The general resolutions read as follows:
(1) That this House approve the proposal that there should be a single body (`the Council') to replace the Hebdomadal Council and the General Board, with the role set out in section 2.2 of the annexe to the second report of the Joint Working Party on Governance (`the annexe' and `the report' respectively).
(2) That this House approve the proposal that the Council should be composed as set out in section 3.2 of the annexe.
(3) That this House approve the proposal that the Council should have four main committees with the roles set out in sections 2.3--2.6 of the annexe.
(4) That this House approve the proposal that the four main committees should be composed as set out in sections 3.3--3.6 of the annexe.
(5) That this House approve the proposals for the appointment of Pro-Vice-Chancellors with defined special responsibilities broadly as set out in para. 28 of the report.
(6) That this House approve the proposal that there should be three science divisions as set out in sections 5.4--5.6 of the annexe, with delegated powers and ex officio representation as set out in paras. 38--54 of the report.
(7) That this House approve the proposal that there should be two arts divisions as set out in sections 5.1 and 5.2 of the annexe, with delegated powers and ex officio representation as proposed in paras. 38--54 of the report.
(8) That this House approve the proposal that there should be a single arts division as set out in section 5.3 of the annexe, with delegated powers and ex officio representation as proposed in paras. 38--54 of the report.
(9) That this House approve the proposal that the divisions should operate broadly as set out in sections 7 and 8 of the annexe.
(10) That this House approve the proposals for the academic services set out in paras. 59--66 of the report.
(11) That this House approve the proposals for the office of Vice-Chancellor set out in para. 71 (k) of the report.
(12) That this House approve the proposals for the composition and role of Congregation set out in para. 71 (l) of the report.
(13) That this House approve the proposal that there should be a review of the operation of the new governance structure after five years, with the remit and composition set out in para. 71 (m) of the report.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
On receipt of its report at the beginning of 1998, a Joint Working Party was charged with taking forward its discussion of governance. This Working Party accepted the basic critique of the existing structure but made some significant modifications and elaborations to the Commission's proposals. The Working Party's first substantial report was discussed at General Board and Council and then put through a very extensive process of consultation (including a discussion in Congregation in December 1998). That consultation revealed broad basic support in the University and the Working Party took account of criticisms and suggestions made in its second report. This second report was discussed in General Board and Council in late Hilary 1999.
These matters have therefore been under scrutiny and discussion since the beginning of the Commission of Inquiry in 1994. Extensive consultation undergirds the careful formulation of these broad proposals for restructuring the governance of the University. Against that background, it is encouraging to see that no alternative proposals have been put forward for debate; there are no amendments to the general resolutions.
Ordinarily, where there has been no formally notified amendment or opposition to resolutions before Congregation, they are deemed to have been passed without further vote. However, Council, following in this the opinion of the Working Party, believes that these are matters of great substance and that, notwithstanding, there should be the opportunity for all members of Congregation to debate and to vote both here and in a postal vote.
What, then, do we have before us today? We are voting on the broad structures necessary to carry a new system of governance, including the composition of a new Council and its committees. If passed, these resolutions will be converted into statute, whose text will be brought to Congregation for vote, most probably, I hope, later in this term. There will, however, be much consequential legislation before Congregation on more detailed matters over the next nine or so months.
Let me take one example: the internal organisation of divisions. Thus, we are aware that there continue to be debates in some areas over how particular units should be represented on their divisional board. The Working Party has been able to make only indicative suggestions on this. Such a matter will be dealt with in the legislation detailing the organisation of each division and one would hope that discussion among the parties would provide an agreed formula before that legislation is put. Matters of this kind may doubtless be mentioned today, but I would hope that they would not detain us greatly. There will be subsequent opportunities to debate them if necessary. Thus, Resolution (9) is that the divisions should operate broadly as set out in the main text.
Finally, let me draw your attention to the fact that Resolutions (7) and (8) are mutually exclusive—both cannot stand. They are both before you because during its consultations the Working Party detected some significant hesitation among colleagues in the arts over whether one or two divisions would be the more appropriate for them. The Working Party therefore recommended to General Board and Council that the choice should be offered. It may well be that opinion has become clearer during the intervening period. In any case, I should say that the Working Party itself distinctly preferred the two-division model.
I do not wish to diminish markedly the time available for the proper debate in this House by a long introduction. Let me try therefore to signal only a few highlights. The purpose of the new central arrangements is to provide a more transparent, streamlined, and integrated structure which is able to take key strategic decisions in a proactive way and to respond swiftly, clearly, and appropriately to individual issues and opportunities. Among the new elements in this second report now before you, let me stress three or four.
The Working Party has made a measured response to concerns in some colleges about the composition of some central bodies and it has tried to ensure an appropriate balance of interests. There are important remarks about a new resource allocation model, with incentives to income generation at the subject level while the interests of small units are protected. The very great significance of graduate studies is made much more explicit and is fully integrated within the work of the Educational Policy and Standards Committee. There are pertinent remarks on improved representation on committees, especially of women, and a requirement on the General Purposes Committee to report annually to Congregation on the progress of this.
Finally, it is specified that there will be a small number of fixed-term Pro-Vice-Chancellors with carefully defined roles, all of whom will be approved by Council, not simply appointed by the Vice-Chancellor.
The devolution of much appropriate planning and executive responsibility to a number of divisions and beyond is the necessary twin of a reform in the centre. While the exact pattern of internal divisional structure may vary, it must be expected that operational responsibility and resources will be delegated as much as possible to the units comprising the division. The text in front of you elaborates the respective roles of the centre, the divisions, and the units within the divisions, with a guiding principle of subsidiarity. It also specifies more clearly the relations of colleges to the divisions.
