EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW OF COUNCIL REPORT ON INTERVIEWS WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS AND ATTENDANCE AT CHAIR S ADVISORY GROUP AND COUNCIL MEETINGS

Transcription

1 EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW OF COUNCIL REPORT ON INTERVIEWS WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS AND ATTENDANCE AT CHAIR S ADVISORY GROUP AND COUNCIL MEETINGS Professor Noel O Sullivan (SBE) was asked to develop and execute a methodology whereby the views of a cross-section of Council members could be sought regarding the effectiveness of Council. He was also invited to attend and observe the meeting of the Chair s Advisory Group (CAG) on 29 th March and also the council meeting on 30 th March. This document sets out how this exercise progressed including an explanation of the research methodology used, an analysis of members interview responses on a question-byquestion basis and Professor O Sullivan s observations on both the meeting of CAG and the subsequent Council meeting. The document begins with Professor O Sullivan s summary of the key findings from his work. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Council members are extremely passionate about the university and its success. This is very clear from the interviews undertaken as well as from observing discussions at both the CAG meeting and the subsequent Council meeting. Members of Council are very clear as to their role and responsibilities. There is a strong view that the size of Council is too large and this impairs its effectiveness, especially in relation to discussions at Council meetings. The challenge here appears to be a need to balance the desirability of having a Council that maximises representativeness while at the same time ensuring that meetings achieve their objectives. There is some confusion around the role of Council meetings. Most members believe meetings are very good at approving and ratification but are less useful in terms of open discussion and debate. The appropriate balance between approval and debate for Loughborough needs some thought. Most members feel that the away-days are very useful, especially providing more time for substantial discussion. Members are unanimous in the high regard they have for the Chair of Council and the way he chairs meetings. Key components of this are his open tone, his desire to seek consensus, and his encouragement for members to contribute, especially if he thinks they have relevant experience/expertise on a topic. There is also very strong support for the degree of openness and transparency exhibited by the Vice Chancellor (VC) and his executive team. This is viewed by members as a very positive indication of Loughborough s culture. There is concern that the quantity of paperwork at Council meetings remains substantial. In addition, most members feel that agendas are extremely long. There is also a desire for better quality and more consistent paperwork, especially in terms of

2 better framing and contextualising issues to facilitate a more balanced and fruitful discussion at meetings. There is a division of opinion regarding the role of CAG. Those who attend CAG feel that it is an essential part of the University s governance while those who do not attend are somewhat suspicious of it and its influence on Council meetings. The challenge going forward is to alleviate non-cag members concerns with a clearer explanation and justification of CAG s membership and its supporting role vis-à-vis Council. There is broad satisfaction with the current diversity of Council though all members highlight the need for ongoing vigilance. There seems a genuine feeling amongst members that one can never do enough in this regard but that Loughborough is doing its best. However, there seems to be less information on how well the University is doing in respect of diversity across the institution with quite a number of members feeling unable to comment on this aspect of the review. There is a strong appreciation of the contribution of Council sub-committees to its effectiveness. There is a widespread belief that the delegation to sub-committees is currently appropriate and that the quality and frequency of sub-committee reports is also appropriate. THE PLANNING AND PROCESS OF INTERVIEWS WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS Professor O Sullivan was a member of the working group appointed by Council and took part in the initial deliberations where the focus of the review was discussed and decided upon. As noted elsewhere, the working group decided to focus attention on three areas: (i) the effectiveness of Council meetings including issues of size, the nature of the debate and ordering of the agenda, the relationship to the Chair s Advisory Group and the qualities of papers; (ii) issues of Equality & Diversity including oversight of the University s progress and compliance, and Council having a view to its own diversity; and (iii) the schedule of delegation and whether it is effective and enabling good governance and assuring compliance. In terms of the possible methodologies through which members views could be solicited it was agreed that it may be best if Professor O Sullivan held a series of one-to-one interviews with selected Council members. Once the focus of the review was finalised Professor O Sullivan designed a schedule of questions around which the interviews with members could be structured. Drafts of the schedule were circulated to members of the working group for comment and this resulted in 16 questions which the working group felt adequately captured the focus of the overall review. A sub-set of Working Group members selected nine members of Council who were likely to provide a representative view of the effectiveness of Council. These included the Chair of Council, the Vice-Chancellor, the President of the Students Union, an elected member of Senate, an elected member of academic staff and four lay members. Each of the selected interviewees agreed to be interviewed. Interviewees were provided with the interview

