I move amendment No. 232:
In page 24, lines 31 to 35, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:
"(2) Having regard to the resources available to the university, a governing authority shall either approve without modification the strategic development plan as prepared under subsection (1), or after consultation with the chief officer, it shall approve the plan with such modifications as it thinks fit, or it may reject that plan, and cause a plan of its own to be drawn up. In such circumstances, a governing authority may employ such expertise as it considers necessary to prepare such a plan.".
This amendment relates to the strategic development plan. Section 30 reads:
A governing authority shall, as soon as practicable after its appointment and at such other times as it thinks fit, require the chief officer to prepare a plan which shall set out the aims of the governing authority for the operation and development of the university and its strategy for achieving those aims, and for carrying out the functions of the university, during the period, being not less than three years, to which the plan relates".
The proposal is to delete subsection (2) which states:
A governing authority may, having regard to the resources available to the university, either approve a strategic development plan prepared under subsection (1) without modification or, after consultation with the chief officer, approve the plan with such modifications as it thinks fit.
We propose to strengthen the role of the governing authority. We state that the governing authority ". . .. shall either approve without modification the strategic development plan as prepared under subsection (1), or after consultation with the chief officer, it shall approve the plan with such modifications as it thinks fit, or it may reject that plan, and cause a plan of its own to be drawn up. In such circumstances, a governing authority may employ such expertise as it considers necessary to prepare such a plan".
I am open to correction on this, but it seems that, traditionally in Irish public bodies, when a chief officer is asked to prepare a plan there is not a brainstorming session by everyone on the board or the governing authority. A resolution is moved that the chief officer should prepare a plan. Often the officer prepares a draft plan which is more or less a fait accompli. Everyone receives copies and may amend it. It should be clear that the governing authority prepares the plan and this section should provide for proper input into the plan. It does not state here that the governing authority can reject the plan prepared by the chief officer. The right of the governing authority to reject the plan should be provided for. It should be the governing authority’s plan rather than the chief officer’s plan.
When this legislation is implemented, we do not want the chief officer saying the drawing up of the plan is his job. It should be a group effort from the beginning. Many authorities will do that but we should make the position clear. I am drawing from my experience in local government where there tended to be passive boards in the formulation of strategic development plans and the chief executive tends to drive them. We should try to get away from that practice which has led to a range of problems.
I welcome the three year provision as regards strategic development plans. Some might see this as short in terms of academic planning. I know one university where they still talk about the 1976 plan in terms of physical development. We had planning problems because of it, which shook me. Most local projects have five year development plans. Universities should have three or five year development plans. There is a provision of three years in the Bill, which may be too short in terms of academic planning.