Policy on Centres2003

University of Saskatchewan

Background

• In 2001 Budget Committee examined the effectiveness of the existing policy

• Paucity of information, poor records, poor accountability and reporting (not for the incorporated and larger centres)

• Research Committee has no mandate for non-research centres

• Planning Committee frustrated about the lengthy approval process (6 months)

Joint Committee on Centres2001

• Inventory of centres

• Identify contacts, interests, relationships and structures

• Then arrival of Integrated Planning and its requirement that Centre Plans be integrated with College Plans

• New VP Research in 2003

Some other university policies reviewed

• Stanford• California State• Virginia Polytec• University of Iowa• University of Florida• University of Minnesota• McGill University• University of Calgary• Queens• Harvard

Common elements of other new policies for centres

• Clearly stated objectives for centre

• Clear relationship to the mission of the university

• Recognize the different complexities

• Clear management structures

• Administrative and financial reporting

• Annual and cyclical reviews

• Mechanism for disestablishment

New U of S Policy Objectives

• Recognize the increasingly important role of centres in interdisciplinary activity

• Create a more responsive and faster approval process for research and non-research centres

• Link centres to a clear reporting structure

• Link centres to Integrated Planning

• Institute regular reviews (SPR-like)• Financial accountability

The proposed U of S policy

• Recognize the importance of centres

• Establish Types of Centres (A, B, C, D) with clear accountability and annual reporting requirements

• Require 3-5 year financial support

• Management structure

The proposed U of S Policy

• SPR-like review cycle

• Linked to Integrated Planning

• Implementation and transition• New Standing Subcommittee of

Planning on Centres

Standing Subcommittee

• To facilitate the creation of new centres

• To monitor adherence to the Policy

• To develop and review the Policy and Guidelines

• To oversee the disestablishment of centres

• To maintain a list of active centres

Consultation

• Deans Council (2x)

• Planning, RSAW, Budget Committees (at least 2x)

• Centres consultation (2x)

• Senior Admin has participated in the discussions at council committee level

• B of G and Provincial Auditor have been appraised of the new policy

Feedback incorporated• Main concern not to under-value the

importance of centres; strengthened language

• Initially provided 5 year cycle, with approval for renewal. Now open-ended subject to satisfactory cyclical review

• Type C centres (Inc.) report to Dean(s) and then VP on academic and research matters, but to B of G on $ matters

• D centres are within B of G jurisdiction

New policy approved by Council Committees

• Planning

• RSAW

• Budget

• Planning Committee recommends approval by Council