3 question schedule at least one week before the interviews so that they might have the opportunity to reflect on possible responses prior to the interview. Interviews took place during February and March. The interviews were undertaken either face-to-face, via Skype or on the telephone, depending on the location and availability of members. The interviews lasted between 45 minutes and one hour and fifty minutes. A key concern for members of the Working Group was that each Council member wishing to contribute to the review should have the opportunity to do so. Therefore, at the Council meeting on 30 th March, during which Council was updated on progress of the review, an invitation was also issued to Council members not already interviewed to contribute to the review. As a result of this, two further interviews were scheduled with lay members of Council. These were conducted on 31 st March and on 26 th April. INTERVIEW FINDINGS Question 1: What is your understanding of the role of Council in the University s governance structure and what do you perceive is your role as a member of Council? Each member understood the role of Council in the university s governance structure and were clear as to what their role as members means. All members answered this question in terms of understanding that Council is the main organ of governance with a specific role around the university s strategic direction. Some went further and sought to separate out what this overriding role encompasses. Examples of this were: (i) the need to challenge the executive; (ii) the need to ensure compliance with external requirements (e.g. HEFCE, etc.); and (iii) overseeing the long-term sustainability of the university. Almost all members felt that they are on Council to give their own views and are not representing any particular constituency of the University. Lay members were also keen to emphasise the skill-sets and experience they feel they bring to the role. Question 2: What do you believe is the purpose of Council meetings? There was a diversity of views on the purpose of council meetings. At one level, members felt that meetings represent the forum at which the role of Council is actually performed that is, discussing and making decisions, satisfying regulatory obligations and looking ahead strategically. An important aspect of this is that Council meetings are seen to bring together a number of the university s constituents/stakeholders, notably senior executives of the University and lay members with specific skills/expertise. There was a general acceptance that meetings provide a valuable forum for these different constituencies to interact and in this way to provide strong direction to the institution. At another level there was significant variation on whether members felt that these objectives are currently being achieved. In relation to this, there was relative unanimity that Council meetings are very effective at satisfying the University s reporting obligations. However, there was a significant difference of opinion around its effectiveness as a source of debate/discussion. (This issue will be covered more specifically when reporting on the

4 responses to question 5 later). In relation to this specific question, however, there appears some confusion as to the extent to which Council is/should be a forum for debate. At least two lay members posed the question as to what does Council itself perceive as the role of meetings is it largely a forum to endorse and ratify or is it a forum for genuine debate? A couple of members wondered whether four meetings per annum are sufficient. This reflected the very full agendas and the significant amount of ratification needed to satisfy Council s regulatory requirements and the consequent squeezing of discussion time as a result of this. Question 3: Do you believe that the current size of Council (30 members) is appropriate and effective? In particular, do you believe that the current size provides sufficient opportunity for all members to actively participate in Council discussions and decision-making? This question attracted a lot of comment. There were essentially three views on this. One view is that, while the size of Council at Loughborough is larger than Councils at other universities, such a size is consistent with the culture of involvement and representativeness that Loughborough embodies. This then allows greater ownership of Council decisions. Members supporting this view also argued that Loughborough needs a larger Council so as to populate the sub-committees which are fundamental to the effective operation of its Council. At the other extreme was a view, supported by many lay members, suggesting Council is currently too large to operate effectively. Some parallels were drawn with boards in the private sector but no-one argued that Council should be exactly similar in size as there is a clear understanding that the governance of a university is very different. In between there was a view that it is indeed too large and some careful thought has to be given to what is the appropriate size. There were suggestions that, in instances where members are elected/selected by constituencies within the University, why is more than one member necessary? There was also a suggestion that such a large size makes debate and discussion extremely difficult. A number of members related the issue of size back to the previous point about the expected role of Council in that having such a large Council undermines the extent of debate and discussion. A number of members were unclear as to who is on Council. They suggested that, at Council meetings, it is not obvious who are members and who are in attendance. There seems further confusion as to whether those in attendance, but not actually members, are able to contribute to Council discussions. Question 4: Do you believe that Council meetings are effectively structured, conducted and chaired to facilitate a good level of informed participation and discussion? There was unanimity that Council meetings are extremely well structured and chaired. There was widespread praise for the current Chair in terms of his tone, the efficiency and professionalism with which meetings are conducted, and his eagerness to ensure everyone who wishes to contribute to discussions has a chance to do so. A number of members commented on the Chair s desire to try and ensure members with relevant expertise are involved in specific discussions. A number of members also commented on the Chair s

