Who (actually) does what? Exploring university delegations of - - PDF document

Who (actually) does what? Exploring university delegations of authority: Brigid Freeman (2011)

Who (actually) does what? Exploring university delegations of authority

Association for Tertiary Education Management (ATEM) Policy Forum Melbourne, 27 October 2011

Brigid Freeman1 University of Tasmania, Launceston, Australia Brigid.Freeman@utas.edu.au

Introduction The University of Tasmania has recently undertaken a Review of the University of Tasmania Delegations Register to examine formal delegations of authority. The Review was triggered by recurring questions regarding the accuracy, accessibility and scope of the existing Delegations Register and undertaken alongside significant governance reforms and management restructures. As such, a key objective of the Review was to capture existing good practice, and identify

• pportunities for improvement. The Review was undertaken internally by the Policy and

Delegations Office of Governance and Legal, and involved a literature review, document analysis, interviews, workshops, benchmarking and consultation through the UTAS Policy

• Network. This paper is structured as a series of questions and answers to provide a snapshot of

„who does what‟ in relation to key administrative matters at the University of Tasmania, explore delegations of authority concepts and present proposed new arrangements for the University of

• Tasmania. Importantly, the proposed new documentation remains subject to both further staff and

senior executive deliberation and University Council approval. The Review highlighted key points of differentiation between delegations documentation and university policy statements, where „policy‟ is defined as “a statement of intent or principle which regulates, directs and controls University operations” (Policy Development and Review Policy, 2010). In terms of key lesson learned, the Review confirmed the importance of consulting people exercising delegations in order to ascertain and articulate „who (actually) does what‟ at an Australian university. Such consultation is almost imperative for implementation buy-in. OK so what are delegations exactly? „Delegation‟ is the allocation of powers or authorities (referred to as „delegations‟) to specific positions or committees: essentially a determination of „who can do what‟. Using an „academic hat‟ analogy, the concept of delegations may be illustrated as follows.

Allocation of powers or authorities, where each academic hat represents ‘powers’

University Council Vice-Chancellor Senior executive Managers Academic and professional staff

1 Brigid Freeman is currently undertaking a Doctor of Philosophy with the University of Melbourne.

Who (actually) does what? Exploring university delegations of authority: Brigid Freeman (2011)

In relation to University of Tasmania delegations, the ultimate source of power is the state

• government. The state government (through state parliament) transferred powers to the

University through the University of Tasmania Act 1992. The Act allocates powers to the University Council (and Academic Senate). University Council reserves some powers (in accordance with provisions of the Act), and delegates the remainder to the Vice-Chancellor. In turn, the Vice-Chancellor reserves some powers (in accordance with the Act), then - in conjunction with University Council - delegates the remainder to the senior executive, other staff and committees. These delegated powers or authorities are exercised via shared decision-making: authority shared between administrators, academics and the institution‟s governing body (Hines, 2000). This transfer of power is hierarchical (Hammond, 2004) in the sense that University Council appoints the Vice-Chancellor to whom they delegate some of their powers; the Vice- Chancellor in turn is involved in appointing the senior executive to whom powers are then delegated; and in turn senior executive appoint managers and other professional and academic staff to whom powers are delegated. What are delegations documents for? Essentially, delegations are a governance mechanism for formally allocating powers or authorities to staff and committees. Agreed delegations arrangements support clarity and transparency of decision-making (Shattock, 2006). Within the context of Australian universities, delegations documentation articulates „who can do what‟ in relation to administrative and/or academic powers generally across the institution. For example, who can authorise financial transactions (to what levels); who can authorise human resources decisions (in relation to different categories of professional and academic staff); who can authorise travel (locally, interstate and overseas); who can authorise applications and sign contracts (to what level of commitment); who can authorise risk; who can authorise decisions about teaching, learning and research (such as admissions, credit transfer, assessment, course approvals and intellectual property). Delegations documentation seeks to answer these and related questions. Kaplan (2004) suggests that “while the patterns of delegation and practices of shared governance are neither absolute nor uniform … understanding how governance is defined and implemented … constitutes an essential project for understanding the behaviour of higher education

• rganisations” (p. 166). In this sense an appreciation of delegations of authority as governance

instruments can inform and support policy, which effectively articulates university academic and administration intent. What does the current UTAS delegations documentation look like? The current University of Tasmania Delegations Register identifies which positions, university- wide, can exercise delegations for a limited number of administrative matters – including most financial transactions, some contracts matters, a small number of human resources matters, and external representation. The Delegations Register does not identify academic delegations. The Delegations Register contains a lengthy introductory piece providing information regarding delegations principles. The content is drawn from delegations prescribed in governance instruments, that is, the formal governance documentation including the University of Tasmania Act 1992, University By-laws 1993, Ordinances and Rules. The content is also derived from non- prescribed delegations determined by key university decision-making authorities.

