[You can download a PDF version of this document by clicking HERE]
AGWG-M06
REVIEW OF SCOTLAND 'S COLLEGES
WORKING GROUP: ACCOUNTABILITY & GOVERNANCE
Minutes of Meeting
Stirling Management Centre
13 June 2006 , 2.00 pm - 4.00 pm
Attendees:
Aileen McKechnie, Scottish Executive (Chair)
Margaret McLachlan, Scottish Executive (Secretariat)
Col Baird, Scottish Executive
George Reid, Scottish Executive
David Caldwell, Universities Scotland
Neil Cuthbert, Association of Scotland's Colleges
Martin Fairbairn, Scottish Funding Council
James Alexander, NUS Scotland
John Cassidy, STUC
Ian Graham, Principal, John Wheatley College
Apologies:
Linda McKay, Principal, Forth Valley College
Sandy Watson, Chair, Angus College
Fiona Farmer, STUC
Introduction:
The Chair welcomed members to the sixth meeting of the Working Group. She advised that due to restructuring of workloads within the Funding Council, Martin Fairbairn, Director of Governance and Management: Appraisal and Policy was replacing Jennifer McLaren as the Funding Council's representative on the group. Martin was asked to pass on members' thanks to Jennifer for her contribution to the group's work.
1. Minutes of the previous meeting including action points
The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed.
Action Points from Previous Meeting
(i) Action point under Item 1 - Secretariat to circulate a note of the meeting with student representatives on 4 April once cleared with attendees.
A note of the meeting [Paper 12] was issued to members and would be discussed further under item 5 of the agenda.
(ii) Action point under Item 3 - ASC to circulate a draft copy of the Baker Tilly report prior to publication.
ASC circulated a copy of the near final draft of the report to members.
(iii) Action points under Item 4 - Executive to circulate 'thinkpiece' for final agreement and amend research specification.
This was issued and agreed with members. The specification for the Group's accountability and governance project was prepared as a result of this and would be discussed further under item 2 of the agenda.
Executive to post on the web invitation for expressions of interest for Research.
This was posted on the Executive's website at the end of May. Members were informed at the time.
(iv) Action point under Item 5 - Executive to keep members informed of discussions with Enterprise and Culture Committee regarding Ministerial Powers of Direction.
To date there has been no approach for information. The Executive will keep members informed of progress.
(v) Action point under Item 6 - Executive to keep members informed of progress on proposed changes to Board Memberships.
The Executive will advise members as soon as there has been progress.
(vi) Action point under Item 7 - Executive to update members on the outcome of the proposal regarding the position of the local enterprise companies.
Scottish Enterprise issued annual budgets to Local Enterprise Companies on 25 May. LECs can now set out their plans and discuss specific projects with partners.
An outline plan of Scottish Enterprise's activities and budget against the three themes of A Smart Successful Scotland was made available on their web on 26 May. A more detailed Operating Plan will be issued shortly.
(vii) Action point under Item 8 - Secretariat to trawl for dates to meet the needs of the workplan.
Members had been notified of the confirmed dates and venues of eight future meetings. Any changes to members' availability or names of substitutes should be sent to Margaret McLachlan.
Executive to investigate further the possibility of members' involvement in the selection process.
This would be discussed under agenda item 2.
2. Research
A copy of the research 'think piece' had been circulated to members for comment. No changes had been proposed, so the agreed think piece had been issued for information only. The paper formed the basis of the research specification, which has now issued. Members were informed of the timetable for the tendering process.
Members were informed that the Executive's tendering process may not necessarily include a panel stage with contractors. This normally only takes place where there is difficulty in choosing between tenders. If a presentation stage is necessary it would take place on 10 July. The STUC, NUS, SFC and ASC would be invited to join the panel along with Executive representatives. Universities Scotland would be available to join the panel if needed. Irrespective of whether there is a pre-appointment panel, the date of the inception meeting with the researchers will be 18 July.
Members advised that, given their experiences in awarding contracts, there was considerable merit in oral presentations as part of the selection process, even where on paper one contractor seemed preferential to another. Members raised concerns over a potential conflict of interest if during the evaluation stage of tenders it became apparent that the consultants had previously been Executive staff. The Executive agreed to keep members fully informed of progress.
ACTION POINT: Executive to keep members fully informed of progress of the tendering process.
