Effectiveness Review of Council 2013 - Cardiff University

12/710
EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW OF COUNCIL 2013: REPORT TO COUNCIL
1. Introduction
1.1 The University is undergoing a period of major change – there is a new Vice
Chancellor, a relatively new Chair of Council and a new triumvirate of
Colleges with their designated PVCs, as well as 3 cross cutting PVCs and a
new professional services arrangement is in place to support both the needs
of the Colleges and those of the corporate university. It is therefore difficult to
predict with certainty all the nuances of inter-connected governance that will
result from these changes. There is a healthy air of determination and
ambition with the new leadership team. This is appreciated and welcome but
there must also be appropriate levels of management accountability to
Council. There is a duty on the Council to ensure that the emerging strategy
is appropriate for the University’s ambition, is being effectively delivered, that
the quality of the institutional performance is seen to be improving and that
there is clear connect with the Council and its sub committees in order to
ensure maximum efficiency and effectiveness.
1.2 Overall, the outcome of the Review indicates few extremes of either excellent
or poor practice. Therefore, the recommendations made in this Report are
more in the nature of improving or refining practice rather than radical change.
1.3 There is a clear sense that the University is poised to move into a new period
of development, there is an appetite for managed risk but this must come with
the concomitant expectation of rigorous scrutiny and constructive challenge at
Council level.
2. Background and scope of review
2.1 Council, in December 2012, invited Mrs Fiona Peel to lead the review of
effectiveness which Council had committed itself to undertaking during
2012/13.
2.2 Mrs Peel was also given authority by Council to determine both the format of
the review and the extent of external involvement in its conduct. The
Leadership Foundation’s (LFH E) Framework for Identifying Governing Body
Effectiveness (2011) has provided a useful basis for the conduct of the
review. Following a meeting with Mrs Peel on 18 December 2012 it was
agreed that in addition to assessing the operation of the Council itself the
review should also cover the functioning and effectiveness of Council’s subcommittees.
However, it was agreed that the review would not look in detail
at those committees where there was an externally driven (mainly HEFCW)
requirement such as applied in the Audit and Remuneration Committees or
those committees which were primarily academic, except it was judged that
Council’s relationship with Senate might usefully be given some coverage.
2.3 It was also agreed that in assessing overall effectiveness the impact of current
changes, in particular the establishment of Colleges, would need to be taken
into account, even though that impact has yet to be firmly established. There
was also a need to ensure that the University’s status as a registered charity,
and the role of Council members as charity trustees, was appropriately
considered.
2.4 The Chair of Council subsequently invited Mrs Peel, in parallel with this
review, formally to assess the impact of the changes to the Committee
structure which were put into place in 2011/12, including the establishment of
1

12/710
the policy networks. This was in line with a commitment to review that was
entered into at the time these changes were approved in July 2011.
3. Working Method
3.1 It was decided that the review would be conducted by means of the following:
Consultation with other universities/bodies who have conducted recent
effectiveness reviews.
A structured survey of members.
Specific consultation with Chair of Council and Vice-Chancellor.
3.2 Feedback from the Chair of Council following his one-to-one meetings with
Council members was also considered as part of the Review.
4. Consultation with other universities
4.1 Mrs Peel, supported by Dr Chris Turner and Sharon Orton, has met with:
Richard Walters, Clerk to the Governors, Cardiff Metropolitan University (5
February 2013).
Mark Humphriss, University Secretary, Bath University (12 April 2013).
4.2 Both these meetings produced useful insights into the conduct and the
outcomes of periodic effectiveness reviews. Cardiff Metropolitan University
was one of the pilot institutions for developing the LFHE framework and was
therefore able to provide information on which elements of the very detailed
framework document were most helpful. In addition to learning about the
approach used at the University of Bath Mark Humphriss’s experience as an
Independent Assessor for Swansea University’s effectiveness review was
useful in determining whether such an approach would be beneficial for
Cardiff University.
4.3 Mrs Peel decided that it was not necessary to engage an independent
assessor for the review. In her judgement the primary benefit of such an
assessor was to allow members to convey their views with freedom but that at
Cardiff the experience was that the Council members had already been
forthcoming with their views and the fact that Mrs Peel herself would be
stepping down from Council shortly was seen as helpful in ensuring that
members did not feel constrained in providing their views. Bath University’s
approach to effectiveness reviews of both Council and of Senate was also
instructive in suggesting that it would be helpful to focus on a set of key
outcomes (around 10) that would add value to the work of those bodies rather
than a multiplicity of relatively minor adjustments to process.
5. Survey of Council members
5.1 The survey of Council members and officers was launched on 11 March 2013
and a reminder sent to recipients on 25 March. The working group wishes to
thank all respondents (24) and those interviewed individually. Twenty four
responses were received:
2

