June 2009

last updated:March 2010

Meeting of Executive Committee, 16 June 2009

Corporate Governance 2012
The Committee received a first discussion paper on Corporate Governance, as part of the Teaching in 2012 programme previously reported to Council, which looked at some of the principles requiring early agreement by Members around Governance including some analysis of possible models. The paper set out the background and proposed remit for the Corporate Governance programme and set out some questions for Committee in terms of discussion and the way forward. The Committee discussed the overlap with the “Who Adjudicates” strand of the Teaching in 2012 programme and agreed that there needed to be alignment between the two projects. 

The Committee gave the Corporate Governance programme board a steer as to options and principles to be explored in terms of reporting to Council in the autumn and consultation with Council. The Chief Executive also explained the changes that had occurred since the May meeting in terms of it being unlikely there would be a slot in the legislative timetable in the autumn in respect of the schools related bill. Departmental officials, however, were still of the opinion that the Council should come forward with proposals to reform its Governance.

Discussion centred on issues relating to the status of the teacher majority on Council as well as Casework Committees and there was a lengthy debate on clearly understanding the parameters for revised Governance proposals. At the outset the Committee recognised the need for involvement of all Council Members, the presentation of options to Council and to clearly articulate some principles for agreement by the Executive Committee.

The Chief Executive identified the following key principles:-relating to professional majority, a clearer definition of what is a ‘lay person’, the separation of governance from adjudication, entry routes into a new Council structure, definition of Council’s sovereign authority and the public interest. The Committee also identified questions for future consideration around the sovereignty of an executive board, including delegations, and the concept of a wider Council with reference to an Electoral College and a Council of reference.

Committee formally asked that the Programme Broad produce a plan for Council Member engagement with the Governance issues including an outline timetable proposing legislative engagement after the next General Election, and approved the scope of the discussion paper. Members of the Executive Committee would be engaged in further discussions later in the summer term.

Committee:

• asked the Corporate Governance 2012 programme board to produce a plan for Council Member engagement with the governance issues, including an outline timetable proposing legislative engagement after the next General Election
• approved the scope of the Corporate Governance 2012 programme as that set out in the discussion paper subject to comments raised in the debate and recorded by the Council Secretary and asked the programme board to bring forward principles and proposals to address the four main areas identified (Professional majority, Composition of Council, including sovereignty, Routes to membership, and Size and structure).
• Council agreed that a paper be brought to the September Executive Committee for report to October Council and prior to this an opportunity be offered to current Executive Committee Members and the Chair of Council elect, before the Executive Committee in September, to provide a further steer to the Programme Board on the direction of the paper in terms of options/models.

Who Adjudicates
The Committee considered a position paper produced by the Council Solicitor on behalf of the Who Adjudicates Programme Board to inform a debate on the issue of who adjudicates, a key strand of the Teaching in 2012 programme. Andrew Baxter, the Lead Member for this project, set out the context to the paper including the external context of regulation highlighting the changing landscape of the regulatory sector and where the GTC was positioned in respect of this.

The Committee were specifically asked to agree the principles set out in the discussion paper that had emerged from the recent review of regulators.

Discussion centred on the principles particularly the primacy of the public interest and public expectations upon which the Registrar provided some clarification of the latter which was around proportionality and how this could be demonstrated. The Committee also considered the structural division of the regulatory and representative role of Members.

The Committee approved the principles which had emerged from the recent review of regulators and agreed in principle for a separation of the adjudication and governance of regulatory policy. The Committee commissioned the “Who Adjudicates” project board to come forward after the summer with proposals as to how these principles can be enacted including putting in place interim measures within the current governance structure. The timescale is for a paper to be submitted to the Executive Committee at its September meeting and then to Council in October. 

Committee:

• approved the principles (as set out in section 4.2 of this paper) which have emerged from the recent reviews of regulators
• agreed in principle for a separation of the adjudication and governance of regulatory policy
• commissioned the ‘Who Adjudicates’ project board to come forward after the summer with proposals for how these principles can be enacted, including, putting in place interim measures within the current governance structure and agreed that a progress update be reported to July Council via Executive Committee feedback.

Corporate Governance Update
The Committee considered a detailed Governance update paper from the Council Secretary.

Discussion centred on the administration of the Public Appointments Process and complaints made to the DCSF the sponsoring department by some existing Council Members.  The Committee discussed the options for compiling Executive Committee Membership for the period 2009-11 as proposed by the Council Secretary.  In respect of the next meeting of the TLA Special Governance Group it was noted that Tony Neal would chair this meeting.

In accordance with the Audit Committee’s recommendation the Executive Committee considered a self assessment questionnaire in line with agreed practice, this being timely as it was the final meeting of its two year cycle. The Council Secretary drew up the questionnaire having regard to comments from the Audit Committee in December. 

In terms of the relationship and communication with Service Committees the Committee was broadly content and felt that the meeting in March between the Committee Chairs in terms of their relationship with the Audit Committee was very worthwhile and clarified matters.

The results of the survey indicated broad content in the majority of areas of the Committee’s operation.

In the following areas of the self assessment there was less clarity and the Committee believed this needed to be addressed by the newly constituted Committee in due course:

• benchmarking of the Committee’s effectiveness against others
• as part of the self assessment whether the Committee makes recommendations as to its training needs
• induction for new Executive Committee Members.

Executive Committee members were asked to give their personal reflections in terms of the Member role/development and areas to be explored. Most were very positive about the professional relationship with senior staff and that the Committee is effective and efficient although there existed a minority view that the Committee did not provide sufficient challenge to the Leadership team. The following were some points raised which would be reflected upon in terms of the Council’s ongoing consideration of its governance:

• the higher prioritising of the advocacy programme
• the development of the Lead Member role with a common job description
• scope for Executive Committee members to work in focus groups to establish a Council position on certain issues involving the contribution of non executive members
• communication with Council members including background briefings.

Committee agreed the Council Secretary’s recommended option for compiling Committee memberships for the two year period from 1st September 2009

Committee:

• selected the appropriate option to recommend to Council for compiling Executive Committee Membership for the  period 2009-11 as detailed in section 4.2.2
• noted that the previously circulated 2009/10 Calendar of Meetings will be formally reported to Council for agreement
• considered the outcomes of the self effectiveness questionnaire
• agreed the change in the reporting requirements for the TLA Special Governance Group as proposed in section 4.2.8 of the paper.