Senate
14 June 2006
Agenda item 10 (a)
S/06/27
REPORT OF THE WORKING PARTY TO REVIEW THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF SENATE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Working Party has reviewed the effectiveness of Senate in accordance with the terms of
reference drawn up by Council, and has agreed a total of fourteen (14) recommendations to
improve Senate’s performance. Some of the recommendations entail changes to the
ordinances and statutes. Senate is asked to approve the recommendations, prior to their
consideration by Council and to the subsequent consideration by the Privy Council of
proposed changes to the statutes.
BACKGROUND TO THE REVIEW
In recent years all universities have been encouraged to review the way they are governed.
The Lambert Review (December 2003) recommended that the Committee of University
Chairmen (CUC) develop a concise code of governance representing best practice across the
sector; and that each governing body carry out a systematic review of current practice in its
own HEI. The CUC’s Guide for Members of HE Governing Bodies (November 2004)
required such reviews, including a review of Senate, to be repeated every five years.
The Council of the University has already reported the results of its own review
(http://www2.essex.ac.uk/council/effectreview.htm, July 2005). This review concluded that
the review of Senate ‘was best conducted by Senate itself’. Consistent with the CUC
expectation of ‘a formal and rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of Senate and its
committees’, the Council review then recommended (Recommendation 12) that ‘Senate
undertake a review of its own effectiveness’ and establish a Working Party, chaired by a
member of Senate, to do so.
The Council review had also recommended (Recommendation 3) changes to the number and
composition of Senate’s representatives on Council, and (Recommendation 8) changes to the
committee structure of Council and, by extension, of Senate. The recommendations of the
Working Party to Review the Academic Decision-Making Structures (ADMS) of the
University will also change the committee structure of Senate. The current review has thus
been carried out in a changing institutional context, and has sought consistency with these
changes in order to achieve a coherent set of outcomes.
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE WORKING PARTY
At the beginning of this academic year the Vice-Chancellor, acting on behalf of Senate,
appointed the chair of the Working Party to Review the Effectiveness of Senate and agreed
the following membership and terms of reference:
Membership
Chair: Professor Joe Foweraker (member of the WP to Review the Effectiveness of Council)
A PVC: Professor Christine Temple
A Dean: Professor Joan Busfield
Two HoDs: Professor Jules Pretty and Professor Mark Sacks
Academic Registrar: Moira Collett
Two Members of Senate elected by Senate: Professor Martin Henson and Dr Aulay
Mackenzie
A student, nominated by the President of the Students' Union: Siobhan Kinealy (SU
President)
Secretary: Joanne Tallentire
Terms of Reference
a.
To conduct a review of the effectiveness of the Senate, including a review of:
i.
ii.
iii.
b.
the role of Senate, including its relation to other committees and to Council;
the composition and membership of Senate and its committees;
the methods and procedures by which Senate conducts its business
To make recommendations to Senate accordingly.
Members were provided with extensive background materials on the review of governance in
HEIs; the powers, structures and memberships of Senate and Council and their committees;
and the size and composition of Senates at other 94 Group HEIs. The Working Party met four
times on 11th October, 9th November and 15th December 2005, and 1st February 2006 (prior to
submitting a draft report to Senate on 22nd March). The Working Party met again on 9th May
2006 to review its report and recommendations in the light of the discussion at Senate and
also of comments received from the Vice-Chancellor’s Advisory Group (VAG).
EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SENATE
The Working Party observed that Senate does not currently fulfil its responsibilities in a fully
effective fashion. One difficulty appears to be the lack of sufficient information to promote
proper scrutiny and debate. Members are often unaware of emerging issues of academic
policy and strategy, and play no part in shaping the Senate agenda. In particular, the items
addressed in the Vice-Chancellor’s report are usually not part of the published agenda, and
are rarely supported by relevant documentation. Consequently, debate on these issues tends to
be ill-informed and fragmented. Senate is unable to take a proper view, or have that view
considered at an early enough stage in the policy process. Senate’s sense of its own
ineffectiveness in this regard tends to lead to frustration, and even the occasional touch of
cynicism.
It was also agreed that the Senate agenda tends to be unbalanced. While there is rather too
little informed attention to the main issues of academic policy and strategy, there is rather too
much time taken up with discussion of detailed academic matters which have already been
scrutinized and discussed by Senate’s own committees. This also discourages a positive
engagement with the work of the Senate, and – together with the lack of information and
ensuing frustration - leads to lack of gravitas in Senate proceedings. In sum, Senate’s current
practice and procedures provide few incentives for its members to take their responsibilities
seriously, and give them small reason to believe that they have an important part to play in
governing the University.
