By Peter Evans
The Court started the new academic session in slightly more relaxed mood, the summer controversy over possible staffing reductions having been temporarily set aside following agreement with the unions on procedures for achieving staff reductions by voluntary means. This issue was still on the agenda at its November and December meetings, however, updates being provided on the progress made towards achieving the required reductions. It was reported that specific areas had been targeted for disinvestment, following discussions between management, unions and individual Deans, and a further invitation to staff to consider early retirement or voluntary severance was to be issued. The Court will review the success of these measures in February.
The November meeting began, appropriately, with the noting of documents in florid language headed ‘Council Chamber, Whitehall’ and ‘Court at Buckingham Palace’ signifying approval by the Privy Council of a series of long-awaited amendments to the University Charter and Statutes. These provided for the incorporation of powers to remove a member of Court on specified grounds (a SHEFC corporate governance requirement), the inclusion of Fife Council as the fourth local authority to be represented on Court, and the ability to appoint more than one Vice-Principal. The new member for Fife duly arrived at the December meeting in the person of Andrew Arbuckle, an experienced local councillor who also happens to be farming editor of The Courier.
Estates matters continue to loom large at Court meetings. In November it was invited to give the go-ahead for the proposed refurbishment and extension of the DUSA building.
The Student President, Maurice Golden, delivered a persuasive address urging the Court finally to bless the project which it had already twice approved in principle.
Having satisfied itself that due diligence had been performed in terms of the more stringent capital authorisation procedures introduced in June 2002, the Court accordingly approved the preferred option for redevelopment at a projected cost of £3.8m – to be financed by external borrowings by DUSA of £1.7m, a further £1m from DUSA reserves and £1.1m (over 2004/05 and 2005/06) from the University. The Court also agreed to act as guarantor for DUSA’s borrowings and to authorise commencement of building work in 2003.
A progress report was received from the officer group which had been working with external consultants on future options for the provision of residential accommodation.
The Court approved the group’s recommendation that one of the three external providers with whom discussions had been held should now be regarded as the ‘preferred provider’ for the purpose of further exploration of this option in depth. Court members expressed concerns about the risks of involvement with a third party, but it was emphasised that this was only one of several options still under consideration. All entailed potential difficulties, while the status quo was not an option at all because the University would be in breach of houses of multiple occupancy regulations and other legislation. The Court will consider a detailed appraisal and risk assessment of the various options at its February meeting.
The focus on estates was sustained in December, with a series of presentations on estates strategy. In particular, Professors Mike Ferguson and Alan Newell addressed members on the Life Sciences CIR and Applied Computing/Queen Mother Research Centre capital projects. These are the two largest projects to benefit from the SRIF funding awarded to the University.
A significant amount of external funding is also required for both projects to proceed and again a final decision will be made in February.
Commercialisation of the University’s research base was revisited in December, with a report on progress made since the Court’s previous discussion on this topic in June 2001. The Principal confirmed that the University’s approach was producing results, with four spin-out companies having been formed in the previous twelve months and recent successes achieved in securing funding for early stage development. A Business Ventures Group would be established in the near future to give a sharper focus to the commercialisation process. It was noted that the recent announcement by the First Minister of an Intermediary Technology Institute in Dundee (one of only three in Scotland) was a development which, together with the proposed CIR building, would contribute to the achievement of a critical mass of high quality research in the life sciences.
The report of the November meeting of the Planning & Resources Committee, which was approved by Court in December, included the final report of the Duncan of Jordanstone Review Group. One of its recommendations was to transfer all staff in the Faculty onto standard University contracts, although it was acknowledged that this would be subject to negotiations with the unions.
The Director of Human Resources gave a presentation to the December meeting on current issues in the field of human resources. These included the role of UCEA and developments towards a new national pay and grading framework. Court members were reassured that the University would evaluate fully the three separate job evaluation schemes which were currently being considered in the context of a revised grading structure.
A raft of policies appended to the report of the Human Resources Committee were approved, including a revised equal opportunities policy statement and guidelines and family friendly policies.
A proposal for a long service award, however, was referred back to the Committee for refinement.
The report of the Remuneration Committee, which determines salary increases for professorial and equivalent academic-related staff, provoked comment. Attention focused on the increased levels of honoraria payable to Deans and Vice/Deputy Principals. Although not performance-related like the other payments considered, these had been referred to the Committee to make the process of reviewing such honoraria more systematic. The Court decided that the existing procedure and guidelines governing the Committee’s operation should be revised to include additional rules on determining honoraria and certain other payments. The Committee will also review the remuneration of non-professorial heads of departments will also be reviewed.
In December the Court approved the draft Financial Statements for the year ended 31 July 2002, reporting a surplus of £808k. The Convener of the Finance Committee pointed out that, with removal of exceptional items, the underlying result was £1.4m against a comparable figure of £300k for the previous year - a reassuring indicator of financial health. (As emphasised at the extraordinary Court meeting in September, ‘surplus’ does not signify profit or money to spare, but the yearly contribution to uncommitted funds which can be applied to capital and other strategic purposes.)
A marker was put down for future debate on the operation of the Court. Concerns expressed included the need to ensure a clearer sense of identity for Court members and their greater involvement in the development of strategy. The Chairman agreed to address such comments at an ‘in camera’ session, i.e. without most of the 12 non-members normally in attendance, at the end of the next meeting in February. Such a discussion will prepare the ground for a fuller examination of identified issues at the annual Court Retreat in April.