Newton Park Campus, Main House G15
Board of Trustees
Meeting Agenda
Thursday 13th March 2014 at 5.30pm
Newton Park Campus, Main House G15
- Attendees
- Apologies
- Conflicts of Interest
- Minutes of Previous Meeting
- Matters Arising
- Chairs Business
- Items for discussion
Item No
/ Item Description / Presenting / Supporting documentation / TimeBOT 14/01 / Corporate Risk Management Action Plan / SD / Paper attached / 15 mins
BOT 14/02 / VAT / SS / Paper attached / 10 mins
BOT 14/03 / Investors in Diversity / EW/RG / Paper attached / 10 mins
BOT 14/04 / SU Building development / SD / To follow / 60 mins
BOT 14/05 / Elections 2014 / AD / Verbal update / 10 mins
- Items for Receipt
Student Council Minutes 03.12.13
- AOB
Date of Next Meeting:10th June 2014 at 5.30pm
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Minutes of Meeting held on 12th December 2013 at 5.30pm
Newton Park Campus, Main House G15
Attendance:Chair: Amy Dawson (President)
Clerk: Marta North
Name
Emma Weskin
Elaine Etheridge
Ed Stevens
Michael Roy / Position
VP Welfare
External Trustee
External Trustee
Lay Officer / Name
Holly Jenkins
Robert Gould
Graham Briscoe / Position
VP Activities
Equal Opportunities Officer
External Trustee
In Attendance
Sarah Dawes / Chief Executive / Sally Savage / Finance Manager
Apologies:
Maggi Thomas External Trustee
Sarah Kanan Environment & Ethics Officer / Talina Gonclaves
Georgina Sykes / Art & Design Officer
Clubs& Societies Officer
Item No / Points of Discussion / Actions
Conflicts of Interest / A Dawson reminded trustees that anyone who was going to run for elections could not vote to approve elections’ regulations. The item would be discussed during the meeting (item BOT 13/25).
Minutes of last Meeting / Agreed as a true record:
-Complaints procedure wording has been amended at 5.2.5. and put on website;
-Complaints register has now been established;
- Impact report has been printed and distributed;
- HR Policies have been now approved and staff informed;
-Sabbatical Officers salary changes have been implemented.
Chair Business / None
Matters Arising / None
BOT 13/22 / Annual Report 2012-2013 - presented by GB
GB introduced the Annual Report and the minutes of the Audit & Risk Committee meeting on 12th November where the Committee had met with Matthew Bracher of Haines Watts and discussed the Annual Report in detail.
GB introduced the Management Letter from Haines Watts which confirmed that there were no significant audit issues and that, as a result, the Annual report from the auditors was unqualified.
GB introduced he Letter of Representation and it was approved that AD should sign the letter on behalf of the Board of Trustees.
SD highlighted two items on figures:
-VAT – the Union has paid for some additional work of VAT specialist and we are about to send a letter to HMRC to re-claim just below £13,000.00.
-Net figure of £-44,399.00 is better than original budget expectation of £-59,570.00, and significant improvement on the figure for 2011-12.
GB proposed that an annual report should be presented from the Audit and Risk Committee to the Board of Trustees describing the work undertaken throughout the previous 12 months to give assurance to the Board that internal controls were monitored. This was agreed.
GB proposed that Haines Watts be retained as the Union’s Auditors for 2013-14, in line with their original appointment contract. This was approved.
Trustees approved the Annual Report for 2012-13 and that AD be authorised to sign the report on behalf of the Trustees. / AD/SD
SD/GB
SD
AD/SD
BOT 13/23 / Health & Safety Policy – presented by SD
SD introduced the new Health and Safety policy which had been designed to replace five existing policies. This would enable areas of responsibility to be clearly identified and provide a consistency of approach across the Union.
The new policy also reflected the close working relationship between the Union and University in regard to Health and Safety.
EW referred to 5.11.3 of the section – Management of Smoking. It was noted that enforcement of the 10m exclusion zone would be important and easier to implement when the new building re-opens in the Autumn.
EW also suggested that reference to anti-smoking campaigns be changed to from anti – smoking awareness at 5.11.6;
MR was very positive to see that pregnancy and stress was a part of Health & Safety Policy.
