There has long been a view at Exeter that the environment is too committee-driven leading to a culture of people passing decisions to committees rather than taking personal responsibility and accountability. When our current Registrar joined the University in 2003 he shared that view and between 2003 and 2007 there were two culls of committees, nevertheless nearly 50 remained listed in the University committee chart. The Registrar also initiated the removal of Court from the University’s committee structure and reforms to the University’s Senate and Strategy, Performance and Resources Committee (SPaRC). The Registrar wished to build upon these reforms in governance in recent years by continuing to reduce the number of committees, encourage managerial accountability for decision making, while preserving strong governance mechanisms and lay involvement in assuring the quality of decision making. This desire led to a fundamental change in Exeter’s governance structure, the introduction of Dual Assurance.
Registrar and VC can often be heard stating that Exeter needs to be ‘entrepreneurial and fleet of foot in its decision-making’. Dual Assurance was designed to meet this need. Dual Assurance came from the view that committees were not necessarily the best way of doing business and that, although people needed and wished to meet together both actually and virtually to do business, this does not necessarily need to be through a hierarchy of committees which it was claimed led to delay, duplication and a high opportunity cost. It was felt that the new ‘business-like’ world in which Exeter was operating moved too quickly to wait for committees to sanction what could otherwise be done executively. Furthermore, it was felt that the opportunity cost of sitting in committees is huge, with significant senior management involvement. The Registrar claimed in a think piece to council that it was ‘rare for committee decisions or discussions to add real value and rarer still for recommendations to be changed.’
The principle of dual assurance was that, wherever possible, formal committees were replaced by a ‘dual assurance’ model whereby a management lead is identified for the area of business covered by a Committee (Usually from the ‘Vice-Chancellor’s Executive Group’ (VCEG)) alongside a governance lead (a member of council normally drawn from the lay constituency to avoid role confusion). This principle of dual assurance was applied mutatis mutandis to any committees other than statutory ones, defined as Council, Senate, Audit, Remuneration, Nominations and Health and Safety. The decision as to whether or not to have a committee was a pragmatic and political one i.e. does having a committee in a particular area add value over and above the dual assurance model and the overhead of having committees.
The purpose of introducing dual assurance was not per se to cull committees, but to substitute a more efficient mechanism for them where applicable. Where a case could/can be made that the establishment or continuation of a committee has advantages and benefits which overcome its overheads then committees can still be established. The general and preferred method of working, however, was and continues to be dual assurance as the default alongside task and finish groups rather than standing committees.
In introducing this system the Council of the University had to be assured that it is “safe” to do so, i.e. that the rewards outweigh the risks. The Council has to be able to assure itself that the University is well-managed and that the resources under the control of the Council are properly allocated and accounted for. The Council is the custodian of the University’s assets and the Financial Memorandum with the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) is with the Council of the University, thus making it accountable for the University’s use of public funds. The system of dual assurance was designed to empower managers, but also builds in safeguards through the lead responsibilities of Governors to assure Council for various aspects of the University’s business without the waste and delay of a labyrinth of committees. Staff also need to be assured that communication and consultation will continue under the new system.