Council Minutes: 18 March 2005

Appendix 1

Meeting of Court held on 17 February 2005

SUMMARY

Court has given final approval to the proposed changes to the Charter. It is not clear whether the Privy Council will give its approval. The approval of the Queen in Council is necessary for the changes to be made.

Court meeting 10 December 2004
At the annual meeting of Court held on 10 December 2004, (in addition to other minor changes to the Charter) Court adopted proposals to remove Court from the process of changing the Charter and statutes, subject to two softening amendments:

Court meeting 17 February 2005
At its meeting on 17 February 2005, by the requisite majority Court agreed for the second time to the proposals for the changes to the Charter which had been passed at the annual meeting of Court held on 10 December 2004.

(Changes to the Charter require a resolution passed at one meeting of Court and confirmed at a subsequent meeting held not less than one calendar month nor more than three calendar months after the first, provided that the resolution is passed at each meeting by a majority of not less than three quarters of the members of Court present and voting. Changes to the Charter also require the approval of the Queen in Council.)

Government view
On 15 December 2004 the Vice-Chancellor wrote to Dr Kim Howells, Minister of State, about the Government’s concerns. On 27 January 2005, Sir Alan Wilson, Director General for Higher Education, replied to the Vice-Chancellor:

“As you know, Dearing recommended that the Government should ensure that the Council is the ultimate decision-making body and that the Court has a wider representative role – to inform decision-making but not to take decisions. The Government supported this recommendation and its policy has consistently been that the university Council, or equivalent, should be the ultimate decision-making body. The Committee of University Chairmen (CUC) strongly supports the same principle of good governance and we look to them to promulgate good practice to institutions. The Governance Code of Practice incorporated in the CUC’s latest guide for governors makes clear that the governing body should be unambiguously and collectively responsible for overseeing the institution’s activities.

Since Dearing was published, the majority of universities have put forward amendments to their Charters and Statutes securing the primacy of the Council and these have been approved by the Privy Council.

I am sure you are aware that the Department has been concerned for some years that the University of Bristol’s Court still has residual powers in that only it, not the Council, can amend the Charter and Statutes. Our position is that the Council should have the ultimate authority to make amendments to the university’s Charter and Statutes and submit these to the Privy Council Office. While the Court may scrutinise such amendments, the authority to propose changes must lie with the Council alone. We appreciate that Court members have an important role in representing a wide body of stakeholders, but our view is that the Court’s role should be limited to scrutinising proposals and that the Council should be supreme in constitutional as in other matters.

I trust this clarifies our position.”

Privy Council’s attitude
By a letter dated 31 January 2005, the Privy Council indicated that its advisers objected to the amendment passed at Court on 10 December 2004, by which Court could delay changes to the constitution of Court and Convocation:

“As to the proposed Charter amendments, advisers are content save that they wish to see the provisos to Articles 11 and 14 deleted. They consider that allowing the Court to retain a potential blocking power would leave it with a residual role that would be inconsistent with the principle that the University Council should be supreme in constitutional as in other matters. The Privy Council’s position is that the Council should have the ultimate authority to make amendments to the University’s Charter and statutes.”

On 1 February 2005, the University Secretary replied (as suggested by the Chancellor):

“Please relay to the Privy Council's advisers that (a) the provisos passed by Court are not a blocking but a delaying power and (b) this relates only to those provisions which affect the very existence and constitution of Court and Convocation. The provisos have no effect on the constitution of the rest of the University or on its governance, which under these amendments is securely in Council's hands.”

Request for Privy Council’s approval
On 17 February 2005, the University Secretary informed the Privy Council of Court’s second vote in favour of the Charter changes. She asked the Privy Council to approve these changes to the Charter, together with the changes to the statutes agreed in December 2004.

To date there has been no response.

Katharine McKenzie
University Secretary
4 March 2005