12/710
Lay Member 12
Ex officio academic member 3
Senate Member 3
Staff Member of Council 2
Student Member 1
Officer 3
5.2 In addition, Mrs Peel met with the following members of Council:
John Jeans
Vice-Chancellor
Roy Evans
Walter Gear
Ricardo Calil
Daniel Hodgson
Harry Newman and Beth Button.
6. Review Findings
6.1 Overall the responses to the questions indicated few extremes of either
excellent or poor practice. Therefore the recommendations that flow from the
survey and the other sources of information, including the interviews with
individuals, are more in the nature of improvements or refinements to practice
rather than radical change. A detailed report of the responses is attached as
Appendix 1.
6.2 Notably, all Council members appreciated their one to one meetings with the
Chair of Council as they felt that this enabled them to discuss their personal
contribution and effectiveness, to receive feedback and provided an
opportunity to discuss their development needs.
Recommendation 1 - annual one to one meetings with the Chair of
Council to be continued as one way of ensuring individual effectiveness.
6.3 The Review found that there were no major concerns raised in relation to the
following areas:
.1 There was general consensus that there is diversity of skills amongst
Council members - this will be enhanced by the Chair’s proposal to ask the
University’s recruitment agents to find a pool of talented people with a
defined skill set who may be recruited (or retained for a period of time)
rather than having to undertake individual searches as each vacancy
arises.
.2 The quality of report writing - the responses indicated that reports were
generally clear and relevant.
.3 The length and number of meetings - responses indicated that relevant
business could be conducted within the set timeframe and number of
meetings.
.4 The Chair of Council indicated, at the May 2013 Council meeting, a
preference to spread the dates of the meetings more evenly across the
3

12/710
year so that there is not a long gap after July. He has also asked the
members to consider changing the time of meetings - to move them from
5pm to an afternoon slot as this would be fairer for staff to work within
normal working hours. Feedback received so far indicates that there are
relatively few objections to Council meetings commencing at 2pm.
Recommendation 2 - to review dates for Council meetings to fit within
the cycle of committee meetings and annual requirements such as
annual accounts.
.5 Generally there is not a problem with timeliness of papers; they are
distributed about a week before the meetings, but occasionally some arrive
just two days ahead of the meeting. This should be avoided or regarded as
exceptional and sent only with the Chair’s approval.
.6 Members felt that they received reasonable assurance on financial health,
on student experience, on research quality and ambition, that risk
management is in place, and that there is clear accountability for delivery
of the University strategy.
.7 The Way Forward strategic document has been widely welcomed and
supported by nearly everyone as an understandable and succinct
document that clearly encapsulates the ambition of the University for the
next five years. Members also approved of the clear KPIs that have been
outlined in that document.
Recommendation 3 - that the performance achieved against KPIs
identified in the Way Forward document should be presented to Council
at least annually, with perhaps each meeting of Council focusing on a
particular area rather than having KPIs reported at a single meeting.
6.4 The following areas were identified as ones where improvement would
increase Council effectiveness
.1 Cover sheets: The respondents were pleased by the improvements to the
cover sheets for all papers to Council. They would like to see a brief
account of which Committee has previously seen it so that there is
assurance about the level of scrutiny applied and in order to highlight what
changes have been made as a consequence of committee consideration.
It is considered acceptable for Council to be offered options for approval -
given that the preceding committee has stated clearly its reasons for
preference of an option. Given that the coversheet will be mandatory there
is no clear view on whether an executive summary is also required but
there is an preference for a shorter and more focused papers to be
written especially for Council. However, it is recognised that time
constraints may mean that this is not always possible.
Recommendation 4 - clear coversheet with clarity around the document
history and the actions that are required. The link to the Risk Register
should be highlighted where appropriate and consideration should be
given as to whether it would be feasible for the final paper to Council to
be more concise and high level.
.2 Promoting the Strategic focus of Council: During the interviews with
members of Council we explored the difference between Council
members “Need to know” for the sake of good and effective governance
and “nice to know for interest/ personal reasons”. There were different
views as where the line between executive management and Council
4