Who (actually) does what? Exploring university delegations of authority: Brigid Freeman (2011)

What was the scope of the Review of the University of Tasmania Delegations Register? The Review of the University of Tasmania Delegations Register was established to identify prescribed and non-prescribed delegations; ensure alignment with governance and policy instruments; examine breadth of delegations categories; examine accessibility and presentation; and consider professional development requirements. So how did I undertake the Review? The Review involved a literature review, document analysis, interviews, workshops, consultation via the UTAS Policy Network, and benchmarking. The wealth of university governance literature provided background information regarding shared and collegial decision-making processes. Document analysis was undertaken to identify the delegations prescribed in governance instruments and key policy statements. Semi-structured face-to-face, telephone and Skype interviews were undertaken with nearly 100 staff (and two National Tertiary Education Union

• fficials). The interviews provided an opportunity to determine current delegations arrangements,

discuss underpinning principles and breadth of delegations categorisation, and consider

• pportunities for reform. Two workshops were held in Hobart involving 13 staff to introduce the

Review, identify discrepancies and omissions in the current delegations documentation, and discuss presentation and professional development requirements. Delegations policy benchmarking was undertaken as a „policy learning‟ exercise (Lundvall and Tomlinson, 2002; Paasi, 2005) to examine web-based delegations documentation from Australian universities to consider scope and categorisation, types of delegations instruments and underpinning principles. Draft documentation was circulated to the UTAS Policy Network, targeting some 350 key staff involved in decision-making and university policy matters. The Review is currently nearing completion, with one final round of consultations scheduled for the coming month, followed by senior executive and University Council consideration. New arrangements will be implemented in early 2012. What was the context for the Review? The Review of the University of Tasmania Delegations Register was undertaken within the same period as other key governance and operational reviews, including the review of the size and composition of University Council, the review of University Institutes, the review of Academic Senate, the university Travel Review, the review of the senior executive structure and subsequent restructure of the Provost, Chief Operating Officers and Deputy Vice-Chancellor‟s Divisions, and corresponding reviews of key committees. The review was also undertaken whilst the University sought to develop a suite of academic policy statements to govern academic endeavour. Whilst

• verarching policy statements can frequently withstand such significant change, governance and
• rganisational structure, relationships and relativities are at the very heart of delegations
• documentation. This context attests to a vibrant organisation undergoing significant change, and

confirms both the dynamic nature of delegations themselves and the imperative for designing expedited approval authorities. In addition to this background of significant change, working with „independently-minded academics‟ has frequently been described as „herding cats‟ (Hammond, 2004). Cohen and March (1986) went so far as to suggest that universities represent „organised anarchies‟. The new

Who (actually) does what? Exploring university delegations of authority: Brigid Freeman (2011)

delegations documentation unpacks the university governance and management hierarchies in an attempt to establish a workable framework. So, what did I come up with? The proposed delegations documentation includes a Delegations Policy and attendant Schedules, including a Schedule of Financial Delegations, Schedule of Human Resources Delegations (including Part A – Academic Staff and Part B – Professional Staff), Schedule of Contract Delegations, Schedule of Risk Delegations, Schedule of Travel Delegations and Schedule of Committee Delegations.

Table 1: Snapshot of Proposed Delegations Documentation and Significant Reforms DELEGATIONS POLICY AND DELEGATIONS SCHEDULES SNAPSHOT OF CHANGES Delegations Policy Differs significantly to the introductory section of the current Delegations Register Schedule of Financial Delegations Small number of large changes; large number of small changes Schedule of Human Resources Delegations Completely new, detailed delegations aligned to industrial instruments for professional and academic staff Schedule of Contract Delegations Completely revised reflecting current practice and a small number of changes Schedule of Risk Delegations Reflecting current practice; directly extracted from the Risk Management Policy Schedule of Travel Delegations Reflecting current practice and incorporating a small number of reforms arising from the Travel Review Schedule of Committee Delegations Completely updated presentation of current delegations capturing recent changes Reference in Delegations Policy to various administrative policies References to WHS Responsibilities Policy, Heads of School Policy, Finance Policies (such as the Purchasing Policy) and Policy Development and Review Policy Reference in Delegations Policy to various academic delegations References to relevant Ordinances, Rules, emerging academic policy statements and academic standards framework