3. 'Issues Paper'
The purpose of this paper was to look at four issues, which were explicitly included in the group's remit, within the context of the outcome of the previous review of Governance and Accountability and relevant new factors such as the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005:
Members did not consider there to be any relevant factors that have changed since the 2002/03 Review that would suggest that the Group should reconsider boards' responsibilities for appointment their own membership. This includes appointment of the board chair. Accountability of the chair to the board would be diminished if the board did not appoint the chair.
Members believed there to be substantial evidence of improvements in 'openness and transparency' in the process of appointments, since the 2002 Review. It was generally felt that this was more important than introducing an independent element to the process. The nature of that independent element was also questioned. For example, it was suggested that the involvement of an independent clerk to the college board in the process introduced that element. It was suggested that this was an issue that should be covered by the research that will be undertaken.
Members generally felt that the main issue with Board Members was not about remuneration but the issue of "feeling valued". Given that colleges had just recently secured their charitable status it would not be appropriate to jeopardise this situation. Other ways of demonstrating that college board members are valued should be pursued. It was suggested that the Executive may be best placed to acknowledge work well done and should consider creative ways of doing this.
- Length of Board Membership for Chair of Colleges
Although members could foresee situations where on occasions it would seem reasonable to extend the 8 year time limit, they acknowledged that the issue was before Ministers. They wished to put on record their encouragement that Ministers should conclude this issue and give flexibility for college chairs to remain longer on boards in that capacity.
It was suggested that there was a case for considering extending the time limit for staff representative members on college boards because they are nominated by staff. It was generally felt that, on balance, the reasons for the general reduction in the time limit (to encourage fresh thinking) apply to all board members.
- Current 50% Statutory Requirement
There was some discussion about the history behind the 50% statutory requirement. Members acknowledged that the statute would probably be worded differently today. However, it was generally felt that the wording in the act was not unduly prescriptive. Members agreed that there was no need to change the wording in the Act. Instead, the Group's final report should explain the breadth of the provision to respond to the perception by some that it means 50% of the board should be business representatives.
4. Profiling of Board Members
It was suggested that a statistical survey should be carried out by the Funding Council to gather information on disability, ethnicity, age and gender balance of members of college boards to provide evidence of the composition of boards. This was important given Ministers desire to encourage greater diversity. However, members generally cautioned against this type of survey. The end use of this information would need to be more purposeful for there to be any real value. It would need to be set in the right context and take into consideration relevant local factors. Members considered that it would be more useful to approach the Secretaries to Board Community of Practice to consider what further measures could be taken to encourage greater diversity of board membership.
ACTION POINT: Executive to ask the Secretaries to Board Community of Practice Group to consider what further measures could be taken to encourage greater diversity of board membership.
5. Note of meeting with Student Representatives
It was agreed to discuss this paper at the working group's July meeting. NUS Scotland is working closely with SPARQs on issues such as student representation, mentoring etc. It was therefore agreed that Erica Hensens be invited to attend this meeting who could provide members with an up-date on the work carried out.
ACTION POINT: Executive to invite Erica Hensens to attend the group's meeting in July.
6. Any other business
Members discussed whether there is any need to revisit the requirement that a local enterprise company nominates one board member for each college in their area. It was felt that current arrangements were working well. There was therefore no basis for seeking to remove the requirement. Consequently, it was not necessary to invite representatives from Scottish Enterprise and Highlands Enterprise along to a meeting of the group to consider this issue.
Members were advised that background papers would be prepared for the Group on board member training and continuous professional development for principals. These papers were being written to give members knowledge to help them consider the research report. A paper for future discussion will also be prepared on powers of Ministers and others to intervene in colleges.
Members raised the issue of the soon to be published paper on the public service reform and asked about its potential impact of it to the work of this group. The Executive advised that this wide ranging consideration of all public services, including FE and HE, but is unlikely to go into the level of detail which the group is currently considering.
List of Action Points
ITEM 2:
- Executive to keep members fully informed of progress of the tendering process.
ITEM 4:
- Executive to ask the Secretaries to Board Community of Practice Group to consider what further measures could be taken to encourage greater diversity of board membership.
ITEM 5:
- Executive to invite Erica Hensens to attend the group's meeting in July.
Review Team
FAED
ETLLD
June 2006