« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Introduction
The Review's Accountability and Governance Working Group has now completed its activity in terms of the remit given to it. As Chair of the Group, I am pleased to submit to the Core Group our final report. The remit and membership of the Working Group are shown at Annex A.
Summary of activity
Based in the findings of comprehensive research, conducted by the Executive and by independent consultants, and on the deliberations of the working group over many months, we have decided to make 44 recommendations. The Group met on eleven occasions, usually in a college. Many of the meetings incorporated a presentation by staff or students.
The deliberations of the Group were informed and assisted by comprehensive research on college governance by DTZ Consulting & Research. The essence of this research was benchmarking standards of governance in Scotland's Colleges against those of the independent Commission on Good Governance in Public Services: Good Governance Standard for Public Services1. The principles and supporting principles included in the Standard are outlined in Annex B. In its research report, DTZ concluded that in general the standard of accountability and governance in Scotland's colleges is good.
The Group generally endorsed DTZ's recommendations. However, there were a few recommendations that encroached into matters of operational detail that the Group declined to adopt.
This was the first occasion the governance arrangements for an entire part of the Scottish public services has been benchmarked against this common standard of good governance for all public services. The executive summary of DTZ Consulting and Research's report to the Group, and a link to the full report, is attached as Annex C.
Boards of management
An early activity of the Group was to issue a questionnaire to the Chairs of college Boards of Management on the progress made over the previous 2 years in areas such as Board composition, training and the appointments process. The information gained brought a useful additional perspective to the experience and views of individual members of the Group.
The Group was asked, early in its work, to consider the possibility of removing the power of Ministers to give a direction to a Board. The Group recommended that Ministers exercise their power to exempt colleges from the 'charity test' contained in the 2005 Charities Act. The Group was unable, however, to reach an agreed view on the way forward, should Ministers be unable to agree such an exemption. Ministers ultimately decided to relinquish their power to direct a college Board, since it was clear that its retention would threaten the continued charitable status of colleges.
The Group makes a substantial number of recommendations on issues affecting college Boards, including appointments and the possibility of remunerating Board members. The Group considers that Board members should continue to be unremunerated.
Towards the end of the Group's work, Ministerial guidance on appointments to the Boards of public bodies changed, removing the cap on the period of membership. Taken with the research evidence from DTZ, which suggested that the current 12-year limit should not be reduced (indicating that views in the sector had evolved since the 2002-03 Review), the Group recommends that this issue should be considered further by the Scottish Executive and its partners as part of a comprehensive review, initiated by the Scottish Executive, aimed at simplifying the statutory provisions covering the constitution and proceedings of college Boards [Schedule 2 to the 1992 Act].
The issue of student membership of Boards was seen as crucial by the working group. This report suggests how student membership might be further strengthened.
Most, if not all, the issues considered by the group are very much 'work in progress'. Standards of governance in both the public and corporate sectors are constantly changing and developing.
DTZ advised in its report that the number of bodies that scrutinise colleges should be rationalised.
The group contributed to a submission by the Further and Adult Education Division of the Scottish Executive to the Independent Review of Regulation, Audit, Inspection and Complaints Handling of Public Services in Scotland. When it reports, I expect there will be important implications for the college sector from its recommendations. I am also aware that the Office of the Scottish Charities Regulator ( OSCR) is reviewing college governance arrangements as part of its 'Rolling Review' of Scottish charities.
The Group expects most if not all of its recommendations to be taken forward by the Scottish Funding Council under 'Aim 7' of its Corporate Plan 2006-09: Learning and Innovation: Helping to deliver Scotland's strategy for the future - Scotland's colleges, universities and Funding Council to be highly effective, world-class organisations.
Audit Committee Report on Inverness College
Following publication by the Parliament's Audit Committee of its report on Inverness College, 2 the Review of Scotland's Colleges was asked by the Audit Committee to look at a number of issues which emerged from its own investigation. These included (a) the designation of college accountable officers; (b) interventions with colleges in difficulty; (c) Board member skills and experience; and (d) training. This report makes recommendations in all these areas.
James Watt College
In February 2007, the Scottish Funding Council published the report of its Further Education Development Directorate ( FEDD) on governance and management at James Watt College of Further and Higher Education, 3 which identified failures of governance and management in that college. While the remit of the Working Group did not extend to examining arrangements in any particular institution, I am confident that adopting our recommendations would create the conditions where such difficulties are far less likely to arise in the future.
Conclusion
As Chair of the Accountability and Governance Working Group, and on its behalf, I commend this report and its recommendations to the ROSCO Core Group. In doing so, I wish to recognise the substantial contribution and effort made by all members of the Group, and by its Secretariat.
Aileen McKechnie
Chair
Accountability and Governance Working Group
June 2007
« Previous | Contents | Next »