There must be genuine delegation of resources to divisions and beyond, but the coherence and prosperity of the University require that this is done against an approved plan within a context of transparency of financial flows. Furthermore, the resolutions before you take account of the opinions expressed in the biosciences during consultation and they therefore propose a fifth division (somewhat composite in terms of science and social science)—fifth, that is, if it be the will of this House that there should be two divisions in the arts.
The proposals do still maintain the overall balance between arts and sciences in the composition of the central bodies, and this is quite crucial in our view. Finally, the report specifies more refinements for the governance of academic services, with over-arching committees for each service and an overall Pro-Vice-Chancellor replacing the idea of a single committee. As for the composition and conduct of Congregation, the proposals remain those presented by the Commission of Inquiry; those on the Vice-Chancellorship repeat the changes proposed to the Commission's suggestions by the Working Party's first report.
So let me end simply by saying this. I do believe that a reform along the lines proposed today is necessary. The higher education context, both nationally and internationally, is changing rapidly. We have to defend, strengthen, and enhance our reputation and our real activity as a great international university. We have to continue to provide the environment and support that we all need in our different disciplines not merely to sustain the quality of our research and teaching, but above all to innovate. We have to act, and we have to act creatively, within a context of local regulation, financial stringency accompanied by intensifying funding complexity, and the rapid appearance of alternative forms of the organisation and delivery of higher education both nationally and worldwide. Wise and informed strategy leading to choices nimbly made will lead us forward in a higher education world that will never return to what it was fifteen, let alone thirty, years ago. I believe that the governance reform before you today is appropriate and necessary to that. Some of the new forms may be unfamiliar, but they do not, in my view, deliver the University to top-down governance and rule by placemen. The powers of Congregation remain intact. Divisional authority is explicitly vested in divisional boards; there is considerable devolution of responsibility and choice into the divisions and beyond; there is careful balance of forms of representation; the Proctors and Assessor continue in their function as tribunes of the people. We have been about the business of reform for five years; it is time to begin to conclude. I beg to move General Resolutions (1)--(13).
The Senior Proctor: Mr Vice-Chancellor, I beg to second General Resolutions (1)--(13).
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
At the outset, I believed that this could not be done. We might be able, I thought, to remedy some inefficiencies in the present system by piecemeal change, but I did not think we could make the radical changes North envisaged without losing much else that was of value. We could gain efficiency, I felt, only by introducing top-down management and losing our essential democratic character.
I have been convinced otherwise and I hope this House will agree with me and vote accordingly. Such a vote would be a vote in support of the outline of the Working Party's scheme. I hope also that members of Congregation will continue to provide ideas and suggestions on how that outline can be filled in, either by speaking in the debate today, or else by other channels. In drawing up its revised report the Working Party has found invaluable the many expressions of view that it has received, both in this House and across the University. It has been a principal aim of the Working Party to ensure that decision-making should so far as possible not be centralised.
The key idea, one of North's main proposals, is to devolve much that is now done by the General Board to the divisional boards that will represent broad faculty groupings within the University, and to equivalent bodies in the fields of Continuing Education and what we have infelicitously called academic services: libraries, museums, IT. (It would be very nice, by the way, if somebody could suggest a better name for that sector, but we have not been able to think of one.)
One advantage to this devolution is that it will bring important decisions about resources and priorities into the hands of the divisions. Everyone recognises the need for a more transparent system of resource allocation, but the devising of that is under way. With the new system, divisional budgets will still require approval from the centre, as will divisional plans, but once these are approved, divisions will be able to control their affairs much more completely than faculty boards can at present. Decisions about academic posts, for example, will become a divisional matter, though of course here the divisions will have to act together with the colleges much as the General Board at present does. In the recent revisions, the Working Party has given a great deal of thought to ensuring that the interests of colleges are appropriately heard at every stage in the process of governance, within the divisions as well as on the Council and its key committees.
We have also given much thought to small subjects and subjects which do not fit neatly into a single division. Some problems remain here to be resolved, as you, Mr Vice-Chancellor, have already said. But one concern is widely shared: whether the divisional boards will be sufficiently sympathetic to the interests of the small groups; and that has been of principal concern to us. There are two answers. First, that the Council will have to retain a watching brief, especially at the outset, to make sure that the divisions do take appropriate account of them and of their needs. But secondly, the way the divisional boards are set up is designed to inhibit any one group within a division from sweeping aside the interests of others.
The constitution of the divisional boards is loosely based on that of the traditional constitution of the General Board, though with an added feature: a college voice. So indeed is the arrangement for electing members to the Council. On the General Board, as on all the University's central committees, including the present Hebdomadal Council, anyone who fights for the interests of his or her own constituency at the expense of the University as a whole speedily loses influence and is doomed to failure. This is because people with different concerns must work together and do so with a shared interest in the success of the whole. The same will be true of the new Council. The same will be true of the divisional boards. For this reason, what matters for these new bodies is not that every group be represented for the sake of fighting its own particular corner; what matters is that every group will be able to make sure that its needs and concerns are known and can be taken due account of in the co-operative process of decision-making.
The General Board's task is getting more difficult every year. There was a time when members of the Board could be really well-informed about every branch of the University's academic activities and closely in touch with all their problems. That is almost impossible now. The General Board tries very hard and does its best, but those difficult decisions about priorities will be much better made within the divisions, where it will be easier for the members of divisional boards to be fully informed about the issues in depth.
It is therefore right that the centre should get smaller and that power should pass to colleagues in the divisions, elected by a democratic process. It is important, too, to bear in mind that the divisions will be essentially democratic bodies. They will not be the compliant courtiers of a mighty prince. Heads of division will act by consensus, as any effective head of department has to do. Moreover, they will hold office for five years at most and will be removable. A divisional head without the support of his or her board or of the faculties under that board could not be effective and would have to be removed.
