The COUNCIL and the GENERAL BOARD beg leave to report to the University as follows:
1. In this Report, the Council and the General Board make proposals to amend the statutory description of the Councils of the Schools and to create the University office of Head of each School, in place of the role of Chairman of a School. These proposals have been developed in the light of consultation with Faculty Boards and Councils of the Schools in the Lent and Easter Terms 2006.
2. At present Faculties and Departments and other academic institutions are distributed among six Schools: the School of Arts and Humanities, the School of the Biological Sciences, the School of Clinical Medicine, the School of the Humanities and Social Sciences, the School of the Physical Sciences, and the School of Technology, which operate under the provisions of Statute C, II, which reads as follows:
THE SCHOOLS
1. On the recommendation of the General Board the University may at any time institute one or more Schools, and may combine existing Schools, suppress any School, change the scope of any School, or divide any School into two or more Schools. There shall be placed in each School such Faculties, Departments, and other institutions as the University may from time to time determine.
2. There shall be a Council for each School. The composition of such a Council, the number and manner of appointment of its members, and, subject to the provisions of section 3, its powers and duties shall be determined by Ordinance.
3. It shall be the duty of the Council of each School
| (a) to allocate the funds made available to it by the Board; | |
| (b) to advise the General Board on any matters referred to it by the Board; | |
| (c) to report to the General Board on any question (including any matter referred to the Council by a Faculty Board or comparable authority) about which in the Council's opinion the Board ought to be informed or consulted; | |
| (d) to perform such other functions as may be delegated to it by the General Board. |
4. The Council of each School shall have the right of reporting to the University.
The constitution of each School, and other detailed matters, are set out in Ordinances (Statutes and Ordinances, pp. 541-544).
3. The Schools have been a formal part of the University's administrative structure for many years. In recent years, the number has grown from four Schools to six with the establishment, in 1992-93, of the School of Technology and, in 2003, of the School of Clinical Medicine. Historically, the role of the Councils of the Schools has been to advise the General Board, primarily in relation to resource allocation priorities. However, this relationship has changed, and the range of work for which the Councils of the Schools are responsible has grown as a result of: (a) the introduction, in 2004, of the Resource Allocation Model (RAM), which has effectively devolved responsibility for budgetary planning and other resource allocation matters within Schools from the General Board to the Councils of the Schools; and (b) the Councils becoming responsible for the production of a rolling five-year academic plan, reflecting the teaching and research aspirations of each School's constituent institutions. These plans form the University-level planning backcloth against which resource allocation to School level is assessed and University-level budgetary provision is made.
4. The developments described in paragraph 3 have had consequences for the roles not only of the Councils of the Schools, but also of the Chairmen of the Councils of the Schools. In the view of the Council and the General Board it is now necessary for the governance arrangements, in so far as they relate to the Councils of the Schools and the Chairmen of the Councils, to be amended to reflect their current roles and current practice more closely. Some responses to the consultation questioned the need for any reform at all and suggested that the proposals amounted to greater centralization of decision-making within the University. This is not the intention; on the contrary the developments referred to in paragraph 3 have had the effect of taking much of the decision-making about academic activity closer to those in the best position to make informed decisions about priorities and to make changes - Heads of Departments, Faculty Boards, and the Councils of the Schools, that is to say the academic leadership of the University. The Council and the General Board regard the devolution of planning and financial responsibility to Schools as a signal success, leading to speedier and better informed decision-making and the improved use of resources. The proposals in this Report now seek to give these highly effective operational arrangements a more formal basis in the University's constitution.
5. The Council and the Board consider that the position of Chairman of the Council of a School should be made more formal and substantive, reflecting both the time commitment required to discharge the role effectively and its place at the centre of the School's academic and resource planning and the interface between the central bodies and the School's institutions. It is proposed that the position should become a University office, carrying duties, accountability, and adequate remuneration. The question of the title of the office was a matter which generated critical comment in the consultation exercise. For the purpose of the revised Statute it is proposed that the office should have the designation Head of School. It would be open to any Council of a School to propose an alternative title for designation by Ordinance.
