Restoring the 'institutional memory'
In cases where the rectorship has been challenged, justifications made for proposals to change the rules have included:
1 Current governance good practice;
2 A conflict of interest;
3 Concerns that inappropriate people may get
elected;
4 Opposition to the election of the chair by one stakeholder group;
5 Concerns at the low turn-out at rectorial elections.
This analysis offers a useful insight into the risks which must be addressed. These five points and their counter-arguments are considered below, touching also on the positive factors which ‘reform’ proposals have tended to ignore.
1. Current principles of good practice in governance
It will be noted that the 1889 Act used the word ‘preside’. However, as illustrated in the ‘brief history’ section above, custom and practice has been to refer to the role of the rector as ‘chairman’ of the Court. Indeed, as recently as 2004, the advice of the Committee of University Chairmen was that the rector has “the right to chair the Court” whilst “between meetings of the Court, the senior lay member is responsible for governance of the institution and chairs the Court in the rector’s absence”.
Modern governance and accountability standards now require rather more clarity about exactly who is responsible for key decisions at Court. In particular, current good practice is that discussions regarding strategy, resources and accountability are chaired by the person who is responsible for governance of the institution as a whole - the senior lay member, elected by the governing body itself.
In practice, rectors have normally acknowledged this in their conduct of Court meetings, inviting the senior lay member to lead on relevant parts of the agenda. But it can be argued that the language used to describe the role of the rector is in need of updating to reflect this practice and to conform to modern standards.
In this respect the Court of the University of St Andrews proposes, with the support of the Rector, a clarification of the distinction between the roles of the Rector and the senior lay member (‘Senior Governor’), the latter being elected by the governing board from its members (including the Rector) who are not employed by, or students at, the institution. The Senior Governor is responsible for the governance of the institution between Court meetings and has particular responsibilities that include conducting appraisals of Court members every two years, convening and chairing the main business committee of the Court, representing the Court at the Committee of University Chairman and to the Scottish Funding Council, and on behalf of Court performing certain line functions in relation to the Principal. The election of the Senior Governor by a distinct, transparent process involving the independent Court members significantly contributes to the credibility of the particular functions that (s)he must fulfil.
The St Andrews proposal is that the Rector should retain the role of President of the Court, but that it is both appropriate and in line with good practice in the public sector for the Senior Governor, so elected, to chair those items of business concerned with policy, resources, accountability and performance review. The Rector plays an important role in the conduct of the meetings. He/She has direct influence over the agenda and minutes, convenes and sets the tone for the meeting, and invites the Senior Governor to take the lead for discussions of the business items described above, without prejudice to the overall position of the Rector presiding at the meeting. In this capacity as President, the Rector moderates the discussion on the rest of the agenda, which will include issues such as the student experience and others topics central to the ethos of the University, which often attract lively debate.
This model seeks to accommodate good governance practice with the special status traditionally associated with the Rector.
2. A possible conflict of interest between the Rector's role as president of the Court and the Rector's advocacy of the student cause
The Principal of Edinburgh noted in the Dearing Commission proceedings that “the rector has an important role as the ombudsperson for students. It could be difficult to do that as chairman, who has to be disinterested and independent.” This common misunderstanding arises from a reversed interpretation of the role. The rector’s main job, defined in the statute, is to preside at meetings of the Court, not to be an ombudsman for the students. Good governance demands, as indicated correctly in the quote above, that the role of chairman (and indeed president) is undertaken impartially, without prejudice in favour of one group or another, in the interests of the university as a whole.
This must be made quite explicit in the job description of the rector. The right of the students to elect a rector does not entitle them to expect him/her to represent them in the meetings of the Court. There are two or three student representatives to do that. However, it should provide them with the important safeguard (see item 4 below) that these representatives will be fairly heard and that students’ interests will not be overlooked. Any pastoral activity should be entirely informal and subject to the proper conduct of the Rector’s primary role as president, not vice versa.