What we are asking for today is the approval of this House for the proposals that outline the main structure of the new system. I therefore ask this House to support the first six resolutions and Resolutions (9)--(13) and to support either Resolution (7), for two arts divisions, or Resolution (8) for one arts division, as the House thinks best.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
Firstly, the new Council. Only ten out of twenty-three members will be elected directly by Congregation. Furthermore, there is provision for up to three co-opted members. It was only yesterday that Council determined that these must indeed be members of Congregation. Even with that change, co-optation is not appropriate to the proposed single University Council. The power of co-optation should be removed and direct election of three more members put in its place. Even then, only thirteen out of twenty-six members will have been elected by Congregation.
Second, the four major committees of Council. There will be too few elected members of Council to fill these effectively, and how members will be chosen for them is not yet clear. We need an element of representative government here too. I propose that there should be direct election by Congregation of three members to each of these four major committees.
Third, the proposed heads of divisions. This is a key feature of the proposals. The heads of divisions will have very important divisional functions, obviously enough, and they will also have ex officio seats on the new Council. Yet, amazing as it may seem, the words `heads of divisions' do not even occur anywhere in the general resolutions which are before Congregation today. So, formally speaking, those who wish to support the proposal to have heads of divisions cannot vote for it and those who oppose it cannot vote against it. I in fact support it in broad terms. But the intended method of appointment is undemocratic. The proposed procedure is contained in para. 8 of the annexe. It is that heads of divisions should be appointed by committees of five: the Vice-Chancellor, two members of Council, and two representatives of the division. The representatives of the division will thus be in a minority. The proposal should be changed to give representatives of the divisions a substantial majority. I would suggest committees of nine, somewhat as for electoral boards, with six from the division. This is essential if, as a I hope, the heads of divisions are to be accepted as truly representing the divisions which they head.
Finally, Pro-Vice-Chancellors. The proposal to appoint Pro-Vice-Chancellors with specified functions is in fact important and valuable. We need a system in which responsibilities at the centre are shared out more widely. But it follows that they ought not to be simply nominees of the Vice-Chancellor of the day; they should be appointed by a public procedure for fixed terms. At the moment it is not even clearly stated anywhere that such Pro-Vice-Chancellors must already be members of Congregation, although no doubt it is assumed. But even with such a restriction, which is obvious, the allocation of important central functions by the Vice-Chancellor to persons whom he chooses with no check other than the assent of Council is in my view not acceptable. We should adopt the rule that Pro-Vice-Chancellors may be appointed only from among the directly elected members of Council or from directly elected members of its four main committees.
Far from weakening the proposed structure, these changes, which are actually quite small and easily brought in, would greatly strengthen it. They would give democratic legitimacy to the new Council, to its four major committees, and to the heads of divisions.
To repeat: I support the broad lines of these proposals. But, because they embody a significant democratic deficit, I intend to vote against General Resolution (2) on the composition of Council; against Resolution (4) on the composition of the four main committees; and against Resolution (5) on the appointment of Pro-Vice-Chancellors. I would vote against the general resolution on heads of divisions, if there were one. I sincerely hope that the votes of Congregation will encourage reconsideration of many fundamental issues before legislation is put forward.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
Professor Millar, if I may turn to him, is anyway much too experienced a hand to turn black and much too polite to accuse his colleagues on Council of insanity. But I would like nevertheless to try to address some of the concerns he has raised. I think I can best deal with them by reference to the central principles which inform the thinking of the Joint Working Party, of which I was a member.
The first of them is the need for coherent strategic planning at the centre. There can scarcely be any dispute about that. It is a central theme of the North Report and you have referred to it yourself today, Mr Vice-Chancellor. But it has practical implications for the central structure if strategic direction is going to be effective. Not only does it mean a single Council in place of Council and the General Board, it means that heads of division need to be on Council and on its most important committees. It also means that the Vice-Chancellor, as the chief responsible officer, must be at the head of a coherent team in which he and the Council can have complete confidence. Hence the proposals for Pro-Vice-Chancellors in selected areas, since the Vice-Chancellor cannot handle everything, and for those Pro-Vice-Chancellors to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor, but only appointed with the agreement of Council. Hence, too, the need for a central voice in the appointment of heads of division and so the proposed appointing bodies chaired by the Vice-Chancellor with equal representation of Council and the relevant divisional board.
Professor Millar suggested in his article in the Oxford Magazine that all this gave `too extensive a right of patronage' to the Vice-Chancellor. But that depends, I think, on the highly unlikely conjuncture of a Vice-Chancellor with clients in his pocket and a wholly compliant Council. When we turn to the composition of Council, we find not only ten members directly elected by Congregation (or eleven if there are only four boards) but two external members to give an external perspective, themselves approved by Congregation, the Proctors and Assessor and two representatives of the Conference of Colleges: a total of seventeen or eighteen out of a maximum Council membership of twenty-six. That seems to me scarcely a structure without in-built constitutional checks.
The second principle, illustrated in the composition of Council, is representation; not so much representation through direct election by Congregation, though that is provided for of course in the case of Council and in the case of the committee nominating the Vice-Chancellor; but rather a deliberately balanced representation of the relevant interests needed in each of the central bodies, a balance which Congregation elections have sometimes failed to deliver in the past. That is why inter-collegiate bodies---the Conference, Senior Tutors, Tutors for Graduates, Estates Bursars, and the Joint Undergraduate Admissions Committee---are to be represented on Council and central committees, and in slightly increased number in response to the consultation exercise.
The same considerations underlie the proposed provisions for co-opted members, as in the case of the most important of all committees, the Planning and Resource Allocation Committee `to ensure', in the words of the Working Party, `that it adequately reflects the range of interests in the collegiate University'. It is vitally important that the central bodies are in that sense reflective, so that proposals, initiatives, warnings, protests can be channelled upwards to inform planning, resource allocation, and other activities at the centre.