12/710
business should lie. To ensure that the lay Council members in particular
feel that they are sufficiently informed to contribute to effective
governance it was considered to be vital to retain or enhance two
elements of information sharing. Firstly, the members welcomed the Vice
Chancellor’s written report on key developments and the opportunity to
ask questions at Council and secondly there was a wish to encourage
more informal information sharing sessions such as the lay members
meetings in particular. Additionally, it would be helpful to develop an
updated scheme of delegation that reflects the new structure and that
makes it as clear as possible who has authority to do what.
Recommendation 5 – to encourage debate on the Vice Chancellor’s
report, lay members to be encouraged to raise issues for debate and
information sharing at informal meetings and to invite management to
develop a revised scheme of delegation to suit the new arrangements.
.3 Contribution to debates: There were mixed views on how members
contributed to the debates at Council to ensure that the executive is
effectively challenged. There has been a suggestion that the “critical
friend” role could be more vigorously pursued by ensuring that there is
sufficient time for debate on the major issues. Some members believed
that the Council would be more rigorous in its scrutiny role if it was
smaller. However, there appears to be little general appetite for a major
change at present.
Recommendation 6 - to keep this topic under review with a view to
assessing whether the size Council itself was a barrier to raising the
quality of member contributions to debates.
.4 Administrative health: There was only an “adequate” majority response to
the question of assurance of administrative health. The reasons for this
response are not clear but it may be linked to the scale of recent changes
involving the establishment of Colleges, with the creation of the Chief
Operating Officer role and with the changes within professional services
Recommendation 7 - Key performance measures for the administration
should be developed by management and scrutinized at Policy and
Resources Committee.
.5 Other duties/roles for lay members: In order promote a clear distinction
between management and the governing body there were discussions
about the other duties that lay members performed, such as Independent
Reviewer, and membership of interview panels of professorial
appointments. There were a range of views and some lay members, who
had the time, enjoyed the direct involvement in more routine matters.
However, some members believed that they often added little value,
especially to professorial appointments.
Recommendation 8 - to remove the obligation of lay membership on
Professorial Interview Panels as a matter of course. Membership on
other review or advisory panels should be at the discretion of the Chair
of Council depending on the subject matter and the expertise of the
Council member.
.6 Visits to colleges and schools etc: The wish to understand more about the
core academic work of the University continues to be seen as a key
developmental need by lay members.
5

12/710
Recommendation 9 – consideration should be given to setting up a
programme of visits for lay Members or to establishing a means of
arranging individual visits.
.7 In order to keep abreast of changes and benchmarking with other
comparable Universities it is recommended that all members should
commit to CPD on governance issues (staff members will have to be
centrally funded to do this). This could usefully be discussed at the one to
one meetings with the Chair of Council.
Recommendation 10 - the University should consider how best to tailor
individual development needs of Council members and should consider
providing all lay members with access to the TImes Higher Education so
that they have a broader information base.
.8 There is general support for the idea that Away Days should remain an
important part of the calendar as time for discussion of new strategies as
well as review of performance against targets. Members expressed a view
that awaydays presented a real opportunity to contribute to strategic
development.
Recommendation 11 - is to keep under review whether a half day could
be given to performance review and another day for “forward thinking
and development of the business.
7. Review of Committees
7.1 At its meeting held on 11 July 2011 Council approved a series of changes to
the committee structures. This followed meetings under the auspices of the
Cardiff Futures programme. Council also agreed to review the impact of
these changes and in this regard an interim interview was reported to Council
on 7 July 2012 with a further review to follow before the end of session
2012/13.
7.2 The aim of the changes in 2011 was:
To increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the decision making
structure of the University;
To ensure effective governance and assure transparency and
accountability;
To decrease duplication of business; and
To increase consultation and representation of key stakeholders, thereby
improving engagement and communication.
7.3 As a consequence the following changes were introduced:
.1 Research Committee, Learning and Teaching Committee and Innovation
and Engagement Committee were put into abeyance for Session 2011/12,
replaced by Policy Networks. The Committees were subsequently formally
disestablished by Council.
.2 Human Resources Committee was abolished and replaced by a Policy
Network;
.3 the work of existing Committees such as Academic Promotions, Awards &
Progress, Equality and Diversity, was undertaken by Standing Panels with
specific authority delegated to them by parent Committees in the new
6

12/710
structure. Annual reports on their activity were to be received by the
relevant parent Committee.
.4 Redundancy Committee would continue to provide regular reports to
Council.
.5 the Health, Safety and Environment Committee and the University
Research Ethics Committee were retained as sub-committees of
Governance Committee;
7.4 In conducting her review Mrs Peel has used the feedback from members
obtained as part of the effectiveness review but in relation to policy networks
each network was specifically asked to review its own operation and provide a
report with recommendations about future working.
8. Review Findings
8.1 Council and its sub-Committees
.1 At the suggestion of the Chair of Council recommendations relating to the
operation of Council have been outlined in the Effectiveness Review (see
above). During 2012/13 the Policy and Resources Committee (P&RC) has
met jointly with the Finance Group and this has proved successful. As part
of the wider changes to the Charter, Statutes and Ordinances it has been
suggested that the remit of the Policy and Resources Committee be
reviewed with a view to clarifying the respective roles of the executive and
the scrutiny role of the P&RC. There is a belief that there was
considerable overlap between the work of the Finance Group and the
Policy and Resources Committee and so it is suggested that the remit of
the Finance Group be formally absorbed into the work of P&RC. However,
an additional need has been identified to establish an Investment sub-
Committee which would have a specific remit to set the overall investment
policy and monitor the investment performance.
Recommendation C1: that the remit of the Policy and Resources
Committee be reviewed, that Finance Group be disbanded and that an
Investment sub-Committee be established.
.2 There continues to be a function for the Governance Committee in that it
absorbs the scrutiny role for those areas that do not fall naturally to
P&RC. Importantly, the Governance Committee also acts as the
Nominations Committee and there is a HEFCW requirement for there to
be a committee with a specific remit to undertake such a role.. The
Governance Committee will also have a role in overseeing the emerging
risk management policy.
8.2 Senate and its sub-Committees
.1 The changes in the area of academic governance were largely around the
disestablishment of the Learning and Teaching, Research and Innovation
and Engagement Committees. A review of the (replacement) policy
networks is outlined below but there do not seem to be any specific issues
arising from the disestablishment of the committees noted above. The
written report from the Vice-Chancellor to Senate has been well received
and changes to membership to reflect the new College structure are
currently being introduced. Senate may wish to consider undertaking a
review of academic governance, including Senate’s sub-committees, as
this may be a useful complement to Council’s review of effectiveness. It is
7