5 preference for consensus and the absence of a need to vote on issues. This was seen as a very positive reflection of how Loughborough does things. A number of members commented on the size of agendas and the relative lack of time available to discuss each topic. There was some inconsistency in responses regarding the positioning of agenda items with some suggesting that the most important items appear early while others did not feel this is the case. A number of members also highlighted the large numbers of items that are starred and/or for information only. Even though this means that each item does not require meeting time, at least one member raised the question as to why there are so many starred items and whether these could be agreed outside the formal meeting in order to allow meeting time to focus on the larger issues. A few members suggested that perhaps meetings are too well structured at the expense of more impromptu discussion. There was a view that perhaps there is a particular emphasis on the University meeting its obligations and less emphasis on strategic thinking or critical discussion. There were different views in relation to the question of informed participation and discussion. A number of members felt that different Council members may have different levels of information and that influences the nature of discussion at meetings. Those members making this point identified a number of constituencies who are expected to have different levels of information. At the extremes it was suggested that the executive and members of CAG are likely to have much more detailed information than, for example, non-cag laymembers. A consequence of this is that the latter may feel reluctant to contribute to discussions at Council in the knowledge that anything they may wish to contribute is likely to have already been raised and discussed elsewhere, specifically at CAG. A couple of members acknowledged that it is very difficult for each member to have similar knowledge in any case. The specific example used in this respect were matters of finance and audit where members without finance/audit experience feel that they just have to rely on more qualified colleagues to participate in such a discussion. One experienced member acknowledged the difficulty for the university in ensuring that all members are equally informed and this may be a particular issue for newer members. That member asked whether it would be feasible to have some sort of a council newsletter and/or a new member buddying system to help overcome this potential information disadvantage. Question 5: Are you satisfied with the current extent and nature of debate at Council meetings? Do you believe that, when Council is discussing specific items, it is provided with the right information including on the potential broader impact of the decisions being taken? This question attracted a lot of comment. The nature of the responses linked with the previous responses relating to the role of council meetings (question 2) and council size (question 3). There was a dichotomy in responses with most CAG members expressing a

6 large degree of satisfaction with the nature of debate while non-cag lay members were less satisfied. In terms of dissatisfaction, most cited the number of items on the agenda and the consequent pressure on time for discussion. A number of members suggested that one way around this is to focus meetings on fewer substantial issues maybe even single issue meetings. Others felt that there is little debate as such, rather a relatively small number of people making points. Some members suggested that the nature of the paperwork does not adequately frame issues in a way that facilitates debate (an example cited in relation to this is that the paperwork rarely presents options, rather outlining one suggested way forward). Others highlighted the difficulties for those with less insight/information (e.g. non-cag members) from engaging in a debate when they may feel at an information disadvantage i.e. perceived barriers to entry to a debate). A number of members highlighted an important relationship between Council meetings and the workings of Council sub-committees and feel that this may be one way where Loughborough s apparent lack of debate and discussion at Council meetings may be compensated for. A number of members acknowledged that most of the heavy lifting takes place at sub-committee level. Those members who also sit on sub-committees felt that significant debate does take place in sub-committees and those not on sub-committees felt confident (and at least, hopeful) that significant debate occurs there. In other words, both those members involved in sub-committees and those who are not all expressed confidence that much valuable debate takes place in sub-committees. Most members identified the difference between Council meetings and away-days in terms of the quality of debate and discussion. Away-days are seen as refreshing and presenting greater opportunities for debate and discussion. Some members also felt the value of awaydays in allowing the different constituents of Council to get to know each other better and felt that this also serves to enhance effectiveness. A number of members wondered whether an additional away-day may be useful to facilitate more open discussion. Members were not especially concerned about a lack of consideration of the potential broader impact of Council decisions. However, as discussed in relation to the responses to question 7 below, there were concerns about how well the accompanying paperwork frames and contextualises issues. Question 6: Do you think that Council is currently discussing the right issues and, if not, what should it be discussing/not discussing? There was a reasonable level of consistency in the responses to this question with most members of the view that Council is discussing the right issues. One member commented that if Council is not discussing the right issues then matters would emerge in AOB but this does not typically happen. Of the different responses, one member felt that Council should be discussing bigger issues, for example, what sort of a university does Loughborough seek to be? while another member said it is quite difficult to know what is not being discussed.