The third principle of course is devolution downwards: devolution of decision-making and the necessary resources to the lowest appropriate level. No doubt other speakers will be commenting on this when we come on to the resolutions about divisions. But I mention it now because it is absolutely crucial to the proposals for the central bodies. It is what will allow them the time to concentrate on strategy and the opportunity to react constructively and quickly to plans coming up from below. It is intended to promote the maximum possible local involvement in decisions and responsibility for those decisions. At the divisional level, for example, the report makes clear that authority `must formally be vested in the divisional boards, not in the heads of divisions themselves'. Devolution of authority is essential if there is to be broad and effective participation; and it is that which prevents the structure of governance being a `centralising top-down structure', as Professor Millar has claimed. It is absolutely central to the proposals that the structure is, as Professor Matthew says in the same issue of the Oxford Magazine, `devolved as well as streamlined'.
Mr Vice-Chancellor, I hope that Congregation will agree on the need for a streamlined and devolved structure as soon as it can be put in place and that it will give its support to the resolutions.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
As the North Commission and the Working Party recognised, there is an urgent need for the University as a whole to develop strategies, to be proactive and not just to respond, often without proper consideration, to external initiatives, as the Vice-Chancellor mentioned earlier.
The central bodies need to be liberated from the micro-management of resources if they are to develop strategies, and the new divisional structure will greatly enable this. The divisions will in turn develop strategies in their own specialised areas and will manage their resources in, I believe, a democratic and transparent manner, fully involving their constituent departments.
Perhaps I can give you an example of strategic thinking which came about during the actual debate, which I feel was very democratic, Mr Vice-Chancellor, in the biosciences on the Working Party's first set of proposals. The Bioscience Research Board, with its constituent faculty boards, came to the unanimous opinion that there should be a single division of medical sciences, incorporating both pre-clinical and clinical medical departments, together with the Department of Experimental Psychology. But this apparently left the remaining life sciences departments without a home. The Anthropology and Geography Board then proposed that they should join with the life sciences in a new division, to be called Life and Environmental Sciences. This imaginative proposal was welcomed on all sides. It creates a division with a mission; it gives new impetus to part of the University that is already very dynamic; and, not to be forgotten, it shows to the world at large that Oxford can move with the times.
Members of Congregation, it is frankly hard to imagine how such a transformation could happen under the present governance structure. A strategy dynamic of this kind augurs well for the future success of the new governance structure.
I believe, Mr Vice-Chancellor, that I am privileged today to speak for the great majority of those in the biosciences and medicine, comprising (as you can see from the histograms in the Gazette) a total of 2,758 people, or 54 per cent of all university staff. I say on behalf of this large number of people that we warmly welcome the proposals of the Working Party on governance; that we look forward to implementing them in a democratic manner; and that we can see no better way for this University to move forward into the future.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
These two proposals are streamlining proposals; they are proposals intended to emasculate Congregation. It will be virtually impossible to guarantee 125 people to vote against a resolution proposed by Council. If that fails, you have to get---I do not know what number it is---450 signatures, within two hours, for a postal vote. I do not know exactly what it is, but it is some very large number.[1] These proposals are intended to emasculate this body and I hope very much that members of this House will vote against that resolution.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
I am bound to say that the revised report by the Working Party has not entirely reassured me or our Standing Committee. Naturally, we were pleased that para. 25 of the report begins by saying that the Working Party took very seriously the need to develop within the new structure much better mechanisms for the consideration of graduate issues. It is right that the Educational Policy and Standards Committee will have responsibility for graduate studies as an issue of the first importance. But the precise manner in which graduate studies will be given the attention which many of us feel is needed is not set out in the document. Instead, there is reference to a review of operations at the end of five years, which should pay attention to the question of whether the general desire for a better focus for graduate studies has been realised.
It does seem to me, Mr Vice-Chancellor, that this is not a very satisfactory way of ensuring that the important objectives the University has set itself in graduate education are attained. Those objectives were set out in the Roberts Report, reinforced by Professor Southwood's Working Party and reiterated by the North Commission. They include the need to think positively and proactively about graduate studies from an institutional perspective; to meet the need for consistent and fair quality assurance procedures across the University as a whole; and to meet the demand from graduate students for a clearly identified body solely concerned for the promotion of graduate studies.
Mr Vice-Chancellor, I have no intention of opposing the resolutions before the House, but I would like to record my view that more attention must still be given to the concrete measures which need to be taken to ensure that in the field of graduate education this University remains competitive with graduate schools in other universities, both on the national and the international level.
I hope therefore that the Chair of the Educational Policy and Standards Committee will regard it as his or her role to champion graduate education within the University and that each of the major academic divisions will be expected to establish a body with similar duties to the existing graduate studies committee of the General Board.
One other recommendation in the Working Party's most recent report which gave me serious cause for concern was the suggestion in para.34 that the subcommittee of the Personnel Committee, which will have responsibility for overseeing joint appointments, would not include specific representation of graduate interests, but that these would be covered by the Chairman of the Senior Tutors' Committee. With great respect to that institution, I must point out that it would be putting its Chairman in an invidious position to expect him to represent graduate interests, since his own committee is bound to be overwhelmingly concerned with undergraduate needs.
It is therefore essential that there is a member of that subcommittee entirely concerned to ensure that, when the terms of such appointments are decided, the needs of graduate teaching should be taken fully into account. If this is not the case, I fear that the good intentions about improving graduate provision within a collegiate university expressed in both the North Commission's report and the Working Party's papers will not be put into effect. I should be grateful if these opinions are noted by those called upon to implement the resolutions we are being asked to vote on today, resolutions which in general I strongly support.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
First, while we fully understand the logic of administrative convenience and symmetry which lies behind the Working Party's preferred option of having separate divisions for the humanities and the social sciences, we are nevertheless concerned that this represents a failure to understand the nature of teaching and research in Oriental Studies in the modern world.
