Dundee University Governance Reforms Proposals

Clearly, something has gone wrong with governance at the University of Dundee. The University Executive Group (UEG) recently announced a shock £25-30m deficit. No-one has explained how this happened and why it apparently came as a surprise, and there is no clear diagnosis of the problem nor plan for resolving it. The Principal and Chair of Court have resigned with immediate effect and three other members of UEG have left the institution.

There are credible arguments for an executive model of HE leadership: in particular, the ability to respond promptly to crises and manage complex financial issues. However, UEG has demonstrated that these arguments don’t apply at the University of Dundee. UEG has both failed at financial management and failed to take responsibility for such management: Shane O’Neill argues that, when on UEG as Deputy Principal, he was not “in the kind of role that…had the primary responsibility around [University finances]”. This is clearly at odds with his role. UEG has not been able to prepare a plan for responding to the current crisis, nor to present a clear narrative about this crisis.

The need to improve University governance and democracy is urgent. Without any changes there is a real risk that what remains of UEG and Court will do irreparable damage to the University. To help start a debate about this, we make recommendations that will create a platform for a range of subsequent improvements to governance to be discussed.

First changes to make

– Improved transparency. The University should establish a finance committee, containing staff and student representatives, who can be fully briefed on its financial situation and share regular updates across the University. Court and Senate meetings should be open to all University members to by default – streamed and recorded, with minutes and all papers made available promptly afterwards – with closed sessions or redacted documents used only when essential.

– Improved oversight by staff and students. Staff and students have a strong interest in the long-term success and sustainability of the University. It is important that there is closer oversight of what UEG is doing, with oversight bodies having real bite.

Wider changes to consider

– Improved democracy. Decisions about the future of the University should be made by the University community. This could be achieved through establishing staff-student councils with power to shape decisions, and/or through letting the whole University community vote on some key decisions. Representative democracy could also be extended further, to make some UEG roles into elected positions. The failures of UEG demonstrate that the current model of ‘executive group’ leadership isn’t working well enough to keep.

– Fairness and equality. Rather than creating a separate ‘executive’ class, the University community should govern itself. We might try to achieve this by filling managerial and executive positions through fixed-term secondments from existing staff (who would return to their rank-and-file positions after their fixed-term and have a long-term interest in the University’s success). We might consider where executive positions can be abolished, and the roles taken on by representative bodies or elected members of the University. We should look at where members of the University can be self-governing without needing executive leadership.

– Pay reform. High executive salaries and bonuses incentivise risk taking, and lead to moral hazard: if someone takes risks and they pay off, they are richly rewarded; if risks do not pay off, the costs of failure fall elsewhere in the University. We should consider a salary cap for non-clinical staff, so no-one can earn more than a multiple of the lowest-paid staff member or median salary at the University: to show the value we place on the work of all community members, and to ensure that high pay does not provide problematic incentives for colleagues in leadership roles.