Disadvantages
There were also drawbacks in replacing committees with individual responsibility. The
automatic input of views from a range of people into important issues, and reaching a collectivedecision could be lost. Committees were good in promoting ownership of decisions and alsoallowed the members all to become knowledgeable about a variety of matters. If governors weretoo concentrated in their designated areas of responsibility there ability to learn about otherareas could be limited. The Chair was able to reassure members that this would not beconsidered a successful outcome and that collegiality would be preserved firstly through theretention of SPaRC and then possibly through increasing the number of Council meetings duringthe year. The Away Day and Council seminars would also provide opportunities throughout theyear for collective debate and sharing ideas.
A member raised a concern that, although the new arrangements were broadly welcome, dual assurance placed even greater importance on achieving the right balance of skills amongst lay members of Council. Lay members who were equipped to take on responsibilities under dual assurance were likely to be people who were already very busy. It was suggested that the outcomes of task and finish groups be fed back to Senate to provide an additional point of accountability and scrutiny. However, Performance and Risk Steering Group and Audit Committee (which would remain under dual assurance) already represented an effective method of scrutiny in the system. What was required were improvements in feeding information and outcomes back to the grass roots via Schools and Services management, and it was hoped that SMG would become increasingly important as a method of communication, as well as being a forum for VCEG leads to obtain feedback and alternative views. Schools also had a communication route via the line-managing DVCs. Communication would also be improved once all Heads of School had access to SPaRC papers.