Newcastle University
Council Effectiveness Questionnaire 2012-13
Council agreed in December 2005 that it should conduct annual reviews of its effectiveness.
For the past two years a questionnaire prepared by the Leadership Foundation has been
used but at the meeting of Council on 10 December 2012, it was agreed that a shorter
version should be prepared for 2012-13. It was also agreed that the longer version of the
questionnaire should continue to be used to inform the wider review of the effectiveness of
governance arrangements which takes place every five years. A shorter questionnaire was
prepared based on a series of questions presented by an organisation called TheBoard.co to
a meeting of the Committee of University Chairs’ Northern Group held in 2013.
In Question 1 respondents were asked to supply their name, however, all responses have
been treated confidentially, and no information about individual returns has been made
available to anyone other than Lizzie Taylor who has compiled the report. Neither the Chair
of Council nor the Vice-Chancellor has seen the individual survey returns.
17 out of 21 members of Council completed the questionnaire in full compared with 18 out of
22 members in 2012. The responses to the questionnaire are attached in full as an
Appendix.
Question 2: Do we have the optimum type of Council to meet our challenges?
The majority of respondent (75%) partly agree that Council is of an ‘optimum type’ with only
6.3% disagreeing. As in previous surveys, comments on the size of Council – that it is too
large – persist, however, a number of positive comments are made in relation to the balance
and expertise of members.
Question 3: Are our sub-committees and special interest groups appropriate?
62.5% of respondents agree with this statement with only 6.3% disagreeing. The majority of
comments are positive with the proposed establishment of a special interest group on growth
being welcomed. It is suggested by one respondent that a specialist group which focuses on
estates matters is needed. Another respondent highlights the need to ensure lay members
are engaged in discussions at an early stage.
Question 4: Are the number of Council meetings, and those of its sub-committees,
right for the challenges ahead?
75% of respondents agree that the current schedule of six meetings of Council per year is
appropriate. The need to ensure that there is sufficient time for strategic discussions is
noted in one comment.
Question 5: Should we initiate special away-day sessions to create new
conversations?
62.5% of respondents agree that away-day sessions should be initiated but the free text
comments suggest that these should only take place when a suitable topic which warrants
more in depth discussion has been identified. Again, the need to involve Council in
discussions at an early stage of strategy development is highlighted. Providing the
opportunity for more informal discussions between Council members is suggested. A
number of positive comments are made about the more informal structure of the joint
meetings with Senate.
Question 6: Are we utilising the Council agenda forward planning to create more
space for strategic debate?
18.8% of respondents agree with this statement with 50% partly agreeing. The fact that
improvements have been made in this area is noted by a number of respondents but, again,
reference is made to the need to increase the time available for strategic debate and to allow
members to contribute fully.
Question 7: Do we need to develop Council's culture in order to create improved
performance?
The majority of respondents (68.8%) are in partial agreement with this statement with the
free text comments producing a range of responses. The need for greater interaction
between Council members and greater inclusivity is raised as is the recurrent comment
about the need for early discussions on strategy. The discursive style of the joint meeting
with Senate is praised by one respondent who suggests that this should be emulated in
regular Council meetings. It is proposed by one respondent that reporting issues should be
dealt with at the start of the year rather than spreading them across the year.
Question 8: Is it appropriate to pay any lay members?
Responses are split between the 37.5% of members who partly agree and the 31.3% who
don’t know. The free text comments are equally mixed with some members considering that
the position of Chair and Honorary Treasurer should be paid and others stating that the
introduction of payments could undermine the independence of lay members.
Question 9: Do we need to recruit Council members from an alternative background
or geographical base?
The majority of respondents (68.8%) partly agree with this statement. Increasing the
diversity of the membership more generally, including the number of female and ethnic
minority members, is considered a greater priority for some respondents. The need to follow
a transparent process is commented upon as it the need to ensure new members are
recruited to fill skills gaps. It is suggested that Council would benefit from members who
could assist with the University’s widening participation and international recruitment
agendas. The fresh approach brought by members based outside of the region is seen as a
potential advantage.
Question 10: Is the agenda-setting relationship between Executive thinking and
Council governance optimised?
50% of respondent partly agree with this statement, with the majority of the free comments
suggesting that the agenda-setting process has improved. The need for the Executive to
present issues to Council at an early stage, together with alternative proposals rather than a
single proposal, is recommended.
Question 11: Is the quality of Council and Executive Board's strategic thinking strong
enough for the new era?
The majority of respondents either agree (18.8%) or partly agree (68.8%) with this
statement. The need for horizon scanning, ‘out of the box’ thinking and increased
awareness of the activities of other successful or competitor universities and also the
government is referred to by a number of respondents. Allowing more time for more open
conversations and discussions based on papers which present a range of options is another
recurring comment. An away day designed to identify the strengths and weaknesses of
Council members and also areas where there are gaps in knowledge is proposed.
Question 12: Are we striking the right balance between risk management and forward
enterprise?
2
The majority of responses are evenly split between those who agree (43.8%) and those who
partly agree (43.8%). Most free text comments suggest that risk management is given a
strong emphasis, and in the opinion of some members, too great an emphasis. It is
suggested that greater assurance needs to be given to Council over whether controls are
working. ‘Forward enterprise’ is not considered to be given significant prominence.
Question 13: Are our Council reports penetrating, illuminating and driving astute
decision making?
60% of respondents partly agree with this statement, with 26.7% partly disagreeing. A
number of comments suggest the reports are too long and that important details are hidden.
Another criticism is that some reports often pre-judge the decision and do not present a
range of options for Council members to consider, or indicate the range of options already
considered by Executive Board.
Question 14: Is Council probing enough, posing sharp questions that generate real
insight and value?
The majority of responses are split between those who agree (33.3%) and those who partly
agree (40%). The size of Council is again seen as being an inhibiting factor here, with
committees being viewed as better forums for meaningful debate. One comment considers
that the academic members of Council could be more challenging due to the increased level
of insight they possess and there is considered to be scope for all members of Council to be
more probing.
Question 15: Would instigating innovative governance processes help Council
perform better?
Responses to this question present a mixed picture with the largest group being the ‘don’t
know’ category (35.7%). A number of comments suggest that there should be further
discussion to determine what these ‘innovative governance processes’ might be.
Question 16: Does Council have the necessary experience and skills to set policy,
govern and direct on the new era big issues such as internet education delivery
(MOOCs - massive open online courses), business marketing, student experience,
income generation, strategic scorecards etc.?
33.3% of respondents agree with this statement with 46.7% being in partial agreement. The
range of skills and expertise available on Council is viewed by a number of respondents as
impressive but it is suggested that it should be possible to bring in specialist expertise when
required. Another recurring comment is that further consideration needs to be given to how
existing expertise on Council can be maximised. The need to aid Council by providing
strategic papers which are not overwhelming, is also mentioned by two respondents.
Question 17: Any additional comments?
One respondent comments on the issue of grade inflation and suggests that the University
contributes to this, although it is acknowledged that this is a sector-wide issue. It is
proposed that Council should consider this issue further.
Increasing Council members’ knowledge of academic risks and values is considered
necessary to enable them to be more challenging of ‘Executive’ decisions.
John Hogan
Registrar
24 September 2013
3
Appendix
Question 2: Do we have the optimum type of Council to meet our challenges?
0.0% 0.0%
6.3%
18.8%
Agree
Partly agree
Partly disagree
Disagree
Don't know
75.0%