In recent decades, the faculty has come a long way since we were all primarily philologists. This was recognised by the University when our name was changed from Oriental Languages to Oriental Studies. While naturally individual colleagues retain their own fields of expertise, our concern these days is to study many of the most ancient as well as populous civilisations of the world in as comprehensive a manner as possible on the basis of primary sources in the relevant languages. This inevitably means that in principle we are concerned with such disciplines as economics, sociology, and anthropology, alongside the more traditional subjects of language, literature, religion, history, archaeology, law, and art. The balance at present may still be firmly on the humanities side, but to box us into a humanities division, separated from a social sciences one, no matter how much liaison there is between them, is likely to inhibit the kinds of development which Oxford should be playing a leading international role in promoting.
The matter can be most easily demonstrated by the way in which the Working Party has treated area studies, which at present come under the aegis of eight inter-faculty committees or similar bodies. Of these, four fall within the region covered by our faculty, and in most cases there is a very substantial body of overlap in terms of post-holders.
Earlier this year, I informally invited representatives of these bodies to meet to exchange views and information in the light of the Working Party's preliminary report. I was astonished to find that, so far as anyone could remember, such a meeting had never been held before, and yet nearly all had experienced similar problems in the recent past. It is gratifying to see that someone has obligingly scattered the words `especially area studies' in brackets at various points in the report in response to our joint submission on the matter, but the good impression thus created is then ruined by the distribution of these bodies seemingly at random between the two proposed arts divisions. By what possible rationale, for instance, can Chinese Studies be listed among the humanities, but Japanese among the social sciences? And how can our faculty, whose long-term plan incorporates the submissions of most of these bodies, proceed to develop in the new century if a coach and horses is being driven between the work of our various colleagues?
Since I am sure that in Oxford we all agree that administrative structures work best when they reflect intellectual realities rather than the other way about, I would urge members of Congregation to vote in favour of the alternative option of a single division for the arts.
Secondly, and more briefly, the report is careful to state that the interests of small units must be safeguarded in the new arrangements, and this is welcome. Yet it is noteworthy that three faculties, namely, Music, Theology, and Oriental Studies, have no automatic representation on the divisional boards. Under proposal 8.1, the three faculty boards would jointly elect three representatives. It would, we believe, be more sensible explicitly to assign one representative to each. Under proposal 8.3 (a single arts division), the three boards would share only two representatives between them. There is a strong hint, however, that this might be made up by co-optation. In that case, we should find it a great deal more reassuring if it could be enshrined in the legislation that in fact each faculty is guaranteed its own representative.
This of course does not affect support for the broad outline of the proposals on we shall be asked to vote, but we hope that it may be taken into consideration when definitive proposals for the divisional boards are brought forward in due course.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
I am not sure that it got its sums entirely convincingly right. If you actually look at paras. 43 and 44 of the second report, you find that two large arts faculties, Modern History and English, were in favour of two, rather than one; you find that Social Studies, of the large faculties, was against two and in favour of one; and you find three smaller faculties or departments in favour and one against. Then Law and Management Studies are read as against, but against, only in the sense that they wanted a sort of---what is the word?- --`high roller' division for people to be paid more money, as far as I can see. I would not have favoured that so far as Law was concerned anyway, but I would be terribly surprised if those who did would prefer, if that fails, for there to be only one arts/humanities/social studies board. I find that inconceivable and I therefore urge everyone to vote for two rather than one in Congregation today and in the postal vote which will take place later. If I may say so, I hope that that argument will appeal no less to scientists than to the rest of us.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
I should say at the outset that my faculty is content to be integrated in the proposed Physical and Mathematical Sciences Division. It is a detail of this integration that I want to question.
One reason why I am speaking today is that the proposals in the Working Party's report, if implemented as worded, will make the demise which my board desires difficult. I also want to show why the proposals, again as worded, are unfair to my faculty.
The long-standing culture of Mathematics in this University is closer to arts than to science. College teaching is dominated by CUF lecturers; the central department has much less space and is much more poorly funded than any comparable science department. Despite this, it has achieved considerable success. For example, Oxford was the only university in the country to obtain 5* in both pure and applied mathematics in the last RAE.
But the Mathematics Department is not the same, despite what a lot of people think, as the Mathematical Sciences Faculty. For example, I am not a member of the Mathematics Department.
Over the past twenty years or so, two other departments have been spawned off from Mathematics: the Computing Laboratory, which is the University's Department of Computer Science, and the Department of Statistics. These are both thriving enterprises that value their independence and are far more typical of science departments. Furthermore, they now represent a sizeable proportion of the faculty. (I should explain that I am a member of the Computing Laboratory.)
The Mathematical Institute was formally made into a department in 1993, which created some semblance of symmetry within the faculty. However, the administrative structures show every sign of being what they are, namely, those of an arts faculty patched to take account of the changes that I have described. Our faculty board, two sub-faculties, and three departments have confusingly overlapping roles.
It should come as little surprise, then, that there is a universal feeling in the faculty that we should seize the opportunity that the reorganisation offers to produce a streamlined and efficient structure. The most redundant body, and one that would have no analogue in the rest of the division that we are joining, is the faculty board. Imagine our disappointment then, in reading the Working Party's report, to discover that Mathematical Sciences was being included in the new division with just three representatives as one constituency on the divisional board.
Any perception of Mathematical Sciences as a quasi-`department' alongside the five current Physical Sciences departments, alongside which it is listed, is wrong, for there is no such department. Not only is it impossible for the University to create a successful Mathematical Sciences Department without the injection of a large amount of money, which does not seem to be there, but at least two of our existing departments would regard this as an undesirable and backwards move. My faculty board accepts that the best way forward is for each of the three departments that it consists of to enter the division in its own right.
There seems to be no reasonable way in which Mathematical Sciences can operate within the new division, given the level of representation proposed, without retaining a co-ordinating body like the faculty board, which we are keen to dispose of.