6. The Council and the Board accordingly propose the approval of amendments to Statute C, as set out in the Schedule to this Report. The proposed revised Statute describes in broad terms the duties and responsibilities of a Council of a School and the Head of a School. The Council and the Board are aware that the Councils of the Schools have developed their own working arrangements, appropriate to their respective disciplines and local custom and practice; they have no wish to disturb those arrangements, nor to require all the Councils of the Schools to conform to the same operational arrangements. They consider that it is preferable for each School to operate within the overall statutory framework, and to develop their working arrangements in a way which best meets their own needs and the collective aims of their constituent institutions.
7. As regards the duties of the Head of School, the Council and the Board envisage them falling into two broad areas: first, the duties as Chair and, where appropriate, acting on behalf of the Council of the School; and, secondly, playing a crucial role, as a member of the major bodies of the University, not only representing the interests of their School but in the academic governance of the institution as a whole. Specifically, the duties would include:
| (i) | representation of the School on the General Board and central committees |
| (ii) | consequential duties arising from membership of the General Board e.g. chairing committees, Department Reviews |
| (iii) | liaison with the senior officers in the central administration concerning, and where appropriate, launching major projects, reviews etc. |
| (iv) | acting as budget holder for the School, subject to delegation to Head of Institution level for annual budgets |
| (v) | monitoring the School's financial performance and where necessary taking corrective actions |
| (vi) | active promotion of strategic developments in the School, including the production and annual update of the School's strategic plan, and fund-raising |
| (vii) | presentation and defence of the School's strategic plan to the General Board, working with Heads of Departments, arbitrating on issues such as conflicts of interest, deviations from agreed University policy on research collaboration agreements, personnel and performance issues |
| (viii) | taking decisions on any matters as may be delegated to them by the Council of the School |
| (ix) | involvement in recruitment to senior posts within the School, including advising on recruitment packages |
| (x) | responsibility for the operational activities of School-level staff. |
The above list is not exhaustive and it is recognized that the balance of duties and the arrangements for discharging them will vary from School to School.
8. Developing the substantiveness of the role of the Chair of the School also raises the level of remuneration and other support and the commitment required to discharge it satisfactorily. At present in term, the role probably entails several hours of scheduled meetings each week (e.g. General Board, Planning and Resources Committee, Resource Management Committee, School Councils, and other School Committees), plus preparation and related administration. In broad terms, the job probably requires at least three full days a week in term, and perhaps two out of term. There may be circumstances, for example during a particularly difficult departmental review where the job is, in effect, full-time. To make the role viable, the Council and the Board believe that an explicit agreement on time commitment should be determined at the beginning of each appointment along with an associated provision for remission of other administrative/teaching duties. The Council and the Board would not normally expect the Heads to undertake any other administrative roles during their tenure of office.
9. Although it is timely to agree a more realistic assessment of the time commitment, the Council and the Board are very concerned of the need to strike a balance so as not to make the role so onerous that it deters the best candidates. In particular, the Council and the Board are mindful of the need for Heads to remain active in both teaching and research so that they remain closely connected with the work of the institutions they represent, and so that they may return to normal duties when their term as Head ceases. Councils of Schools would be expected to bear these considerations in mind when proposing a time commitment for their Head to the General Board. It is proposed that the appointment of a Head would be accompanied by a 'buy out' of the time commitment, at a level equivalent to that of a University Lectureship, for the Faculty or Department concerned.
10. At present the Chairmen of the Councils of the Schools receive a Schedule I Head of Department additional pensionable payment, on top of their regular stipend, including professorial supplementary payment where applicable. The Council and the Board propose that the award of an additional pensionable payment be continued but in future a time commitment should be specified as a percentage of full-time. That time commitment would be determined by the Council of the School in each case, at a level not exceeding 80% of full-time. The choice of percentage time commitment would vary according to the needs of the School and of the person appointed Head. The full-time stipend to be associated with the Headship of a School has been measured on the basis of an analysis of the role using HERA as £88,708 (Point 83 of the salary spine). The additional full-time-equivalent pensionable payment is then taken to be the difference between that stipend and the basic professorial stipend (namely £56,938; Point 68 of the salary spine), which equals £31,770. The actual payment in each case would equal the percentage time commitment applied to that figure. Although the additional cost would have to be borne by the School, it is inevitable if the office of Head of School is to be attractive to senior academics with the requisite experience and leadership skills. On completion of an officer's four-year period as Head of School, he or she would be eligible for additional leave granted by analogy with the arrangements for Heads of Department to enable them to re-engage fully in their personal research.