It's in the Goldilocks zone: not too big, not too small; not too sweet, not too bitter; not
too hard, not too soft;
A good group of people with appropriate skill sets but it’s difficult to make any Board
/Council effective with so many members;
There are quite a lot of members, but that said, I think everybody contributes;
I think the council is too large on the lay membership side to promote effective
council meetings;
Need to have members who are able to spend time working with EB;
It has been said a number of times before, but the Council is too big really for
efficient debate and decision making. That said, I do feel that the quality of debate
has improved in the last year;
I agree but would like to know what the definition of an "optimum Council" is;
Still slightly too large;
We have a pretty good mix of skills and perspectives. It would be good to get the
same expertise and breadth in fewer people;
My honest answer is that I don't know. So much has changed over the last two years
that it’s difficult to know what the optimum type of Council is. I know Mark did a
review just a couple of years ago but perhaps we need to reflect on this a bit more;
I think the size and mix of University and lay members is about right but see my
comments against later questions about how I think Council could operate more
effectively;
There is a broad range of experience on Council but it would be beneficial to have
more diversity of members who can contribute to the widening participation agenda
and some specialist Property expertise. Q16 also highlights further areas of expertise
which should ideally be filled;
Good mix of skills and backgrounds.
4
Question 3: Are our sub-committees and special interest groups appropriate?
0.0%
0.0%
6.3%
Agree
Partly agree
31.3%
Partly disagree
62.5%








