Court report by Peter Evans

A pleasant seasonal aspect of the June meeting of Court is that, following a later start at 4 pm, there is traditionally a reception and buffet supper at University House afterwards. Unfortunately this end-of-year treat has to be earned by hard labour, as the June Court papers are usually bulging with planning documents, financial projections and budget proposals which require a great deal of scrutiny. This year was no exception: in fact it was worse, with the normal burden increased by special items in the capital programme and - something which undoubtedly gave an edge to the proceedings - a paper on staffing levels which raised the issue of compulsory redundancies.

The Court approved revenue budget proposals for 2002-03 which reflected changed fortunes for some Faculties as a result of the new SHEFC teaching funding methodology and the RAE results, with particular challenges to be faced by Duncan of Jordanstone College and Science & Engineering (shortly to be disaggregated into two separate Faculties). As matters stood, the ARIES academic budget model was still more than £800k short of fulfilling the Court's target surplus requirement for sustaining the capital programme and other developments. Work was to continue over the summer to close this gap, but even when the budget was balanced only four of the six Faculties would be able to access their strategic investment funds, as envisaged by the Financial Sustainability Review. In addition planned voluntary reductions in permanent staff numbers - also agreed as an outcome of the review - while achieved for 2001-02 were more than £700k short of target for 2002-03.

Against this background the Court was invited to consider compulsory redundancies, an option it had not ruled out when approving the financial sustainability recommendations a year ago. It was emphasised that the Court was not at this stage being asked to approve compulsory redundancies, merely to contemplate that possibility along with other options for producing salary savings. The provisions of employment law and of the University Statutes entailed procedures which required the Court to take the necessary preliminary steps now if redundancies were to be implemented in 2002-03. In the ensuing lengthy debate some members argued that the action proposed would have a destructive influence on staff morale and would send a negative message about the University to the outside world. Others supported the view that, in a difficult financial climate, it was imperative to find additional resources within the University budget to invest in infrastructure and provide opportunities for change.

Finally, on a vote of 13-8, the Court decided to reject the motion that no steps should be taken to consider compulsory redundancies at this stage. It was agreed to hold an extraordinary meeting of the Court later in the summer to consider the results of consultation with the campus unions and, if appropriate, the setting up of a Redundancy Committee; also, to maximise the savings that might yet be achieved by reviewing and promoting the early retirement and voluntary redundancy scheme.

Having disposed of the R-word for the time being, the Court moved on through the rest of the agenda. It approved a capital budget for 2002-03 of £6.8m, including additions for IT infrastructure improvements (first tranche - £800k) and most of the cost of a new student record system (£1m) - both projects being subject to specified safeguards and controls. The proposed capital programme also embraced all five projects to be partly funded by the Science Research Infrastructure Fund, which were the subject of detailed reports from Deputy Principal David Boxer. The Court gave full authorisation to proceed with the Centre for Health Informatics, Concrete Technology Unit/Geotechnical Engineering and Centre for Interdisciplinary Research (Ninewells) projects. Despite a substantial funding gap still to be met from external sources, the Court approved, by a clear majority vote, further progress and necessary expenditure to advance the Applied Computing (incorporating the Queen Mother Research Centre) and CIR (Life Sciences) projects - noting that there would be an opportunity to review these two larger projects again at a later stage.

The Court also approved various annual submissions to SHEFC, comprising a planning statement, detailed financial forecasts and other returns on student numbers and estates management.

A raft of items appeared on the agenda under the heading of corporate governance. In particular, the Court approved: revised capital authorisation procedures, following a report by the external auditors which had identified shortcomings in the existing procedures (but not, it should be said, those applied to the SRIF-funded projects just approved); key institutional performance indicators, which will in future be reported to every Court meeting; and a strategy for the increasingly important topic of risk management, which will be coordinated by the Administrative Secretary. On the recommendation of the Nominations Committee, Alison Newton, a Dundee graduate and partner in the law firm McGrigor Donald, was coopted as a lay member of Court from 1 August 2002.

Amongst the committee reports approved (the first batch following revision of the committee structure) was that of the new Human Resources Committee, which forwarded the various recommendations of the annual review exercises for academic and related, clerical and technical staff. These were endorsed by the Court.

New heads of departments were appointed or reappointed: Peter Kitson, English; Iain Crombie, Epidemiology & Public Health; Jerry Lambert, Pharmacology & Neuroscience; Norrie MacQueen, Politics; and Philip Seymour, Psychology.

The Principal reported that recent interviews for the post of Vice-Principal (Educational Development) had not resulted in an appointment and the search for suitable candidates would continue during the summer. The Court established another appointing committee, also under the Principal's convenership, for the post of Vice-Principal (Research & Enterprise) - comprising Professors Jill Belch, Cheryll Tickle and Alan Kennedy as Senate representatives with Court members Bruce Johnston and Professor Peter Downes.

As the meeting moved to a close the Court bade formal farewells to its two longest serving stalwarts, Donald Grant (Convener of the Finance Committee) and Vice-Principal David Swinfen, who were both retiring after nearly a decade of Court membership - see p.5-6 for further details. And so this long and taxing meeting of the Court finally came to an end at 7.45 pm, with weary members departing with relief for a slightly delayed, but well earned dinner.

Postscript An extraordinary meeting of Court took place on 16 September. Following a series of discussions over the summer, officers were able to present a proposed way forward based on a joint effort, in partnership with the unions, to achieve the targeted level of staffing reductions by February 2003 through voluntary means. The Court welcomed this development and readily gave its approval, although noting that no agreement had been reached on the approach to be taken if the reductions were not achieved within the specified period. A recommended enhancement of the minimum payment provisions of the voluntary severance scheme was endorsed.

The Court also approved the promotion of 10 members of staff to readerships.

Next Page
Return to October 2002 Contact