Oxford V-C Gets a "Please Explain" From UK Government on Why His Governance Reforms Foundered. (January 24, 2007)

    On November 29 last year by a vote of 730 to 456 Oxford dons rejected plans that would have brought academic self-rule to an end and handed decision-making at the university to outside business leaders. However the matter was then subjected to a postal ballot of 3,770 members of the university's academic, library and administrative staff.

The reforms would have given lay members from outside the university a narrow majority on a slimmed down governing council. The current 26-member council, with four lay members, would have been replaced by a 15-place council, with eight outside members including the chairman, who would be the university chancellor, Lord Patten, for the first five years.

In fact 2,537, i.e. 67.3% of those eligible did cast a vote, and the results, tallied on December 19, 2006 were 1,540 (60.7%) against the plans, 997 (39.3%) for the reorganisation.

Now The Guardian reports, "The government has now called on Dr Hood [John Hood, Oxford's Vice-Chancellor] to justify the rejection of his plans by academics and propose what he will do next."

The chief executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), David Eastwood in a letter which clearly expresses his annoyance wrote:

... I would now like to ask, therefore, how you expect the process of governance reform to move forward. The funding council is the single biggest investor in the university and we assume the lead regulatory role on behalf of all your public sector funders.

 

The university ... has rejected a particular proposal that would have delivered a lay majority. The funding council takes the view that its investment of public funds must be subjected to effective governance oversight and that this oversight needs to be largely external and demonstrably free from potential conflicts of interest.

Professor Hood is told to submit his reply by April 1.

The Guardian's Jessica Shepherd concludes:

Robin Briggs, a senior research fellow in modern history at All Souls College [says], "This letter seems more likely to annoy academics than persuade them that the governance changes should have been passed.

"I don't know what Professor Eastwood hoped to achieve. He uses terms, such as 'major investor' and 'corporate governance' that show a contempt for democracy and that are more appropriate for the City of London, not a university. I am astounded that he should be conscripted into this."

A spokeswoman for Oxford University said: "The university's council will be considering how best to respond to the letter over the coming weeks."

Perhaps the CEO of the HEFCE may have sought advice of Australia's Minister for Education Science and Training, Julie Bishop, on how to deal with universities not doing what they're told because the two-day 5^th Annual Financial Review Higher Education Summit conference  in April 2007 is...