For Senate to fulfil its constitutional responsibilities for academic policy and strategy, its
views must be known to Council and its resolutions must reach Council in time to influence
Council’s own deliberations and decisions. A fuller and better informed debate on issues of
academic policy and strategy may allow Senate’s representatives on Council to make its
views known and to argue for them; while a clear priority for these issues on the Senate
agenda may enable Senate to send its recommendations to Council in timely fashion.
This synoptic account far from exhausts the Working Party’s discussion of Senate’s role,
practice and procedures. But it does indicate that the Working Party indeed believes that there
is work to be done to improve Senate performance and enhance its role in University
governance. In this spirit, the recommendations that follow are all intended to make Senate
more effective, both in conducting its own business and in guiding the academic policy and
strategy of the University. The recommendations themselves are broad, but they entail
detailed revision of ordinances, statutes, committee structures, lines of reporting and
accountability, and the delegation of powers.
SENATE’S AGENDA AND PROCEDURES
Any attempt to remedy some of the above problems will require Senate to address the way it
manages its own agenda in order to re-balance the agenda to allow more attention to issues of
academic policy and strategy; to promote early awareness of emerging issues of policy and
strategy; and to provide the means for Senate to shape its own agenda in some modest degree.
It is therefore recommended that:
Recommendation 1
i.
The agenda for a Senate meeting shall be divided into two parts: the first on
matters of academic strategy and policy (including the Vice-Chancellor’s
report); the second on matters of academic business (including the reports from
Senate’s committees);
ii.
All items of the first part shall be taken for discussion. All items of the second
part shall be business taken without discussion, except when starred for
discussion either by the Vice-Chancellor or by any other member of Senate, no
later than noon on the day before Senate.
It is further recommended that:
Recommendation 2
i.
The Senate shall appoint a Senate Agenda Group to contribute to shaping the
Senate agenda;
ii.
The members of Senate elected to Council shall constitute the Senate Agenda
Group.
The latter recommendation (Recommendation 2) will require a new Ordinance to govern the
appointment and conduct of the Senate Agenda Group. The two recommendations taken
together (Recommendations 1 & 2) will require revision of Ordinance 36 (Standing Orders
for Senate). The proposed revision of Ordinance 36 is also intended to clarify the Standing
Orders and facilitate the proceedings of Senate.
Recommendation 3 (to Senate and Council)
i.
A new Ordinance governing the appointment of the Senate Agenda Group shall
be approved, as follows:
Senate Agenda Group
The appointment and proceedings of the Senate Agenda Group should be governed
by the following rules and Standing Orders:
1. The members of Senate elected to the Council shall constitute the Senate
Agenda Group.
2. Senate shall co-opt the Students’ Union representative on Council onto its
Agenda Group.
3. The Senate Agenda Group shall elect a Chair from among its academic staff
members.
4. The Chair of the Senate Agenda Group shall normally meet with the ViceChancellor and/or his or her deputy prior to each ordinary meeting of Senate
to discuss items for the first part of the agenda. The Secretary to the Senate
shall normally be in attendance.
5. The Senate Agenda Group may request that an item be placed on the agenda
of an ordinary meeting of Senate, in accordance with Ordinance 36.
6. The Senate Agenda Group may recommend to the Vice-Chancellor or his/her
deputy that an extraordinary meeting of Senate be called to discuss any urgent
matter of academic strategy or policy.
ii.
The wording of Ordinance 36 (Standing Orders of Senate) shall be revised, as set
out in Appendix A.
SENATE’S POWERS
The renewed emphasis on Senate’s responsibility to consider matters of academic policy and
strategy will also require some revision of Statute XX (Powers of the Senate). For the most
part, the proposed changes to Statute XX are cosmetic, and seek to re-order cognate
paragraphs under sub-headings and make the language consistent with the current academic
organization of the University. But a more detailed revision of Senate’s powers of
appointment is required to make them accurate and consistent with current practice (under
advice from the Personnel Office). Furthermore, new powers are required, first, to incorporate
the appointment of the Senate Agenda Group, and, second, to respond to the increased
strategic salience of academic partnerships with other educational bodies. With regard to the
latter, it is recognized that different types of academic partnership may legitimately be
approved at different levels of University government (and the WP on ADMS will make its
own recommendations to Senate on the matter). It is nonetheless recommended that:
Recommendation 4
Senate shall have the power to recommend to the Council the establishment of academic
partnerships with other educational bodies, as appropriate.