7 Question 7: What do you think about the quality of paperwork currently employed at Council meetings? Are you satisfied with the nature, use and usefulness of executive summaries/cover papers accompanying Council meeting papers? Do you feel that you are sufficiently informed to participate in discussions and to make the decisions you need to make? If not, how could it be improved? Almost all members were of the opinion that there is too much paperwork and many also felt that the way papers are presented is not informative enough and are typically not well written, especially for non-academic members. One member observed that there seems little consistency in how papers are structured and presented and wondered if there is a need for a final gatekeeper to help provide better consistency around how papers are presented at meetings. There was broad support for the current use of coversheets although it was also observed that they are not always well utilised with too many sections being classified as N/A when this classification is not always appropriate. A major source of criticism was the absence of sufficient context and framing in the paperwork which might facilitate more effective debate. Often a single option is presented, essentially for ratification, rather than different scenarios where actual choices need to be discussed and decisions made. One member wondered whether the delivery of papers could be updated, specifically through the use of secure apps rather than always having to go through the current process of accessing them online via the university s webpage. The view seemed to be that, technologically, Loughborough may be somewhat behind the corporate sector in terms of ease of secure access for members. Question 8: Are you familiar with the membership of the Chair s Advisory Group (CAG) and what is your understanding of the role of the CAG vis-à-vis Council? All members were aware of CAG and most were broadly familiar with its membership. However, the precise membership is not known by everyone with some members viewing it only as a discussion between the Chair of Council and the VC and the executive team. Almost all members understood that CAG is an opportunity for the Chair of Council to receive an update from the VC and his executive team in the presence of the sub-committee chairs. Quite a number of members appreciated the importance of this in helping the Chair to be in a position to more effectively Chair the main meeting. Question 9:

8 From your experience, do the discussions at the CAG enhance subsequent Council meeting deliberations? Do you feel that the relationship between the CAG and the non-cag members of Council could be enhanced in any way? Almost all members felt that the discussions at CAG are perceived to have a significant influence on Council meeting deliberations. The Chair, VC and most members of CAG who were interviewed felt that CAG is essential for council effectiveness as it facilitates a significant discussion between the Chair, the chairs of sub-committees and the executive. Furthermore, a number of non-cag lay members fully understood and supported the rationale of CAG and the benefits of such discussions prior to Council meetings. It was also reiterated by the Chair, VC and other members of CAG that CAG does not make decisions and is nothing more than a chance for a more wholesome discussion of the issues before the Council meeting. The main concern around CAG relates to a perception that CAG may serve to provide some Council members with more information, insights and context than non-cag members. It was made very clear by some non-cag members that they feel that this situation does influence Council meetings since there is either an actual or a perceived knowledge imbalance between those members who attend CAG and the non-cag members. This then may have the impact of discouraging non-cag members from participating in discussions at full Council as they may feel that their contributions are less valued and/or not as wellinformed. It is acknowledged that at the beginning of each Council meeting the Chair spends some time summarising the discussions at CAG. While this is seen as being very helpful most non-cag members feel that this does not adequately serve to bridge the perceived information gap (and the implications of this information gap) between CAG and non-cag members. Question 10: What are your thoughts on the current diversity on Council (i.e. in relation to gender, race, age, disability)? Do you believe that Council is sufficiently pro-active in furthering equality and diversity both in relation to its own membership and across the university? The responses to this question were quite uniform. All members were relatively happy with the current levels of gender diversity and some also commented on their satisfaction regarding the diversity of age on Council. However, all members also felt that Loughborough cannot be complacent so the issue needed continuous monitoring. There was more concern regarding the diversity of race and disability on Council but most felt that it is difficult to know how this can be addressed. There seems to be an appreciation that Loughborough may be no better or no worse than others in this respect. A number of members mentioned that the overriding view is the need to have diversity of skills and then to try and ensure that the specified diversities are addressed when the nomination subcommittee considers new appointments. Question 11:

