Implications of current public-policy trends
Doing it properly: propriety of conduct
Universities commonly subscribe to the seven principles of public life.
http://www.public-standards.gov.uk/about_us/the_seven_principles_of_life.aspx
The Committee of University Chairmen has developed guidelines for use in HEIs
http://www.shef.ac.uk/cuc/pubs/CUC-Guide-FINAL.pdf
http://www.shef.ac.uk/cuc/pubs/CUC-Summary-Guide-HEFCEFinal.pdf
If the responsibility to behave in accordance with these principles is not recognised throughout the administrative work of the HEI, disputes are likely to arise.
'Lighter touch'
The 'lighter touch' principle relies on trusting HEIs to run themselves responsibly so that there is less need for an 'inspection' régime. On 'Better regulation', see: http://www.brc.gov.uk/
Creating better procedures
Good procedure is protective but only if the principles and good practice it embodies are understood and observed.
Universities have more than one level of domestic 'legislation', and at the lowest level rules may be no more than 'guidelines' and they may be issued quite a long way down the internal hierarchy.
Disputes can arise when it is not made clear what the rules are, what authority a particular rule carries and what should be done if it is broken. Students, for example, must be given copies of any disciplinary rules of codes of conduct in force and so must employees. Line managers must not change or vary these without authority and appropriate consultation.
Ensuring that the rules are followed by those in positions of authority is a particular difficulty in universities.
Making new rules for a university
The 1923 Act set up a body of Commissioners for the two ancient universities. Their task was to make new internal statutes for each of them. These statutes received royal approval between 1926 and 1928.
Further amendments to these Statutes have been made from time to time by the two universities themselves, with the approval of their governing bodies, and these changes to their Statutes have in turn been submitted to the Privy Council and received royal approval.
It has been possible for both universities to make quite radical changes to their constitutions in this way. The main reform package of the late twentieth century in Cambridge was the Wass Reforms of the 1990s and a few years later Oxford followed suit with the North Reforms. Both created a new full-time Vice-Chancellor to replace the former practice of entrusting the task to heads of college in fairly rapid rotation.
In a chartered university the University's Statutes may be added to, altered or repealed by the Council of the University with the agreement of the Privy Council, and the Council may alter the Ordinances without Privy Council agreement. The scope of such alteration is prescribed and proscribed, however, by the intentions of the statutes.
In a 'new' university there seems to be limited scope for changing the higher-level rules. Any major change would require an Act of Parliament. But the CUC includes a list of primary responsibilities of the governing body which includes rule-making:
'ensuring the establishment and monitoring of systems of control and accountability, including financial and operational controls and risk assessment, clear procedures for handling internal grievances and for managing conflicts of interest '
http://www.shef.ac.uk/cuc/pubs.html
The making and implementation of domestic legislation and quasi-legislation within HEIs can create a minefield of potential disputes and it is well worth setting up careful controls and ensuring full consultation.