Media
Back
At a ceremony in which the report is presented to the University Council, Professor Niland remarks, “The governance and management structures evolving over the past 90 years have served HKU well. But there are powerful changes underway in the environment encountered by universities worldwide. As the University aspires to be an international university of worldclass standing, it requires an enhanced model that fits and advances the University's purposes. We hope that our proposed package of reform will contribute to HKU's continuing pursuit for excellence in teaching and research, underpinned by governance and management structures based on sound principles.”
In the course of the exercise, the Review Panel on University Governance and Management has consulted widely with stakeholders, studied the literature on university governance and management, and surveyed international trends and best practice at comparable institutions. Fit for Purpose is the outcome of this exercise on which the Panel has devoted six months.
At the conclusion of a briefing session for members of the Council, Dr. Victor Fung, its Chairman, says, “The University of Hong Kong is profoundly indebted to Professor Niland, Professor Rudenstine and the Hon. Chief Justice Li for their dedication to this review and for producing such a valuable report. I am sure that the University community, which has shown great interest in this exercise during the consultation period, will continue to contribute to the important considerations of governance and management.”
The Vice-Chancellor, Professor Lap-Chee Tsui comments, “The University will study the report very carefully indeed over an intensive period of consultation and reflection. I will work with my colleagues in advising the Council as it seeks to reach decisions on the very significant proposals and recommendations in this document.”
The Executive Summary of the report Fit for Purpose is attached.
For enquiries, please contact Mr. Eric Ng, Secretary to the Review Panel (tel: 2241 5864).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Governance and management structures evolving over the past 90 years have served the University of Hong Kong well in supporting the academic endeavour to build its standing as a preeminent institution in the Asia-Pacific region. Now, however, changes in the political landscape, the globalisation of higher education and an increasingly competitive environment drive the need for governance and management structures that are even more robust if the University is to be properly responsive to opportunities that can enhance its reputation.
The University of Hong Kong is an international university, with a legitimate aspiration to true worldclass standing. Governance and management structures that are fit for this purpose must meet international best practices.
Practices elsewhere point unequivocally to a more streamlined governing body that is focused on steering the strategic directions of the University. The role of the Council is critical in shaping this worthy endeavour and in protecting academic freedom, the unqualified significance of which must be stressed. The Council should be groomed to function effectively.
Similarly, Senate is the principal body for providing academic leadership in the University's core activities of teaching and research. Its size and composition must serve to foster effective academic governance. The role of the Court, relative to the responsibilities of Council and Senate, should be defined accordingly.
To take a common image, whilst governing bodies provide the steering (with important input and advice from senior management through the Vice-Chancellor in his pivotal role on Council), the rowing is the function of the Vice-Chancellor, with the support of a professional team of full time academic managers – a deputy vice-chancellor, pro-vice-chancellors, deans of faculties and heads of departments – selected and appointed on the basis of merit via a transparent consultation process. The reporting lines linking these officers must show clearly where responsibility, authority and accountability lie.
A professional senior management team should be properly supported by key strategic functions of human resources, communications and public relations, which should be managed by persons with appropriate qualifications and experience. Because committees cannot effectively manage a complex institution, academic managers need to assume many of the responsibilities that have hitherto been assigned to committees.
Looking to the horizon, the University should explore further the concept of streamlining the academic structure to facilitate greater interdisciplinary work and devolution of resource management at more appropriate levels.
Against this background, our recommendations are as follows:
1. Council should be regarded as the de facto supreme governing body of the University, and its size should be set in the range of 18 to 24, with each member appointed or elected ad personam and serving as trustee rather than delegate or representative of a particular constituency.
2. On the composition of the Council, there should be a clear majority of lay members and the ratio of external to University members should be about 2:1. On the assumption that the optimal size of the University Council is about 21 members, it would be composed as follows:
- 14 members would be persons who are not students or employed by the University: six of whom would be appointed by the Chancellor in consultation with the Council Chairman; six appointed by the Council itself; and the remaining two elected by the Court. The lay members would be drawn from the graduates of the University, the corporate sector and the professions, the wider local community, and the international community.
