Policy on Centres
2003
University of Saskatchewan
Background
• In 2001 Budget Committee examined the
effectiveness of the existing policy
• Paucity of information, poor records, poor
accountability and reporting (not for the
incorporated and larger centres)
• Research Committee has no mandate for
non-research centres
• Planning Committee frustrated about the
lengthy approval process (6 months)
Joint Committee on Centres
2001
• Inventory of centres
• Identify contacts, interests,
relationships and structures
• Then arrival of Integrated Planning
and its requirement that Centre
Plans be integrated with College
Plans
• New VP Research in 2003
Some other university policies
reviewed
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Stanford
California State
Virginia Polytec
University of Iowa
University of Florida
University of Minnesota
McGill University
University of Calgary
Queens
Harvard
Common elements of
other new policies for centres
• Clearly stated objectives for centre
• Clear relationship to the mission of the
university
• Recognize the different complexities
• Clear management structures
• Administrative and financial reporting
• Annual and cyclical reviews
• Mechanism for disestablishment
New U of S Policy Objectives
• Recognize the increasingly important role
of centres in interdisciplinary activity
• Create a more responsive and faster
approval process for research and nonresearch centres
• Link centres to a clear reporting structure
• Link centres to Integrated Planning
• Institute regular reviews (SPR-like)
• Financial accountability
The proposed U of S policy
• Recognize the importance of centres
• Establish Types of Centres (A, B, C,
D) with clear accountability and
annual reporting requirements
• Require 3-5 year financial support
• Management structure
The proposed U of S Policy
•
•
•
•
SPR-like review cycle
Linked to Integrated Planning
Implementation and transition
New Standing Subcommittee of
Planning on Centres
Standing Subcommittee
• To facilitate the creation of new
centres
• To monitor adherence to the Policy
• To develop and review the Policy
and Guidelines
• To oversee the disestablishment of
centres
• To maintain a list of active centres
Consultation
• Deans Council (2x)
• Planning, RSAW, Budget Committees
(at least 2x)
• Centres consultation (2x)
• Senior Admin has participated in the
discussions at council committee level
• B of G and Provincial Auditor have
been appraised of the new policy
Feedback incorporated
• Main concern not to under-value the
importance of centres; strengthened
language
• Initially provided 5 year cycle, with
approval for renewal. Now open-ended
subject to satisfactory cyclical review
• Type C centres (Inc.) report to Dean(s)
and then VP on academic and research
matters, but to B of G on $ matters
• D centres are within B of G jurisdiction
New policy approved by
Council Committees
• Planning
• RSAW
• Budget
• Planning Committee recommends
approval by Council