Disagree
Don't know
Some SIGs seem to work others are more formulaic;
Following the governance review of two years ago, there was a clean-up of Council
Committees, and the current structure works well;
On the whole yes but there is a need for a specialist sub committee on estates with
some clout and able to follow developments on a more continuous basis rather than
simply a SIG;
I think this is a good way of doing business;
I think so. I think the proposed new group looking at future options will be important;
There needs to be more pro-active involvement of lay members in SIGs at an early
stage otherwise they can become just a sop to lay member involvement. It may be
that that says as much about lay members as it does the Executive;
Generally yes but I think that there is scope for more SIGs and the remit of some of
them needs better definition;
Have not yet been involved in any.
Question 4: Are the number of Council meetings, and those of its sub-committees,
right for the challenges ahead?
0.0%
0.0%
6.3%
Agree
18.8%
Partly agree
Partly disagree
Disagree
75.0%
5
Don't know





This is a perennial topic, as it should be, but 6 Council meetings a year has been a
stable number, with good reason;
Six Council meetings a year works well;
I'm conscious that the Science City sub group seems to struggle with diary
management/attendance. The group probably needs to discuss why that is. We are
still moving things forward though;
Yes but the content and more particularly the timing of the content needs changing.
See Q6;
The number of meetings feels right but we still do not have sufficient time to debate
strategic issues fully and so we need to create more time for this - see comments on
subsequent Qs.
Question 5: Should we initiate special away-day sessions to create new
conversations?
6.3%
0.0%
6.3%
Agree
Partly agree
25.0%
Partly disagree
62.5%











Disagree
Don't know
Yes, maybe once a year - most universities do that. E.g. half day plus lunch;
The annual joint meeting with Senate works well, and conversations do happen in the
various SIGs. A special Away Day session could be organised when there is a topic
that warrants it;
Yes... and a different environment can help create a better forum for discussion;
It would be good to have more opportunities to talk to other Council members
informally;
I feel the Council should spend more time on early discussion of strategy to allow the
Executive team to develop detailed plans more effectively;
Yes there is a need for non EB Council members to spend more time together and
develop mutual understanding of the main issues facing the university;
Even if that was only once a year it would help. If it included a dinner that would also
help, as the lunches have only been a selected group;
There can be a lot of benefit in having specific time away to focus upon strategic
issues especially when there are significant changes in the world of higher education.
There is not enough time at Council meetings to go into any depth;
We have one with Senate each year. Only need more if there is a major specific
topic;
Yes, but only with a clear idea of what we want to achieve. They should be an
opportunity for EB & Lay members to work together and socialise together. Maybe an
evening dinner/night/next day session?
About what?
6




I think the extent to which Council understands and challenges Executive
recommendations needs to be explored more. What would lay members like to know
to evaluate plans and risks? An away-day could be helpful with this;
Yes on a limited basis and provided that the structure of any such event is such that
it focusses on specific strategic issues on which members receiving adequate
advance briefing;
Brain-storming approach works well in joint meeting with Senate;
Especially on key strategies and strategic directions to allow members to consider
and analyse the underlying operational level information as well.
Question 6: Are we utilising the Council agenda forward planning to create more
space for strategic debate?
0.0%
12.5%
18.8%
Agree
Partly agree
Partly disagree
Disagree
Don't know
18.8%
50.0%











