Although staff and student governors are fully responsible for the collective decisions of a board, there are areas where - in practice - their role is limited. First, and most obviously, these are limitations set out in statutes (pre-1992 universities) and articles of government (post-1992s) regarding the membership of certain committees. Practice within institutions varies depending upon the structure, but student and staff governors are not usually members of finance, audit, and employment committees (although there are cases where they are), and never members of remuneration committees.
Reports from committees with no staff or student committee membership will often be taken under reserved business towards the end of a board meeting, when staff and student governors will be expected to withdraw. Notwithstanding overall collective responsibility, clearly staff and student governors cannot reasonably be held responsible for decisions to which they have not been party.
Both staff and student governors need to be realistic about what can be achieved as members of governing bodies. Many of the issues which most concern the general body of staff and students involve details of operation and management, and are therefore not the responsibility of the governing body. Indeed it is often the case that many of the key decisions taken by governing bodies are relatively invisible to the institution as a whole.
Nevertheless, in many boards there will be opportunities particularly for student governors to contribute. It is often the case that the President of the Union will be expected to make a report to each meeting, or annually, and there may also be specific sessions at 'awaydays' designed to improve staff and student participation.
Staff and student governors may feel frustrated about this inability to influence events and the associated feeling of powerlessness. This is particularly the case when crises of governance have occurred in a small number of institutions, and the problems involved have often been much more apparent internally than to independent governors. The moves to encourage greater measurement of institutional performance by boards, and also to review their own effectiveness, have occurred - in part - because of such cases.
Powerpoint presentation:
Seeing the Bigger Picture, Kathryn Southworth, Vice-Principal, Newman University College