9 Do you feel that you have sufficient information to be confident the University is fulfilling its equality and diversity obligations regarding staff and students, and if not, what do you think you need in order to effectively meet those obligations? Some members felt that it was difficult for them to comment on this question. This seemed partly due to a perception that there is not a lot of diversity information shared with Council, even though one member recalled that it did feature at one away-day. On the other hand, a couple of members mentioned that diversity is consistently on the agenda. In particular, the VC highlighted the findings of the recent staff survey where the results showed Loughborough as a place where staff did not feel discriminated against in any way. However, he also stressed that, while this is very comforting, Council needs to continue to ask this question and ensure processes are in place to adequately monitor progress. One member did suggest that diversity data needs to be broken down in terms of Schools/departments as there is considerable diversity between different parts of the institution. Question 12: Do you believe that the membership of Council has the necessary diversity of experience and expertise to effectively carry out its role? Most members believed that Council currently has the necessary diversity of experience and expertise to effectively carry out its role. There was confidence that the nominations subcommittee actively monitors and assesses current skill needs using a skills matrix. Indeed, this was confirmed to be the case by those nomination committee members interviewed. Interestingly, one member felt unable to answer the question as they were not aware of the skills and experience of other members while another member felt that when recruiting lay members, too much emphasis seemed to be on corporates and perhaps not enough on those with external higher education experience. One member discussed the difficulties in recruiting those with the appropriate levels of skills and experience who can actively participate in Council and its sub-committees. This is especially difficult when a large number of members live some way from Loughborough. That member stressed the need for members not only to possess the expertise but also the time to engage and the importance for Loughborough of getting that balance correct for Council to operate effectively. Question 13: Do you believe that there is a clear and appropriate system of delegation from Council to its various sub-committees? All members felt that there seemed to be a clear and appropriate system of delegation from Council to its various sub-committees. There was very strong support for the operation of Council sub-committees with a clear recognition that much of the work (or heavy lifting) of council happens in its sub-committees. Those interviewed who serve on sub-committees confirmed this and all were of the view that their respective sub-committees work well. Question 14:

10 Do you fully understand the work each sub-committee does and the decisions they make? Are you satisfied with the current level, frequency and quality of reporting from sub-committees to Council? Those members who serve on sub-committees were very clear as to the role and responsibility of their respective sub-committees. Those not serving on sub-committees are somewhat less clear but are still confident that other colleagues have things in hand. In terms of reporting, most members felt that the quality and frequency of reporting seems appropriate even though some wondered whether all sub-committees report with equal frequency. One observation made was that often reports from sub-committees are starred items so involve little or no Council discussion. Furthermore, as reports from sub-committees are effectively agreed Council members do not get a feel for the level of discussion prior to agreement and especially the extent of disagreement in the underlying discussions. The question posed by this member was whether there is a need for the sub-committee chairs to report briefly on the nature of the discussion in addition to the agreed report? Question 15: Are there any issues currently debated at length at Council meetings which you believe may be better discussed at sub-committees (or vice versa)? There was nothing obvious that members could identify in response to this question. However, there was comment along the lines that Council needs to ensure it stays focused on the main strategic issues and not get drawn into too much operational detail. There was also a suggestion that the delegation to sub-committees needs to be constantly monitored so that Council is not doing what sub-committees should be doing, even though that balance seems satisfactory at the moment. Question 16: Is there any other aspect of the effectiveness (or non-effectiveness) of Council you would like to bring to the attention of the Review Committee? The vast majority of members were of the view that the current review seems to be focusing on the key issues. Notwithstanding, a number of members did identify issues worthy of reflection going forward. These are: Greater clarification of the accountability of Council members The opportunity for lay members to have either one-to-one discussions with the Chair or perhaps the Chair meeting lay members as a group, maybe on an annual basis. More thought on how the skills of lay members could be better utilised. How does Loughborough s effectiveness compare with the effectiveness of other university Councils? ATTENDANCE AT A CHAIR S ADVISORY GROUP MEETING