The schedules are intentionally succinct and presented holistically. While the delegations themselves are hierarchical, they do not necessarily always follow reporting lines. The Delegations Policy provides an overarching statement of principle regarding formal University of Tasmania administrative delegations of authority. The policy identifies powers reserved for the sole discretion of University Council, the Vice-Chancellor and Academic Senate; it articulates key principles of delegation. This document is being developed in accordance with the University‟s Policy Development and Review Policy. The Schedule of Financial Delegations introduces delegation banding, similar to arrangements instituted by other Australian universities. The Schedule provides a consistent, hierarchical framework for financial delegations from positions holding minimal financial delegation ($5,000) through to University Council (unlimited). The Schedule of Financial Delegations differentiates between the key types of financial transactions embedded in the University‟s TechnologyOne electronic finance system (accounts payable and purchasing; accounts receivable; journal transfers) and the manually managed systems relating to asset register variation and debt write-

• ff. Whilst financial delegations are held by a large number of staff (400) located throughout all

sections of the university, the financial delegations schedule is intentionally hierarchical in relation to monetary amounts and position seniority. Decisions involving relatively small amounts of money (up to $5,000 per individual transaction) are highly dispersed; decisions involving larger amounts of money (over $50,000) are highly centralised. This approach concurrently reflects operational requirements and risk mitigation. The banded framework mostly – but not always – establishes parity and relativity between positions.

Who (actually) does what? Exploring university delegations of authority: Brigid Freeman (2011)

Table 2: Skeleton Schedule of Financial Delegations (simplified)

BAND POSITIONS OR COUNCIL FINANCIAL DELEGATION (INDIVIDUAL TRANSACTIONS) (accounts payable/purchasing; accounts receivable; journal transfers; asset register variation and debt write-off) Band 8 Council Unlimited Band 6-7 Vice-Chancellor and Chief Operating Officer $1m - $2m Band 5 Senior management positions $500,000 Band 2-4 Mid-level positions $50,000 - $250,000 Band 1 Junior Positions $5,000

The Schedule of Contract Delegations encompasses delegations for both applications and contracts (including contract variations), and identifies differentiated delegations for incoming and outgoing monies. The concept of „outgoing monies‟ incorporates in-kind contributions, as both cash and in-kind contributions represent a University commitment. The schedule differentiates between: general contracts, memorandums of understanding, research and graduate research contracts, real property contracts, leases and licenses, intellectual property agreements and deeds of release. Variables include contract value (such that the delegations are directly aligned to the Schedule of Financial Delegations), and contract length (in relation to real- property). The new Schedule of Contract Delegations suggests that, as application or contract amounts increase, or length of contract period increases, seniority of the delegation holder also

• increases. The schedule also supports the understanding that committing the University to paying

money out represents a higher level of risk or exposure than agreeing to receive monies and, as such, the position of the delegation holders are higher in seniority. In centralising some delegations – such as authority to sign research applications and contracts to the Deputy Vice- Chancellor (Research) – the schedule reflects the imperative for centralised research income tracking for future „knock-on‟ Commonwealth research funding.

Table 3: Skeleton Schedule of Contract Delegations (simplified)

CONTRACT TYPE APPLICATIONS and CONTRACTS General contracts other than the ones listed below … Band 1 – Band 8 from Schedule of Financial Delegations Memorandums of Understanding Members of the senior executive (in their area of responsibility) Research contracts including research grant agreements, contract research agreements and consultancy agreements Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) Graduate research contracts Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) Real property contracts including real property ownership, real property leases and occupation licenses Chief Operating Officer, VC, Council (depending on length of contract) Intellectual property contracts including deeds of agreement, materials or data transfer agreements, confidentiality agreements and intellectual property license agreements Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) Deeds of release Director, Governance and Legal (to $50k), then COO to $1m (both excluding ex gratia payments) then VC (including all ex gratia payments)

The Schedule of Travel Delegations establishes delegation arrangements for international travel by air, land and sea (for DFAT travel advisories levels 1-5), and interstate travel by air, land and

• sea. The schedule identifies approval authorities for different categories of traveller (senior

executive, heads, other staff, students travelling for course requirements). The documentation explicitly differentiates authorisation for travel from authorisation for travel expenditure, which reflects duty of care and staff management considerations. As a consequence, travel delegations are highly centralised and senior executive members are responsible for authorising travel involving relatively low levels of expenditure (for example, Provost approval of interstate travel

• f Deans; Deans approval of interstate travel for Heads of School). The schedule also reflects the

principle that „delegations go up‟: approval to travel interstate and overseas is given by one‟s manager.