12/710
understood though that if this was to take place it would be appropriate to
delay this until after the Institutional Review in March 2014.
Recommendation C2: that Senate might consider a review of academic
governance at some point after March 2014.
8.3 University Executive Board
.1 The University Executive Board, which replaced the University
Management Board, operates as an advisory board to the Vice-
Chancellor and appears to be functioning well. Suggestions that it was
not always clear what was being discussed at the Board have been
answered by the issue of a briefing statement after each meeting. From a
Council perspective the detail contained in the Vice-Chancellor’s report to
every meeting, and the opportunity to ask questions, is seen as ensuring
that the main strategic items are being appropriately covered.
8.4 Operations Board
.1 The Operations Board met regularly during the course of 2011/12 but has
not done so during 2012/13. This is because the co-ordinating role is now
being effectively performed by the Chief Operating Officer who has set up
a Professional Services Group consisting of heads of professional
services and the College Registrars. In this way there is a direct
operational link between professional services and the Colleges.
Recommendation C3: that the Operations Board be formally disbanded.
8.5 Policy Networks
The four policy networks were established in January 2012 with a view to
making them more inclusive than the predecessor committees. Each network
was asked to review its own effectiveness and the outcomes are as follows:
.1 Education and Students Policy Network
This network appears to have worked very well. It has held seven
meetings since January 2012 and its members both School and student
representatives have welcomed the opportunity to discuss a range of
important topics at an institutional level. The network though did make
suggestions for improvement around the need to establish a more formal
Executive Group and greater clarity about how the network could be seen
to influence policy development. The following recommendations from the
network are therefore supported:
Recommendation C4:
To establish an Executive Group for the network, to be chaired by the
PVC Student Experience and Academic Standards and including the
College Deans of Education and a Student Union representative;
To place all sub groups (as listed) under the auspices of the network
and for the Executive Group urgently to review the purpose and
membership of those groups;
To request the Executive Group to clarify which groups should report
to the network and those which should report to Academic Standards
and Quality Committee;
8

12/710
To request the Executive Group formally to review the legacy
statement produced by its predecessor body the Learning and
Teaching Committee in 2011/12.
.2 Research Policy Network
The Research Policy Network has met on several occasions and two
open “Town Hall” meetings have been held. The network is
acknowledged as a good forum for the dissemination of information and
for the sharing of good practice/ideas and over the last year its
discussions have understandably been heavily focused on preparations
for REF. Changes to the portfolios of the thematic Pro Vice-Chancellors
mean that “Innovation” should also be incorporated into this policy
network.
Recommendation C5: that the Research Policy Network should
continue and that Directors of Research meetings should take place 3
times per year.
.3 Innovation and Engagement Policy Network
Three meetings of the Directors of the Innovation and Engagement
network were held during 2012 but further meetings have been postponed
following changes to the portfolios of the thematic Pro Vice-Chancellors.
However, there is support to continue a network on International and
Engagement and proposals will be developed in the coming months.
.4 Staff and Diversity Policy Network
The structural changes taking place within the University have significantly
impacted on the work of this network. This includes the new College
structure but of particular importance is the removal of the role of Pro
Vice-Chancellor (Staff and Diversity). Staff and diversity now falls within
the portfolio of the entire senior leadership team of the University.
Additional leadership for equality and diversity is provided through the
Deputy Vice-Chancellor who also chairs the Equality and Diversity
Committee. Given that the existing consultation processes with staff are
well-established there is seen to be no need to continue a separate
network arrangement.
Recommendation C6: that the Staff and Diversity network be formally
disbanded.
.5 From a Council perspective the involvement in policy networks has
been at best limited, primarily because of the timing of meetings, but
also because the role of lay members on the networks was not always
understood. Although the issue of the time commitment is relevant
there is also a suggestion (from Council members) that the involvement
of lay Council members may imply a too close relationship with
operational matters. The suggestion is that in future Council members
should not be directly involved in policy networks, although the
opportunity to receive briefings from the relevant Pro Vice-Chancellor
should be explored further.
Mrs Fiona Peel
June 2013
9

