Court report

By Peter Evans

The first meeting of the Court in 2003-04 was held on 27 October and began with a welcome to a number of new members. There was rapid engagement, under matters arising from the previous meeting, with various constitutional amendments which had been agreed in principle in June but which could not be actioned until now owing to procedural constraints. The most significant matter was a proposed change to Statute 9 concerning the co-opted lay membership of the Court. The current prescription is that, in addition to those who are elected, nominated or ex officio, the lay membership shall include five co-opted members who are 'representatives of the local community'. Earlier this year the Court received legal advice that the term 'local' in this context should be taken to mean within Dundee and its immediate environs. This interpretation is at odds with the Court’s wish to seek out potential lay members of the highest calibre without geographical restriction - such an approach has been encouraged by comments on governance in the Scottish Executive's Higher Education Review.

It had therefore been proposed to change the definition of co-opted lay members to simply 'five other persons' - reverting in fact to the original wording of the Statute before it was changed some 14 years ago. The Court now approved this amendment, although not without a repeat of the vote that was taken at the June meeting. Confirmation of the decision at the Court's next meeting in December, together with subsequent approval by the Privy Council, will nevertheless be required before the change can be implemented.

On proposed amendments to Ordinances, however (including a comprehensive revision of student discipline procedures and provision for teaching fellows to be designated as examiners), the Court made up for lost time by voting to classify them as urgent under the terms of the Charter and giving them immediate effect, without waiting for confirmation at a second meeting.

Having successfully negotiated this constitutional maze, the Court moved onto safer ground with reports from the Vice-Principals and other senior officers on progress made towards the 12 strategic objectives outlined in the 'Towards 2007' planning document. In the ensuing discussion it was agreed that, as advocated in the document, the University must ensure that it was able to respond swiftly to student recruitment trends and other external factors. Further reports on progress towards the defined objectives will be submitted to each meeting of the Court for the foreseeable future. To facilitate such reports the Court approved a set of proposed performance measures, tailored to the strategic objectives, which incorporate the key institutional performance indicators adopted by the Court in 2002.

A detailed progress report was also made on the transfer of student residences to the special purpose vehicle Dundee Student Villages Ltd, involving the University in partnership with Sanctuary Housing Association and the Bank of Scotland. It had not been possible to conclude these complex negotiations by the original target date of 10 September, but the proposals had now been approved by SHEFC and work was continuing to finalise the legal agreement, the building programme and the transfer of University staff to SHA. Court members sought, and were given, reassurances on a number of issues arising from this transaction, including the adequacy of management and financial controls. The Court confirmed that the sub-group already appointed to oversee the project should have full authority to bring it to a conclusion on the Court's behalf.

Issues relating to openness in the government of the University were explored in a paper originally submitted to the June meeting, but now revised in the light of detailed consideration by a small group of Court members and officers. Current University practice was compared with a best practice checklist on openness from the second report of the Nolan Committee (1996) on local public spending bodies - but with caveats about the generality of the checklist and also the lack of any reference to use of the Internet, which now played such an important role in the way information was imparted to students, staff and the public. The Court approved a number of specific recommendations in the paper, including greater accessibility of agendas, papers and minutes of Court meetings, and adopted a statement on openness (see below).

The vexed issue of car parking on the main University campus was a substantive item on the Court's agenda. Pressure on parking facilities, caused by rapid expansion of staff and student numbers in recent years, will be exacerbated by major building works over the period ahead, resulting in an estimated deficit of 600 spaces.

Statement on Openness adopted by the Court The University Court is committed to openness in government. It will consult regularly with relevant interest groups, communicate details of its membership, its forward plans and its decisions - including the reasons for these decisions - to stakeholders in a timely fashion, and make the formal record of its meetings widely available.