Reserved Business in Faculty Board Meetings
Introduction
Faculty Board meetings are divided into two sections: "unreserved" and "reserved". The "unreserved" section contains topics for which all members of the faculty board are entitled to be present whilst "reserved" business can only be discussed after the student members of the faculty board have left the room. This paper aims to examine the use of reserved business and suggest some improvements which faculties could make.The Statutes
The policy of reserving business during Faculty Board meetings is governed by statute K, 20 which states:
"No person in statu pupillari shall be present, whether as a member or otherwise, at a meeting of any body constituted in the University by Statute, or of any other body appointed by such a statutory body, for the discussion of, or decision on, any matter which the Chairman of the meeting declares to be reserved. The following matters shall be reserved:
2 .
(a) the employment or promotion, or any matter relating to the employment or promotion, of individuals by the University;
(b) the admission and academic assessment of individuals;
(c) such other matters as may be specified by Statute [see Statute C, IV, 13] or Ordinance in respect of any particular body or class of bodies; and
(d) any other matter at the discretion of the Chairman;
provided that none of the provisions of this section shall apply to meetings of the Regent House for discussion, to Congregations of the Regent House, or to meetings of any court constituted by or under Statute B, VI [i.e. the Court of Discipline, the University Tribunal and the Septemviri].
Service as a member of a Board, Syndicate, or other body shall be deemed not to be employment for the purpose of subsection (a); nevertheless, appointments, nominations for appointment, or cooptations of persons to serve as members of Boards, Syndicates, or other bodies may be reserved under subsection (c) or (d).
In any case of doubt, the Chairman shall decide whether an item of business is reserved and the Chairman’s decision shall be final. No person in statu pupillari shall receive papers relating to any item of reserved business, except that members of any body constituted by Statute, or of any body appointed by such a statutory body, who are in statu pupillari may, if the statutory body so decides, receive minutes of the decisions taken on reserved business."
Statute C, IV 13, which is referred to twice in the above, states:
“13. Under the provisions of Statute K, 20(c), the election of the Chairmen and Secretaries of Faculty Boards, the co-optation of members of Faculty Boards, and the appointment (or nomination for appointment) of examiners, electors to Professorships, members of Faculties, members of Appointments Committees, and members of Degree Committees shall be reserved business; and the provisions of Statute K, 20 concerning reserved business shall apply to any member of a Faculty Board in class (f ) who is not in statu pupillari as if he or she were a person in statu pupillari.”
A number of other boards, committees and syndicates have comments in their terms of reference that they should be treated as if they were “bodies constituted by statute”. Additionally, the Council, in the Ordiances [page 114], has the following (slightly expanded) comment:
“Under the provisions of Statute K, 20(c) proposals for the conferment of degrees or titles of degrees, and any matter which would for a Faculty Board be reserved business under the provisions of Statute C, IV, 13, shall be reserved business for the Council.”
The Application of this Policy
The application of these statutes has varied widely between faculties. Some faculty Chairmen have used K, 20(d) to reserve the majority of business within each meeting whilst others have attempted to keep as much business as unreserved as possible. It has not been unknown for some faculties to have board meetings which are entirely reserved and to rarely admit the student members of the board. Others have been more enlightened and, on occasion, “bent” the rules to allow greater access for student members.The Problems with Reserved Business
Statutes K, 20 and C, IV 13 cause obvious problems to the relationships between the university and its students and are of detriment to the university.Reserving business hinders relationships between the members of the faculty and the students. It encourages a belief that the students are not full board members (which they are, as guaranteed by Statute C, IV 2) but merely “representatives” or “junior members” who cannot sit as equals of the others. Debates which begin during unreserved business may be continued after the student members have left and agreements reached in the unreserved section may be overruled later. Reserving business therefore hinders openness which the university is working hard to achieve in other areas. It also makes student contributions and scrutiny to areas which are reserved impossible as the students who sit on the board for these purposes are unable to participate and scrutinise reserved items. Finally, reserved business is ineffective as it is not confidential (as, for instance, occurs in the “Part II” sections of school governing body meetings) and so there is nothing in the statutes which prohibits the staff members on the faculty board discussing it with other staff members. Indeed, as reserved business is simply material prohibited from the eyes of students, it encourages a feeling of the old hierarchical university system rather than the “community of scholars” which is now being seen as the ideal model.