Who (actually) does what? Exploring university delegations of authority: Brigid Freeman (2011)

Table 4: Skeleton Schedule of Travel Delegations (simplified)

TRAVELLER DELEGATION HELD BY Vice-Chancellor Chancellor Senior management positions Provost Mid-level positions Senior management positions Junior Positions Mid-level positions

The new Schedule of Human Resources Delegations identifies human resources delegations from the University‟s industrial instruments for all position classifications. These classifications are: academic staff (casual; levels A-E; senior executive); and professional staff (casual; Higher Education Officers, Research Assistants; English Language Centre staff and senior manages and senior executive). The schedule establishes a new, University-wide framework for the consistent exercise of human resources delegations. The schedule illustrates highly centralised human resources arrangements for all recruits and staff other than casuals, with most authorities vested in Deans and heads of Division rather than Heads of School or Budget Centre. Again the schedule clearly illustrates the principle that „delegations go up‟; approval of conditions and benefits of employment – such as leave, allowances and performance management – is given by

• ne‟s manager.

Table 5: Skeleton Schedule of Human Resources Delegations (simplified)

HR DELEGATIONS CASUALS PROFESSIONAL STAFF (casuals, HEOs, RAs, ELC, senior managers) ACADEMIC STAFF (casuals, levels A-E, Deans, heads of Institutes, senior executive, VC) Classifications and payments Positions holding delegation Positions holding delegation Positions holding delegation Employment arrangements Positions holding delegation Positions holding delegation Positions holding delegation Leave provisions Positions holding delegation Positions holding delegation Positions holding delegation Miscellaneous Positions holding delegation Positions holding delegation Positions holding delegation

The Schedule of Committee Delegations provides information regarding key University of Tasmania governance committees, derived from the University of Tasmania Act 1992, Ordinances and Rules. The schedule consistently presents information regarding: committee delegations (that is, terms of reference), membership, term of office and secretariat details. As the details are drawn directly from governance instruments which are currently, and in future

• ccasionally, subject to review, the Delegations Policy proposes that where governance

instruments are amended by University Council, amendments to the Schedule of Committee Delegations be automatically approved to ensure currency. The objective of the schedule is to support transparency and participation in University governance and decision-making.

Table 6: Skeleton Schedule of Committee Delegations (simplified)

COMMITTEES TERMS OF REFERENCE MEMBERSHIP SECRETARIAT University Council and sub-committees Terms of reference Positions and terms of office Position Academic Senate and sub-committees Terms of reference Positions and terms of office Position Senior Management Team and sub-committees Terms of reference Positions and terms of office Position University committees (Quality, Internationalisation, WHS, Alumni, Foundation Board) Terms of reference Positions and terms of office Position University Institute Boards Terms of reference Positions and terms of office Position

In relation to academic delegations, the initial plan included potentially articulating the academic delegations spanning teaching, learning and research. However, consultations confirmed both the limited scope of current academic policy, and considerable body of policy work remaining

• utstanding; for example, academic policy under development includes the Assessment

Procedures, Course Approval Policy, Credit Transfer Policy, Generic Attributes Policy, most research and all graduate research policy. The challenge of specifying academic delegations before key academic policy statements were finalized proved both inappropriate and insurmountable.

Who (actually) does what? Exploring university delegations of authority: Brigid Freeman (2011)

So, is ‘university policy’ the same as ‘delegations of authority’? One could presume a high level of similarity as delegations of authority documentation is derived from governance instruments and ideally aligned to university policy, as illustrated in Figure 1,

• verleaf.

Figure 1: Overlap between university governance instruments, policy and delegations documentation

However, the points of difference between university policy and delegations of authority are many and fundamental, as suggested in Table 7, below.