Needless to say, if departments like Mathematics and Computer Science are given less direct access to the machinery of the new division than other comparable departments, for example, Engineering and Earth Sciences, then we will feel (and I think be) marginalised. These prospects fill me and the three heads of department with gloom.
There is, moreover, a powerful numerical argument. Physical Sciences outnumbers Mathematical Sciences by about two-and-a-half to one in terms both of established staff members and of student numbers. However, the Working Party's recommendation is that Physical Sciences should have thirteen allocated places and Mathematical Sciences three. This ratio of four-and-a-third to one scarcely seems fair. Give the departments of Mathematical Sciences six places in comparison to those thirteen, and a parity is restored.
I do not ask you to vote against any of the resolutions before us today. Indeed, we welcome the broad thrust of the proposed changes in the University's governance. The Vice-Chancellor has kindly informed us that the question of exactly how, and with what representation, the departments of Mathematical Sciences are integrated into the new division is a matter for later legislation. We note the word `broadly' in Resolution (9). However, he did ask that the views of my faculty be put before you.
I hope that these remarks, fully supported by the three heads of department, will result in a second round of legislation that allows us to operate effectively in the twenty-first century.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
First of all though, I have to admit that I have a slight difficulty with this section of the report, because nowhere does it actually define what these `academic services' are. The report does recommend the creation of a Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Academic Services who, we are told, will cover libraries, IT, and museums. This, as far as I can see, is the nearest the report comes to defining `academic services', and yet the Working Party's first report states that the academic services consist of `museums, libraries, information technology, telecommunications, buildings and administration', which is very similar to the definition used in the North Commission report.
So what has happened to the buildings and administration? Are they going to form yet more sectors in addition to all the others? And what about units such as the Language Centre, the Botanic Garden, the Careers Service, and a whole lot of others which are not libraries, museums, or, however you define it, IT. It would be nice if, before the vote is taken, somebody could indicate exactly which departments and institutions are covered by `academic services' and what is going to happen to those that are not.
Let me now, however, turn to one of the academic services which is (albeit very briefly) mentioned in the report, namely, the one that I am director of [the Educational Technology Resources Centre]. And here I have to confess that my original intention was to come here to formally move an amendment to General Resolution (10) which would have added the words `subject to the proviso that the head of each academic service shall be a member of the committee overseeing that service, or of a management committee for that service which reports directly to the over-arching committee.'
Those of you used to the democratic nature of academic faculties might find it astonishing that it could even be suggested that the head of an academic service would not be a member of his supervising committee, but that is the way it is at the moment in this University. It is rather strange. I was at a meeting of the Standing Conference of Heads of Media Services in Sheffield earlier this week---in fact, I had to dash down the M1 in a record time to get here---and I asked if anybody else was in that situation, and, not entirely to my surprise, there was absolutely nobody else in any other university, as far as I could see, in the whole country who was in that situation.
Here in Oxford, the IT Committee oversees both the Oxford University Computing Services and the Educational Technology Resources Centre, and this pattern is proposed to continue in the new arrangement. Neither of the relevant directors is a member of that committee, although the Director of the Computing Services does attend all its meetings as its technical secretary. I do not attend its meetings and in fact I am not even allowed to attend them when I ask. But this is more than just an accident of history, because it has a serious negative effect; and I would just like to illustrate the problems that can arise from this perhaps convenient, but rather strange, system of remote management.
As a result of a review of my department, there is now a fund called the ETRC Teaching Support Fund, from which any member of academic staff or department, can apply to obtain money to help them to use the services of my department in support of teaching. (We have to charge for everything we do.) The intention was that those faculties and departments which do not have much money would be funded in this way, whilst the rich departments would pay for themselves. Recently the IT Committee, following the rules which they had set for handling this, made a decision which would actually have very seriously damaged the final degree projects of a handful of undergraduates in the Ruskin School. We have always provided support for some of them, and now of course somebody has to pay. This would have meant that these students would not have been able to submit their final projects this year in the way they intended to. I hardly need to say they are going to be allowed to, because we are paying for it ourselves. But the fact that this arose was simply because of a lack of communication as a result of decisions being made without the possibility of the people concerned being there. I do not think that that is the sort of governance that we should be moving towards.
I said I had intended to propose an amendment to ensure that this could not continue in the future. That I have not done so is due to the fact that it was suggested to me that an appropriate time to bring this up would be at the detailed legislation stage, rather than now. But I wanted to bring to the attention of Congregation that this is an issue which may occur, for all I know, in all parts of academic services as well.
Before I finish, I would like to make two final points. These both in a sense affect what is a small department in this University, but one which is, I believe, of considerable importance. In the twenty-first century the use of media in teaching is going to become increasingly important. Oxford is probably one of the most backward universities in the civilised world in its use of media in teaching anyway, but it is changing quite rapidly. I think therefore that the University's central service in this area is perhaps a department that we should consider to be of some importance anyway. The current arrangement is something of an aberration. When the department was originally planned to be set up ten years ago, it was suggested that it would report jointly to the IT Committee and to the Academic Staff Development Committee, a clear recognition of the importance of media in teaching. For various reasons, primarily, I believe, the fact that it was felt that a management committee of this type would have no particular influence in the corridors of power, this was changed to reporting to the Academic Computing Services Committee, which of course knew very little about television and audiovisual matters, but it did have a certain amount of clout where it mattered. That actually worked quite well until two years ago, when it was wound up. Now we report directly to the IT Committee. The IT Committee is primarily concerned with high-level strategy for institutional IT, and I would argue that this is not the right sort of committee to be having a direct supervisory role over a department which is really nothing to do with IT at all; it just happens to use IT, like many other departments do.