GB mentioned insurance on vehicles and was re-assured by SD that all are properly insured now and students undergo tests before they are allowed to drive Union’s vehicles.
SD also advised that the Vehicles Handbook had been revised and placed on the website where it was made available to all clubs, societies and activity leaders.
EE referred to 5.10 of the policy and suggested amendments to the wording to be consistent with the remainder of the document. Agreed.
ES talked about 18.4 of the section – Student Activities. He was re-assured that each partner in Bath (for example: Bar or Night Club) must agree to maintain the same standards of welfare towards students.
GB recommended that the policy should be re-viewed every 2 years instead of 4 years. If there are any changes in legislation Chief Executive will bring it to the Trustees.
The Board approved re-vised Health & Safety policy, subject to amendments agreed. / SD to amend and publish on website.
BOT13/24 / Financial Procedures – presented by SD & SS
SD introduced the revised financial procedures which establish areas of responsibility and day to day procedures and controls in place.
The new financial procedures include:
-Approval of purchases;
-Tendering procedures;
-How we deal with events and control budgets;
-Fixed assets
-Stock/float;
-How we monitor budgets and manage our reserves;
-Gifts and Hospitality;
EE suggested that Pensions section may need to be revised when auto-enrolment comes in to force. SS confirmed the date for the Union was 1.4.2017.
The Board approved Financial procedures.
BOT13/25 / Elections Regulations – presented by AD
AD pointed that elections regulations have not been changed for long time. Re-vised regulations were taken to Student Council on the 3rd of December 2013 and approved with following amendments:
-The second half of point 4.6; ‘Candidates must not (…) campaign within 5 metres of someone casting their vote’ was deleted. Students felt that monitoring this would be an extremely difficult rule to police. It was also felt that principal behind this rule was already covered in the first half of point 4.6; ‘Candidates must not harass voters’ and 5.2; ‘Each student shall have one and only one vote and shall not be allowed to vote on behalf of another student. ‘
-Each reference to ‘candidates’ would also include the words ‘or campaigns team’ to add clarity.
Re-vised regulations were approved by Trustees.
BOT13/26 / Officers roles and job descriptions – presented by AD
The roles of Student Officers are being re-viewed at the moment. Currently, the positions are:
-Media Officer
-Equal Opportunities Officer
-Art & Design Officer
-Environment & Ethics Officer
-Clubs & Societies Officer
AD proposed that roles this year (subject to approval) will be:
-Participation & Volunteering Officer
-Media & Events Officer
-Campus Liaison Officer
-Environment & Ethics Officer
-Equal Opportunities Officer
GB referred to SU Democratic Structure Diagram and suggested changing a sentence “The Trustees are the Union’s Executive” to read: “The Trustees are the Union’s governing body”.
MR suggested adding a word “passionate” to Campus Liaison Officer’s job description to be consistent with the other four posts..
ES recommended to add wording about community links and employability to Sabbatical Officers’ job descriptions.
AD raised that final discussions were underway with the existing officers to finalise the details for each post.
One area of feedback from Student Council was that some students may be put off by the responsibility of also being a trustee. In some unions elections for officer and trustee posts are held separately. However this may mean trustees may not always be representative of the whole student body. AD suggested this was an area that the Union may wish to look at in future.
Revised job descriptions were approved by Trustees.
BOT13/27 / Staff survey – presented by SD
SD presented results of staff survey which was done in November 2013. The key issues from the survey showed that:
-PT staff appear slightly less satisfied than in 2012. This may be due to the number of new student employees who joined us in September and who may not have completely settled into the organisation at this point;
-FT staff are more satisfied with communication, they understand better the vision and services of the SU and in their opinion the Union is an employer who cares about its staff;
-Training appears to have improved;
-PF & FT staff need to be further encouraged to contribute ideas. They also want their contribution to be recognised;
There are a number of projects being developed during the next 12 months which the Union expects to have positive impact on staff:
-Investors in Diversity - an online diagnostic has been undertaken;
- Mental Health – The Union is supporting NUS Time to Change Campaign and the mental health pledge will be signed over next term;
-Professional Development – we are currently exploring the costs and advantages of being a part of the roll out of the national learning management system that is being developed by NUS;
-Attendance Management – The Union is looking to develop a more proactive approach to supporting attendance.
