Governance and oversight

The Gillies Report references areas of weakness in the overall governance of the University, alongside failures in financial governance. Early warnings were ignored and there was no contingency planning. 

The actions contained in this report will seek to address the deficiencies around setting and monitoring strategic direction, overseeing effective fiscal management and risk, and ensuring legal, ethical, and regulatory compliance. 

Through the University’s Recovery Plan and the actions outlined in this response, improved and rigorous work on strategy will be implemented, with an organisational structure that facilitates clear accountabilities, underpinned by effective processes for financial evaluation, management, reporting, and control. 

An open culture of constructive dialogue, and disagreement, that delivers improved transparency and better decision making will be established, with members of the University Executive Group (UEG) and non-executive members of the Court, sufficiently aware of their duties and understand their collective responsibility in the fiscally responsible running of the University. 

We welcome the opportunity to identify and define the actions required to return the institution to a position of strength, both financially and in terms of its governance structures and practices. 

Action to be taken

In the short-term (0-6 months) we will:

• Establish the Framework whereby the Court and UEG will be assured on progress and the impact of the action plan attached to this response. This will include self-assessment, internal and external audit, and peer review, as appropriate.
• Mandate the distribution of papers for UEG and committees of the Court one week in advance of meetings.
• Introduce a register of decisions taken by UEG within the limits of delegated authority.
• Change the ways in which proposals and papers are presented to Court and its Committees to ensure members have the information they need to offer constructive challenge. The cover sheet for Court and committee papers will be redesigned to include a more detailed executive summary and to make clear whether the paper is presented for information or for approval. It will also make explicit whether there are any financial or governance implications, cost estimates and an anticipated timescale for action.
• Ensure the normal cycle of Court committee meetings is observed, with additional meetings convened for consideration of high-risk, complex matters.
• Ensure all members of UEG, of the Court and its committees, receive training in financial literacy, with particular attention to members of the Finance & Policy Committee (FPC) and the Audit & Risk Committee (ARC).
• Ensure the Court and all its committees, with particular attention to the FPC and the ARC, include appropriately qualified and skilled members.
• Ensure the independence of the FPC and ARC by clarifying roles and responsibilities of Chair, members, and observers. This will be achieved by removing any overlap between membership of the committees or those in attendance.
• Deliver regular updates to ARC, FPC and Court on student recruitment forecasts and associated financial implications and risks.
• Ensure papers for the Court or its committees are scrutinised at UEG, prior to submission to the relevant committee(s) of the Court.
• Initiate the development of a new set of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to track the University’s progress towards achieving objectives and to facilitate UEG and the Court in exercising their responsibilities.
• Introduce twice yearly joint strategy and risk sessions between UEG and the Court, commencing with a joint Risk Workshop.

In the medium term (6-12 months) we will:

• Review the remit, terms of reference and membership of committees of the Court to make clear the delineation of responsibilities between committees and ensure that matters are scrutinised in the appropriate forum.
• Revise the remit of the FPC to encompass both the physical and digital estate.
• Reduce the level of routine reporting of operational risk issues to the ARC and clarify that Committee’s responsibility for health and safety.
• Overhaul the institutional risk register with realistic assessments and regular active and critical monitoring by UEG, ARC and the Court.
• Embed regular reporting on institutional risk in Court and committee workplans.
• Introduce a programme of Court visits to different areas of the University to raise the profile of the Court among the staff and students supported by our communications and engagement plans. This will, in turn, raise awareness amongst Court members of the breadth of the University’s activities.
• Introduce an assurance protocol for senior managers across the University to provide UEG and the Court with assurance on key controls, including compliance and risk. 

In the longer term (12-18 months) we will: 

• Review the Schedule of Delegation to ensure appropriate levels of approval and accountability.
• Review University Charter, Statutes and Ordinances and harmonise these with our policies, where relevant.
• Review and where necessary, revise, the University’s Standing Orders to reflect changes to processes, personnel and organisational structures.
• Embed ongoing development opportunities for lay members to maximise the benefit of their skills to the University.

Ownership:  University Secretary.