Recommendation 5 (to Senate and Council)
The wording of Statute XX (Powers of the Senate) shall be revised, as set out in
Appendix B.
SENATE’S COMMITTEE STRUCTURE AND DELEGATION OF POWERS
As noted above, the committee structure of Senate will change substantially as a consequence
of the recommendations both of the Working Party to Review the Effectiveness of Council
and of the Working Party on Academic Decision-making Structures (ADMS). These changes
all contribute to clarify Senate’s responsibilities and increase its capacity to manage and
monitor the academic work of the University. But further minor modifications of the structure
will help to differentiate levels of reporting, strengthen lines of accountability, and reduce the
volume of routine business that comes before the Senate. In particular, it is useful to
distinguish, first, between the committees which report to each ordinary meeting of Senate
and routinely require Senate approval of their recommendations and those which report
annually; and, second, to distinguish between these ‘reporting’ committees and the advisory
groups which are not required to report to Senate on a regular basis, and whose lines of
reporting and accountability are routinely to a Pro-Vice-Chancellor or other senior officeholder. Thus, it is recommended that:
Recommendation 6
i.
Senate’s committees be divided into three categories, namely: committees which
report to each ordinary meeting of Senate; committees which report annually to
Senate; and advisory groups which make recommendations to Senate as and
when required;
ii.
All committees and advisory groups may submit recommendations to any
ordinary meeting of Senate if required for the good conduct of the academic
business of the University;
iii.
Committees should be given clear guidelines, including a pro forma, for their
scheduled reports to Senate.
There was some support on Senate and full support from VAG for the inclusion of the
Research Advisory Group (RAG) within the Senate committee structure. The Working Party
agreed that RAG’s inclusion would render its activities more transparent as well as raising the
profile of research within the University.
It is therefore recommended that:
Recommendation 7
i.
The Research Advisory Group should be incorporated into the Senate committee
structure as an advisory group.
ii.
The Research Advisory Group should normally submit an annual report to
Senate.
In addition to clarifying Senate’s committee structure, it seems proper to clarify the specific
responsibilities of certain Senate committees by modifying their names, and it is therefore
recommended that:
Recommendation 8
Senate Staffing Committee be re-named Academic Staffing Committee and the Standing
Committee on Professorships be re-named the Professorships Committee.
If these recommendations are approved, it is proposed that:
a. the committees of Senate to report to each ordinary meeting should be the School
Boards, the Faculty Boards, the QA Committee and the Academic Staffing
Committee;
b. the committees of Senate to report annually should be the Disciplinary and
Membership Panel, the Ethics Committee, the Honorary Degrees Committee, the
Information Systems Strategy Committee, the Learning and Teaching Committee, the
Library Committee and the Professorships Committee;
c. the advisory groups that make recommendations as and when required should be the
Arts Advisory Group (reporting to PVC Resources), the Centres Review Committee
(reporting to the Dean of the Graduate School), the Equal Opportunities Steering
Group (reporting to the relevant office holder(s)), pending the outcome of the current
review of its terms of reference and lines of reporting), and the Research Advisory
Group (reporting to the PVC Research and Business Development).
A diagram of the proposed committee structure of Senate can be found in Appendix C.
With regard to the delegation of Senate powers to its committees, the Working Party
considered a request from the Personnel Section regarding the delegation of particular powers
to Academic Staffing Committee and the Professorships Committee. It was agreed that Senate
should remain uniquely responsible for the approval of annual review and promotion
procedures, but that the application of these procedures, once approved, could safely be
delegated to the appropriate committees. It was further agreed that the Honorary Degrees
Committee should operate in similar fashion, so ratifying what is current practice. It is
therefore recommended that:
Recommendation 9
i.
Senate shall delegate its powers of granting permanency, awarding increments
and making promotions to Academic Staffing Committee and the Professorships
Committee, but shall retain all its powers pertaining to the rules, procedures and
criteria for the same;
ii.
Senate shall delegate the approval of persons to receive honorary degrees to the
Honorary Degrees Committee, but shall retain all its powers pertaining to the
rules, procedures and criteria for the same.