If the question is does the Council agenda give enough space for strategic debate the answer is probably not;
The forward planning of Council Agendas has so far been effective in creating more
space for report-backs from the various senior portfolio holders, rather than more
space for strategic debate. But the former are probably necessary for the latter;
We need to allow more time to discuss strategic issues facing the University;
It is a major challenge to segment one meeting to deal with both performance and
core strategic issues effectively;
Could do better. Let's not get bogged down in the detail as I suspect EB wants us to;
I think this has improved in the last year;
It is much better;
Getting better;
It's getting better. There seems to me to be too much routine reporting of historical
information which is months out of date. At the last meeting we had a report about
things in relation to the year ended 31 July 2012. What use is that? If we need to
know, then have a two day meeting in October or at the latest December and get it all
out of the way so we can concentrate on the future;
The structure of the agenda has improved this but we still need more time to allow all
members to contribute fully to such debates. This may best be achieved by limiting
the number of issues for discussion at any one meeting and using an awayday or
similar event for debates on subjects where there is no requirement for an immediate
decision;
I have not seen much evidence of this.
7
Question 7: Do we need to develop Council's culture in order to create improved
performance?
6.3%
6.3%
12.5%
6.3%
Agree
Partly agree
Party diagree
Disagree
Don't know
68.8%














Question is ambiguous. Are we talking about the University's performance or
Council's performance?
Perhaps, but Council should not lose sight of the fact that most lay members are
there because of a specific area of expertise, where individual authority is as
important as any group culture;
With such a large membership that's difficult to do!
We need to create some more open early conversations on Strategy;
Yes need more interaction and understanding between Council members collectively;
Not sure how to answer this!! Do we know what our 'culture' is or what impact it’s
having, other than intuitively?
We need to have a clear definition of what the current culture of Council is e.g. is it
an open or closed culture? Active or passive? And what type of culture do we need to
improve performance?
I think the culture is fine;
I think the issue is EB's willingness to genuinely enfranchise Council;
First we have to agree what we are looking for in terms of performance and what kind
of culture we think we need;
I detect a change in the last two years where the conduct of Council business seems
to be more inclusive and less formulaic. However there is still a long way to go. I
think the change seen so far can be accelerated if we deal with reporting issues
much earlier in the year instead of trying to spread them out (which also means that
the strategic topics get spread out as well). There is no reason why a Council
meeting shouldn't address only strategic items in a much more discursive way like
that of the Joint Council/Senate meetings;
I think that the culture of Council members is aimed at achieving this but it would be
helpful to emphasise to lay members that this is part of the role and to EB to accept
that this will be the case and so comments should be taken constructively and they
should not be too defensive;
More managed discussion, rather than agenda-driven;
In general it is fine, but I think that lay members could be supported more to question
decision proposals of the executive.
8
Question 8: Is it appropriate to pay any lay members?
6.3%
31.3%
Agree
Partly agree
37.5%
Partly disagree
Disagree
Don't know
25.0%
0.0%












This is a trend that was started in other universities. Personally don't have an issue
with it;
More allowance could possibly be made for recompense of time and effort, but
straightforward payment of governors would create a dynamic not necessarily
conducive to the public service ethic. Our Vision 2021 document says that we are not
a business, and we should not assume that the norms of business and industry must
apply in the university environment;
I am strong advocate that the Chair position should be a paid role;
It is a lot of time for lay members to give - if we were asking for more time then this
might be appropriate;
Tough one. Is it normal for university lay members to be unpaid?
This is a tricky one - the balance of time commitments not just in attending meetings
but preparing for meetings could justify some form of compensation but on the other
hand payments could lead to a loss of impartiality;
But it is an issue that can only be addressed by the sector;
Nominal payments are a mistake and may attract the wrong people. There is a case
to pay Committee Chairs and the Chair of Council/Hon Treasurer, but if they were
paid they feel obliged to interfere more, which may not be good. If they are paid it
should be at a sensible (high) rate;
Which ones? Apart from that rather facetious answer, if we are to get the best (see
comment on Q9) then yes, we may need to pay them and treat the role as equivalent
to a non-executive director in other public bodies. However, it then becomes an issue
of needing to pay all lay members as I don't think you can distinguish between them
and then before you know it, more payments for chairs of Committees, membership
of SIGs, attendance at meetings etc. Personally, I'm happy to be involved in Council
and other university business on a voluntary basis;
Definitely not;
It may promote wider engagement with the community. Child-care provision at least
should be provided, or compensation for loss of other earnings;
Companies pay non-executive members of their board of directors. Of course, the
danger of paying lay members is that it may be perceived that we pay them so they
keep quiet about issues that they should question.
9
Question 9: Do we need to recruit Council members from an alternative background
or geographical base?
12.5%
0.0%
12.5%
6.3%
Agree
Partly agree
Partly disagree
Disagree
Don't know
68.8%












