GuildHE/UUK nominee. The board also approved the appointment of Hillary Lappin-Scott, senior pro Vice Chancellor, Swansea University, for her first three-year term, recommended by the nominations committee. It was noted that Hilary would replace Rosemary
9. In addition, the company secretary reported that Anthony Foster, Vice Chancellor, University of Essex, would join the board in July 2017 as a GuildHE/UUK nominee when the current chair, Janet Beer, rotates off. Formal board approval for this would be sought at the time and a separate process undertaken to appoint a new chair from the existing members.
10. The company secretary also reported that she had explored various options with GuildHE/UUK in relation to Cara’s nominee status on the board due to her changing roles to a non-GuildHE institution. Both GuildHE and UUK, and separately, Universities Scotland, had approved a change in Nigel Seaton’s nominee status from solely Universities Scotland nominee to also GuildHE/UUK nominee with effect from the date of the board meeting, subject to board approval. This was given and it was noted that Cara would remain on the board as a Welsh institution representative. ACTION: JA
Item 5 – Chief executive report
11. The chief executive presented his report and made specific reference to the following:
= ECU conference 2016 – the head of policy noted that most of subscribers, had taken up their free place and the conference was oversubscribed. He requested various board members to chair some of the sessions and he would follow up separately with them as needed. It was agreed that in previous years, the board had been involved in brainstorming for speakers and that this should be factored in next year.
= Athena SWAN in Australia – the head of equality charters gave a brief report on her recent visit to Australia to assist with operational issues and build bridges in light of staff turnover in Australia. She noted that the steering committee had not been working well with the expert advisory group, which she sits on, but they had a good initial meeting while she was out there and terms of reference had since been agreed. With 40 participating institutions, the project had somewhat expanded beyond the pilot, but the head of equality charters had been reassured by the commitment and enthusiasm of the new team in Australia and expected them to work better with ECU colleagues moving forward. She noted that Athena SWAN in Australia would not be able to stay within the Australian Academy of Science long-term due to there being a conflict of interest so discussions were underway as to where it could sit once the pilot had concluded. Overall she felt the trip had been worthwhile and was now in the process of putting a serious level agreement together with colleagues overseas.
= Athena SWAN in America – Chief Executive noted that Queens University Belfast had been liaising with their US partner, the University of Massachusetts Lowell over developing something charter-related in the US, known as “SEA Change”. Together with the Head of Charters, he had recently attended a conference at Queens University Belfast with colleagues from Massachusetts in attendance with a view to persuading them to implement Athena SWAN. All being well, it looked as though a pilot project in the US had some mileage. Prof Paula Raymond of UM Lowell would introduce ECU to Dr Shirley Malcom, Head of Education and Human Resources at the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) who would be instrumental in progressing this. The Chief Executive noted that fortuitously, he was due to speak at a conference at Berlin in May, where Shirley would also be speaking. He concluded that this would be the hardest sector to crack but that it now appeared as though there was a significant push and imperative for that to happen.
12. The Chief Executive took the opportunity to update the board on a funded trip to New Delhi, which the Athena SWAN manager would likely be taking to attend a conference. Despite being invited somewhat late in the day, the trip would be worthwhile as a range of senior leaders, including SAGE in Australia and other HEIs would also be attending. The Athena SWAN brand was increasingly gaining global traction. The chair commented that the HE sector likes to share good practice and academics are always travelling and swapping ideas.
13. The chief executive report and associated annexes were accepted without further comment.
Item 6 – UUK review of the UK higher education sector agency landscape
14. The chair reported that a comprehensive and lengthy discussion had taken place around the bell review at the board development session that morning. The board had concluded that it was not in support the proposed merger of ECU, HEA and LFHE to create a new, streamlined and service orientated agency for equality and diversity, leadership and higher education workforce development. In its response to the working group, ECU would therefore reassert the case for a stand-alone entity, drawing attention to the extent and breadth of its continuing relationships. It was noted that it was unlikely that the board would have the opportunity to review the paper again before submission before the deadline on Monday of the following week. Extensive notes had, however, been taken by the head of policy on the discussion and would be incorporated into the paper by the performance and planning manager, in consultation with the chief executive, over the intervening weekend.
Item 7 – Strategy 2017-21
15. The head of policy welcomed ECU’s engagement manager to the meeting and presented the latest iteration of the draft strategy, following consultation with the sector and two roundtable events with ECU staff members and colleagues from subscribing institutions. He noted that the main concerns raised from the consultation had been addressed and many of the other ideas raised would be taken forward separately, as they did not form part of the actual strategic document.
16. The head of policy went on to raise two specific issues: that ECU should be more vocal in campaigning on equality issues and representing the sector’s voice and that some respondents were not supportive of ECU’s work abroad. The engagement manager highlighted the difference between advocacy and lobbying, commenting that ECU could do more to strengthen its advocacy role, capacity building and partnership working within the strategy. The latest iteration hoped to address these tensions.
17. The board was happy with the strategy as written, noting in particular that it was succinct, and it was agreed that it would be launched at the conference at the end of November.
Item 8 – Subscriber update
18. The engagement manager reported that there were now 109 subscribers and a marketing campaign would kick in the following week with regards to next year’s subscriptions. The emphasis would be to renew, rather than there being a choice and at present there was no indication that there were HEIs that would not renew and it was hoped that there may be a slight increase in membership. She went on to report that the main change in emphasis was around consultancy, taking the word ‘day’ out and replacing it with a detailed and clear outline of what the work could comprise to help staff at HEIs better utilise the cross team working available at ECU, rather than linking monetary value to specific aspects.
19. The chief executive, praised the engagement manager, who would be moving on to another role before the end of the year, for her instrumental role in getting ECU from a core funded organisation to a subscriber one.
Item 9 – FARM committee matters
20. The company secretary presented the minutes of the first meeting of the FARM committee held on 3 October 2016, drawing particular attention to the following:
= Risk management (minutes 10-13) – the main changes related to the risks relating to the Bell review and BREXIT, both of which had been revisited by SMT following the committee meeting. Board members reviewed the ECU and Athena SWAN risk registers presented, both of which were received without further comment.
= Financial management (minutes 16-19) – the dashboard presented was new and had been reviewed and discussed in detail by the committee before presentation to the board. Board members reviewed the dashboard and cash flow presented, both of which were received without further comment.
= Premises (minute 23) – since the committee meeting, the surveyors had reached agreement on dilapidations settling at the level of the rent security deposit held by the landlords at the old office, amounting to £37K. There would be no further claim for interim rent for the period which ECU stayed beyond its lease. The company secretary noted that she was happy with how this had concluded.
= HR report (minute 24) – the committee had not reviewed the annual HR report at its October meeting as expected due to their having been a high level of staff turnover at ECU and her attentions and priorities had been elsewhere. This would be presented at the January committee meeting instead.
= Bell review (minutes 28-34) – a lengthy discussion had taken place at the committee regarding the Bell review, which had informed the papers reviewed by the board during the discussion earlier that morning.
21. In relation to the latter item, it was agreed that SMT should revisit the terms of ECU’s redundancy policy, which currently did not kick in until staff members had served two years. ACTION: SMT
Item 10 - Any other business
22. There was no other business.