Home» About Brunel» Policy and Regulations» Regulations» Council Ordinances» Court

Court

Brunel University

Report of the Group appointed to review the role and effectiveness of the Court

(submitted to University Council on 8 July 2009)

Summary

1. The Review Group, having received the views of 50-60 Court members (from a Total membership of over 500) and having considered the arrangements in relation to the workings of the Court or similar bodies at other universities, has concluded that:

   • Although Court no longer has an executive function in running the University – such powers being now the province of Council - there is benefit in retaining and refining the Court as the body through which the University maintains influential contact with the wider community (Recommendation 1)

Membership and Terms of Reference

2. At its meeting on 26 November 2008 the Council agreed to establish a group to review the role and effectiveness of the Court, with the following membership and terms of reference.
   
   

3. Membership:-

   • Professor Steve Dixon, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Development)
   • Mr Jim Benson, Secretary to Council
   • Mr Andrew Kershaw, Director of External Affairs
   • Mr Clive Gee, Director of Development & Alumni Relations
   • Ms Bridget Alabi, Assistant to Secretary to Council

4. Terms of reference:-
   
   To consider the current, and potential, role and relevance of the Court in the totality of the governance structures of the University having regard inter alia to:

   • To consider the current, and potential, role and relevance of the Court in the totality of the governance st the interrelationship of the Court with other constituencies within and beyond the University;
   • the effectiveness of the Court in relation to the size and categories of membership;
   • the presentation of business to the Court;
   • the perception of Court members themselves as to the contribution they are able to make;
   • the perception of those within the University of the effectiveness of the Court and the relevance of its work;
   • the title of the body: should it continue to be known as Court?
   • the position as it obtains at comparable universities.uctures of the University having regard inter alia to:

Methodology

5. The Review Group has sought the views, variously by questionnaire, in correspondence and by personal contact, of
   • the members of the Court
   • other staff in the University
   • other universities

6. The Group considered the existing Statutes pertaining to the membership and powers of the Court.

7. The Review Group has met on several occasions with additional electronic discussion.

The Role of the Court

8. The Group noted that the Council is unequivocally the University’s supreme governing body. The operation of Court is governed by Council Ordinance 8 which states that:
    
   “The Court shall receive a report from the Vice-Chancellor. It shall have the opportunity to seek further information about developments at the University and may comment on any aspect of University affairs. The University may include in the programme for a meeting of the Court, the presentation or conferment of awards, certificates and prizes.”

9. A letter was devised (submitted to Council in November 2008) which noted the desire to review Court and invited responses. This was circulated to all members of the Court and to the Officers in attendance.

10. Responses were received from 50-60 respondents, from a potential membership of over 500.

11.  The responses received show an overwhelming view that:

    • the Court should be modified or radically altered
    • the University needs to have a public day of engagement with its supporters in the wider community (other than graduation days)

12. The narrative comments from respondents reinforced this analysis, articulating the need for change coupled with a recognition of the benefit to be gained by the University’s engaging with a wide group of those interested in its well being. This group would include many of those who are currently members of Court, plus benefactors, honorary graduates, students representatives, alumni, teachers in Brunel’s catchment area, and those in local or national politics.

13. One or two respondents referred to the way the Court functioned in years past when it still had executive responsibilities, but noted that a transition had taken place with authority being concentrated in Council. This transition had been encouraged by successive national reviews of the governance of higher education institutions and had been reinforced by increasingly stringent guidance to universities.

14. The Group noted that other chartered universities have also undertaken reviews to align their governance with Privy Council advice but similarly were seeking to maintain the contact with stakeholders that a formal body such as the Court provided.

Information supplied to the Court

15. The Court receives at its yearly meeting:

    • A Report on the Proceedings of the University from the Vice-Chancellor and/or his nominated representative
    • A publication highlighting performance and providing financial information on Brunel – for instance 2007/08 The Year at Brunel

16. The Group noted that although in the past year the circulation of the publication has been cut to those members who attended the meeting of Court, this publication could be of interest to a wider group of stakeholders if the membership of Court was redefined.