-Performance Management Framework – currently under development;
-Living wage – The Union may consider looking at the costs of moving its minimum wages to the living wage level.
GB wanted to know how many members of staff took part in the survey. SD explained that nearly all FT staff and half of PT staff did. SS suggested doing the survey around April time each year.
ES congratulated on results and referred to communications issues. He recommended that there should be an award structure for recognition.
BOT13/28 / Development of the Union Building – project update presented by SD
The Planning application has been submitted. It should be back by the end of February 2014.
The project is being managed by Gleeds, who are also managing the campus development for the University. A project team has been assembled and meetings are underway to determine detailed costs and timetables.
SD set up two teams: Logistic Team (includes Managers who need to identify all assets and work through the detailed design for each area) and Development Planning Team to look at fundraising.
SD & SS are now looking at detailed impact on budget for 2013-14, taking into account partial closure period.
The development will not affect Summer Ball. It will take place on the sport pitch as it was last year.
ES pointed that we need to think carefully what messages will be going out for students.
SD advised that she will need to arrange an extraordinary meeting of the Board to decide whether they wish to proceed with the project and award the tender. This would have to be around end February. / SD/SS
BOT13/29 / Risk management
Corporate Risk Management plan update was presented showing key risks identified. All actioned or in a process of being addressed. SD will be re-viewing risk framework to identify key risks for the Board to address in next 12 months. / SD
Items for receipt / Finance & Resources Committee 26.11.2013 and Audit & Risk Committee 12.12.2013 noted.
AOB / None.
Meeting closed at 7.30pm
Date of Next Meeting: 13th March 2014 at 5.30pm
Bath Spa University Students’ Union
To / Board of TrusteesFrom / S Dawes – Chief Executive
Prepared by / S Dawes
Date / 13th March 2014
Subject / Risk Register and Corporate Risk Management Action Plan 2014
1.0 Purpose
1.1To review progress against the Corporate Risk Management Action plan 2012-13.
1.2To consider the Corporate Risk Management Action Plan 2014.
2.0 Background
2.1In October 2012 the Audit and Risk Committee approved the Union’s Risk Policy,Risk Management Framework and the Corporate Risk Management Action Plan for 2013.
2.2The Risk Framework and the Corporate Risk Management Action Plan are reviewed annually to ensure the Union continues to take appropriate measures to manage risks and to ensure new and emerging risks are identified.
2.3These documents combine to give a systematic and comprehensive approach to risk management throughout the organisation.
2.4At its meeting on 19th February the Audit & Risk Committee considered the revised Risk Management framework and the Corporate Risk Management Action Plan for 2014 and approved their recommendation to the Board of Trustees.
2.5We all manage risks on a daily basis without always describing those as risks. We assess possible dangers and take actions to minimise the likelihood of those things happening or the impact when things go wrong.
2.6As a public body the Students’ Union has a responsibility to ensure it carries out its functions in a manner which reduces any risks to the organisation and its stakeholders (which includes its trustees, staff, students, visitors and partner organisations).
2.7It is impossible to completely eliminate all risks to the organisation. Good risk management is about identifying both any potential risks and any controls or actions that can be taken to minimise the likelihood or impact of those risks.
3.0 The Risk Register
3.1 The Risk Register 2014 is attached at Appendix 1. The purpose of the Risk Register is to complement Bath Spa Student’s Union (BSSU) Risk Policy. It does this by:
•Identifying risks facing the organisation
•Outlining the controls and actions to be or currently being implemented to mitigate and control risks
•Determine those responsible for controlling risks within the organisation
•Identifying trends and priorities
3.2 The areas of risk identified include the following areas:
•Governance and Legal (GL)•Corporate & Strategy (CS)
•Financial (F)
•People (P) / •Activities (A)
•ICT & Technical (IT)
•Health & Safety (HS)
•Reputation (R)
3.3 A new risk area of Students Union Building Development (BD) has been added to the Register for 2014.
3.4The importance of each risk has been assessed by identifying the likelihood of each risk and its potential impact to the organisation. This enables the Trustees and management team to prioritise its work to control risks facing the organisation.
3.5 It also indicates the trend associated with each risk identified. In essence this shows whether the nature of the risk has increased, decreased or remained the same since it was last reviewed.