11 I attended the meeting of the Chair s Advisory Group (CAG) in London on the evening of 29 th March. As is custom, this meeting is held on the evening before the full Council meeting. The meeting was chaired by the Chair of Council and also in attendance were the Treasurer, Chairs of the Human Resource Committee and the Audit Committee, the VC, the Chief Operating Officer and the Director of Finance. Even though at least two members were unable to attend CAG, and one of these is female, I was struck by the lack of gender diversity on CAG. The main business of the meeting was to facilitate a discussion between the Chair of Council and the sub-committee chairs and the VC and his executive team on key agenda items appearing on the following day s agenda. As the name suggests this was essentially an opportunity for the Chair to better understand the issues on the agenda and to avail of both the specific lay-member and executive knowledge present to better understand the issues. It is important to point out that this was an advisory discussion and at no time during the meeting were decisions made. At the Council meeting the following morning, I felt that the Chair accurately summarised the topics that were discussed at CAG. My impression of the CAG meeting is that it represented a genuine opportunity for the Chair to get up to speed on key parts of the Council meeting agenda. In doing so, the meeting facilitated substantive discussions between the Chair, chairs of sub-committees and the executive. I felt these discussions represented some significant challenge to the executive. It is also worth noting that at points during the meeting the VC and his executive team also sought advice from the Chair (and other lay-members present) on specific issues. It should also be noted that there were a small number of instances where very sensitive issues were discussed and it is clear to me that airing such discussions would not be appropriate for a full meeting of Council. In summary, I believe that CAG has an important role in helping the effectiveness of Council but, based on the earlier interview findings, the challenge going forward is to alleviate non-cag members concerns with a clearer explanation and justification of CAG s membership and its role vis-à-vis Council. My feeling is that CAG is of sufficient importance to have a more formal role in Council governance. ATTENDANCE AT A COUNCIL MEETING I attended the full Council meeting on 30 th March in London. This was especially interesting as it allowed me to put some of the interview responses in context, specifically those responses relating to Council meetings. My observations on the meeting are as follows: (i) This was a very well run and well organised meeting. It covered a large number of issues in an effective and efficient manner. The discussions were very professional and constructive and undertaken in a very collegial and friendly manner. It also struck me as being a very positive meeting environment. (ii) The first thing to notice was the size of the meeting. I appreciate that not all present are members and a few of us were just observing. However, it was a large gathering and I began to better understand the views of those members I interviewed who expressed concern about the size of Council and the potential impact of this on the effectiveness of Council meetings.

12 (iii) A further observation related to composition, specifically who present were actually members of Council? Apart from those of us observing and the three PVCs (all three of whom had vital contributions to make), I struggled to make the distinctions between members and non-members. This was further confounded when there seemed no particular bar on those who are not members from contributing to discussions. (iv) A main issue arising from the interviews relates to the size of meeting agendas. The agenda on 30 th March had about 22 items (excluding the starred ones). For a three hour meeting this seems quite a lot of business to work through. In fairness, many of the items did not need significant amounts of time and the items that needed additional time received it. Furthermore, I was not aware that discussion was in any way curtailed everyone wishing to contribute to the discussions were allowed to. To a certain extent this showed how efficient and effective the meeting was but, on the other hand, it is a lot of business to cover in a relatively short period of time. (v) As noted by most of the interview participants, there is a substantial amount of paper to work through in preparation for Council meetings. This meeting seemed no exception with a substantial amount of accompanying documentation. Even though I felt that the paperwork was substantial, in view of the number of agenda items covered, I am not sure it was unreasonable. However, I did feel that the nature of the paperwork suggests more emphasis on providing information/getting items approved rather than inviting discussion and debate. This links in with the views of a number of interview participants who felt that accompanying paperwork needed to contextualise items better in order to better facilitate discussion. (vi) I felt that one of the most important items on the agenda was the discussion of the University s finances. In his introduction to this topic the Treasurer spent some time setting out both the broader higher education and the specific Loughborough contexts around income and expenditure projections over the next four years. At the heart of these projections was a plan for significant investment which was deemed necessary for Loughborough to seek to retain its leading position in the sector. I felt that the Treasurer quite nicely set this item up for a full and frank discussion around what Loughborough seeks to achieve over the short to medium term and how best to finance it. However, the subsequent discussion never really engaged with this bigger picture, rather consisting of a number of members making points, largely based on the accompanying paperwork. At the conclusion of the discussion it was not obvious to me where the discussion had actually gone apart from appearing to broadly accept the plans outlined in the paperwork. I felt that this matched some of the observations I had earlier picked up from interviews whereby members suggested a lack of significant debate on key issues. Reflecting on this item, I wonder whether it would have been more appropriate (and possibly more effective) if it had been supported with a presentation from the Treasurer and/or the Director of Finance. Indeed, due to its significance both financially and strategically for the University, perhaps it merited a more significant discussion aside from a fairly packed normal meeting agenda. Even though it was essentially a financial issue, it does have implications for almost everything the University seeks to do.

13 (vii) Having observed a Council meeting and having listened to members views on the potential tensions between the Council meeting s roles of approval/ratification and debate I think it may be worthwhile for Council to reflect on this and agree an appropriate balance. There is a demand from members for more debate and discussion, especially around key strategic issues. On the other hand, meeting agendas are quite packed, largely due to the significant amount of approval/ratification that is required in the university sector. At the same time, despite the size of agendas, it is clear that Loughborough does effectively cover the ground at meetings. I have not had the opportunity to observe an away-day but, as indicated by members through the interviews, perhaps there is scope to utilise them for more wholesome debate and discussion.