We are starting to get more people from London and are less concerned about their
being from the north east which is a positive trend;
I agree that we could do more to recruit women and ethnic minority members onto
Council, but I do not agree with going so far out of the region geographically that
attendance becomes a problem;
Skills and background are more important than geography;
Need to be as transparent as possible. Trend towards using alumni needs
consideration as to advantages/disadvantages. Needs Council discussion;
Diversity in any Board is always good. You should know what skills we need and
then seek to find them. So if independence of geography would add value then go for
it? But don't do diversity for the sake of it;
This will all depend upon the answers to Q2, Q7 & Q11;
Our recruitment process has improved and is fine;
Maybe trawl alumni for a broader geographic/cultural spread while retaining
Newcastle connection. This is not a business so we want people who are
ideologically committed as well as competent;
It again depends what we decide we want the Council's culture and ethos to be;
The PC answer to this diversity question is of course, "Yes". We seem to be white,
middle class, middle aged North Easterners although with a reasonable gender mix.
The real question though is "What would alternative backgrounds and geographical
bases add to Council?" It seems to me that this applies to all Council members
outside those Executive members required to be on Council because of the
constitution. If we want to expand our share of the Indian or North American market
for example would we not benefit from someone on Council with strong ties to the
sub-continent or the USA? If we want to make progress in widening our appeal to
students from outside the North East, what about someone with strong connections
to educational networks in the South East and London? How about using
headhunters to find these people?
It would be beneficial to have members from a background which would aid the
widening participation agenda and the international agenda but there is no need to
recruit members from out of the area just for the sake of doing so;
I think that it might be beneficial to have non-local lay members in the Council. They
can bring a fresh view and may challenge decisions more freely since they are not
held back by local ties and potentially misleading background knowledge.
10
Question 10: Is the agenda-setting relationship between Executive thinking and
Council governance optimised?
18.8%
18.8%
Agree
0.0%
Partly agree
12.5%
Partly disagree
Disagree
Don't know
50.0%












Probably not optimal;
For the moment it works well;
It seems to work well;
Not sure if this is transparent enough to allow comment. Who sets the agenda? Why
does Council not see Senate minutes and vice versa;
Not an easy question to understand?
There has been a lot of good improvements in the structure of the agenda for Council
meetings but again what is the definition of an "optimised relationship"?
Much improved;
Improving;
Can't comment as I don't know enough about how the relationship works;
It seems to be improving but emphasis should remain on the Executive identifying
which issues need consideration and to develop them to the stage where there is a
proposal and alternatives to put to Council before their thinking becomes too
entrenched;
Could do with some improvement;
The Audit Committee should be strengthened and perhaps should have subcommittees. There should be more detailed reports from the Audit Committee on how
strategic plans meet operational execution.
11
Question 11: Is the quality of Council's and Executive Board's strategic thinking
strong enough for the new era?
6.3%
0.0%
6.3%
18.8%
Agree
Partly agree
Partly disagree
Disagree
Don't know
68.8%












Often I feel that there is too much obsession with KPIs and risk from Council (which
permeates down to Executive Board) and not enough with seeing the bigger picture.
As a University (Council and EB) we need to be ambitious and more aware of what
other successful universities are doing;
The evidence is that our strategies have stood us in good stead during the transition
to the new fees & funding regime: student numbers are good, the budget is solid, and
according to the most recent staff satisfaction survey morale is generally good;
This is a difficult question to answer, but it seems so;
Needs more open conversation and thinking time;
Needs a lot more discussion based on strategic options papers which are not precooked;
I would welcome more horizon scanning on government thinking and what the
'competition' is doing and why. If we start with a clearly understood strategy and then
the Exec and Council follow it (and review it of course) then we won't go far wrong. It
might help if Exec always clearly signal how an action aligns with the strategy;
There is no doubt there are a lot of very able folk among the Executive and Lay
Members of Council but does that equate to "quality of strategic thinking for the new
era" - this is why the idea of an away day raised in Q5 could be beneficial for
identifying strengths and weaknesses, where are the gaps etc.?
I believe it is;
Tends to be a bit structured - Council is not aware of any out of the box thinking. Is
there any?
It seems very incremental and tactical rather than strategic. There doesn't seem to
me to be enough focus on what we are going to do (and therefore what we are not
going to do). Some progress was evident in the SAgE presentation e.g. synthetic
biology v taxonomic biology – if I've got the terminology correct. But there's a long
way to go and I haven't seen enough evidence of being able to do things quickly.
Neptune was a good result from both a strategic and tactical point of view but we
need more things like that. Where is the real analysis of the market?
Both no doubt aim to achieve this but I am not convinced that this results in all
strategic issues being identified and debated. For example little evidence to date on
the implications of MOOCs and similar;
Don't yet have enough information to make a contribution.
12
Question 12: Are we striking the right balance between risk management and forward
enterprise?
0.0% 0.0%
12.5%
Agree
43.8%
Partly agree
Partly disagree
Disagree
43.8%






