Governance After Gillies

Experience and governance

A lot of people seem to have plenty to say about ineffective university governance at the moment but a bit like winning the lottery it is one of those things which is far more often speculated about than actually experienced. The Gillies report on the failings at the University of Dundee has highlighted just how important getting governance right is for institutional survival.

There are plenty of requirements, codes and directions out there and a lot of advice from knowledgeable individuals about the right approaches to take. Beyond the fundamentals of the Committee of University Chairs Higher Education Code of Governance (and the Scottish variant) and the regular governing body effectiveness reviews to test compliance with these precepts and those set out by the Office for Students (the OfS, for institutions in England), the Scottish Funding Council, Medr (in Wales) and other regulatory agencies, there is a range of reports, guides and similar to help.

At Shakespeare Martineau our Higher Education Team has considerable experience of working with a large number of governing bodies in different capacities over many years. Drawing on all of this knowledge we wanted to set out some of the key governance points we think it is important that HE governing bodies consider.

Governance – critical but often mysterious

Governing bodies play an essential role in higher education and yet they and their activities are little understood, they generally have a very low profile and are usually quite remote from the daily experience of university staff and students. While there can be some differences between the governing bodies of pre-1992 institutions and those established since then – particularly in terms of size, composition and powers – in general the issues and challenges are very similar.

Governance remains a critical factor in institutional success. While ensuring effective governance is in place cannot compensate for inadequate management, poor governance can seriously hinder an institution’s progress and result in a major diversion of effort and resources. At the very least a governance-generated crisis can represent a major distraction for institutional leaders and governors and result in significant lost opportunities or missed targets. There have been some rather public governance issues at a number of UK universities in recent memory including at De Montfort, Swansea, Plymouth, LSE, Buckingham and, most recently, Dundee. There are plenty more in the US too. While these high-profile problems may not ultimately hold back the progress of a successful institution (as those listed demonstrate) they can represent extremely unwelcome departures from delivering core business.

Despite the key role played by the governing body, it does seem still to be the case that the vast majority of staff – both academic and professional services – are largely unaware of the role, nature, function, composition, power and meeting arrangements of their institution’s governing body. Similarly, very few students ever get close to being involved in governance.  It is simply a mystery to most. Many commentators on governance in the sector are also sometimes rather under-informed about governance matters. This is partly because unless you have direct exposure to the operation of a governing body, either as a member or by attending meetings, it is quite difficult to get a real sense of what is actually going on.

But it is not just those talking about governance who need to be better informed about what goes on – future institutional leaders have to see behind the curtain too. They have to be enabled to observe, learn about and understand how governance works in practice. This might happen through shadowing a governing body member, perhaps co-presenting on a topic or even through simply attending meetings as an observer. Tomorrow’s higher education leaders have to know how to operate at this level, which means they need to have opportunities and structures which enable them to engage with governing bodies and understand how they work. They also have to learn about what governors should prioritise and what they should avoid.

What governing bodies should not focus on

Before examining some of the priorities for governance we should start with the things it is most important that governing bodies spend the least time considering – size and remuneration.

Larger or smaller, smaller or larger?

The CUC Higher Education Code of Governance is clear that the size of the governing body needs to be appropriate for the institutional context but more important is ensuring the right balance of knowledge and skills as well as diversity across the membership:

5.2 The governing body needs the appropriate balance of skills, experience, diverse backgrounds, independence and knowledge to make informed decisions. Some constitutional documents specify governing bodies must include staff and student members.

5.3 The size and composition of the governing body needs to reflect the nature, scale and complexity of the institution and governing bodies need enough time and resources to function efficiently and effectively. There is a need for a shared understanding of the division between independent non-executive governors and executive governors.

Similar points are made in the Scottish Code (where there are also specific requirements regarding composition).

