Governors as watchdogs? 

Do you keep your Governors informed? About:

  • Numbers of disputes
  • Method of resolution - followed institution’s internal procedures, mediation, litigation (settlement or went to hearing), complaint went to OIA, concern raised with HEFCE, concern raised with QAA?
  • Outcomes
  • Time taken to reach a resolution
  • Legal costs
  • Administrative costs
  • Lessons learned

Do the Governors regularly discuss or merely receive such reports?

Recent events at London Metropolitan University threw up significant questions

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=411204&c=2

Whilst it is important that [Vice-Chancellors] are allowed to manage, it is incumbent upon Boards of Governors to provide sufficient and effective challenge.

The Board of Governors of the University is ultimately responsible for all matters within the purview of the institution and in particular for matters relating to finance and/or where there is significant risk attached.  This responsibility is heightened when such risks might threaten, as in this case, the very financial viability and existence of the University.

Whilst from our investigations it is clear that there was knowledge from as early as 2004 within the Institution that the HEFCE completion rule was not being applied at LMU the evidence that this was brought by management directly to the attention of either the Audit Committee or the Board of Governors is thin.  The only specific mention of the funding completion rule was in a presentation to the Board of Governors by the Director of Finance in October 2005. However, this was as a single bullet point in a large presentation on a wide range of funding matters, delivered without particular emphasis and not featuring as part of the subsequent discussion. 

... Governors universally failed to follow-up these data issues or to draw conclusions that they might lead to significant problems for the University.  

The fact that the Board of Governors did not have this information does not however, diminish their level of responsibility. It must be the case that the Board of Governors and the Audit Committee should take their share of corporate responsibility for a failure of this magnitude regardless of the detail of information provided by the Executive.  

Sir David Melville,  http://www-uxsup.csx.cam.ac.uk/~rjd4/Melville_2009/

Deloitte report on the LMU case:
'we were informed through our interviews that the agenda and papers at most committees were extensive and therefore it was difficult to go through all issues in detail within the time allocated.'

Melville's suggestions:

  • ‘Ensure that minutes are detailed enough to reflect discussions that have occurred at committee meetings.
  • Establish proper mechanisms in place to ensure there is a proper flow of information from the Executive Group to the Governors.’

What can Governors do to improve dispute-prevention and early resolution of disputes?

The expectation that institutions will create student charters if they do not have them already, and that the charters will make specific promises under a number of heads, is likely to lead to an increasing number of student complaints.

Governors need to know what is going on in the institution at the level of its day-to-day teaching and research activity. Even active strolling about may not reveal patterns of inadequate provision. Governors cannot ask searching questions and press for improvements unless they have an idea what the problems are.

Mine was the worst of starts to the academic year.  The first class of the week and the computer linked to the projection screen is not working: no audio and no communication with the projector.  I get the technician in.  He rummages around with cables for half an hour and says he can't fix it: the computer's audio is disabled and needs a complete rebuild. I abandon my Powerpoint slides, video clips and website list and revert to chalk and talk.  They're third year students so they've seen this all before.

Second class of the day, a fresher class, I plan to show a DVD. Everything seems to be working but we can't find the switch to turn the lights off.  I seek out a technician again.  There's no light switch he says; the lights in this room can't be turned off.  You can't show DVD's here.

Just as well no one is running a student satisfaction survey this week. The students’ learning experience is compromised, our credibility as lecturers is compromised, and if 'people' think for one moment that this isn't going ultimately to effect student satisfaction, then you're gravely mistaken.

Create a 'suggestions box' for Governors to enable students and staff to make them aware of  patterns of low-level ‘failure to deliver’ in the institution, and perhaps to do so anonymously if they fear reprisal for raising concerns?  

Governors can make enquiries to see whether the concerns are well-founded.

When Governors get to know of a potential  dispute what should they do? Why not ask the Clerk to the Governors to

  • make sure disputes handled by all sections of the administration are reported and held on file centrally,  in anonymised form as far as possible
  • keep a record of the methods used to resolve disputes, comparative speed and costs,  and success in terms of the continuing of students to completion and of working relationships among staff
  • make sure the patterns of disputes arising are reviewed and any potential systemic concerns noted
  • make sure systemic concerns are considered and action taken to put right and breakdown of good practice
  • list lessons learned and check at intervals that they have been learned and similar problems are not continuing to arise
  • report numbers and types of dispute arising and resolved to the governors regularly

Resources

Getting to grips with being a governor,  published by the LFHE includes a discussion of governor involvement in Module 5, with a brief mention of the possibility that governors maybe asked to sit on an appeal panel under the institution's grievance or disciplinary procedures.
http://www.lfhe.ac.uk/governance/govpublications/gettinggrips.pdf

 The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales has produced guidance on the whistleblowing obligations that companies have under the Combined Code on Corporate Governance. They recommend that companies include the following questions when they review the efficacy of their arrangements:

  • Are there issues or incidents which have otherwise come to the board’s attention which they would have expected to have been raised earlier under the company’s whistleblowing procedures?

  • Are there adequate procedures to track the actions taken in relation to concerns made and to ensure appropriate follow-up action has been taken to investigate and, if necessary, resolve problems indicated by whistleblowing?

  • Have confidentiality issues been handled effectively?

  • Is there evidence of timely and constructive feedback? 

  • Have any events come to the committee’s or the board’s attention that might indicate that a staff member has not been fairly treated as a result of their raising concerns?

  • Is a review of staff awareness of the procedures needed?

http://www.pcaw.co.uk/organisations_pdf/best_practice_guide.pdf



Page last edited: 24 February 2011