Don't know
Too focused on risk management in a tick box way. If we are too risk averse then we
won't take new initiatives;
Forward enterprise needs more time;
All papers to Council need better risk assessments and decisions made by EB need
to be reported to Council on the basis of the risks considered;
There has been a lot of good work done in improving the risk management (RM)
processes. More work is needed in how we give Council assurance that controls are
working and there is a lot of work needed in defining exactly what the risk appetite
(RA) of the University is. I am puzzled by the term "balance between RM and forward
enterprise" as if RM would somehow inhibit forward enterprise - good RM, with a
clearly defined RA would enhance forward enterprise;
I don't know what forward enterprise would look like, perhaps because it's not talked
about in those terms. However if you look at the balance of reports into Council, I
think you'll find that the risk management reports far outweigh anything that might be
construed as forward enterprise;
Broadly. The Council role is inherently focussed on risk management and rightly so
and we need a bit more forward enterprise without prejudicing risk management
Question 13: Are our Council reports penetrating, illuminating and driving astute
decision making?
6.7%
0.0%
6.7%
26.7%
60.0%
13
Agree
Partly agree
Partly disagree
Disagree
Don't know











Sometimes, not always. It's hard for EB members because we get different
messages about nature of reports. If you get too much direction it ends up as
colouring by numbers;
Mostly good;
Reports are of a high standard but need to be anchored more in agreed and
understood strategy;
Need for more options to be presented to show what EB has taken into consideration
with evidence of cost benefit analysis;
They are very long and far too detailed in the main. Less is always more!! Sometimes
I struggle to find what the real issues are;
Council reports are generally very well presented, detailed and do give the "laymember" enough information to ask questions. The real issue for the lay-member is
"what is the question that needs to be asked?" This has improved see Q14. Is it
driving astute decision making? We will only know this by measuring the outcomes;
Some could be abbreviated but they have improved;
Increasingly the information we need is there but it’s often hidden in lots of
unimportant detail. Report authors need to think "what do they want/need to know?"
rather than "what do I want to tell them (I've done)";
No. Most of the time they are routine, full of jargon and, with rare exceptions,
presented in a way that pre-judges the decision. They don't show the thought
process, the consideration of alternatives and the reason why the recommended
course of action is the most appropriate;
A very mixed picture. Some are good but others are poor. They need to set out
clearly what the issue is, outline the relevant background, set out a proposal and its
rationale, identify pros and cons and any options all in terms which are easily
understood by lay members;
Presentations are much better than the documents.
Question 14: Is Council probing enough, posing sharp questions that generate real
insight and value?
0.0% 0.0%
26.7%
33.3%
Agree
Partly agree
Partly disagree
Disagree
Don't know
40.0%



Council often seems critical even when we are doing well. I don't often come away
thinking of things in a different way following Council discussion but individual
members in 1-2-1s can probe well;
I feel comfortable that in general we are making good decisions;
Need for even better KPIs to provide basis to generate insightful questions;
14







