HUMANE SEMINAR, LYON 2007

1. HUMANE SEMINAR, LYON 2007 Internal Governance of Universities: changing demands in a changing environment Dr Philip K Harvey, Registrar & Secretary

7. State interest in university governance in the UK • Richard Lambert – review of collaboration between business and universities in 2003 - business was critical of universities, having a “slow-moving bureaucratic and risk averse style of university management” • Sir Alex Jarratt – efficiency studies into university management in 1985 – Councils had relinquished their authority to Senates which were bodies that were resistant to change and conservative. Urged Councils to “reassert themselves”. • Successive UK governments have placed responsibility not on universities corporately or on their Senates but on Councils/governing bodies.

8. Why such continuity of interest? • Role in knowledge economy • “universities as the coalmines of the 21st century” – 100 jobs in HE produce a further 89 - £1bn of HE spend generates £1.5bn in other sectors of the economy. • Elite to mass to universal • UK: 39% of typical age cohort completing a degree course, OECD average 36% between 1994 and 2005, 22% funding in HE in UK with 30% in enrolment (OECD average: 55% funding and 41% in enrolment)

9. … continuity of interest in governance • Universities face global competition • competing internationally for the best students and staff • new ‘unfettered’ private providers of HE emerging in niche markets • growing emphasis on self-reliance – ‘earned’ institutional autonomy • increasing speed of science and technological developments with faster information flows • More complexity • requiring more professional managers not found in the internal academy • delivery systems becoming more flexible – not location or time specific • knowledge base fracturing – focus on interdisciplinary research intra/inter-university competition forces opportunism - quicker decision-making and short lines of communication

10. Is a consensus emerging? • State introducing market forces by allocating tight resources competitively • State support for expressing universities’ individual reputations and performance through league tables • State removal from direct control and central planning role - from ‘supervisor’ to ‘facilitator’ (Neave and Van Vught, 1991) • State demands for increased accountability over HE standards, finances and institutional efficiency, and social and economic ‘relevance’ • State intervention renewed with focus on student sharing more of the costs of HE; access • Elective forms of governance being replaced with more direct appointments from the ‘community’

11. …consensus…? • Jose Gines Mora (2001) concludes: • “…there is a clear trend towards convergence in university governing models”… “universities are becoming complex and difficult to manage, particularly in view of the fragmentation of disciplines and multiplicity of aims and objectives to which they are subject. A flexible organisational structure that will allow universities to adapt to meet society’s emerging needs is the only way to manage the changes described. Slow, rigid, collegiate or bureaucratic forms of government will interfere with a university’s ability to meet society’s demands.” • “It is a fact that cannot be denied that the countries that are leading the way on reform of university governance and management, also lead the world in the fields of science and technology.”

12. Managerial model or process and compliance? • Shattock (2006): describes accountability in UK universities through the Financial Memorandum: • Chief Executive of HEFCE to Parliament for funds received • University governing body “which is ultimately responsible for the stewardship of those funds” • Principal officer – the VC – who “will need to satisfy the governing body that the conditions of this memorandum are complied with” and “who is required to inform the governing body if any of its policies or proposed actions conflict with the Memorandum” and to report to the CE of the Funding Council if necessary. • Built on premise that by demonstrating effective corporate governance – stakeholders can derive confidence. Corporate governance is defined as “the means by which strategy is set and monitored, managers are held to account, risks are managed, stewardship responsibilities are discharged and viability is ensured.”

13. Governance at Sussex • Governance structure for the University of Sussex is laid down, partially, by the instruments of its incorporation under a Royal Charter granted through the Privy Council with an associated set of statutes – a pre-1992 University. • Statutes declare there shall be a Council (the University’s overarching governing body #25) and a Senate (responsible for academic matters especially teaching and students #85) • Council: 15 independent members (including Chair and Treasurer; the VC and DVC; 4 elected by and from academic staff of Senate; 2 academic staff elected by and from academic staff; 1 elected by and from non-academic staff and President of the Students’ Union = 25 • Governance structures also incorporate Schools or Faculties and their Departments, the Executive and associated lines of management and accountabilities.

14. What do lay members of Council do? 15 high calibre lay or independent members provide: • Technical or professional background – financial, legal, property, HR • Taking the long view – ensuring longer term priorities considered • Referee for internal disputes • Critical friend • Performance watchdog • Representing the public interest – audit, remuneration, finance • Environment scanning – national and local, private and public sector • Appointing the Vice-Chancellor

15. What is Council responsible for? • Principally: • Appoint academic staff and give titles, after report from Senate • Make provision for research • To review decisions by Senate and give directions to Senate • To establish Schools or other academic units • To fix fees after consultation with Senate • Provide for the welfare of students • Govern, manage and regulate finances, investments, property

16. Testing governance… • Reforming academic structures (establishing strong corporate leadership) • Changing academic portfolio • Handling crises and exploiting opportunities • Changing the VC

17. Pre-requisites for good governance Lay Membership Good Governance Active Academic Involvement Corporate Leadership

18. Some sources • Prime Minister Tony Blair’s speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research and Universities UK joint conference on higher education reform, January 14 2004 • Shattock, M L (2003) Managing Successful Universities, Society for Research in HE and the Open University Press • Shattock, M L (2006) Managing Good Governance in Higher Education, Open University Press • Guide for Members of Higher Education Governing Bodies in the UK (November 2004), Committee of University Chairmen, HEFCE • Goedegebuure, L and de Boer H (1996) Governance and decision-making in higher education: comparative aspects, Tertiary Education and Management Vol 2 (2), 160-169 • Mora, J-G (2001), Governance and management in the new university, Tertiary Education and Management 7: 95-110 • Neave, G and Van Vught, E A (eds), (1991), Prometheus Bound; the changing relationship between government and HE in Western Europe, Oxford: Pergamon Press. • Schimank U (2005), A comparative perspective on changes in university governance in Europe, 17 Oct 2005, Public lecture, Australian National University