11. At present there are a variety of arrangements for the appointment of a Chairman of the Council of a School, of which the most common (Schools of the Biological Sciences, the Humanities and Social Sciences, the Physical Sciences, and Technology) is for the Chairman to be elected by the Council of the School for a period not exceeding two years at the time of election. The regulations for the School of Arts and Humanities simply provide that the Chairman should normally be one of the School's appointees to the General Board, and the regulations for the School of Clinical Medicine provide that the Chairman of the Faculty Board should be Chairman of the Council of the School (i.e. there is an annual election under Statute C, IV, 6), although, in practice, the Regius Professor of Physic discharges both roles ex officio as academic head of the School. Financial and strategic planning in the Schools and the University is increasingly on a longer timescale, as implied by the five-yearly planning process. A Chairman who is in post for only two years will be taking decisions, most of whose consequences fall upon his or her successor. Similarly, if a major strategic project or review is identified within a School, two years is a short period to conceive and follow it through to completion. Accordingly, the Council and the General Board propose that apart from the School of Clinical Medicine (where the Regius Professor of Physic would continue to be Head) a four-year term of office for the Head of School, paralleling arrangements for membership of the General Board, should be formalized. Reflecting the democratic processes used elsewhere in the University, the Council and the Board believe that election by the Council of the School should become the standard means of appointment in the remaining five Schools but that, given the extent of the budgetary authority assigned to the Councils of the Schools, the election of a Chairman by the Council of a School should be subject to formal confirmation by the General Board (by analogy with the existing arrangements for the appointment of Heads of Department).
12. The consultation with the Councils of the Schools and Faculty Boards also raised a number of consequential issues, and some concerns, including the role of Faculty Boards under the arrangements. In particular, a number of responses to the consultation expressed concern that Faculty Boards might lose the right of making representations to the General Board, under the provisions of Statute C, IV, 9(a) about resource matters. This is not the intention of the present proposals. As is the present practice, the Board would expect to seek the views and advice of the Council of the School concerned. The Council and the Board note that Faculty Boards are fully involved in the appointment of members of all six Councils of the Schools, reflecting the importance of achieving effective co-ordination of academic and resource planning. There are also a number of issues concerning the composition of the Councils of some of the Schools including achieving satisfactory representation of Departments within large non-scientific Faculties. The General Board will consult further with the Schools concerned with a view to making further proposals to the University. Other respondents suggested that the proposals would create an unnecessary third layer of administration at School level. This is not the Council and the Board's intention; they draw attention to the strengthening of the staffing of School offices in recent years and to the range of tasks where decisions have been devolved from the central bodies to School level. The Council and the Board understand that the Registrary, in his role as Head of the Unified Administrative Service, is engaged in discussion about the devolution of a further range of administrative responsibility from the central offices to School level.
13. The Council and the General Board recommend: I. That, subject to the approval of Her Majesty in Council, the Statutes of the University be amended as set out below and submitted under the Common Seal of the University to Her Majesty in Council for approval. II. That, subject to the approval of Recommendation I, certain regulations be amended as set out in the Annex to this Report.
| 11 December 2006 | ALISON RICHARD, Vice-Chancellor | D. LOWTHER | VERONICA SUTHERLAND |
| Z. BARANSKI | D. W. B. MACDONALD | LIBA TAUB | |
| NIGEL BROWN | JAMES MATHESON | JOAN M. WHITEHEAD | |
| WILLIAM BROWN | MARTIN REES | RICHARD WILSON | |
| MARK FERGUSON | G. A. REID | ||
| 4 December 2006 | ALISON RICHARD, Vice-Chancellor | M. J. DAUNTON | K. MOHADDES |
| JOHN BELL* | RICHARD FRIEND* | MELVEENA MCKENDRICK | |
| TOM BLUNDELL* | JACOB HEAD | ROGER PARKER* | |
| WILLIAM BROWN | RICHARD HUNTER | PATRICK SISSONS* | |
| H. A. CHASE | D. W. B. MACDONALD | I. H. WHITE* | |
Note of dissent
The Regent House recently approved the recommendations of the Council and the General Board in their Second Joint Report on a new pay and grading structure for non-clinical staff.1,2 That Report made it clear that staff would be rewarded primarily based on an assessment of the size of the role that they undertook within the University. In particular the pay structure would be aimed at achieving fairness and equality of treatment for all non-clinical staff. The Report also gave within paragraph 6.18 a structure for the stipend of the part-time senior office of Pro-Vice-Chancellor, which states, 'The office of Pro-Vice-Chancellor is part-time, and so the holder receives a pro-rata proportion of the full stipend for the office and, if he/she holds another University office concurrently, receives a correspondingly reduced pro-rata stipend for that other office'.
