Kept in the dark? Out of touch? It's a fair cop, guv'nor

Who keeps tabs on how a university handles its funds? The governors. And who are they? Well, sometimes they are the boss's mates, that's who.

University and college governing bodies have mighty responsibilities. Entrusted with the institution's funds, they are supposed to act with integrity and openness, keeping a check on how the university or college is being managed and how it will develop in future. Sometimes, however, that hasn't happened, as a seminar organised by the Society for Research into Higher Education and sponsored by The Independent was reminded yesterday.

University and college governing bodies have mighty responsibilities. Entrusted with the institution's funds, they are supposed to act with integrity and openness, keeping a check on how the university or college is being managed and how it will develop in future. Sometimes, however, that hasn't happened, as a seminar organised by the Society for Research into Higher Education and sponsored by The Independent was reminded yesterday.

At Huddersfield University (see box right) the governors came in for a drubbing in 1994 for offering a golden handshake of more than £400,000 to a retiring vice-chancellor. That secret pay-off inevitably became public, and was countermanded by the Higher Education Funding Council, which cut the amount to £150,000. The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee said it was surprised that the governors should have considered the original settlement reasonable, especially as it was entirely unprecedented in higher education.

Similar criticism was heaped on the governors at Portsmouth University in the same year when a £52,500 settlement was agreed for Vice-chancellor Professor Neil Merritt after staff had passed a vote of no confidence in him and he had been reprimanded for his expenses claims.

One of the problems is that governors are sometimes not up to the job, according to the critics. Drawn from the ranks of the local great and good, governors have historically been businessmen and women who know little about higher education and even less about the public-sector ethic that underpins it. Occasionally, they are cronies of the vice-chancellor. Sometimes they are allowed to stay in the post much too long. And many of them are not the kind of people who are prepared to ask awkward questions.

"I don't think they're good at the job," says Roger Brown, director of Southampton Institute and former head of the Higher Education Quality Council, who speaks in a personal capacity. "The basic problem is that they're not sufficiently representative or in touch with the various constituencies that higher education serves."

In place of the current system, Dr Brown would like to see universities adopt what he calls the Church of England model, where governor representatives are chosen from three camps - students, staff and external constituencies such as employers. That way the chief executive would be held to account much more effectively, he believes, and the people involved with universities would be much more engaged.

Professor Gareth Williams, of London's Institute of Education, is also sceptical about governors. "Personally I have always had some doubts about governing bodies," he says. "I don't think they really make much difference to the running of an institution. The lay governors don't have all that much knowledge about or influence over academic direction."

Tom Wilson, the head of the universities' department at Natfhe (the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education), agrees. "On the whole, I'm not sure that they're doing a good job," he says. "Few governing bodies contain staff representatives, and therefore it's all too easy for vice-chancellors to pull the wool over their eyes and keep them in the dark as to what is really happening."

One of the problems at Thames Valley, the university excoriated by university watchdog the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), was that it didn't have a staff representative on its governing body, according to Mr Wilson. The QAA report found a university that was failing as a result of a lethal cocktail of poor management, over-ambitious plans and dreadful industrial relations.

The QAA report made no mention of the governors. But the obvious question was whether the governors were keeping tabs on the university's management. One might conclude that they were not. QAA sources suggested that the governors were ignorant of much of what was going on, failing to ask the right questions or to pick up on weaknesses.

After the events at Huddersfield and Portsmouth universities, Lord Dearing looked at governing bodies in his review of higher education, and came up with some trenchant recommendations. University structures should be reviewed, he said, to make sure that the governors were the ultimate decision-making body. Like the American president, governors should not serve more than two terms; and the chairman of the governing body should not be in the chair for more than two terms either. To become more representative, the governing body should include both student and staff members, and a majority of lay members, he concluded.

Many of the Dearing proposals have been implemented, though not the one insisting that governors report to the higher education funding councils - and that such reporting is made a condition of receiving public money.

The Committee of University Chairmen (CUC) has produced a guide on how to govern universities, which recommends that governors should not normally serve more than three terms of three years and that an upper age limit of 70 should be the norm. In response to Dearing, it has also proposed that governing bodies conduct effectiveness reviews.

So, how have universities reacted to such prodding? Professor Michael Shattock, CUC secretary and former registrar of Warwick University, has just finished a big survey of governing bodies in universities and found that 39 of the old universities responding (an amazing 97 out of 101 replied) had changed their structures. Lord Dearing had argued that governing bodies in some old universities were too big: some had as many as 45 members. The vast majority of old universities have reduced their numbers, and the average now is 33.

Furthermore, 12 old universities in which the governing body was not clearly the final decision-making body have changed their status. And 70 universities said that they had conducted effectiveness reviews, or were in the process of doing so. A further 14 are planning to carry out such reviews in the course of the current academic year.

"What you see is a very significant effort by the universities to look again at governance - to take stock, to look at how the governors are doing their job," says Professor Shattock. "It is pretty clear that change has been taking place."

The CUC is also encouraging universities to advertise for governor posts and to make the business of governing bodies more open. And it has established governor training programmes for new members and refresher courses for those who have been around a while.

Many higher education experts argue that such reforms have worked wonders. They have certainly concentrated minds. The University of Westminster is quite clear that it wants governors who share their values yet bring specific skills to the job. One of its governors is Jeremy White, the man who set up Nettec, the web design company; his expertise is treasured by university officials.

Dr Clive Booth, former Vice-chancellor of Oxford Brookes University, says the reduction in his university's governing body from more than 40 to 13 members has transformed it. "The success that Brookes had was in no small part due to the strategic thinking that the governors engaged in," he adds.

Generally, vice-chancellors are full of praise for their governing bodies, though that may say more about the power relationship than what they really believe. Peter Knight, Vice-chancellor of the University of Central England, one of the most outspoken university leaders, believes his governing body has been invaluable in giving him knowledge about and contacts in the region.

The real issue is whether governing bodies are as good as they could be - or whether Roger Brown's idea for governors to represent different constituencies would bring new energy and vision to their work.

l.hodges@independent.co.uk