12/710
APPENDIX 1
Please note that not all comments have been included.
Section 1: Your Details
2. Category of Membership of Council
Lay Member: 12
Ex officio academic member 3
Senate Member: 3
Staff Member of Council: 2
Student Member: 1
Officer 3
Section 2: SECTION A - operation and business of Council
3. Council meetings - please assess the following enablers/behaviours
3.a. quality of reports
Poor: 0
Adequate: 5
Good: 12
Very Good: 6
Excellent: 1
3.b. quality of discussion and decision taking at meetings
Poor: 1
Adequate: 8
Good: 11
Very Good: 4
Excellent: 0
3.c. length of meetings/agenda
Poor: 0
Adequate: 1
Good: 19
Very Good: 3
3.d. number of meetings
Excellent: 1
Poor: 0
Adequate: 3
Good: 18
Very Good: 3
Excellent: 0
10

12/710
3.e. timeliness of papers
Poor: 3
Adequate: 7
Good: 10
Very Good: 4
Excellent: 0
4. Is there sufficient diversity of skills/experience on Council to ensure good governance?
Yes: 13
No: 0
To some extent: 11
5. In what ways do you think the skill diversity of Council directly affects decisions taken at
Council
At present the mossing elements are not a problem but may become so as we address more
risky decisions
Good use is made of the skill diversity of Council , but more could be done
I am not sure that it is necessarily the skill diversity which affects decisions. Is it not the way
in which matters are presented for discussion and consideration and how the debate is
staged? Most members of Council would for example be able to contribute to a debate on
the budget but are they encouraged to do so?
I believe robust efforts have been taken in the past to bring the correct balance of talent and
representation to the Council.
I haven't been a member for long enough to observe this - haven't experienced many issues
of decision taking where there is any amount of debate
I've never seen a paper fall at council. As such, I feel that the skill of the members has little
to do with the outcomes. To some extent, this is testament to the leadership and
management, that nothing foolish even comes to council. However a 100% approval rate
makes it hard to properly answer this question.
Informed discussion
Level of discussion often poor and superficial although this does seem to be improving
Positive
See 4 above, hence it can feel that some decisions are made without paying due attention to
the sector as it is. There is too high a concentration on Wales and too little of the broader
UK/global context.
Should be enough to prevent major error, but very dependent on quality of information
The business members who have diverse connections enhance the debate. The wisdom of
retired senior educationalists also bring measure and breadth
The diversity of skills and experience brings different perspectives and helps us make better,
more informed decisions. It is useful to have on Council people who have a deeper
understanding of, say, finance and audit and who would be able to question and raise
concerns about an area which other members may not be so familiar with. It is essential,
though, that Council meetings allow enough time in discussions for members with a specific
set of skills to make a contribution. The fact that the skills are there is not a guarantee that
they will be used effectively.
The knowledge base of lay members is very important and ensures that good business
practice is followed
11

12/710
There is a good balance of skills, in business, finance, legal, risk, public, private etc. That
enables 360 degree consideration before decisions are made.
There is a longstanding problem in the University, particularly as a result of the previous
VC's management style, of the administrative tail being allowed to wag the academic dog.
This has affected the way in which priorities are set, and this needs to change.
Too much discussion of operations/detail
We need people who can apply good *judgment*; this comes from many different
backgrounds. But having someone who knows the lingo and expectations in key operational
fields is a very useful thing to give Council assurance
6. Do you think Council meetings engender sufficient challenge to be able to call the
executive to account?
Yes: 8
No: 2
Sometimes: 14
Other: 0
7. Do you think that Council meetings and Awaydays promote clear strategic development?
Please comment below
Awaydays are the best for promoting strategic plans.
Council meetings are developing a clear direction. Awaydays helpful.
Council meetings are more effective than awaydays. Awaydays are used largely by the
Management for propaganda purposes.
I hope so.
I support focussed meeting for strategy and the awaydays are the correct means to achieve
this
I think the Away day does, however, Council meetings are less good at this and as a
consequence we can appear to deal with strategy only once a year. I think that Lay
members should give some thought to how the routine of Council business develops and
promotes the agreed strategy.
I'm never sure whether they should do or not. There isn't much strategic development rather
assurance of the executives strategy which is probably what they should be doing.
If this question is about whether meetings offer an opportunity for members to significantly
engage with the development of University strategy, I do not think they do. Having been a
member of Council for almost three years now, I find that strategic development has not
been a collaborative effort between the University and Council members. In the past, I often
felt we were being presented a ready-made strategy and our role was simply to adhere to it.
However, I see signs that this is now changing.
Increasingly.
It helps info exchange among council members and good presentations strengthen their
ability to act as effective ambassadors for CU
No - see above.
No. We need to review the role of Council in developing strategy and how Council's input fits
into the strategic planning process.
Sometimes
Sometimes. The awaydays have been useful but things tend to get presented piecemeal as
fait accompli at the business meetings rather than a overall strategy.
12