On the more basic level, the statutes are also poorly worded and offer great power to faculty Chairmen with no possibility of appeal. Under K, 20(d), a faculty chairman is able to reserve business at his discretion and:
“In any case of doubt, the Chairman shall decide whether an item of business is reserved and the Chairman’s decision shall be final”.
This gives unlimited powers to a chairman to restrict the access of student members of faculty boards to sections of the meetings. Additionally, the statement that
“No person in statu pupillari shall receive papers relating to any item of reserved business”
appears to be unworkable as, under the Freedom of Information Act (2000), anyone, including those in statu pupillari are allowed to request papers relating to faculty board meetings, including the reserved business. This information can only be withheld if the university can prove that it is exempted under the Act but many of the examples of business which has to be reserved, as set out in the Statutes (most notably concerning the elections of the secretary and chairman of the faculty), seem not to be exempted.
Suggested Policy for CUSU
At the moment, CUSU does not have an official policy on reserved business. Therefore, the following points are offered for consideration.
It seems sensible for CUSU to have a three-stage campaign with view to eventually abolishing reserved business on the grounds that it is ineffective, outdated and hinders the work of the faculties. Attempting immediate abolition seems impossible considering its extensive use by faculty chairmen and the general levels of support for it within the university.
Stage 1:
For the first stage, a system whereby the use of reserved business can be monitored should be introduced. CUSU should encourage all faculties to implement the comment at the end of Statute K, 20 “that members…who are in statu pupillari may, if the statutory body so decides, receive minutes of the decisions taken on reserved business” so that the student members of faculty boards are able to monitor what decisions are being made in their absence. The most effective way of implementing this would be for the Faculty Forum members to press their own faculties to implement these changes. If they are unsuccessful, then the CUSU Education, Faculty Liaison and Academic Affairs Officers should take up the campaign, perhaps escalating it to the higher levels within the university. It is also likely that once a number of faculties start to change then it will be easier to encourage the others to follow.
Additionally, CUSU should make requests under the Freedom of Information Act to see copies of the minutes of reserved business within a number of faculties. If CUSU can set a precedent of minutes being released under the Freedom of Information Act, then the incentive for retaining reserved business will decline.Finally, CUSU should press for the university to monitor the use of reserved business within faculties. The General Board should be asked to monitor this, perhaps on an annual basis, so that faculties which reserve an excessive amount of business could be highlighted. The most desirable information would be the percentage of a faculty’s business which is reserved and the percentage of which is reserved under each section of Statute K, 20. In particular, excessive use of Statute K, 20(d) should be monitored and avoided. In this way, the use of reserved business would become more homogenous across the university.
Stage 2:
A second stage of the campaign would be to work to reduce the amount of business that is designated as reserved in the Statutes. In particular, revocation of Statute C, IV, 13 should be a target. There can be little justification from barring students from debating who should chair a faculty and it is detrimental to the running of the university that legitimate issues which students may have are unable to be presented to potential candidates. Additionally, the reservation of this election creates the situation where the faculty chairman is imposed on the students of a faculty. If it were unreserved then the chosen chairman would be able to enjoy a wider mandate to govern. This will become especially important from October 2006 when Top-Up Fees come into place as students will begin to expect to be treated as consumers rather than suffer from the (still) prevailing attitude that the university is doing students a favour. This issue can be seen to apply equally to the other posts governed by Statute C, IV, 13 and removing them in this second stage should not be too great a hurdle especially as they are (with the exception of the faculty chairman and secretary) mostly elections to committees rather than elections of posts directly.It may also be worth attempting to revoke Statute K, 20(d) as, by this time, its use should hopefully be reduced.