Table 7: Comparison: Policy and Delegations Documentation POLICY DELEGATIONS DOCUMENTATION Policy Development and Review Policy Internal review Stable (reviewed 3-5 yrs) Dynamic (regularly amended) Umbrella “what” statements Detailed “who can do what” statements Large numbers of people (generally involving ‘delegation down’) Large numbers of people holding low-level delegations; small number holding mid-high level delegations (generally involving ‘no delegation down unless stated’) Teaching, learning, research, administration UTAS - administration only at this stage Aligned to governance instruments and plans Drawn from governance instruments and current practice Simple or complex; short/succinct or lengthy Generally complex; generally lengthy Policy implementation not easily monitored Delegations implementation readily monitored through electronic systems (finance; contracts; some HR)

University policy is developed in accordance with the university Policy on Policy and at the University of Tasmania, using our University Policy Development Cycle. The proposed delegations documentation resulted from an internal review process. Policy is intentionally stable, generally for a period of some 3-5 years; delegations documentation is intentionally dynamic and subject to regular, routine amendment. Policy represents umbrella „what‟ statements; delegations documentation represents detailed „who can do what‟ statements. Policy is operationalised by large numbers of people often involving „delegation down‟. For example, policy statements identify what the university as a whole will do. Many staff throughout the university – most of whom are not explicitly identified in the policy - are then involved in

• implementation. Delegations documentation explicitly identifies positions able to exercise

authorities, and generally reflects the principle of „no delegation down unless otherwise stated‟. Policy spans all university operations (teaching, learning, research, administration, community) applicable across all organisational units. Delegations documentation can certainly articulate both

GOVERNANCE INSTRUMENTS POLICY STATEMENTS DELEGATIONS POLICY & SCHEDULES

Who (actually) does what? Exploring university delegations of authority: Brigid Freeman (2011)

academic and administrative authorities, however, mid to high level delegations are highly centralized to senior faculty and executive staff. Policy provisions can be simple or complex and policy statements short or long; delegations are inherently complex and documentation is generally lengthy. Policy implementation is not easily monitored or evaluated; whereas sophisticated ICT-based systems which electronically workflow delegations (such as TechnologyOne and human resources online systems) contain inbuilt checks and balances supportive of monitoring regimes. In conclusion, what are the lessons most relevant to university policy development? In some senses the Review confirms some things that we already know or, at the very least,

• suspect. We know that words on paper do not necessarily mirror or drive practice. We know that

meaningful pre-approval consultation is imperative to determine current practice and to identify realistic opportunities for change. We know that consultation, accessible documentation and professional development are almost pre-requisites for successful implementation. The Review has also clarified that policy and delegations are related, but different, and while writing broad delegations into policy is possible and common practice, we now know that writing academic delegations in the absence of academic policy is practically impossible. These findings can inform both the new delegations documentation, and the way we proceed with our policy development initiatives.

References Cohen, M.D., & March, J.G. (1974). Leadership and Ambiguity: The American College President. New York: McGraw-Hill. Ehrenberg, R.G. (2004). Introduction. In Ehrenberg, R.G. (ed) Governing Academia: who is in charge at the modern

• university. London: Cornell University Press.

Hammond, T.H. (2004). Herding Cats in University Hierarchies. In Ehrenberg, R.G. (ed) Governing Academic: who is in charge at the modern university. London: Cornell University Press. Hines, E.R. 2000. The Governance of Higher Education. In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, J.C. Smart (ed), vol. 15, 105-56. New York: Agathon Press. Kaplan, G.E. (2004). How academic ships actually navigate. In Ehrenberg, R.G. (ed) Governing Academic: who is in charge at the modern university. London: Cornell University Press. Lundvall, B.A. & Tomlinson, M. (2002). International benchmarking as a policy learning tool. In Rodrigues, M.J. The new knowledge economy in Europe: a strategy for international competitiveness and social cohesion. Cheltenham UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Paasi, M. (2005). Benchmarking policies Collective benchmarking of policies: an instrument for policy learning in adaptive research and innovation policy. Science and Public Policy, 32(1), 17-27. Shattock, M. 2006. Managing good governance in higher education. UK: Open University Press. Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge the source of the hat analogy as Jeff Bronstein, Lawyer, University of Tasmania. Contact details Brigid Freeman Manager, Policy and Delegations Governance and Legal University of Tasmania Newnham Campus LAUNCESTON TAS 7248 Telephone: (03) 6324 3651 Email: brigid.freeman@utas.edu.au