- 7 members would be university staff or students. The Vice-Chancellor would be an ex-officio member. The other six members would comprise two students – one undergraduate and one postgraduate; three teachers – at least one chair professor and one non-professorial member of Senate; and one non-teacher who is not an officer as defined in the University of Hong Kong Ordinance.
No student or staff member shall serve on Council whilst an office holder of the Students' Union or Staff Associations respectively. With the exception of the Vice-Chancellor, no member of the Council may serve more than three consecutive terms of three years each, unless each further term of appointment is specifically approved by the Court.
3. A nominations committee should be established to assist the Council in identifying suitable candidates for appointment as lay members. The committee should communicate any vacancies on Council to the University community and invite nominations on a confidential basis. In considering candidates, the committee should bear in mind the expertise needed in the different areas (e.g. finance, audit, investments, strategic planning, human resources, estate, health and safety) to enable the Council to discharge its responsibilities effectively and the lay members to add value to their active participation in the University's decision making processes.
4. Given that each member of the Council will be appointed ad personam and will bear a responsibility to act as trustee rather than delegate and that student members would not be simultaneously holding office in the Students' Union, the present restrictions which exclude student participation in reserved areas of business should be reviewed to enable them, in particular, to be eligible for membership of selection/search committees for senior officer positions which affect the student body (including the appointment of future Vice- Chancellors).
5. To enable the Council to function most effectively and to focus more on strategic issues, the Council should review how the hearing of complaints, appeals and grievances could be streamlined so that, without compromising fairness, not every case would necessarily be heard by the full Council. In particular, Council should avoid adjudicating in cases of a purely academic nature.
6. To facilitate members' contribution to Council, induction and continuing development programmes should be made available. The agenda should be more structured, and made continuous and consequential from one meeting to the next, to ensure that the focus is on strategic planning and development. A review of the Council's effectiveness should be conducted every five years and the outcome of such reviews should be included in the Vice-Chancellor's annual report to the Court.
7. The Senate should continue to be the principal academic authority, and have the responsibility for regulating all matters relating to education and research in the University, subject only to controls of Council exercised through its responsibility for financial and budget approval, and its fiduciary responsibility to ensure the overall quality and integrity of the University.
8. On size, membership of Senate should be set in the range of 42 to 50, and its composition should include the following:
- Vice-Chancellor, as Chairman
- Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Pro-Vice-Chancellors
- Deans of Faculties and Chairmen of Faculty Boards
- Dean of the Graduate School, Director of HKU-SPACE, Librarian and Dean of Student Affairs
- 5 chair professors and 5 non-professorial teachers, to be elected
- 3 students, at least one undergraduate and one postgraduate, to be elected.
9. The purpose of the Court should be cast as representing the wider interests of the communities served by the University, including its alumni. The Court should retain its power to make, repeal and amend statutes.
10. The vacancy in the position of Deputy Vice-Chancellor should be filled and the number of Pro-Vice-Chancellors should be adjusted to three initially. These positions should all be filled after international search as full-time appointments on five-year terms. The Vice-Chancellor, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and the Pro-Vice-Chancellors, together with the Registrar and the Director of Finance, should constitute the executive (retaining its existing title of the Senior Management Team if deemed appropriate) in managing and overseeing the day-to-day operations of the University, responsible through the Vice- Chancellor to the Council.
11. Deans of Faculties should all be appointed, by the Council on the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor, as full-time officers on five-year terms through a transparent due process, with international search. Appointed Deans should be funded centrally rather than from Faculty budgets.
12. To enable the Faculty concerned to have a significant input to the appointment process, the Vice-Chancellor should establish and appoint a Search Committee to provide advice on each Deanship appointment. The Search Committee shall comprise:
- Vice-Chancellor, as Chairman
- a lay member of Council
- Chairman of the Faculty Board
- 3 teachers in the Faculty, at least one of whom shall be a chair professor and one a non-professorial member
- a student in the Faculty, not holding office in the Students' Union
- a senior officer (e.g. the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, a Pro-Vice-Chancellor or a Dean from a different Faculty), appointed by the Vice-Chancellor.