17. It was also felt that the Vice-Chancellor’s report was an opportunity to inform an external stakeholder audience and that this should be a primary purpose for meetings of Court.

Meetings of the Court

18. The Group discussed ways in which, if the Court were to be retained, the University could best articulate its message to Court members. There was a consensus that entirely formal meetings were not, in themselves, the most effective means of engaging members. Direct personal conversation between Court members and those representing the University enabled a greater level of engagement. For this reason the Group believes that the yearly meeting should include elements both of formal presentation and of hospitality but that to be successful the meetings should be closely managed. To that end the University Corporate Events Team in consultation with other staff in the External Relations Directorate should become centrally involved. (Recommendations 2 and 4)

19. Among the suggestions considered for inclusion in the yearly meeting were:

    • A formal address by the Vice-Chancellor or his nominee giving a strategic update on the position of the University set in the context of the issues facing Higher Education generally, to be followed by  an opportunity for discussion.
    • Lectures by prominent academics on the work of their School or research group (or, perhaps, on their specific research topic)
    • Visits to new buildings (bearing in mind the logistics of moving large numbers of people around the campus).
    • Poster presentations by researchers.
    • Talks by selected students on their work or their experiences in the University.
    • Case studies drawn from the Annual Review presented by representatives of each article.
    • Case studies from lay members of the Court (perhaps employers, maybe schoolteachers) focussing on how they benefit from links with the University, what each side contributes and how they see the relationship developing.
      “The Court Lecture”, perhaps a vignette from a Public Lecture presented earlier in the year, a reflective piece from an honorary graduate or high-achieving graduate, a presentation on a topical and media-worthy piece of research.
    • One or two prize/award-givings with some time spent explaining what the award is for and a short acceptance speech from the winner.
    • More ambitious presentations such as a multimedia presentation on the development of the University’s website and how Court members could use it.
    • Presentation on the major capital projects being undertaken by the University.
    • A presentation on Volunteering Projects such as are to be undertaken in conjunction with Hillingdon Community Trust.
    • Presentations on other external relations activities.
    • A report on Brunel’s engagement with business and an opportunity to showcase initiatives taking place in Corporate Relations.

20. It was recognised that some of these represent mutually exclusive principles of engagement which suggests that Court meetings might not adhere to a standard pattern year on year. (Recommendations 2 and 3)

21. The Group recommends that the purpose of Court should be clearly stated as being to inform potential supporters and to engage them with active projects at the University. (Recommendation 3)

22. The Group envisages the changes suggested coming into effect in 2010 when Court returns to its normal annual schedule. If the recommendations in the Report are accepted members of the Group will be involved with planning the next meeting and the arrangements surrounding it. (Recommendation 13)

23.  The Group believes that where possible the University should take the opportunity to engage those attending the Court outside of the yearly meeting. It should consider inviting them to existing social and other functions and should explore the possibility of arranging additional meetings targeted at those with a specific interest. (Recommendation 11)

24. It is recognised that this event will incur costs, but the Group feels that the possibilities for business and for promotion of the University make this worthwhile and believe that the meeting of Court should be handled as a Corporate event to ensure that the opportunities are fully realised. (Recommendation 4)

Court membership

25. The membership of Court (as detailed to Council in November 2008) was duly noted by the Group. The Group welcomed the suggestions received from existing Court members about the benefits of a broad, externally focused membership and reflects below the suggested categories from which members might be drawn. The Group concluded that the membership as presently defined was both restrictive, but also lacking in focus if the University were to capitalise on the opportunities a modified Court would offer.  (Recommendations 1 and 6)

26. The Group identified four major groups which should be represented in the membership of the Court (Recommendation 6):

    • University representatives, to include the Chancellor/Pro Chancellor, the members of the Council and the Senate, the University Officers, a representative group of students who could be identified as “hosts” at any meeting and their role as such should be clarified and defined by the Events Manager
    • External members from whose involvement the University believed it could benefit. This group might include actual or potential benefactors, Friends of the University, local and national politicians, alumni representatives, industrial and commercial contacts.
    • External members from whose involvement might stem mutual benefit to the members and to the University. To include those involved in education locally (a seat to be offered to headteachers at local, partner and target schools as well as local authority education staff), local authority officers, health professionals (particularly local NHS Trusts and partner organisations), employers of Brunel graduates, heads of Associated Institutions, other community representatives.
    • Those upon whom the University wished to bestow an honour, not requiring a full degree congregation such as occasional awards to Honorary Fellows, former members of the Council and others who have been of assistance to the University.

