In this week's THE there is an article (you may have to
register to read it) about the goings on at Plymouth and the broader
implications for university governance. One section jumped out at me (the
reaction of the cat sleeping on my desk suggests that I may actually have
gasped in horror when I read it):
"[The author asks:]
Who holds a university board to account? “The board holds itself to
account,” says Montagu. The CUC’s existing guidelines say that boards “should
conduct an effectiveness review of their own operation and governance not less
than every five years”, he adds."
Montagu is Sir Nick Montagu, chair of the Committee of
University Chairs and chair of governors at Queen Mary University of
London (much furniture...). Sir Nick had a distinguished career in the civil
service and ended up running the Inland Revenue. Since retiring, Wikipedia tells
me that he has "been associated
with a number of commercial activities, mainly in the pensions and insurance
field" You might expect that this background would equip him with a better
understanding of accountability issues, if not of corporate governance.
Most universities don't (yet) have shareholders. They didn't
used to have customers either, although student fees have certainly changed the
perspective of those paying. Those delivering the services provided may be
reluctant to admit this explicitly but the emphasis on National Student Survey
scores rather gives the game away. And, when the consumer association Which?
reports on students' views of what they are getting, it seems fairly clear that
UK universities are now pretty much a service industry, engaged in competition
for students in a global marketplace. So who should be holding the governors to
account?
Accountability in public and third sector organisations is
not clear cut but their approach has been hugely influenced by developments in
the corporate sector. Codes have proliferated, providing legitimation but they
are established and revised with little consideration for assessing their
effectiveness:
"The CUC is developing a new code for governing bodies.
Montagu says that while there was a need to update the existing code drawn up
in 2004, this is not a response to any cases of governance fractures or to the
emerging market. Although following the code is voluntary, the “underlying
assumption” is “comply or explain”, he says. The revised code is expected to be
published by mid December and will have the “support” of Hefce, although
Montagu stresses that it is not the funding council’s code."
The adoption of the voluntary code approach in the corporate
sector was an attempt to avoid the imposition of legislation. The article
suggests that the university sector would do well to reform its governance for
the same reason: it appears that legislation may be introduced in Scotland. But
such a reform would need to address the very fundamental issue of accountability.
My own experience of university governance has been
instructive. After I published my
research into audit committees, I was asked to join the university audit
committee. I agreed very reluctantly. I
was the only woman and the only academic on the committee. As an employee, I
felt uncomfortable about my informal co-option. My role was unclear since I was
not an elected representative of any group and the committee could have drawn
on my expertise without me being a committee member (as indeed a later chair of
the committee did, by taking me to lunch occasionally). At the time, I was
researching into the relationship between risk management and internal audit
but whenever I raised the issue of risk I was told that the university was
fully insured, internal audit was outsourced and no discussion was needed.
There were occasions when I felt that the committee had exceeded its remit but
my concerns were dismissed. The dynamics of the committee were odd and it took
me a long time to work out the hidden relationships. Evaluation? The audit committee reviewed itself in a general discussion over a very good Xmas lunch in the university restaurant.
It was not a happy experience: I resigned
after a couple of years and no one asked why. I believe that things changed
significantly under the subsequent chairman.
Not long after this I was invited to speak at a HEFCE event
for chairs of governors and audit committees, on the role of the audit
committee. After the plenary session, the attendees were put into groups and
asked to discuss what audit committees should do in various scenarios -
fictional, but I was told based in part on real events. I sat in on several of
these and the discussions revealed some really different perspectives. But for
me the most interesting part was the question I was repeatedly asked : how can
I get my vice chancellor to tell me what's going on on the academic side?
The traditional model of university governance (beautifully glimpsed in F. M. Cornford's Microcosmographia Academica) had academics at centre stage. Different management structures have changed that. But aren't boards of governors accountable to them, too?