So I would like to suggest at this stage that perhaps, when it comes down to looking at the legislative procedures, this small department should be moved from its present position of reporting to the IT Committee in one of two possible ways. One of those would be to recognise the fact that, at present, and increasingly in the future the main clients of the ETRC are likely to come from the humanities. Most of the science departments increasingly look after themselves. We obviously help them where we can, but our main clients come from the humanities. That was recognised last year by the General Board's Review Committee for the department.
So one suggestion would be that one should bite this bullet and, rather than having the ETRC as a central department somewhere in IT or something else, move it fairly and squarely into either the single arts division or into one of the two arts and humanities divisions and recognise that its primary role is to support teaching in the humanities, and it can still help other people from there.
If that is too radical an option, I would suggest an alternative would be that it should report to the Academic Staff Development Committee, alongside the Staff Development and Training Unit, thereby in a sense constituting an embryonic version of the sort of learning resources unit which increasingly is becoming important in many other universities.
So to conclude, I would like to urge those responsible for progressing the proposals to look at these areas, to recognise that heads of services should be on their management committees and particularly to consider that the ETRC should be placed somewhere other than as an IT department.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
My main reason for wanting to talk about this is that if the term is extended, it will make it very difficult to attract the right candidates to the office of Vice-Chancellor: five years extending to ten.[2] I can see that in universities which are strongly centralised, with monolithic structures, it is useful to have chief executives who are dedicated to management, and who are contented to spend their last years in employment at the pinnacle of a hierarchy. But Oxford is not highly centralised, and one of its great strengths and advantages is its pluralist organisation, accommodating diverse structures and interests in a system that is indeed complex, but which works well enough to support the successful creative endeavours of the members of the University.
If we want to preserve this against the considerable outside pressures, we should try to choose Vice-Chancellors who are in sympathy with it, men or women who are admired for their success in working effectively and parsimoniously within a pluralist organisation and who, for the general good, will devote a reasonable number of years (four years) to representing the University to the outside world, to helping it to adjust in a changing environment, and to reconciling different interests in a collegial way.
Are we more likely to get people of this kind if the term is for up to seven years? People of this kind are very scarce and they are valuable to their colleges and their departments and faculties. Would these colleges, departments, and faculties really want to let them go for such a long time? It is said that a professor, fellow, head of house, Fellow of the Royal Society, would normally resign his or her other posts in order to take up the Vice-Chancellorship and would not expect to return to them when they retired from that office. But is it not one of the attractions of Oxford that the holder will eventually return to normal college and departmental life? Indeed, I imagine it is to some extent a sanction on Vice-Chancellors that they ask themselves from time to time: `Will I be able to live with this when I'm back among my departmental colleagues or members of my college?'
The Vice-Chancellor is, in the present contemporary world, of necessity a manager, a chief executive, and it is important to us that they should be good at that kind of work. But we, in a pluralist University, want men and women who know and understand and value our kind of civil society, in which managerialism is only one strand. I think that a five- to seven-year term is unlikely to attract such people, requiring too much of a sacrifice from them and from their colleagues; and in fact I think that such a term is likely to attract eager beavers, single-minded managers, obviously ones who are good at the job, but ones who do not hope or expect to return to their posts to enjoy the fruits of their labour and the companionship of their erstwhile temporary subjects.
These are considerations, Mr Vice-Chancellor, which lead me at present to resist the proposals to alter the length of your office. I hope that I shall hear arguments which could persuade me otherwise.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
My support of both of these resolutions stems from the fact that, while most of my academic career has been in Oxford, I was Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Edinburgh for almost seven years during a period when it made radical changes to its structure of governance, some of which closely resemble those now proposed for Oxford.
When I moved from Oxford to Edinburgh in 1987, the same kind of confusing, time-consuming, but inefficient decision-making procedures existed there which, sadly, still afflict us here in Oxford even today. Processes of resource allocation were very obscure to the great majority of staff, who felt they had little or no real influence on key decisions made at the centre of the University. The changes we made to improve this situation included grouping faculties into four divisions and delegating down to those divisions from the centre much of the kinds of responsibilities that are being proposed today in Oxford. The changes proved very successful and, when they were reviewed after three years, nobody wished to revert to the previous system. Faculties and departments had acquired much more influence over matters which directly affected them, and strategic planning for the future became easier and more clear-cut. Crucially, the simplifying and streamlining of decision-making procedures reduced the amount of time wasted in tedious hours of dilatory discussions by ineffectual committees. The amount of time available for academic work actually increased.
The heads of divisions played a key role in this success, but their task was not easy. On the one hand, they worked collectively together with the Vice-Chancellor and others in the centre of the University to promote the academic prosperity of the institution as a whole. On the other hand, they used their experience and knowledge of the wider University to help their own particular divisions to operate as effectively as possible. They had to have the support, respect, and confidence of academic colleagues in their divisions and at the same time participate effectively and centrally in the overall governance of the University. This complex and difficult job required an unusual mixture of administrative and political talents, and it was not easy to find the most suitable persons. They rarely volunteered and usually had to be persuaded by their colleagues.
It is this past experience of mine which leads me to support strongly the way in which it is proposed in Oxford to appoint heads of divisions. To begin with, the Vice-Chancellor must be involved, because it has to be someone in whom he has confidence and with whom he feels he can work closely. We must not forget that it is the Vice-Chancellor whom the Funding Council (and ultimately the Public Accounts Committee) will regard as the individual who bears financial responsibility for the expenditure of the large sums of public money allocated to the University. Since, under our proposed new structure of governance, responsibility for large parts of this money will now be delegated down to divisions, it is only fair and sensible that the Vice-Chancellor should be involved in the appointment of heads of divisions.
Likewise, the interests of the wider University need also to be involved, and this is satisfied by the proposal to have two members of Council on the appointment committee. Of course, it is inconceivable that anyone would be appointed head of division who did not have the confidence and respect of that division, and having two persons from the division amongst the five on the appointment committee will ensure that the views of the division are effectively represented.