In England, the OfS as part of its public interest governance principles is concerned with appropriateness to the institution:

VIII. Governing body: The size, composition, diversity, skills mix, and terms of office of the governing body is appropriate for the nature, scale and complexity of the provider.

AdvanceHE addressed governance issues as part of its ‘Big Conversation,’ a programme of activities bringing together sector leaders to explore possibilities for shaping the future of higher education. They met with chairs, governors and governance professionals to examine governance structures, skills, culture and decision-making and one of the observations which emerged concerned the variety of structures:

Governance structures vary widely across institutions, and there is ongoing debate about the ideal size and composition of governing bodies. While larger boards provide diverse perspectives, they can also slow decision-making in fast-moving environments. Conversely, smaller, agile boards may respond swiftly to challenges but risk missing the breadth of expertise needed for robust strategic oversight.

AdvanceHE, in an earlier report, drawing on data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) for 2018/19 to 2020, found that the average governing body in the UK had 21 governors, though they ranged in size from three to 34 governors. The majority (78 per cent) of institutions had between 15 and 29 governors but there was a close relationship between the size of governing bodies and the size of institutions, with smaller higher education institutions tending to have very small governing bodies and large ones having boards with much larger memberships.

The issue here is not about size but rather getting the balance right in terms of diversity, academic and student input and the right skill sets. Diversity of governing body membership is vital and brings major benefits for the board and decision-making. It requires clarity and determination in order to ensure that the recruitment and selection processes in place for new members address the current and future needs of the governing body in terms of skills mix as well as in diversity. The approach to the recruitment and selection of new members along with induction, training and updating of governors needs to be purposeful and seen by all as vital for sustaining a positive governing body culture. Student involvement is also key.

All governing bodies go through periods of speculating about the positive impact on effectiveness, if only they were smaller or larger than they currently are. Large boards frequently fret that they should be smaller and smaller governing bodies often think they are missing out by not having more members. Such a focus on board size is a diversion. It is what the governing body does, not how many people sit on it, that counts. If they are not careful, governing bodies can spend far too long debating whether they should shrink (or grow) and by how much. Occasional discussion of the issue is fine but frequent consideration really only amounts to unhelpful navel-gazing. Focusing on securing, inducting and developing the right range of skilled and diverse members is, on the other hand, something that the governing body should probably spend more time on.

Governor remuneration

Debates about governor remuneration offer a different route to self-absorption and may be as unhelpfully distracting as extensive discussion about board size. Too often this seems to be a conversation which can be seen to be about serving the best interests of current members rather than helping the recruitment of a new and diverse membership, which is often the ostensible purpose of the approach.

The strongest argument for paying governors is if it is not possible to recruit new ones especially from among those still working full-time who are perhaps younger and will need some payment or if the job of chair is so demanding that a recruitment campaign has shown that no one is prepared to take on the role. If the governing body does determine that it is going to get much more directly involved in university business, for example working with the executive on developing strategy, then that really does throw a different light on the remuneration issue. The question then becomes how much to pay?

If there were to be remuneration, the scale of payments and justification for remuneration need to be considered carefully. Is it a modest honorarium which would be a token to recognise value? Or something to reflect the real value of the role? There is a big gap between providing only expenses and the average remuneration for chairs in the top 150 FTSE companies – where the latest is in excess of £440k per annum according to the Spencer Stuart Board Index, more than the best paid Vice-Chancellor – and non-executive directors, where the same report shows the average is £78k per annum, in excess of typical full-time professorial pay. In Scotland, where provision for payment for chairs of governing bodies was introduced in 2016, the Scottish Code of Good Higher Education Governance states:

Under the terms of the 2016 Act, the governing body is, on the request of a person appointed to the position of the Chair, to pay such remuneration and allowances to the Chair as the governing body considers to be reasonable, which are to be commensurate with the nature of the work done by the person in their capacity as Chair.