3.6The Risk Register Matrix overview for 2012-3 is attached at Appendix 2 to enable the Trustees to see how risks facing the organisation have changed over the last 12 months.
4.0The Corporate Risk Action Plan
4.1The Corporate Risk Action Plan highlights the most significant risks facing the organisation. Its purpose is to enable the Trustees to focus on the actions being taken to control the major risks facing the organisation.
4.2It is developed annually as part of the review of the Risk Register review and reported on a regular basis to the Committee and Board of Trustees.
4.3A review of performance against the Corporate Risk Management Action Plan 2012-13 is attached at Appendix 3.
4.4The proposed Corporate Risk Management Action Plan 2014 is attached at Appendix 4.
5.0Recommendations
5.1That the Board of Trusteesapproves the Risk Register Framework and Corporate Risk Management Action Plan for 2014.
5.2That further reports are bought back to the Trustees to demonstrate progress against the Risk Management action plan 2014.
1
BATH SPA UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ UNION REGISTER
1. Purpose
The purpose of the risk register is to complement Bath Spa Student’s Union (BSSU) Risk Policy. It does this by:
- Identifying risks facing the organisation
- Outlining the controls and actions to be or currently being implemented to mitigate and control risks
- Determine those responsible for controlling risks within the organisation
- Identifying trend and priorities
2. Current Risk Matrix overview
Risks have been divided into the following categories:
•Governance and Legal (GL)•Corporate & Strategy (CS)
•Financial (F) / •Activities (A)
•ICT & Technical (IT)
•Health & Safety (HS) / •People (P)
•Reputation (R)
•Student Union Building Development (BD)
Each risk within the register can be identified by its number.
The following matrix gives an overview of the current risks facing the organisation and identifies those of most importance. Areas highlighted in red on the matrix are those most likely to have the most significant impact on the organisation. These are the business critical risks.
Impact / 4 / GL1 GL3 GL4 GL7 CS1 CS2 CS3 CS5 F1 F5 F10 A1 A13 P3 HS1 HS4 HS5 IT2 R1 R3 BD3 / GL2 F3 F7 F9 A3 A8 A10 HS6 / BD23 / GL5 P1 P2 P4 P6 A2 A5 A6 HS3 R2 / GL6 P5 A4 A7 A9 A11 A12 HS7 BD1 BD4
2 / F2 / CS4 F6 HS2 IT1 IT3 / F4
1 / F8
1 / 2 / 3 / 4
Likelihood
3. Definition of risk scores applied
The level of risk has been assessed by identifying the likelihood of each risk and its potential impact to the organisation. The likelihood and impact are given a score between 1 and 4 which are then multiplied to give an overall risk score.
Impact (I)Score / Description / Definition
1 / Minor /
- Financial impact on the organisation likely to be less than £25000
- No impact on delivery of BSSU strategic aims
- Unlikely to raise concerns with key stakeholders (Trustees, staff, students, external partners)
2 / Moderate /
- Financial impact on the organisation likely to be between £25000 – £50,000
- May impact on the organisations ability to deliver its strategic aims to timescale, cost and quality identified.
- Likely to raise concerns with staff, students, trustees and partners.
3 / Significant /
- Financial impact on the organisation is likely to exceed £50,000
- Significant impact on the ability of the organisation’ to deliver its strategic priorities within agreed parameters
- Damage to key partnerships and reputation of BSSU
- Failure to meet legislative requirements
4 / Major / Critical /
- Financial impact on the organisation is likely to exceed £100,000
- Significant impact on the ability of the organisation’ to deliver its strategic priorities
- Long term damage to key partnerships and reputation of BSSU
- Failure to meet legislative requirements leading to legal or financial claims or sanctions being taken against BSSU
Likelihood (L)
Score / Description / Definition
1 / Remote /
- Not likely to occur in a ten year period and has not occurred in previous 10 years.
2 / Possible /
- Likely to occur in next 3-10 years.
- This has occurred in previous 5 years or influencing external factors (e.g. changes to grant funding) are anticipated over next 5 years.
3 / Likely /
- Likely to occur over next 1-3 years.
- This has happened in previous 1-3 years.
4 / Very Likely /
- Likely to occur at least annually.
4. Controls