SENATE’S SIZE AND COMPOSITION
The Working Party noted that Senate has a rather large membership of seventy-nine (79) for
one of the smaller universities in the country. It also noted that Council will reduce its
membership from thirty-five (35) to twenty-five (25), the number set by the CUC as a
‘benchmark of good practice’. The Working Party agreed that a smaller Senate would do
much to ensure that its recommendations were realized. The assumption here is that these
recommendations require a shift in institutional culture to become fully effective. In this
regard, it appears probable that a smaller Senate would promote a more motivated
membership, more disciplined discussion, and greater gravitas in its proceedings; as well as
raising the status of elected senators and achieving some sense of institutional identity. In
sum, it was agreed that a smaller Senate would be a more effective Senate.
The Working Party reviewed its initial proposals for revising Senate membership in the light
of the discussion on Senate and advice from VAG, and agreed that:
a. all Heads of Departments, as defined by Ordinance 6, should be ex officio members
of Senate;
b. one member of administrative staff should be appointed to the Senate, and the
Academic Registrar should be appointed to this position;
c. the student representation should be adjusted to take into account the Faculty and
School structure within the new ADMS as well as the Students’ Union’s electoral
procedures.
It is therefore recommended that:
Recommendation 10
The membership of Senate shall be reduced to sixty (60), as follows:
Ex officio
Vice-Chancellor
Pro-Vice-Chancellors (4)
Dean of Graduate School
Faculty Deans (6, including Dean for UoES)
HoDs (211)
Appointed
Academic Registrar
1
The Working Party noted that this figure would fluctuate, e.g. with the introduction of new
departments and the disestablishment or merger of existing departments.
Elected
Sixteen members of academic staff, including at least nine non-professorial (at
the time of election).
Co-opted
Librarian
Director of Information Systems
Student members
President of Students’ Union (ex officio)
Vice-President (Welfare & Academic) of Students’ Union (ex officio)
Faculty Convenors (5) (elected)
Postgraduate Officer (elected).
The Working Party considered the status of observers at Senate meetings, and in particular the
representatives of the University’s partner institutions, and recommends that:
Recommendation 11
Representatives of partner institutions may attend Senate as observers, at the discretion
and invitation of the Chair.
The Working Party re-considered its recommendation that the President of the Essex Branch
of the AUT be invited to attend Senate as an observer if she or he is not already a member by
virtue of election or office and decided to rescind the recommendation on the grounds that the
President of the Essex Branch of the AUT should stand for election to Senate. In these
circumstances his/her election would provide a clear mandate to represent academic staff
interests as a full voting member of Senate.
With regard to the membership’s terms of office, it appears counterproductive to prevent
consecutive terms for elected members since this may damage the development of a more
knowledgeable and effective membership. It is therefore recommended that:
Recommendation 12
The terms of office of Senate members shall be as follows:




ex officio members remain members only so long as they hold the offices
that qualify them as Senators
appointed members shall be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor’s
Advisory Group
elected members shall hold office until the end of the fourth year
following their election or such earlier date as may in each case be
determined by the Senate to effect rotation. They are eligible for reelection for consecutive terms of office
student members shall hold office for one year. They are eligible for
consecutive terms of office.
THE SCHEDULE, DURATION AND SETTING OF SENATE MEETINGS
On considering the schedule of Senate meetings the Working Party was concerned by the long
gap between the last meeting of one academic year and the first meeting of the next. It was
agreed that a meeting at the beginning of the academic year would provide Senate with the
opportunity to catch up with academic business and take an early look at the current or
emerging issues of academic policy and strategy. Although mindful that Senate meetings
should normally precede Council meetings, so that Senate’s views and resolutions can form
part of the policy process on Council, it was felt that this constraint could be relaxed for this
first meeting of the academic year.
The Working Party noted the deliberations taking place elsewhere about the annual calendar
of meetings, principally as a consequence of ADMS implementation. It had been proposed
that Senate should meet at the beginning of the spring and summer terms and at the beginning
of the summer vacation, in order to allow more time for consultation with departments on the
development of new policies and procedures.
It is therefore recommended that:
Recommendation 13
There should be four ordinary meetings2 of Senate per annum, one at the beginning of
the academic year, one at the beginning of the spring and summer terms, and one at the
beginning of the summer vacation.