It therefore seems inappropriate that for the proposed part-time senior office of Head of School, the General Board and Council are departing from the approved recommendations for achieving fairness and equality of treatment given within the second Report on a new pay and grading structure. The present Report makes it clear that the proposed new role of Head of School has an expectation of a substantive time commitment to the new role and a corresponding reduction in other duties for the prospective role-holder. This is made evident in paragraph 9 where there is provision for the 'buy out' of time at the level of a University Lectureship, for the Faculty or Department concerned.
However in paragraph 10 it is proposed to continue to pay a stipend at a rate equivalent to 100% commitment for their existing role with an additional payment on top based on the proportion of time they commit to the part-time role of Head of School (up to maximum of 80% of full-time). The net effect of this compared to the existing model used for Pro-Vice-Chancellors is to penalize those who apply for the role of Head of School who are currently on salary spine points below 68 (£56,938), e.g. Readers, whilst giving a steadily increasing reward for those who are above spine point 68, the reward maximizing at spine points above 83 (above £88,708). This strange way of calculating contribution also has consequences for the relative salary positions of Pro-Vice-Chancellor and Head of School, since there will be a cross-over in stipends such that lower paid Professors and Readers would be better rewarded if they applied for the office of Pro-Vice-Chancellor, but higher paid Professors would be better rewarded if they applied for the role of Head of School. Clearly this structure does not seem to be fair and to comply with a concept of equal pay for work of equal value as outlined in the second Report on pay and grading.
Whilst it might not be reasonably expected that the prospective Head of School should take a cut in stipend on taking up the role, it does not seem appropriate that they should automatically be rewarded at an amplified higher level simply because they are already highly paid relative to other holders of equivalent office. The alternative payment of a market supplement might be deemed appropriate in some circumstances.
The General Board and the Council should be mindful of the example they are setting for the rest of the University, particularly since Heads of School will take up key positions on the General Board and other Senior Committees. Current members of these Committees are also likely to be eligible for consideration for appointment as Heads of School.
| R. J. ANDERSON |
| RICHARD BARNES |
| MIKE CLARK |
| BOB DOWLING |
SCHEDULE
STATUTORY AMENDMENTS
Section 3.
By repealing this section and replacing it by the following new sections:
3. Subject to the provisions of section 2, the duties of the Council of a School shall include:
| (a) | the preparation of such academic and financial plans, and reports as the General Board shall determine; |
| (b) | the allocation of the funds made available to it by the General Board amongst the institutions comprising the School; |
| (c) | working with the institutions which comprise the School to ensure institutional and School academic plans are consistent, realistic, and affordable; |
| (d) | consideration of any matter referred to it by the General Board. |
4. There shall be a Head of each School who shall be appointed and hold office on such terms as may be determined by Ordinance.
5. The Head of each School shall be Chairman of the Council of the School and shall be the principal academic officer of the School and shall be responsible to the Council of the School and the Vice-Chancellor for the overall running of the School, including the use of the funds specified under 3(b) and the implementation of the approved plans referred to in 3(a).
Section 4.
By renumbering this section as section 6.
Amendments to the regulations for the Schools and Councils of the Schools (Statutes and Ordinances, pp. 541-544)
By rescinding Regulation 4 for each of the School of Arts and Humanities, the School of the Humanities and Social Sciences, the School of the Biological Sciences, the School of the Physical Sciences, and the School of Technology and replacing it by the following:
4. The Head of the School shall be appointed by the Council of the School, subject to the approval of the General Board, to serve for a period of four years from 1 January following the appointment. By amending Regulation 2 for the School of Clinical Medicine so as to read:
2. The Regius Professor of Physic shall be the Head of the School. By rescinding Regulation 5 of the regulations for the School of Clinical Medicine and by renumbering Regulation 6 as 5.