Reform Battle
Oxford is, quite extraordinarily, a democratic university. It shares with Cambridge the feature that above its governing council, there sits a parliament called Congregation. This democratic university has been in a state of some ferment since last May, when Congregation voted down the proposed new Academic Strategy of the University. The democratic process took a remarkable turn on Tuesday, 1st November when Congregation met to discuss the University’s new Green Paper on Governance.
There was no vote at the meeting, but opposition in the debate would have effectively prevented the governance proposals from going forward. I spoke up at the meeting in support of the proposals. Let me explain why. The university needs to return to a bicameral structure with a University Council separate from the University’s Academic Board. The University Council would then be able to manage the strategic direction of the university and would also be responsible for fi nancial planning.
A Council which sets and manages the university’s fi nancial framework is essential. This would have prevented the mess-up about OSIRIS - the university’s new accounting system - because within a proper fi nancial framework you will be able to manage fi nancial administration effectively. There has been considerable opposition to having outsiders on Council, but they are vital.
They will both help us to manage our fi nances and as can act as sticks with which to beat management when it is poor. My experience on the Channel Four Board in the late 1980s showed me that they can do much more than this. It was with real assistance from the board that the channel was able to prevent Margaret Thatcher’s plan to privatise it. Outsiders can help those inside an institution win important battles in the wider world.
With clear oversight of Council by our democratic Congregation, a Cambridge- style Board of Scrutiny, as recommended in the ‘alternative’ paper is not necessary. Above the University Council, and the Academic Board, we should have a reinvigorated Congregation, chaired by the Chancellor, where the Vice Chancellor would be able to speak. There could be separate meetings of Congregation at which the Vice Chancellor could be questioned • like Prime Minister’s Question Time.
There could be regular meetings as well • some of them discussion meetings like the one last Tuesday. In doing this could again make Congregation much more than what it is now - a series of cancellation notices in the Gazette. At the same time, below the Council, we need to ensure that there will be an effective Audit Committee. This Committee will both do the kind of risk analysis which an Audit Committee does for the Board of any good company and be able to be prospective.
It will be composed not of people fl oating off in outer space, disconnected from the management of the university, but instead of people who are also, at the same time, members of Council, and so responsible for implementing the Audit Committee’s recommendations. A ‘Cambridge style’ Board of Scrutiny has none of these advantages.
Many of us hope that the university will soon be able to accept the key structural proposals of the Working Party on the separation of the Council and the Academic Board, and that at the same time that we will be able to move towards the re-invigoration of Congregation, without the establishment of a Cambridge style Board of Scrutiny. At the same time we see the need for more detailed work by the Governance Working Party.
We hope that it will now rise to the quality of the debate last Tuesday, and that they can refi ne the Green Paper details in ways which will take us further forward. If they do this well, the outcomes could be very, very good indeed for the university.
10th Nov 2005