There seems no good reason to vary the time of Senate meetings from the current Wednesday
afternoon, but the Working Party does consider that specific start and finish times may
promote a more efficient use of time and more disciplined debate, as well as encouraging
members to stay for the duration of the meeting. The tea-break also merited attention as an
opportunity for members to talk through the issues more informally, and it was agreed that the
tea-break should follow the first part of the Senate agenda on matters of academic policy and
strategy, and should last long enough to allow conversation. It is therefore recommended that:
Recommendation 14
i.
All ordinary meetings of Senate should normally begin at 2.00pm and finish no
later than 5.00pm;
ii.
The tea-break should follow the first part of the Senate agenda and should
normally last a full half-an-hour.
There was some discussion of alternative locations for Senate meetings, but, on reflection, it
was concluded that there is no better location than the Senate Room itself. Furthermore, the
Senate Room should work better as a meeting place with a smaller Senate.
There was some support on Senate for a smaller ‘top table’, but the Working Party noted
VAG’s concern that such a change would give an incorrect impression of the collegial and
consultative nature of decision-making at senior management level, as well as making it more
difficult for VAG members to communicate during Senate meetings. Consequently the
Working Party no longer makes any recommendation in this regard.
Last but not least, the Working Party considered ways to welcome new members of Senate
and to promote a greater sense of social identity and connections among its members overall.
It was felt that opportunities for informal interaction both at Senate meetings and elsewhere
would help to make this happen. The Working Party recognises the current financial
constraints but believes that any investment in social capital of this kind will be money well
spent.
Joe Foweraker
for Working Party to Review the Effectiveness of the Senate
22 May 2006
The Working Party noted VAG’s view that the first meeting of Senate should be informal, but
believed that constituting the meeting as an ordinary meeting would allow the Senate to dispatch any
current or outstanding academic business.
2
Appendix A
Ordinance 36
Note: a version of Ordinance36 showing proposed amendments as tracked changes is
available from the Academic Registrar’s Office on request.
Standing Orders for Senate
The proceedings of the Senate shall be governed by the following Standing Orders and rules
of procedure.
Setting the Agenda
1. The elected Senate Agenda Group may request that an item shall be placed on the
Agenda of an ordinary meeting of Senate. Such a request together with papers and
notice of motion shall be sent to the Registrar & Secretary at least fourteen days
before the meeting.
2. The Vice-Chancellor’s Advisory Group shall cause the Agenda and accompanying
papers for Senate to be prepared in consultation with the Senate Agenda Group.
Together they shall see that the Agenda and papers provide, as far as possible, notice
of matters to be raised, essential information and, where appropriate, motions for the
consideration of Senate.
3. The Agenda and Papers for a Senate meeting shall normally be available to all
members of Senate not less than seven days before the meeting.
4. The Vice-Chancellor, or his or her deputy, may waive any of the preceding rules but
only in order to call an extraordinary meeting of Senate to address urgent business.
5. The Agenda for a Senate meeting shall be divided into two parts: the first on matters
of academic strategy and policy (including the Vice-Chancellor’s report); the second
on matters of academic business (including the reports from Senate’s committees).
All items of the first part shall be taken for discussion. All items of the second part
shall be business taken without discussion, except when starred for discussion either
by the Vice-Chancellor, or his or her deputy, or by any member of Senate, no later
than noon on the day before Senate. All items remaining unstarred shall be deemed
to have been approved, or recommended to Council, without discussion.
Addressing the Agenda
6. At any meeting the business shall be confined to the particulars in the Agenda and
accompanying papers, and no member shall be entitled to propose a motion other than
one directly arising out of the discussion of a subject before the Senate.
7. The first item of business at an ordinary meeting shall be the Minutes of the last
ordinary meeting and any subsequent extraordinary meetings. Discussion on the
Minutes shall normally be confined to errors and omissions.
8. After the Minutes of previous meetings have been approved the meeting will address
the items on the first part of the Agenda, normally beginning with the ViceChancellor’s report, before moving to discuss the starred items of academic business.
9. No resolution or recommendation of the Senate shall normally be rescinded within six
calendar months.
The Conduct of the Meeting
10. All motions and any questions where the sense of the meeting may be in doubt shall
be decided by show of hands.
11. All members shall be allowed to put motions and amendments to motions, and all
variations upon a motion shall be deemed amendments and treated as such.