The downsides of governor remuneration should also be considered. Just talking about who should be paid and how their performance is assessed can cause rifts. Where the institution is a charity, this means that only a minority of the governing body could be paid, which risks a two-tier governance model emerging: those who really matter are paid, while the rest are there just to make up the numbers. This can have a negative effect on board culture and collective decision-making. Even if agreement can be reached on levels of payment tensions may emerge when the governing body tries to decide how best to monitor and manage performance. Remuneration may also be felt to diminish the idea of governor independence and weaken governors’ ability to hold the executive to account. Governor remuneration is a far from straightforward issue therefore. The CUC has helpfully produced a guide to the details to be considered which also demonstrates how tricky this issue can be.

Governing body size and governor remuneration do not deliver effectiveness (or prevent crises)

Why are frequent debates on governing body size and governor remuneration best avoided? Principally because these hardy perennials are simply not strategic and can drain time and energy from governors trying to focus on issues of real concern. There is no right answer to the size question and it will change over time so governing bodies should review it only periodically and not spend significant time on the question. Better to agree that the issues of size and governor remuneration be considered every three years as part of or alongside a governance effectiveness review so they do not distract from the fundamentals. It is extremely hard to imagine that any of the recent governance challenges in the sector would have been averted if the governing body was just a bit smaller or perhaps a little bigger or if some of the governors had been remunerated.

Culture eats governance tips for breakfast

Following all the governance advice out there is the right thing to do but the governing body culture has to be considered too. Some of the features of the kind of culture required for effective governance include openness, honesty and trust across the governing body and executive and willingness to challenge, question and scrutinise what is on the table. One of the principal failings in governance identified in the Gillies report was an absence of curiosity on the part of governors and executive members. Governing bodies have to be inquisitive and enquiring about issues and paperwork presented to them. This is a critical part of their function. Doing so in a civil and collegial way is important too – engaging rather than belligerent questioning is far more likely to elicit both the necessary answers and the right behaviours from all parties involved.

As this recent Advance HE report on governance puts it:

For some institutions this will require a significant resetting of culture, moving away from simply receiving reports and papers (sometimes referred to as “marking the Executive’s work”) toward greater collaboration on strategy development and then greater accountability against that performance.

This should not be seen as a reset from one direction; this is as much about re-imagining the relationship between governors and the Executive, as it is about the Executive resetting and valuing its relationship with the Board as something that adds value and helps to support better decision making – not just something to get round.

Beyond this it is important to stress that the CUC Code does address the need for the governing body to promote:

a positive culture which supports ethical behaviour, equality, inclusivity and diversity across the institution, including in the governing body’s own operation and composition.

Many institutions will also have additional statements about their values, expected behaviour and conduct as well as more formal business rules for governing body meetings. All of this should help set a positive governing body culture. This is likely to be increasingly important if the Public Office (Accountability) Bill passes into law and is applied to universities: ethical decision-making and behaviour is at the core of the statutory duties imposed in that proposed legislation.  The Bill is drafted to apply to specified public authorities in relation to their public functions. When this formulation has appeared in other legislation, it has been applied to universities.

The Bill proposes a broad legal duty to promote and maintain high standards of ethical conduct at all times by governors and employees (essentially conduct compatible with the Nolan Principles which members are currently expected to observe as a matter of good practice) and an obligation to adopt, publish and enforce a code of ethical conduct.

The code of conduct will be expected to set out behavioural expectations for discharging the duty of candour and explain what employees should do to comply with it. It must set out the consequences for failing to act in accordance with the code (including any circumstances where such failure may amount to gross misconduct); The code should promote ethical conduct, candour, transparency and frankness within all parts of the institution’s work.

The code will need to include a mechanism for employees and others to raise concerns about unethical conduct and breaches of the codes by other employees or members of the governing body and to whistleblow where appropriate.

Whilst many would argue that universities already abide by these principles, governance will need to adapt to the new expectations of candour and transparency, particularly when considering how to deal with matters regarded as controversial or confidential, and how this sits with their duty as charity trustees to protect the reputation and best interests of the institution.