I think the quality of questioning is appropriate, but the size of Council will always
inhibit efficient debate;
This has really improved over the last few months but we need to define what we
mean by "value" I assume that it is something that can be taken away and be used to
improve executive decision making;
Committees do this well. Council less so;
Most of the time Council are too accepting. I think, in general, University employees
in Council meetings are not challenging enough, given the level of insight they should
have about the internal working of the University. The contribution of lay members is
variable. I'm not sure how much my sharp questions add real insight and value. They
are mainly on reflection directed at areas where I think matters are being taken for
granted;
Some good questions are asked but the format and style of some meetings does not
readily facilitate this and Council members need to be more forthcoming;
Still some guardedness in posing questions;
The Council members could probe and question more. I felt occasionally that the
executive may try to push through strategically important decisions as operational
decisions to avoid Council scrutiny and put the Council in a position where it may
form an opinion only after the effective decisions are made.
Question 15: Would instigating innovative governance processes help Council
perform better?
14.3%
Agree
35.7%
Partly agree
21.4%
Partly disagree
Disagree
Don't know
21.4%









7.1%
Not really;
"Innovative" is not a synonym for "better";
I think this would be helpful;
Don’t know what this is! I think it is more a question of fine tuning rather than
fundamental change;
Yes, why not try Open Space technology approach to generate ideas at Away days
and joint sessions with Council;
What does this mean?
This is something that could be the subject of an away day. I would like to see an
example of an innovative governance process - something like a member of Audit
Committee attending an Executive Board meeting as an observer?
Don't know what is meant by innovative processes!
What innovative processes?
15




It would be interesting to know more about these and to explore what these
innovative processes might be;
I have absolutely no idea what this question means. I do think however that lay
members should participate in a specific area (SIG or not) from its inception through
to its delivery to Council. This would not subvert the "holding of the Executive to
account" as there will still be enough members on Council who are not part of the
Executive who have been independent of the subject matter presented;
Not sure what such processes might be but anything which might result in such
improvements should be considered;
It would be nice to see a change in format, or some alternatives.
Question 16: Does Council have the necessary experience and skills to set policy,
govern and direct on the new era big issues such as internet education delivery
(MOOCs - massive open online courses), business marketing, student experience,
income generation, strategic scorecards etc.?
0.0%
6.7%
13.3%
33.3%
Agree
Partly agree
Partly disagree
Disagree
Don't know
46.7%






Executive Board is setting policy on the above and appropriately so. The role of
Council is to ensure good governance and financial good health. It needs an
understanding of these broad issues not getting into the detail;
Not always, but some of the expertise cited (e.g. MOOCs) can and should be
sourced in the academic body;
The skills around the table are impressive. Where necessary it should not be afraid to
bring in specific skills on key business areas;
Yes if EB provides good strategic papers analysing the options in a more systematic
way;
You hope that the Exec do this, and the Council have enough independent
experience to critique and add value. It helps therefore if Execs can provide good,
but not overwhelming background info;
I partly agree because some of these matters have been discussed at one or two
meetings but we need to discuss which of these big issues are strategically
significant, maybe they all are then we need to decide what the order of priority is. A
definition of the skills required for each of these would help assess where there are
weaknesses in the structure of Council;
16




Perhaps we need to make better use of the expertise that we have. An issue is about
individuals having the time to devote to University business. For example is attending
Council or Committee meetings the best way to utilise the skills and experience of
members. The Task and Finish groups seem to work well;
Internet education delivery: no sign of it. Seems strange to me that we haven't had a
proper discussion of its potential impact. Other topics: probably. We've got a good
range of experience in Council. If the topics were covered in the way I suggest in
Q15, it should be possible to recognise at an early stage when additional expertise
was needed to address the topic and this could be sourced. That expertise doesn't
necessarily need to be on Council;
Looking at this list they are all important areas and there is limited experience and
skills on many of them;
The world is moving quickly. We seem to be doing OK, but I haven't seen any
evidence that we know why this is the case!
Question 17: Any additional comments?





We are on track. Not yet perfect and need to stay open minded but moving forward
well;
Sorry it’s not a more positive response I think we need to consider this agenda in
much more detail;
I am very concerned that the University is participating in grade inflation in an
unsustainable manner. This will cause problems in the longer term as it won't be
possible to maintain a logical position as to standards when the proportion of 1sts
and 2.1s heads towards 80%. I don't think that it is sufficient for us to say that if we
would go down in league tables if we hardened our academic standards. This is a
sector wide issue but we need to have a debate about where we stand on it and why
it is acceptable;
See 5. above - I'm not sure that lay members have sufficient understanding to
challenge Executive decisions. Financial strength is well-understood, but what about
the academic risks and values?
Briefing sessions are excellent. It would be good to get some alternative dates for
these to allow wider attendance.
17