12. No discussion shall be allowed on a motion or amendment which has not been
seconded. All motions except procedural motions (see Standing Order 18) and all
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
amendments shall, if the Chair so decides, be handed to the Registrar & Secretary in
writing and signed by the mover.
The mover of a motion shall normally have the right of reply.
At any time in the course of a discussion a member may speak to a point of order, and
the discussion shall be suspended until the point of order has been decided by the
Chair.
A member may dissent from any resolution or recommendation come to by the
Senate and shall be entitled to have his or her dissent recorded in the Minutes of the
meeting, provided that he or she shall have proposed a motion or spoken on the
matter under discussion.
No member shall normally speak more than once on the same item of business,
subject to the mover’s right of reply (Standing Order 13).
Any of the foregoing orders may be suspended at any meeting after a motion to that
effect has been passed by a majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting.
Such suspension shall be for a specified item of business only and shall lapse when
that item is concluded.
The following procedural motions may be put and debated in the following order of
precedence, provided they have a proposer and a seconder:
a.
the motion be not put
b.
the motion be now put (closure of debate)
c.
the meeting be adjourned to a specific time
d.
the matter be deferred to the next meeting
e.
the matter be referred to the appropriate committee
f.
the order of business be changed
g.
the voting figures be recorded in the Minutes
h.
a part or parts of a motion be voted on separately
i.
the meeting be closed.
A motion for the closure of debate (b.) shall be put to the vote without discussion,
subject to the mover’s right of reply (Standing Order 13).
The Chair shall determine all questions of procedure not expressly provided for in
these Standing Orders subject to the consent of the meeting, absence of consent being
determined by a two-thirds majority in support of a challenge to the ruling of the
Chair.
Appendix B
Section XX Powers of the Senate
Note: a version of Statute XX showing proposed amendments as tracked changes is
available from the Academic Registrar’s Office on request.
The Senate shall be the supreme academic authority of the University and shall, subject to the
powers reserved to the Council by these Statutes, take such measures and act in such a
manner as shall appear to it best calculated to promote the academic work of the University
both in teaching and research and for the regulation and superintendence of the education and,
subject to the powers of the Vice-Chancellor, the discipline of the students of the University.
The Senate shall, subject to the Charter and these Statutes, in addition to all other powers
vested in it, have the following powers:
Powers of appointment
1. Jointly with the Council to nominate a person for appointment as Chancellor and a person
for appointment as Vice-Chancellor.
2. To recommend to the Council the appointment of the Deans and the Heads of
Departments, and to nominate to the Council persons for appointment as Pro-ViceChancellors.
3. To review from time to time the conditions of service of all members of the Academic
Staff and to make recommendations thereon to the Council.
4. To define the functions of Deans of Schools and Faculties, the Heads of Departments, the
Librarian and members of the Academic Staff.
5. To stipulate which posts shall qualify a person to be a member of the Academic Staff.
6. In accordance with the provisions of the Ordinances, to confer the title of Emeritus
Professor
7. To stipulate which honorary titles may be assigned to visitors to the University.
8. To make recommendations to the Council for the appointment of the Librarian and
members of the Academic Staff.
9. To establish the rules, procedures and criteria for the decisions of the Senate committees
responsible for staffing matters.
10. To make recommendations to the Council for promotions to Professorships.
11. To determine the conditions of appointment and service of examiners, and to appoint
internal and external examiners.
12. To elect members of the Senate to be members of the Council as provided for under
Section XVII of these Statutes.
13. To appoint a Senate Agenda Group in accordance with the Ordinances.
14. To co-opt members of the Senate as provided for under Section XIX of these Statutes.
15. Except as otherwise provided, to appoint representatives of the University on other
bodies.
Degree regulation and awarding powers
16. Subject to the Ordinances, to direct, regulate and control all the schemes of study of the
University and the conditions qualifying for the conferment or granting of the various
titles, Degrees and other distinctions awarded by the University.
17. To prescribe by Regulations the requirements of the University for Matriculation, and to
determine the conditions under which persons shall be admitted to the University and to
any particular scheme of study or research therein; and to determine by Regulations or
otherwise, the conditions under which students shall be permitted to continue their studies
in the University.
18. To determine the conditions under which and the extent, if any, to which periods and
courses of study and examinations passed at other universities, places of learning and
other institutions may be regarded as equivalent to periods and courses of study and
examinations in the University.