One other dimension of getting the culture right also means ensuring that a healthy relationship exists among the Chair, the Vice-Chancellor and the Secretary to the governing body. Gillies makes some specific recommendations on this but it is also worth noting the report of the review of governance challenges at the University of Plymouth over a decade ago. This report referred to the importance of this ‘golden triangle’ which it said:

sits at the heart of effective institutional governance: if one side is fractured, good governance is endangered; if two sides are fractured, governance is in peril.

This three-way relationship is also key to ensuring key issues are discussed in the right way at the right time and decisions reached at the necessary pace.

In this context then and considering the fundamental governance issues arising from the Gillies report, governing bodies should be questioning their own culture as well as asking how they deal with the fundamental issues which were so problematic at Dundee relating to accountability, risk and financial reporting.

These things we know: getting the governance basics right

Beyond these cultural issues and making sure that governing bodies do not spend excessive time distracted by considering their size and governor remuneration there are some basics which do need to be addressed too. None of these should be at all surprising to anyone with knowledge or experience of higher education governance and they are in accord with advice published by AdvanceHE among others. But what they do reflect is our experience from many reviews of governing body operations and seeing behind the curtain at what is really going on in higher education governance.

Duties and responsibilities

The duties and responsibilities of governors and the governing body are set out in a number of places including in the Charter and Statutes or other governing documents of each institution and in the CUC Code. Charity Commission and regulator requirements also apply as does the statement of primary responsibilities or similar which the governing body will have agreed itself.

These rules and guides need to be revisited regularly by the governing body to remind all members of their collective and individual responsibilities, legal obligations and the requirements of regulators, funders and lenders as well as any other formal duties laid down in these various documents. This should not be an annual tick-box acknowledgement but rather an active and conscious refresher on the full range of governor duties and responsibilities.

Meeting regulator expectations

Regulators expect a lot from governing bodies and the reporting requirements seem to continue to grow. Inevitably, given the current sectoral challenges and following the Gillies report, there is a greater emphasis on financial reporting at present. But for HEIs in England there is a continuing demand for information on quality and standards too, including in particular new stipulations forthcoming regarding franchised provision, as well as reporting in relation to free speech and academic freedom. These and other reporting requirements have to be met and governing bodies need to ensure necessary compliance while balancing the time spent on such matters with the need to focus primarily on strategic issues.

Critical here is determining what and where to delegate and, for those areas which absolutely have to receive governing body sign-off, taking the time to determine the most effective way to enable proper assurance is provided. For those institutions regulated by the OfS there are also its Public interest governance principles to be followed. Fortunately, these are largely straightforward and pretty much covered by all the advice presented here.

Getting the right paperwork in front of governors and getting the paperwork right

Governing bodies are frequently concerned about the nature of the paperwork they receive. Sometimes the problem is that there is excess of it, it is circulated too late, it is not clear how it relates to the agenda or to wider strategic matters or, conversely, that it is too sketchy, too vague or written in a way which only university audiences will understand. There may be divergent views of the same papers from different governing body members but the requirement to ensure members have the right paperwork and information to enable effective decision-making requires ongoing and open dialogue, a receptive and adaptive secretariat and continued evolution in response to changing needs.

Financial reporting

It might seem surprising that, at a time of significant financial challenge for the whole higher education sector, governing bodies need to be reminded of the importance of paying close attention to the financial reports in front of them. But as anyone who has read the Gillies report into the governance failings at the University of Dundee (you can find a summary of the issues here) will appreciate, the governing body has to be fully on top of all aspects of institutional finances. Governors need to be confident about the systems of financial control and operations which are in place and content that the financial regulations clearly specify the responsibilities of committees and individual staff members. Reporting arrangements need to be clear and comprehensive and the governing body needs to be fully sighted on and regularly updated on the status of loans or credit facility covenants. Most importantly, there needs to be a base level of financial literacy among members of the governing body. It is not enough to be assured all looks ok by one or two members with accountancy qualifications or to take the word of the vice-chancellor, this is a collective responsibility and everyone needs to understand and be able to question the details of the finances.

