Court report

By Peter Evans

The meetings of the Court in February and April were both away fixtures.

For its meeting on 24 February the Court journeyed to Perth. This was a special occasion: while the Court has visited the University's campuses at Ninewells, Kirkcaldy and Gardyne Road, it rarely strays from University premises. The purpose of the visit was to strengthen the University's relationship with Perth & Kinross, which is very much part of its natural constituency. A reception and lunch, hosted by the Court, was held in the Royal George Hotel with invited guests comprising councillors, senior Council officers, secondary and further education representatives and senior NHS staff from Perth Royal Infirmary. After lunch the Court repaired to the imposing setting of the Council Chambers for its scheduled meeting.

Topping the agenda was a new estates strategy outlining proposals for all of the University's properties on the main city centre campus (proposals for Ninewells and Kirkcaldy are being developed separately). The Court was advised that there had been much discussion about the strategy and staff had been consulted. Its main aims for the University's buildings were effectiveness, attractiveness, sustainability and greater intensity of use.

It was noted that, while the strategy was driven by academic developments, the overall condition of the estate was such that major investment in all areas was considered necessary to ensure the University's marketability to potential students and staff. The Court approved the strategy for further development and prioritisation by the Campus Services Committee.

This was a meeting for strategies. The estates strategy was followed by a human resources strategy and a finance strategy: both were approved by the Court, although the latter was a work in progress and a final version will be submitted to the Court in June. The Principal had emphasised that in a cash-limited system it was important to predict where shifts of emphasis could cause pressures to arise and it was therefore essential to have linked strategies so that a consistent approach could be taken to estates, finance and human resources issues.

The HR strategy was sandwiched between two other staffing matters which were less straightforward. One concerned the procedure for terminating academic fixed-term contracts in the light of the Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002. The position of the academic staff union AUT is that the only acceptable method of dismissing or making redundant academic staff, whether permanent or fixed-term employees, is the use of University Statute 16 - a cumbersome instrument to use in these circumstances, having been designed to protect academic freedom. The Court agreed that the Statute should be reviewed (a new Model Statute is already under consideration in the sector), but also that action could not be delayed while such deliberation took place, otherwise the University might be exposed to a multiplicity of legal proceedings. Members therefore voted in favour of establishing a Redundancy Committee, under the terms of Statute 16, to permit the termination of employment of academic staff for whom there was no work beyond the end of their fixed-term contracts.

The other difficult issue was the stalemate in national negotiations on pay and pay modernisation arrangements. One of the unions involved, AUT, had balloted its members and had obtained a mandate for strike action, which would affect the University over two days in February. With more industrial action planned from March, the outlook was worrying.

Fortunately progress was achieved through mediation by the TUC and the Court was informed at its subsequent meeting in April that AUT was conducting a further ballot of its members on the terms of an agreement set out in a Memorandum of Understanding. A favourable result (which was duly obtained) would pave the way for negotiations at local level on the detail of new pay arrangements.

In February the Court also approved proposals for a review of the operation of the Court and corporate governance. The first such review took place in 1999/2000 and the Dearing Committee recommended that they should occur at least once every five years. The recently published Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration recommends that effectiveness reviews of governing bodies should be carried out more frequently (every 2-3 years). With further detailed advice on governance being developed at UK level, it was agreed that a review would be timely. A sub-group of Court members was appointed for the task with a brief to produce initial recommendations for consideration at the Court Retreat in April, to consult widely thereafter with representative bodies in the University, and to make a final report to the June meeting of Court.

The annual Court Retreat was held at the West Park Centre on 26 April. Presentation and discussion sessions took place on: developments in higher education; progress with the learning and teaching objectives in the Towards 2007 document; and commercialisation. The review of Court and corporate governance, referred to above, was also given a substantial airing, while the main event was a set of group discussions addressing various aspects of how to ensure the future success of the University.

The day concluded with a short business meeting, at which initial approval was sought for a major capital project which would provide new accommodation for the Centre for Energy, Petroleum & Mineral Law and Policy and for the recently established Centre for Research on Water, enabling them to create a combined centre of excellence in the field of natural resources. This project (included in the estates strategy approved in February) involves conversion of the historic - but under-utilised - Carnegie and Peters buildings into modern, flexible classroom and office accommodation. Up to £1m has been earmarked from the second tranche of SRIF funding awarded to the University, against total estimated costs of £2.8m; the balance is to be met by the University (although with the possibility of some limited additional external funding). The Court authorised expenditure of up to £300k for design costs, pending the recommendations of the Finance Committee on the overall financing of the project.

The final item on the Court's agenda was notice of the need to elect a new Chairperson of Court to succeed Mr Larry Rolland FRSE, who will complete his second (and final) term of office in the summer. The Court approved election procedures which will identify his successor from the existing Court membership by the beginning of June.