12/710
Strategy document approved hopefully through this process. Informal meetings at senior
level would be more useful.
They can do - although the amount of change that is currently taking place can make this
appear less obvious.
They create the opportunity to do so but that opportunity is not always taken. Better
management of this year's away day will be important
They should be of some help to the management
To some extent. A structure is helpful to promote discussion, but can also constrain, so
getting the balance right is important.
Yes - awaydays facilitate the discussion on strategic plans
Yes they help but there are still many new ideas that appear from left of field such as
MOOCs and GW4 - there needs to be another half day to reflect on progress and change of
priorities
Yes, the latest away day and the subsequent strategy document have been clear and clearly
developed.
Yes- provides a very focussed concentration on strategy and proposed actions
Yes. I have yet to see ideas or direction from council being implemented at an executive
level but I have faith that it will come. Coming out of away days it would be helpful to have a
document entitled 'council believes the University should...'. That would be clear strategy.
8. Please indicate below your assessment of the extent to which Council meetings achieve
the listed objectives
8.a. achieve clear accountability that the Strategic Plan is being implemented
Poor: 1
Adequate: 9
Good: 12
Very Good: 2
excellent: 0
8.b. ensure that KPIs are well designed to test the implementation of strategic development
Poor: 2
Adequate: 11
Good: 7
Very Good: 4
excellent: 0
8.c. assurance of financial health
Poor: 0
Adequate: 3
Good: 11
Very Good: 8
excellent: 2
8.d. up to date information of student experience
Poor: 0
Adequate: 7
13

12/710
Good: 9
Very Good: 7
excellent: 1
8.e. assurance of research quality and ambition
Poor: 0
Adequate: 7
Good: 8
Very Good: 7
excellent: 2
8.f. assurance of administrative health
8.g. risk analysis
Poor: 3
Adequate: 10
Good: 9
Very Good: 2
excellent: 0
Poor: 2
Adequate: 12
Good: 6
Very Good: 4
excellent: 0
8.h. assurance that KPIs are being met
Poor: 3
Adequate: 11
Good: 9
Very Good: 1
excellent: 0
9. Please give your view of the new "Way Forward" strategic document.
Excellent top level document - clear and with purpose
excellent brief document but now we must ensure that the KPIs are measured and what needs
to underpin their success and have some comparability
Good. Hopefully, we will achieve our aspirations.
Good high level overview, the challenge will come when tough decisions have to be made
between competing opportunities.
Good when first written, but will age fast as conditions change. The Challenge will be to keep it
a living document
I am content although to be honest and as a layman I am unable to comment on its
achievability. Is that my fault or has this not been sold to me?
I feel it is a very clear document which outlines where we want to be and how we want to get
there.
14

12/710
I think it is positive that it has been discussed widely and that it is as concise as it can be. It is
also positive that the document starts by stating what Cardiff University is for and includes some
guiding principles. I know that Council approved the final version of the document at its last
meeting. However, I am not sure about what has happened since. I cannot find the document
on the University website, under 'Mission and Vision' (at
http://www.cf.ac.uk/about/visionandmission/index.html). I think it should be given more visibility
now that its final version has been approved. Other than that, I have concerns about how
achievable some of the goals are. For instance, becoming a top 100 university in international
league tables in an ambitious target, especially considering that this is a very competitive field
and Cardiff is not alone in wanting to go up these international rankings.
I'm a big fan and believe that the Students' Union and therefore students generally had sufficient
chance to input to the content.
It is a clear and well constructed document - and now needs to be be considered at the point of
decision making.
It is a useful document that sets the way forward for CU. I would now hope to see this
developed into a more detailed Corporate Development Plan for which there is a fixed agenda
item at each Council meeting, with a tabled progress report from VC, at least once a term
It is good, but needs more emphasis on academic values (science and scholarship), and less on
'business'.
It is short, accessible and straightforward. It is readily comprehensible to many audiences.
Love this document as a clear, workable, quotable and honest statement that I can "sign up" to.
This document serves its purpose well
very important and useful
Whilst such documents can always be wordsmithed in different ways, the essence is really
good.
9.a. Having read the document, the Way Forward, do you feel fully committed to its ambition?
Absolutely. I have taken to carrying it around with me
I would prefer more emphasis on academic values.
Regrettably no. Ambition should stretch but be achievable .Plans to achieve ambition should be
credible and affordable. I do not believe that we have the will nor an affordable plan so that "in 5
years time we will be consistently within the top 100 universities in the World".
The ambitions are noble. I am fully supportive but could be even more committed if I knew how
we were going to get together.
Yes (x15)
Yes - but I'm not sure Council Members are necessarily aware of the next level of cascading
information down to Users, and implementation plans.
Yes, I feel committed to its ambition. I would only like to know in more detail how the University
plans to achieve the goals stated in the document.
Yes. Important to note document not "set in stone" but more a capturing of "direction of travel".
10. Does the current system of sub-committees and scheme of delegation of powers to
those committees provide assurance to Council that adequate scrutiny of issues is being
conducted?
Yes: 45.8% 11
No: 4.2% 1
In part: 37.5% 9
Other (please specify): 12.5% 3
15