19. To institute new Degrees, Diplomas, Certificates and other academic distinctions, and to
make, add to, amend and withdraw Regulations for schemes of study and examinations
leading to such qualifications.
20. To confer and grant Degrees, Diplomas, Certificates and other academic distinctions on
and to persons who shall have pursued a scheme of study or research approved by the
Senate in a manner satisfactory to the Senate and shall have passed the examinations of
the University or otherwise satisfied the examiners under the conditions prescribed by the
Ordinances or Regulations.
21. To confer degrees upon members of the academic and other staff of the University under
the conditions prescribed by the Ordinances.
22. To confer Honorary Degrees.
23. To determine what formalities and conditions shall attach to the conferment of Degrees
and other distinctions.
24. On what the Senate deems to be good cause, to deprive persons of any Degrees or other
distinctions or titles conferred on them, and to revoke any Diplomas or Certificates
granted to them, by the University, and to withdraw all privileges connected therewith.
Academic Regulation
25. Subject to the Ordinances to direct, regulate and control all the teaching and examinations
of the University.
26. To enquire into the research, teaching, staffing and general work of any School,
Department or other academic unit of the University, and, if the Senate so wishes, to
report and make recommendations thereon to the Council.
27. To formulate, modify or revise schemes for the organisation of Schools, Faculties,
Departments, Institutes, Centres or other academic units of the University, and to review
from time to time the working of such schemes.
28. To make recommendations to the Council to institute or discontinue Schools, Faculties,
Departments, Institutes, Centres or other academic units of the University.
29. To recommend to the Council the establishment of academic partnerships with other
educational bodies, as appropriate.
30. To receive records and reports of the proceedings of Senate’s committees, and to give
directions to and to consider recommendations from the same.
31. To review, amend, refer back or disallow any act of any committee or advisory group of
Senate.
32. To approve the institution, subject to any conditions acceptable to the Senate that might
be made by the founders, of Fellowships, Studentships, Scholarships, Bursaries, Prizes
and other such grants for the encouragement of study and research, to determine the
times, modes and conditions of competition therefore and to award the same.
33. To be responsible for the general policy concerning the University’s Library and
Information Systems.
34. To supervise the continuing professional development work of the University.
35. To prescribe the academic dress to be worn by various officers and members of the
University, and the occasions on which it shall be worn.
Student regulation
36. To regulate and superintend the discipline of the students of the University, and, after a
report from the Vice-Chancellor, to suspend any student from any class or classes, to
exclude any student from any part of the University or its precincts, to expel any student
from the University, or to extend a period of suspension or exclusion of a student
suspended or excluded under paragraph 7 or paragraph 8 of Section V of these Statutes,
or to take such other action as the Senate thinks proper, and to determine in what manner
disciplinary powers shall be exercised.
37. To take such steps as it thinks proper for controlling organisations of the students.
General
38. To conduct the business of the Senate in accordance with the Ordinances.
39. To report and make recommendations to the Council from time to time on Statutes and
Ordinances.
40. To report to the Council on any matter referred to the Senate by the Council.
41. To discuss, declare an opinion and make recommendations to the Council on any matter
of academic policy and strategy concerning the University.
42. Generally to exercise all such powers as are or may be conferred on the Senate by the
Charter and these Statutes, including the power to make Regulations in the exercise of the
powers hereinbefore expressly set out in this Section of these Statutes and of all the other
powers of the Senate, and to carry such Regulations into effect.
Senate
14 June 2006
Agenda item 10 (a)
S/06/27
Senate
School Boards
Faculty
Boards
Academic
Staffing
Committee
QA Committee
Appendix C
Disciplinary &
Membership
Panel
Ethics
Committee
Committees that report termly to Senate
Honorary
Degrees
Committee
Information
Systems
Strategy
Committee
Committees that report annually to Senate
Notes:
1. Solid lines are used for sub-committees
of the Senate which report termly or
annually, and routinely require Senate
approval of recommendations.
2. Broken lines are used for Senate’s
advisory groups which report
routinely to the responsible office holder,
but which submit recommendations to the
Senate as and when required.
*The terms of reference of Equal Opportunities
Steering Group are currently under review
and its position in the reporting structure
is subject to change.
Arts Advisory
Group
Learning &
Teaching
Committee
Centres
Review
Committee
Equal Opps
Steering
Group*
Research
Advisory
Committee
Advisory groups that make recommendations to the Senate as and when required
Library
Committee
Professorships
Committee