27. The Group recommends that each external member be appointed for a term of five years (or for so long as the appointee held a particular position (e.g. headteacher, MP) whichever were the shorter) and be eligible for reappointment. (Recommendation 7)

28. The Group also recommends that a member of Court, other than those appointed because of holding a particular position, should be considered to have resigned if they miss three meetings of Court without sending apologies. (Recommendation 8)

29. The Group saw benefit in not imposing strict limits on the number of external members in each category but also agreed to recommend that it would be appropriate to consider limiting the membership but inviting non-members to Court meetings as guests of the University. The University would thus be able to involve many more people without long-term commitment and the programme of the annual meeting could be matched to those to be invited in any year. (Recommendation 9)

30. The Group believes that the current membership of Court should be offered the opportunity to become members of the new body. Those who respond affirmatively or engage with the new body should become members of Court as detailed above. (Recommendation 10)
    
    Note-Recommendations 6-10 were not accepted by Council.

31. The Group recognised that the identification of those attending Court, whether as member or guest, would require the input of those in the University already in contact with the various groups, especially the Vice-Chancellor, the Pro-Vice-Chancellors with responsibility for External Relations and Development, the Director of External Affairs and Academic Staff. (Recommendation 6)

Title of the body

32. The Group considered various options for the name of the body and debated whether the name “Court” correctly reflected the remit of the body recommended above.

33. After careful consideration, the Group saw no merit at this stage in recommending a change to the name of the body. Therefore it is recommended that the body retain the title “Court” or “The Court of Brunel University”. (Recommendation 12)

Recommendations

34. Recommendation 1  The University Court be retained as the body through which the University maintains influential contact with the wider community.

35. Recommendation 2  There be a yearly meeting of the Court to include both formal and informal elements on a pattern to be devised in support of Recommendation 1 and to be subject to evolution to meet changing requirements.

36. Recommendation 3 The purpose of the event should be clearly stated and understood by members and the University: to promote the University externally, to inform potential supporters about Brunel and to engage them with active projects.

37. Recommendation 4 The should be run as a corporate event with support from across External Relations as the benefits that will accrue from this approach will mitigate the costs involved.

38. Recommendation 5  The Court receive a report from the Vice-Chancellor and information about the University which builds the University’s profile with external stakeholders. The Vice-Chancellor and/or his nominated representative will provide this information.

39. Recommendation 6  The Membership of the Court be determined by the Council on the recommendation of the Nominations Committee having regard to the major groups identified in paragraph 26 and the need for consultation as indicated in paragraph 31.

40. Recommendation 7   Members be appointed to the Court for a period Of five years and be eligible for re-appointment.

41. Recommendation 8    Members, other than those selected because of their office, are to be considered to have resigned from Court if they miss three meetings of Court without sending apologies.

42. Recommendation 9   The University seek ways in which to engage members of the Court outside of the yearly meeting.

43. Recommendation 10 The members of the current court should be offered membership of the new body. Those who respond affirmatively, or who are actively engaged with the University should become members under the terms set out above.
    
    Note-Recommendations 6-10 were not accepted by Council. It was agreed that Membership should be by invitation only and determined on an annual basis by the Nominations Committee. It was proposed that the Court Review Group remain in place to draw up the proposed invitation list and oversee arrangements for the hosting of Court in 2010.

44. Recommendation 11  The University invite non-members to the Yearly Meeting of the Court as a means of widening its sphere of influence.

45. Recommendation 12 The body should retain its current title, “The Court of Brunel University” or “Court” for short.

46. Recommendation 13 These changes be implemented for the 2010 meeting of Court and for future meetings henceforward.