This appointment procedure has been described by others as being too much `top-down'. Such a description implies that being a head of division has a one-dimensional quality. To my way of thinking, it is in fact multi-dimensional, since the appointee has to interact in a range of different directions: with the faculties and departments in the division; with other heads of division; with Council and most of its major committees; and with the Vice-Chancellor and Pro-Vice-Chancellors. I therefore believe that the appointment of heads of divisions should reflect this multi-dimensional nature of the job.
Finally, if I could turn to the lengths of time for which it is proposed that heads of divisions and the Vice-Chancellor should serve. In most universities, including Oxford, it is generally accepted that the minimum length of service of, say, the head of a large science department, should be three years. It is therefore common sense that the more complex task of being head of division should last for five years, especially given the need for a degree of continuity in the major administrative offices.
Under General Resolution (11), it is proposed that the period of office of the Vice-Chancellor should be increased from four to five years, with the possibility of extension to seven years in all. I personally believe that five years is too short. It is not just that being Vice-Chancellor of a major international university is a very complex job where the learning curve is very steep, and so the longer the time you spend at the top of the curve, the better it will be for the institution. It is not just the vital need for reasonable continuity within the University itself. There is also the all-important need for time to develop the invaluable and influential external contacts with Funding Councils, ministers, civil servants, inter-university bodies such as the CVCP, national academies, research councils, Commonwealth and various European university groupings. There is no doubt that in the past Oxford has suffered because its Vice-Chancellors have not been in office for long enough to develop these kinds of important relationships to the full.
I began by referring to my experience at the University of Edinburgh and I shall end by returning to it. After we had successfully put through all our governance changes, the time came to advertise for my successor. After detailed analysis, it was decided that the post be advertised for seven years in the first instance. My eventual successor, who had previously been Vice-Chancellor of London University, felt from his experience that this was exactly the right length of time and was delighted to accept. I therefore hope that in the case of this University, it will become the norm and not the exception for the Vice-Chancellor to serve for seven years.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
I would want to endorse very strongly what Dr Walker said: we hope that Congregation members will continue to provide ideas as we elaborate through the consequential legislation. I think it is important that there should continue to be a flow of opinion. Of the views that were represented today, it seems to me that, where there have been differences of views they have been answeree, and I do not really want to enter into much of the detail. I would simply say that although, for example, Professor Millar and the President of Wolfson come to the notion of the appointment of heads of division from alternative positions, they both share a misreading of the text. The text does not say that there shall be two members from Council; it says there shall be two members appointed by Council. That simply means that they could be appointed from the division. It is a question of attempting to produce a balance of skill, a balance of acquaintance with the problems of the division and the University, rather than simply saying that Council shall exercise some kind of iron control through this procedure—derived from the electoral-board model.
I do think that the appointment of Pro-Vice-Chancellors in the manner which has been proposed is the right one. One could not, for example, have appointed the present Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Science Research under the different form that has been suggested.
As far as the suggested intention to emasculate Congregation is concerned, I must say that the members of Congregation are 3,200 in number and that the increase in the number that has been proposed, from twelve to twenty and seventy-five to 125, simply reflects the increase in the number of members of Congregation since the lower figures were set. That is all.
I am sure that we take note of the need for the graduates to be properly looked after. It does seem to me that now that we are proposing to have a new committee which will spend its whole time on education policy and studies, rather than those issues having to find their place within a much wider activity and attention of the General Board, it is clearly the case that graduate students and graduate studies will be addressed much more coherently and directly. One of the first tasks incumbent upon that committee will indeed be to address the needs of graduate students and graduate studies.
I hope that my introductory speech opened the road necessary for those who have wished to record here their anxieties about representation in divisions and I do not propose to go further on that.
On academic services, it would appear of course that we have forgotten the administration. But in fact the first report of the Working Party made it clear that buildings should come under the oversight of the Planning and Resource Allocation Committee, and that the administration should be managed by the Registrar, who will continue to be responsible to Council; the second report has telecommunications coming under the IT Committee. The Botanic Garden, I think, is part of museums and collections and should remain there. The Careers Service should continue under its management committee, reporting to Council. So I believe that these things have actually been covered.
On the matter of the Vice-Chancellorship, we have heard two opposing views. (I may say that I think there was a slip of the tongue in one speech, which was corrected later. It is not five plus five, it is five plus two; it is not a total of ten years, it is a total of seven years.) I myself have been brought in my experience of the Vice-Chancellorship to believe that we do need to have a rather longer Vice-Chancellorship. I do think that the amount of pressure that is upon the University does require a rather longer run at managing our responses to those pressures. I do not believe that a Vice-Chancellor surrounded by a Council, by the many checks that have been pointed out, and by Congregation (which I do not believe that the Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Edinburgh ever had to deal with), could remain unconscious of the consequences of what he or she would do.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
For Against
General Resolution (1) 85 0
General Resolution (2) 73 10
General Resolution (3) 83 1
General Resolution (4) 76 8
General Resolution (5) 75 8
General Resolution (6) 78 4
General Resolution (7) 68 11
General Resolution (8) 13 58
General Resolution (9) 82 1
General Resolution (10) 80 2
General Resolution (11) 75 9
General Resolution (12) 71 13
General Resolution (13) 83 0
As previously announced (Gazette, pp. 1112, 1113), Council had
decided that the general resolutions should be put to a postal vote. The
decisions taken on 11 May were accordingly not confirmed.Ballot papers for the postal vote are being sent to members of Congregation and must be returned to the Registrar not later than 4 p.m. on Thursday, 27 May, the date fixed by Mr Vice-Chancellor for holding the vote.
¶ The debate was transcribed by Beverley F. Nunnery & Co., Official Shorthand Writers and Tape Transcribers, Quality House, Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP.
[2] Note by the Registrar. `Ten' was a slip
of
the tongue for `seven': see below.
Return to text
Return to List of Contents of the supplement