Data issues

Beyond financial information, governing bodies need good data to support them in making the big decisions. They also need to understand the nature and limitations of that data, especially the fact that most of it is lagging and changes annually at best. Critically, they need to be reminded that, while some of the indicators which contribute to them are relevant, it is not necessarily sensible to use league table results to judge performance of the institution or the vice-chancellor. Governing bodies do need to exercise caution therefore when considering this kind of summative headline results or indeed superficially attractive data visualisations which may be hiding more than they are showing. So, ensuring there is an agreed set of performance indicators which are genuinely key and can help inform decision-making is vital. As the Gillies report showed, knowing the basic data on student recruitment in a timely fashion is vital for both the executive and the governing body.

Student involvement really, really matters

Genuine and meaningful student involvement is a critical factor. Not only do students need to be full and equal members of the governing body, they need to be trained, encouraged, and supported to play the fullest possible role. Given their shorter term of office, usually one or occasionally two years, and inexperience in relation to any kind of board role, even greater emphasis needs to be placed on inducting and supporting student representatives to enable them to contribute effectively from their very first meeting. This may be extended to finding ways to draw on a wider supportive structure for student input including, for example, other sabbatical officers who may be on other senior committees and permanent students’ union staff who are able to offer a longer term perspective on student issues. This input though is vital for effective governance.

Mark Leach, in a report for the Post-18 Project, comments on a 2025 Wonkhe survey of student governors which uncovered, among other things, that over half of the respondents felt they had been “shut down, spoken over, or dismissed as obstructive” when challenging. In addition:

Multiple respondents described a disconnect between meetings and reality: “The university that gets presented isn’t the university I was at as a student.” Crucially, only 32 per cent felt confident their governing body could identify serious institutional risks. One captured the dysfunction: “We’re not governors. We’re an audience.”

This reinforces the need to address the need for serious attention to student involvement in governance both to ensure they are given the support to enable them to do their job but also to confirm their equivalence in status to other governors.

Governors focusing on governance and strategy not management

AdvanceHE, as part of its ‘Big Conversation’ presented some helpful conclusions in relation to strengthening the governance-management boundary. Part of this was about ensuring that the governing body’s scheme of delegation is comprehensive, beyond just financial delegations and uses an approach which distinguishes accountability from responsibility. The scheme of delegation should clarify where the board is accountable, but the Executive is responsible.

This note also included the observation that a governing body’s ability to have meaningful strategic discussions is fundamentally linked to the quality of the institutional strategy itself. The recently published Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper highlights government’s expectation that institutions should:

be clear about the role they are playing, their unique strengths, and where they can build stronger collaborations with other providers.

The strategy should reflect this. The institution needs to have a strategy with clear measurable objectives, clarity about what success looks like over a defined time period and clear key performance indicators with good reporting on them. Additionally, there needs to be time explicitly dedicated to considering strategic matters in meetings so that such matters are not relegated to the occasional away day. As part of regular discussion of strategic matters governors should also be more actively involved in scenario planning as well as being encouraged to explore options around collaboration and partnerships. Underpinning all of this is the need for the governing body to be fully sighted, consistently, on the principal risks facing the institution and the mitigations in place.

Staying curious

Curiosity and questioning needs to be a core attribute of any governing body as well as its sub-committees. As Gillies observed the Audit and Risk Committee (ARC):

should act as ‘the conscience of the University’ (a concept from the Committee of University Chairs Audit Code of Practice, 2020). ARC should be able to go ‘where it likes’ and ‘how it likes’ across areas of perceived risk in the University with a curiosity to open up, understand and assist.