The Faculty would be expected to be involved in drawing up the shortlist, and prospective applicants should have an opportunity to visit the Faculty before his or her candidature is confirmed.
13. Deans, by virtue of their appointment and increased responsibilities, should be delegated the authority to appoint Heads of departments and other sub-divisions of studies and learning within the Faculty. The appointment process should mirror that for the Deanship so that the department or sub-division of studies and learning has significant input. The Heads shall henceforth be reporting to the Vice-Chancellor via the Dean of Faculty under delegated authority. Similar arrangements will be needed for the independent centres outside the faculty structure, and a Pro-Vice-Chancellor could be delegated similar authority to oversee such centres.
14. A Vice-Chancellor's Advisory Group, comprising members of the Senior Management Team (see Recommendation 10 above) and the appointed Deans of Faculties, should be formally established to advise the Vice-Chancellor on management issues. An important responsibility of this Group will be to enhance communications between the executive and members of the Faculties (both students and staff).
15. The number of committees in the University should be significantly reduced, with the responsibilities embedded in some of the management committees transferred to the appropriate officer.
16. The University should continue proactively to examine the idea of grouping Faculties into a simpler array, perhaps using a model of three to five Colleges, in order to promote interdisciplinary education and research and to facilitate devolution for resource management at the most appropriate level.
17. To facilitate the strategic functions of succession planning, servicing of the remuneration committee, provision of continuing professional development opportunities in management and leadership skills and the management of the merit-based international search for senior positions, the human resources function should be professionalised by the appointment of a Director of Human Resources, with appropriate qualifications and experience.
HKU Launches Report on Governance and Management Review
07 Feb 2003
The governing Council of the University of Hong Kong today receives a report, which it has commissioned (see Press Release issued on August 21, 2002), on a review on the University's governance and management structures. The report proposes a model of governance and management that will better equip HKU to become a worldclass university capable of competing at the highest international level. Aptly entitled Fit for Purpose, the report is produced by an independent Review Panel of external experts comprising: Professor John Niland, the former Vice-Chancellor and President of the University of New South Wales in Australia, as convenor; Professor Neil Rudenstine, the former President of Harvard University in USA; and the Hon. Chief Justice Andrew Li of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
At a ceremony in which the report is presented to the University Council, Professor Niland remarks, “The governance and management structures evolving over the past 90 years have served HKU well. But there are powerful changes underway in the environment encountered by universities worldwide. As the University aspires to be an international university of worldclass standing, it requires an enhanced model that fits and advances the University's purposes. We hope that our proposed package of reform will contribute to HKU's continuing pursuit for excellence in teaching and research, underpinned by governance and management structures based on sound principles.”
In the course of the exercise, the Review Panel on University Governance and Management has consulted widely with stakeholders, studied the literature on university governance and management, and surveyed international trends and best practice at comparable institutions. Fit for Purpose is the outcome of this exercise on which the Panel has devoted six months.
At the conclusion of a briefing session for members of the Council, Dr. Victor Fung, its Chairman, says, “The University of Hong Kong is profoundly indebted to Professor Niland, Professor Rudenstine and the Hon. Chief Justice Li for their dedication to this review and for producing such a valuable report. I am sure that the University community, which has shown great interest in this exercise during the consultation period, will continue to contribute to the important considerations of governance and management.”
The Vice-Chancellor, Professor Lap-Chee Tsui comments, “The University will study the report very carefully indeed over an intensive period of consultation and reflection. I will work with my colleagues in advising the Council as it seeks to reach decisions on the very significant proposals and recommendations in this document.”
The Executive Summary of the report Fit for Purpose is attached.
For enquiries, please contact Mr. Eric Ng, Secretary to the Review Panel (tel: 2241 5864).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Governance and management structures evolving over the past 90 years have served the University of Hong Kong well in supporting the academic endeavour to build its standing as a preeminent institution in the Asia-Pacific region. Now, however, changes in the political landscape, the globalisation of higher education and an increasingly competitive environment drive the need for governance and management structures that are even more robust if the University is to be properly responsive to opportunities that can enhance its reputation.