12/710
11. Is it clear how papers have been changed or improved by decisions/scrutiny by sub-
Committees before being submitted to Council
Yes: 12.5% 3
No: 50.0% 12
Sometimes: 37.5% 9
12. What should be the purpose of the Council Awayday(s)? Suggestions include use for
strategic planning or scrutiny of key performance indicators
2 Options Act as a sounding board and scoreboard for Executive or an opportunity to seek
advice from Members of Council without conditioning of agendas
Advice from Council on the major strategic issues facing the University
Annual strategic debate is vital for the VC to do his job and ensure that there is buy in from
Council. There should be a second half day to reflect on progress and risk
As above, both Strategic and KPI's
Both of the above 3 to 5 year planning cycle so emerging issues are factored into CU's CDP
Both suggestions important, but should the priority be given to strategy and scrutiny of KPIs left
to exceptions.
Development of strategy, setting KPIs to deliver the strategy, scrutiny of progress
Ensuring shared understanding of context; helping to shape big strategic choices
Greater emphasise on strategic planning.
I see the Council awayday as an opportunity to reflect on the previous year and consider the
way forward for the next year and beyond. I think the awayday should be dedicated exclusively
to discussions about strategic planning, and how Council can collaborate in this area, and on
the monitoring of KPI (basically, how much the University has progressed in meeting the
targets, what did not work and why it did not work).
I think the work of the awaydays should be split between revising/deciding on strategic planning,
and reviewing whether we are achieving the strategy. It has been useful to have updates from
the main functions (HR, Finance, Research, Teaching).
I would regard both [strategic planning and scrutiny of key performance indicators)as being
appropriate
It should be high level strategy and review of performance.
KPIs, environment scanning, understanding change
Strategic Planning and scrutiny of KPIs should cover it.
Team bonding and presentations from different parts of CU
The awaydays are the opportunity for Council as a whole to discuss the progres of the university
to date and its future direction. They provide the only significant amount of time for immersion in
discussion.
The strategic agenda and longer tem financial/funding planning
They should stretch members on matters of critical strategic importance to the University.
Before the meeting members should receive concise briefing papers and items should be
introduced with well prepared explanatory comments from the person leading the discussion.
There may be room for a presentation from an academic on a matter of general interest in order
to break things up but if it is not to be from an inspirational speaker, forget it.
Thinking creatively and developing strategy. Scrutiny is for the formal meetings.
to develop strategic plans, and hear and review executive plans for implementation
16

12/710
top level strategic planning and overview
13. Council Awayday - how many should there be in a session?
Other (please
specify):
One: 58.3% 14
Two: 29.2% 7
14. Please select the length of Awayday event that you would prefer
varying, depending on
the focus of the event:
12.5% 3
all-day: n/a 13
half-day: n/a 5
evening: n/a 0
Section 3: SECTION B - self-assessment
15. What do you think are your strengths as a Council member?
Not included.
15.a. What would improve your effectiveness as a Council member?
Access to the contact details of all council members.
Development course on how to be an effective council member!
Early involvement with new ideas /projects
n/a 6
Education - as opposed to training. Concentrated sessions on, for example, how the budget is
constructed or the estate strategy or how research is funded would I think be useful to Council
members.
Feel the present regime allowing improved discussion and involvement.
Greater knowledge/experience/understanding of the University's varied activities, perhaps
through greater induction training for new members. A greater awareness of college/school
structures would be helpful
I think regular training is essential and I would like to participate in more training opportunities. I
would also welcome being able to network with Council members in other institutions.
Keeping up to date with the sector
More informal discussions
More time to get involved in wider aspects of the life of CU, but unlikely till I retire!
Perhaps I could devote more time to reading papers in advance, but this would have to be
factored in to any workloads model (which it currently isn't).
Play to my strengths
16. Does the current system of the annual one-to-one meetings with the Chair of Council
enhance/contribute to your effectiveness and commitment as a Council member?
Yes: n/a 16
No: n/a 1
Not sure: n/a 1
17