Gillies adds that curiosity should be encouraged as one innocent question can serve as a stimulus for much wider enquiry and debate and lead to a much richer understanding of what is happening. A culture that encourages this kind of approach is one which will certainly lead to a governing body which is more informed, engaged and open about the issues.

A similar point was eloquently made by Nick Hillman in the 2019 HEPI publication University governance in a new age of regulation: A conversation between Professor Steven Jones and Nick Hillman: 

Many other lay governors that I have come across have fitted well into that general definition of a good Board member: an intelligent person who asks ignorant questions…An intelligent outsider’s perspective can teach an institution lots about itself.

Engaging with academic matters

It is really difficult for governing bodies, no matter what their composition, to engage meaningfully with academic issues – most members will simply not have the knowledge or expertise to deal properly with matters relating to teaching and research. Beyond the Senate or Academic Board providing the necessary reassurance on quality and standards in a way which meets everyone’s requirements governors need actively to connect with the academic governance bodies, for example through cross-attendance or joint events. Additionally, the governing body should seek to ensure it is properly informed about the core issues regarding teaching and research, including through direct interactions with academic staff and students and on the ground as part of informal visits to academic units.

Shattock, in a 2019 Working Paper argued that the more serious crisis facing the English HE sector was not financial but in governance and that it is good governance which will help institutions find their way out of financial challenges. Good governance for Shattock is about ending the reliance on governance through executive authority and corporate structures and recognising that HE governance:

like its functions in society, is sui generis, that, with all its apparent weaknesses, it is not improved by the importation of practice from other walks of society and that, unless the academic community is placed at the heart of its processes, it will lose many of those characteristics which have made it internationally successful.

Getting the balance right is the challenge here. This is not just another board in an anonymous board room, it is a governing body in a university. Governors therefore need to engage. Academic members of Senate or Academic Board and the governing body likewise need to take engagement seriously. This is not about trying to wrest control of decision-making tools or finding exciting new ways to kick senior leaders, rather it is about ensuring that the academic voice is clearly and properly heard as part of effective governance.

Communications and engagement

Lots of people in institutions have opinions on the big issues of the day and want their voices to be heard. It is therefore important that governors, both staff and lay members, do get out and about and meet with students and staff. Not everyone will want to talk freely, others will have years’ worth of opinions they are very keen to share but all interactions will be informative for governors. They have to judge the feedback they receive carefully and not necessarily accord it too much weight – the loudest voices are not always representative.

Governors need to be visible to the university community and internal briefing and communications is required to ensure staff and students know about the place, role and powers of the governing body, and not just senior managers. Beyond this, the governing body needs to ensure that reports of the subjects it has discussed and the decisions taken are shared widely and in good time after its meetings. This might be through timely publication of minutes but could also be through helpful regular online reporting.

Governance – diverse, messy, complicated

Unsurprisingly, given the diversity of the higher education sector, there is a wide range of governance structures, operational arrangements and cultures out there. Mike Shattock, in his foreword to HEPI’s 2019 publication University governance in a new age of regulation: A conversation between Professor Steven Jones and Nick Hillman, cited examples of governing bodies where the chair was effectively acting as an executive chair and the lay members were barely engaged and largely dependent on reports from the executive. This extreme example of a top-down approach to governance reinforced his concern that:

governments place too much expectation on the powers and capacity of lay-dominated governing bodies, acting as pseudo company boards, to manage and direct the affairs of universities.

In an earlier paper on university governance Shattock argued that in reality it was not so much that the state-imposed changes on governance structures it was rather a consequence of the stronger emphasis on competition between institutions and ultimately a matter of institutional choice to move in this direction and thereby diminish the academic role in governance. What all of this has delivered is a genuinely diverse set of governance structures and operations (Pp.384-395).

A quite different approach is offered by Mark Leach in a Post-18 Project Paper on governance: Earning the license: How to reform university governance in the UK. He argues that governance failures lead to more regulatory intervention and that the only way to avoid even more bureaucratic control in future is to develop “genuine accountability through governance that commands public trust.”