The University of Hong Kong is an international university, with a legitimate aspiration to true worldclass standing. Governance and management structures that are fit for this purpose must meet international best practices.
Practices elsewhere point unequivocally to a more streamlined governing body that is focused on steering the strategic directions of the University. The role of the Council is critical in shaping this worthy endeavour and in protecting academic freedom, the unqualified significance of which must be stressed. The Council should be groomed to function effectively.
Similarly, Senate is the principal body for providing academic leadership in the University's core activities of teaching and research. Its size and composition must serve to foster effective academic governance. The role of the Court, relative to the responsibilities of Council and Senate, should be defined accordingly.
To take a common image, whilst governing bodies provide the steering (with important input and advice from senior management through the Vice-Chancellor in his pivotal role on Council), the rowing is the function of the Vice-Chancellor, with the support of a professional team of full time academic managers – a deputy vice-chancellor, pro-vice-chancellors, deans of faculties and heads of departments – selected and appointed on the basis of merit via a transparent consultation process. The reporting lines linking these officers must show clearly where responsibility, authority and accountability lie.
A professional senior management team should be properly supported by key strategic functions of human resources, communications and public relations, which should be managed by persons with appropriate qualifications and experience. Because committees cannot effectively manage a complex institution, academic managers need to assume many of the responsibilities that have hitherto been assigned to committees.
Looking to the horizon, the University should explore further the concept of streamlining the academic structure to facilitate greater interdisciplinary work and devolution of resource management at more appropriate levels.
Against this background, our recommendations are as follows:
1. Council should be regarded as the de facto supreme governing body of the University, and its size should be set in the range of 18 to 24, with each member appointed or elected ad personam and serving as trustee rather than delegate or representative of a particular constituency.
2. On the composition of the Council, there should be a clear majority of lay members and the ratio of external to University members should be about 2:1. On the assumption that the optimal size of the University Council is about 21 members, it would be composed as follows:
- 14 members would be persons who are not students or employed by the University: six of whom would be appointed by the Chancellor in consultation with the Council Chairman; six appointed by the Council itself; and the remaining two elected by the Court. The lay members would be drawn from the graduates of the University, the corporate sector and the professions, the wider local community, and the international community.
- 7 members would be university staff or students. The Vice-Chancellor would be an ex-officio member. The other six members would comprise two students – one undergraduate and one postgraduate; three teachers – at least one chair professor and one non-professorial member of Senate; and one non-teacher who is not an officer as defined in the University of Hong Kong Ordinance.
No student or staff member shall serve on Council whilst an office holder of the Students' Union or Staff Associations respectively. With the exception of the Vice-Chancellor, no member of the Council may serve more than three consecutive terms of three years each, unless each further term of appointment is specifically approved by the Court.
3. A nominations committee should be established to assist the Council in identifying suitable candidates for appointment as lay members. The committee should communicate any vacancies on Council to the University community and invite nominations on a confidential basis. In considering candidates, the committee should bear in mind the expertise needed in the different areas (e.g. finance, audit, investments, strategic planning, human resources, estate, health and safety) to enable the Council to discharge its responsibilities effectively and the lay members to add value to their active participation in the University's decision making processes.
4. Given that each member of the Council will be appointed ad personam and will bear a responsibility to act as trustee rather than delegate and that student members would not be simultaneously holding office in the Students' Union, the present restrictions which exclude student participation in reserved areas of business should be reviewed to enable them, in particular, to be eligible for membership of selection/search committees for senior officer positions which affect the student body (including the appointment of future Vice- Chancellors).
5. To enable the Council to function most effectively and to focus more on strategic issues, the Council should review how the hearing of complaints, appeals and grievances could be streamlined so that, without compromising fairness, not every case would necessarily be heard by the full Council. In particular, Council should avoid adjudicating in cases of a purely academic nature.