3. The election of inappropriate people as Rector
Occasional past reports of triviality, autocratic behaviour, chronic absence, vanity or indifference on the part of the rector are damaging to the reputation of this office, serving only to emphasise the importance of taking care to select good candidates.
However, as illustrated in the detailed histories described in a series of books by Donald Wintersgill , the overwhelming impression is one of great success, lending valuable strength, personality and colour to the life of the whole university.
Student bodies themselves are clearly to blame if they have neglected the responsible exercise of their rights, but university managers have responsibilities too. For example, have they helped the student body, when asked, to take the right steps?
With an election every three years, three quarters of undergraduates will encounter an election only once in their university career, unless they proceed to postgraduate studies. It’s easy to see how, unassisted, the student body can lose touch with the institutional memory of the meaning, significance and value of their statutory right to elect the rector. In this event the Court Office could assist by drawing the attention of student electors to this ‘Introduction’, explaining the serious nature of the post and advising on candidate selection procedures, without in any way interfering with the actual choice of candidates or the election campaign itself.
4. Election by only one stakeholder group
The interests of students are traditionally the raison d’être of a university. The refusal of a series of governments to change the role of the rector, in the face of some pressure to do so, emphasises a continuing commitment to keep the interests of students at the forefront. So the statute remains unequivocal about the exclusive power of the students (and the staff in the case of Edinburgh) to elect the rector.
However, there is more to this than meets the eye. The meaningful chemistry of this power, and the subtle way it addresses the challenge of representation in the specific case of a university, is too easily overlooked. Election of the president of Court by the students (in the case of Edinburgh, students and staff) helps to achieve three important objectives:
a) independence of the president of Court from the University executive;
b) equality of access to representation. Despite being the most numerous of the stakeholders, and most directly affected, students are the least able to exert powerful influence. Their representatives on Court have a number of disadvantages:
• Youth and lack of authority: the youngest members, by several decades;
• Inexperience: little prior exposure to governance and committee procedures;
• Minority: occupying only two or three places in a Court of about 25 members;
• Brevity of term of office: usually serving for one year – ie four or five meetings –
providing little opportunity to settle in and develop their role.
Student reps, however competent, are therefore vulnerable to being overlooked, intimidated, or otherwise inadequately heard. By comparison, other stakeholders, such as staff and alumni, are represented by experienced and long-standing participants who may serve for 3-15 years or more in several different capacities. Election by the students obliges the president to familiarise and connect with the student experience, better equipping him/her to ensure a level playing field of debate.
c) an obligation of responsibility. The power to elect the president of Court binds the students into a more adult and responsible role in the governance of the university than the mere participation of its representatives on Court can confer. This in turn strengthens the sense of community, of mutual regard between staff and students, which is often quoted as a key attribute of the ancient universities, safeguarding them from the very real risk that their place in the university is reduced to mere ‘customers’ with no ‘ownership’ of the life and community culture of the institution – a state of affairs often witnessed in other parts of the HE/FE sector.
In other words, the statute, far from perpetuating an anachronism, actually achieves three desirable outcomes in one measure. These benefits would be lost if the rules were changed. Like other arrangements for electing a president, this one isn’t perfect, but its merits should not be overlooked. History has shown that good rectors can bring great credit to the institution, and students are perfectly capable of electing them.
5. Low turnout
The credibility of any election outcome may be undermined in the event of a low turn-out, especially if it falls below 30%. Rectorial elections are not alone in this; other features of Court democracy may be even less robust in the face of scrutiny. That said, there have been periods when the turnout for a rectorial election has indeed been disappointing. However, recent elections have shown considerable improvement, with a renewal of lively interest in the benefits of candidates who are appropriately competent, committed, and available. Nevertheless, this criticism of past experience should stand as a warning to all student bodies that the outcome of the rectorial election depends for its credibility on a relatively high level of electors exercising the franchise.