12/710
Not applicable: n/a 0
17. What is your view of the time commitment required of a Council member?
Adequate
Depends of individual circumstance
fine
Fine though I wish I could give more
I am very comfortable with the current commitment and would be prepared to give more
time.
I think it is a considerable time commitment, especially of lay members. As a member of
staff, I get 'Time Off in Lieu' (TOIL) for the meetings I attend outside of my working hours.
But of course the time commitment goes beyond meeting attendance and I carry out these
activities (reading Council papers, for example) in my own time, without TOIL. But I think that
being a Council member is an important role and am prepared for the time commitment it
requires.
I think the time commitment is appropriate for a member of staff on Council, although I was
expecting it to be more time consuming.
If it doesn't take up a lot of time then you are not dong enough
It depends on the week! I reckon in it taking about 1 day per fortnight
It involves about 20 hours a year. Maybe it should involve more, but again this might require
more factoring in to workloads etc
It will vary by reference to a number of factors. individual commitments need to be agreed
with the Chair. Personally, I am now more available now that I have retired.
Meeting time and reading/preparation time is not too onerous
Meetings manageable but allocating time for adequate preparation needs personal
discipline.
Now that I am largely retired it is fine but I would struggle to do all the "extras" if I was
employed
reasonable (x2)
Variable depending on involvement in Committees /Appointments/Tribunals /Reviews/
Dinners etc; also travel time -- say typically 20 -40 days per annum
18. With a smaller Council membership, would you expect the role of Council members to
change?
All members must now SPEAK!
Depends how small it will become. You can run a major corporation with a Board of 8
members for 30!
Depends on work load distribution
I would be against a smaller Council, as it would make it more difficult to obtain the range of
skills and experience a Council needs in order to hold the Management to account. The risk
would be that Council members would simply become Management insiders, reluctant to
criticise.
More effective as a scrutiny body
no (x2)
No room to hide.
Slightly, I think in the past the Council has wandered into Executive matters and I think with
18

12/710
a smaller membership we should be kept to strategic matters, with reports from the
Executive.
Yes - more effective contributions. Specialist knowledge.
Yes . More work/ member.
Yes the emphasis would be even more firmly on strategic planning and measurement of
performance. there would have to be a very clear scheme of delegation and confidence in
the committee structure as well as more frequent updates on progress from the VC and
Chair so that there are no surprises at Council
Yes, forced to be more active
Yes, I expect the role of Council members to change a little.
Yes, I would expect Members to carry greater responsibility and additional roles
18.a. How would you expect matters to change?
Fewer members means that there will be less expertise (and less diverse expertise)
available. Also, there will be fewer people to participate in committees, but these have been
reduced in number anyway.
Greater intensity of engagement between the members and the University
More informed debate
review all the roles - do we need lay members on appointment committees? or as many as
we have
Section 4: SECTION C
19. Are there any changes that you would like to see to enhance the governance of the
University?
360 degree appraisal system should be considered for both committee and council
contribution
Contested elections to posts on Council, with clear lines of accountability to various
constituencies (e.g. Senate for Academic matters) would be a good thing.
Council is still to large
I wish we could have a tabled paper on human resource changes and impact. having been
on several appointments, I am never informed if the candidate accepted the post. At my own
GB meetings( in school) as HT I have to always give the governors an current staffing report
indicating where there are issue or alerting GB to further HR issues. Noted my school is not
a large university, but my governors can then see staffing needs linked to the Strategic
Development plan.
I'd like to see proper votes on all committees rather than just hoping for general agreement.
That way we can see instantly people's true opinions. If they haven't spoken against but still
vote against we can give members additional confidence and opportunity to speak their
mind.
The better the quality of the staff, the lighter the touch needed from Council.
Thorough review of recent changes after reasonable period to allow new arrangements to
bed down
19

12/710
20. Do you have any further suggestions for improvement or comments to make on the
functioning of Council.
At present Council seems to be reasonably well run and exceptionally well chaired. My main
concerns are twofold: a) we don't see how decisions are being implemented (e.g. in fixing
the problem in Chemistry), and how effective these policies are; and b) too often we are
presented with faits accomplis, to which we can only say yes.
Could the timing of meetings change? - 4pm start? earlier? Preceded by lunch? Long days
do not help for good decision making.
Council's function is to make the university staff perform so well that Council does not get
bogged down in minutiae, but is confident about focusing on strategic issues
From a personal observation there seems a determination to use the Council more
effectively by reducing unnecessary meeting overhead.
I am not sure that the University involves Council members enough in events around the
University. Council members are after all the University's trustees and need to be seen and
recognised as such - not for their own glorification but to improve their knowledge and to
make them better ambassadors.
If the Council is to be trusted by the staff should there be consideration of holding council
meetings in public at least in part?? Reconsider the value of having council members on
professorial appointments - I love doing it but not sure of my added value.
Last year I was part of a group that toured of a few schools to find out about Engagement
Activities. This proved very informative .I saw different good practices and a wide rage of
engagement activities that I was unaware of as Council member .My conclusion -- I was
better informed member after the tour ; and I believe that the Schools benefited from the
preparation. Consideration should be given to repeating this process on the same and other
topics
Make it smaller and more focused with high powered membership. External members paid if
that helps to bring better quality people
More diversity amongst members. I'm not a fan of positive discrimination at all but even just
from a PR point of view, we are a majority of stale pale males!
Possible pre-meeting without the Executive
20.a. Are there any practices/procedures that should be consigned to Room 101?
Post-Council Supper
While the presence of lay Council Members on appointment panels can add value, given the
other commitments of members, there is real difficulty in arranging for someone to attend. In
a fast moving, competitive recruitment market that can mean we risk losing candidates. It
would be helpful to have this as a "desirable" component of panels rather than as an
"essential".
20X