Senate Review 2006

In 2005 the University Court considered a Statement of Primary Responsibilities of the University Court, which had been produced in response to the Committee on University Chairmen Guide on University Governance. The latter indicated that the governing body should keep its effectiveness under regular review and that not less than every five years it should undertake a formal and rigorous evaluation of its own effectiveness, and that of its committees, and ensure that a parallel review was undertaken of the Senate/Academic Board and its committees.

In approving the move to establish three academic Colleges in 2003, the Senate agreed that it would be appropriate to review the composition of the Senate to ensure that it was adequately representative of academic disciplines. This latter review was deferred until College structures had become embedded within the University structure.

In view of the above, the Senate (2 March 2005) established a Working Group to review the effectiveness of the Senate.

The Working Group submitted two reports to the Senate in 2006, including 26 recommendations, which were approved. The 26 recommendations can be accessed below

Full details of the review, its outcomes and full recommendations are provided in the two Reports, which can be accessed from the following links:

Senate Effectiveness Review Recommendations 2006

The following recommendations of the Senate Effectiveness Review Working Group were approved by the Senate in January and May 2006.

Recommendation 1:

That a Senate Business Committee be established comprising the Senior Vice-Principal (Chair), the Senate Assessors on the JPFEC (see Recommendation 11 below), the University Secretary, the President of the Students’ Association and the Conveners of the following committees: University Committee on Teaching and Learning; Student Recruitment and Admissions Committee; Academic Standards Committees; University Committee on Research, Income Generation and Commercialisation; Information Strategy Committee. The primary role of the Senate Business Committee would be to agree Senate Agendas for approval by the Principal.

Recommendation 2

That, in order to engage Senate in open debate and to inform future policy development by sub‑committees for subsequent approval by the Senate, at least one topic should be identified (possibly at the start of each academic year) for discussion of a major strategic issue at each Senate meeting. This would not preclude such topics being included on the agenda ad hoc in response to, in particular, national consultations and major issues that emerged during the course of an academic year that the University should address. [Topics would be suggested by the Senate Business Committee, which would also decide, as deemed appropriate, whether an external speaker (e.g. from the Scottish Funding Council, the Scottish Executive, Universities Scotland, the Higher Education Academy) should be invited to address the Senate on a topic of current interest or debate within the HE Sector]

Recommendation 3:

That, at least once a year, the Senior Vice-Principal, the Heads of College, the other Vice‑Principals and the University Secretary should submit and present a brief report for consideration by the Senate, the timing of such reports to be determined by the Senate Business Committee in preparing Senate agendas.

Recommendation 4:

That Senate Assessors should introduce items that they had placed on an Agenda in regard to issues discussed or to be discussed at the University Court and/or the Joint Planning Finance and Estates Committee.

Recommendation 5:

(i) That four Standing Meetings of the Senate should be held each year at 2.00 p.m. on the following Wednesdays, the timing of which would enable business to be referred to, or information exchanged between, the University Court and the JPFEC in a timely manner:

November (22 November in 2006)
end-February/early March (28 February in 2007)
early May (2 May in 2007)
mid-June (13 June in 2007)

(ii) That tea/coffee and sandwiches should be made available at each Senate meeting, from 1.30 p.m. to allow Senate members to engage informally with colleagues prior to each Senate meeting.

In approving (i) above, the Senate agreed that the Standing Orders of the Senatus Academicus should provide for meetings of the Senate to be held at any time at the instance of the Principal or on a requisition signed by ten or more members of the Senate, and should stipulate the notice required for holding any such meeting.

Recommendation 6:

That an increased range of business currently submitted to the Senate for formal approval be devolved to other Committees or for Executive action by individuals, as indicated in Appendix D.

Recommendation 7:

That the decisions taken in regard to business listed in Appendix D should be posted on a Senate Bulletin Board (available to members of the University community on the web, with staff being informed of new items via ‘dept-info’); and that any member of Senate should be permitted, within 14 days of a decision being posted (28 days in July or August), to request that an item be referred to the next full meeting of Senate for discussion. Items not challenged within that time period would then be taken as approved, with a single hard copy being retained as an annex to the formal Minute of the next Senate meeting.

Recommendation 8:

That the proposed Bulletin Board should also include a range of business, as specified in Appendix D, which is currently reported to the Senate for information.

Recommendation 9:

That the Senate membership should comprise the following:

(a) Ex officiis

Principal (Convener)
Senior Vice-Principal
Heads of College (3)
Other Vice-Principals (3)
Heads of School (12)
College Directors of Teaching & Learning (3)
College Directors of Research (3)
Heads of Graduate Schools (3)
Conveners of the Academic Standards Committees (2)
Directors of Undergraduate Programmes (7, one of whom is currently the Convener of the ASC(Ug))
The University Librarian

In addition, holders of Established Chairs would retain their existing right to membership pending the approval of a new Ordinance (Recommendation 17 below refers).

(b) Elected Members

76 teaching and research (including honorary and part-time) staff (i.e. approximately twice the number of ex officio members excluding current holders of Established Chairs) elected approximately pro rata by, and on the basis of, the total electorate within each School, to serve for a four-year period, with half retiring every second year and with retiring members eligible for re-election for one further four-year period.

[Note: It was agreed that Single Transferable Vote (STV) be used to ensure an adequate spread of disciplines and grades among the elected members. This would ensure that if, for example, three seats were to be filled within a School at any election, any grouping of 25% + 1 within that School would obtain representation].

That a decision regarding student membership of the Senate be deferred until the Working Group has received and considered proposals from the Students’ Association (Recommendation 16 below refers).