Part of the traditional response is also to: “recruit more skilled governors, provide better training, ensure boards include members with “necessary business background.”” Whilst this may be a response of some it is by no means universal. More controversially he suggests a model where every governor is actually a representative rather than acting independently in the best interests of the institution. This it is suggested is a fiction and it would be better if everyone were open about their interests to allow more open discussion and ensure legitimate differences are resolved.

Drawing on models of HE governance in the Netherlands in particular it is argued that a different model could be developed, notwithstanding the significant historical, cultural, legal and regulatory differences between the two HE traditions. In this model:

governing bodies would include substantial student and staff representation with real influence over key decisions. Community representatives would be chosen for understanding of local needs and public service commitment. Academic staff would have stronger voices in governance processes affecting educational and research activities. Information flows would be diversified beyond management-provided reports.

This “generative governance” approach it is argued would involve much more questioning of assumptions and include a good deal more structured participation at all levels with fundamental changes of membership to all institutional structures from governing body downwards. It’s a bold alternative to traditional approaches for sure but at this point it is not obvious which institutions are likely to sign up to join the proposed pilot programme.

Looking Forward

The CUC, which has been consulting on revisions to its Code, has published an interim update of progress as at February 2026. It notes that there is support for a “shorter, clearer, more accessible Code” that, among other things sets clear expectations of all involved in governance, recognises the primacy of the board and strengthens “oversight of financial sustainability, risk and long-term resilience.”

Those who responded to the consultation also asked that the Code focus sharply on issues relating to culture and behaviours, board engagement with risk and assurance including “in relation to financial and business planning and academic and research assurance.”

Importantly, there was agreement that:

more impactful and effective governance effectiveness reviews should form a core part of how Boards understand their effectiveness and how the sector collectively demonstrates its leadership of governance.

This strikes us a really key conclusion. We have long believed that there is a need for a different approach to the traditional board effectiveness review and have recently developed a more contemporary model for reviewing governance effectiveness. Shakespeare Martineau’s Higher Education Team is happy to discuss this different kind of review with institutions who do want to adopt a new approach.

Another future-facing perspective is offered by the Council for the Defence of British Universities (CDBU). In December 2025 CDBU launched its Code of Ethical University Governance which attempts to present a different angle to CUC on governance issues and adopts the principle that governing bodies should be presenting HE as “a prized public asset.” This Code expects governors to uphold the highest standards and presents governance as “a collegial space where principled, collaborative, and exemplary decision-making can flourish.” It is certainly an alternative perspective with its explicit ethical focus but is perhaps unlikely to undermine the primacy of the CUC Code.

There are no silver bullets

There are no easy answers or quick fixes as far as getting higher education governance right is concerned. As the Gillies report into the University of Dundee demonstrates, a combination of poor practice, reporting and operations and major cultural failings can leave a governing body and an institution in a really difficult place. Remedying all of things does not happen overnight it requires open and frank discussion and purposeful collective action over time to address both cultural and systemic issues.

Addressing all of these challenges does not guarantee that an institution will avoid choppy waters. But it will ensure that in broad terms the institution is much better placed to face into whatever difficulties are ahead and be more able to navigate its own course confident in the knowledge that everyone is pulling in the same direction,

Getting governance right is not straightforward, requires serious intent and a sustained commitment over time but ultimately success has the major advantage of avoiding all of the kind of distracting and damaging crises we have seen at Dundee and other places in recent years. Good governance therefore remains a critical issue for universities and is particularly important in a period of significant challenge and regulatory turbulence.

This content is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to address the circumstances of any individual or entity, nor should it be relied upon as a substitute for specific advice from a qualified solicitor. The information reflects the legal position as at the date specified and may be subject to change. If you require advice on a specific matter, please contact us directly.