6. To facilitate members' contribution to Council, induction and continuing development programmes should be made available. The agenda should be more structured, and made continuous and consequential from one meeting to the next, to ensure that the focus is on strategic planning and development. A review of the Council's effectiveness should be conducted every five years and the outcome of such reviews should be included in the Vice-Chancellor's annual report to the Court.
7. The Senate should continue to be the principal academic authority, and have the responsibility for regulating all matters relating to education and research in the University, subject only to controls of Council exercised through its responsibility for financial and budget approval, and its fiduciary responsibility to ensure the overall quality and integrity of the University.
8. On size, membership of Senate should be set in the range of 42 to 50, and its composition should include the following:
- Vice-Chancellor, as Chairman
- Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Pro-Vice-Chancellors
- Deans of Faculties and Chairmen of Faculty Boards
- Dean of the Graduate School, Director of HKU-SPACE, Librarian and Dean of Student Affairs
- 5 chair professors and 5 non-professorial teachers, to be elected
- 3 students, at least one undergraduate and one postgraduate, to be elected.
9. The purpose of the Court should be cast as representing the wider interests of the communities served by the University, including its alumni. The Court should retain its power to make, repeal and amend statutes.
10. The vacancy in the position of Deputy Vice-Chancellor should be filled and the number of Pro-Vice-Chancellors should be adjusted to three initially. These positions should all be filled after international search as full-time appointments on five-year terms. The Vice-Chancellor, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and the Pro-Vice-Chancellors, together with the Registrar and the Director of Finance, should constitute the executive (retaining its existing title of the Senior Management Team if deemed appropriate) in managing and overseeing the day-to-day operations of the University, responsible through the Vice- Chancellor to the Council.
11. Deans of Faculties should all be appointed, by the Council on the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor, as full-time officers on five-year terms through a transparent due process, with international search. Appointed Deans should be funded centrally rather than from Faculty budgets.
12. To enable the Faculty concerned to have a significant input to the appointment process, the Vice-Chancellor should establish and appoint a Search Committee to provide advice on each Deanship appointment. The Search Committee shall comprise:
- Vice-Chancellor, as Chairman
- a lay member of Council
- Chairman of the Faculty Board
- 3 teachers in the Faculty, at least one of whom shall be a chair professor and one a non-professorial member
- a student in the Faculty, not holding office in the Students' Union
- a senior officer (e.g. the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, a Pro-Vice-Chancellor or a Dean from a different Faculty), appointed by the Vice-Chancellor.
The Faculty would be expected to be involved in drawing up the shortlist, and prospective applicants should have an opportunity to visit the Faculty before his or her candidature is confirmed.
13. Deans, by virtue of their appointment and increased responsibilities, should be delegated the authority to appoint Heads of departments and other sub-divisions of studies and learning within the Faculty. The appointment process should mirror that for the Deanship so that the department or sub-division of studies and learning has significant input. The Heads shall henceforth be reporting to the Vice-Chancellor via the Dean of Faculty under delegated authority. Similar arrangements will be needed for the independent centres outside the faculty structure, and a Pro-Vice-Chancellor could be delegated similar authority to oversee such centres.
14. A Vice-Chancellor's Advisory Group, comprising members of the Senior Management Team (see Recommendation 10 above) and the appointed Deans of Faculties, should be formally established to advise the Vice-Chancellor on management issues. An important responsibility of this Group will be to enhance communications between the executive and members of the Faculties (both students and staff).
15. The number of committees in the University should be significantly reduced, with the responsibilities embedded in some of the management committees transferred to the appropriate officer.
16. The University should continue proactively to examine the idea of grouping Faculties into a simpler array, perhaps using a model of three to five Colleges, in order to promote interdisciplinary education and research and to facilitate devolution for resource management at the most appropriate level.
17. To facilitate the strategic functions of succession planning, servicing of the remuneration committee, provision of continuing professional development opportunities in management and leadership skills and the management of the merit-based international search for senior positions, the human resources function should be professionalised by the appointment of a Director of Human Resources, with appropriate qualifications and experience.
Facebook 
HKU IOS App 
HKU Android App 
Social Media and Apps