Recommendation 10:

That, in order to ensure representation from each College, nominations for Senate Assessors should be sought from, and elected by, Senate members within each College; and that, in order to ensure such College representation, nominations to fill future vacant posts would be sought on this basis as and when vacancies arose. [If approved, this would result in nominations being obtained only from members of the Senate within the College of Physical Sciences to fill the next vacancy, as there was currently no Senate Assessor from that College].

Recommendation 11:

That the Senate should recommend to the University Court that the composition of the JPFEC be revised to provide for the appointment of three Senate Assessors, one from each college.

Recommendation 12

That, of the six Senate assessors on the University Court, one should be nominated from and elected by the Established and Personal Professors who were members of Senate within each College, and one which should be nominated from and elected by the Readers and Lecturers who were members of Senate within each College. It was noted that this would be contingent on the University Court, following its Effectiveness Review, recommending no change to the number of Senate Assessors on the University Court; and would required to be revisited if any such changes were proposed by the University Court.

Recommendation 13:

That Assessors currently elected by the Senate to the Court or the JPFEC should continue in that capacity for the remaining duration of their assessorship, and should continue to be members of the Senate for the duration of their assessorship if they ceased to be eligible for membership of the Senate if the proposed composition in Recommendation 9 (a) and (b) were approved.

Recommendation 14:

That, if Recommendation 9 were approved, a Resolution be drafted in regard to the number and distribution of elected members of the Senate, pending the promotion of a University Court Ordinance and subsequent approval by the Privy Council in regard to the composition of the Senate; and that, for the changes to be effective from the next academic year, the draft Resolution be considered by the University Court on 7 February 2006 and by the Senate on 1 March 2006, which would allow the Resolution to be passed by the University Court on 21 March 2006.

In regard to the number and distribution of elected members of the Senate, Senate agreed that the distribution proposed by the Working Group in Appendix E to its First Report should be reviewed by the Senior Vice-Principal after concern was expressed at the relatively high number of seats proposed for the School of Medicine. A proposed distribution of seats by School based on the number of FTE staff and students in each School was subsequently agreed by the Senior Vice-Principal and the Heads of College, and was included in the draft Resolution to the University Court. The Senate approved the revised distribution at its meeting on 3 May 2006. See Appendix B to the Working Group’s Second Report to the Senate.

Recommendation 15:

The Group agreed that all new members of Senate should receive some form of induction into the history of the Senate and its role, and the roles of individual constituencies (e.g. elected members, Senate Assessors and student members in terms of their electorate, and student members).

Recommendation 16:

That the student membership of Senate should, in future, include the duly elected post-holders of the Students’ Association, as under:

President of the Students’ Association
Vice-President (Education & Employability)
Junior Vice-President (Education & Employability)
The Area of Study Conveners
One postgraduate representative from each of the three Colleges

In addition, the Vice-Principal (Advice & Support) would continue to be in attendance at the Senate.

Recommendation 17:

That the Senate be asked to approve a draft Ordinance (Appendix A), but in doing so it should decide whether it wished current holders of Established Chairs to retain their right of membership of the Senate ex officio by the inclusion in paragraph 4, of the words italicised below:

4. This Ordinance shall not affect the rights of those persons who are members of the Senatus Academicus by virtue of Section 5 of the Universities (Scotland) Act 1858 and Section 7 of the Universities (Scotland) Act 1966.

Note: the Senate (3 May 2006) agreed that the new Ordinance should not provide for holders of Established chairs to be members of the Senate ex officio.

Recommendation 18:

That the Senate be asked to approve, for its part, a draft Resolution (Appendix B) concerning the Election of Readers and Lecturers to the Senatus Academicus.

Recommendation 19:

That the Standing Orders of the Senatus Academicus be revised, as highlighted by track-changes in Appendix C.

Recommendation 20:

That the UCTL and the ASCs operate effectively and that the reporting mechanisms that Senate had approved on 25 January 2006 (i.e. with items being placed on a Senate “bulletin board”, as deemed appropriate) would allow the Senate effectively to monitor and evaluate the performance of these Committees.

Recommendation 21:

That the Senate Students’ Progress and Academic Appeals Committees operate effectively and that the current reporting mechanisms for these Committees are appropriate and allow the Senate effectively to monitor and evaluate the performance of these Committees.

Recommendation 22:

That the current remits of the Postgraduate Strategy Advisory Group, the Student Recruitment & Admissions Committee and the Academic Standards Committee (Postgraduate) should be reviewed, to ensure that it was clear which committees were responsible for academic governance and oversight of strategic (including policy) direction and development, and where institutional responsibility should be placed for management and executive action, particularly in regard to postgraduate recruitment.

Recommendation 23:

That the Honorary Degrees Committee operates effectively and that the current procedures for the consideration and approval of nominations and the reporting mechanisms are appropriate and allow the Senate effectively to monitor and evaluate the performance of this Committee.

Recommendation 24:

That the Student Disciplinary Committee operates effectively and that the current reporting mechanisms for student disciplinary cases, including those considered by the Student Disciplinary Committee, are appropriate and allow the Senate effectively to monitor and evaluate the performance of the University’s student disciplinary processes.

Recommendation 25:

That it should be for the Conveners of relevant committees, working with Officers and the Senate Business Committee, as appropriate, to determine the items that should be referred to the Senate (via the Senate web-site, where appropriate) from committees of the Senate and joint committees of the Senate and Court.

Recommendation 26:

That the Senate Business Committee be given delegated authority to approve nominations (by Heads of College, where appropriate) for membership of Committees of the Senate, Joint Committees of the Senate and Court, and Committees of the Court with Senate representatives.