Who (actually) does what? Exploring university
delegations of authority
Association for Tertiary Education Management (ATEM) Policy Forum
Melbourne, 27 October 2011
1
Brigid Freeman
University of Tasmania, Launceston, Australia
[email protected]
Introduction
The University of Tasmania has recently undertaken a Review of the University of Tasmania
Delegations Register to examine formal delegations of authority. The Review was triggered by
recurring questions regarding the accuracy, accessibility and scope of the existing Delegations
Register and undertaken alongside significant governance reforms and management restructures.
As such, a key objective of the Review was to capture existing good practice, and identify
opportunities for improvement. The Review was undertaken internally by the Policy and
Delegations Office of Governance and Legal, and involved a literature review, document
analysis, interviews, workshops, benchmarking and consultation through the UTAS Policy
Network. This paper is structured as a series of questions and answers to provide a snapshot of
„who does what‟ in relation to key administrative matters at the University of Tasmania, explore
delegations of authority concepts and present proposed new arrangements for the University of
Tasmania. Importantly, the proposed new documentation remains subject to both further staff and
senior executive deliberation and University Council approval. The Review highlighted key
points of differentiation between delegations documentation and university policy statements,
where „policy‟ is defined as “a statement of intent or principle which regulates, directs and
controls University operations” (Policy Development and Review Policy, 2010). In terms of key
lesson learned, the Review confirmed the importance of consulting people exercising delegations
in order to ascertain and articulate „who (actually) does what‟ at an Australian university. Such
consultation is almost imperative for implementation buy-in.
OK so what are delegations exactly?
„Delegation‟ is the allocation of powers or authorities (referred to as „delegations‟) to specific
positions or committees: essentially a determination of „who can do what‟. Using an „academic
hat‟ analogy, the concept of delegations may be illustrated as follows.
Allocation of powers or authorities, where each academic hat represents ‘powers’
University Council
1
Vice-Chancellor
Senior executive
Managers
Academic and
professional staff
Brigid Freeman is currently undertaking a Doctor of Philosophy with the University of Melbourne.
Who (actually) does what? Exploring university delegations of authority: Brigid Freeman (2011)
In relation to University of Tasmania delegations, the ultimate source of power is the state
government. The state government (through state parliament) transferred powers to the
University through the University of Tasmania Act 1992. The Act allocates powers to the
University Council (and Academic Senate). University Council reserves some powers (in
accordance with provisions of the Act), and delegates the remainder to the Vice-Chancellor. In
turn, the Vice-Chancellor reserves some powers (in accordance with the Act), then - in
conjunction with University Council - delegates the remainder to the senior executive, other staff
and committees. These delegated powers or authorities are exercised via shared decision-making:
authority shared between administrators, academics and the institution‟s governing body (Hines,
2000). This transfer of power is hierarchical (Hammond, 2004) in the sense that University
Council appoints the Vice-Chancellor to whom they delegate some of their powers; the ViceChancellor in turn is involved in appointing the senior executive to whom powers are then
delegated; and in turn senior executive appoint managers and other professional and academic
staff to whom powers are delegated.
What are delegations documents for?
Essentially, delegations are a governance mechanism for formally allocating powers or
authorities to staff and committees. Agreed delegations arrangements support clarity and
transparency of decision-making (Shattock, 2006). Within the context of Australian universities,
delegations documentation articulates „who can do what‟ in relation to administrative and/or
academic powers generally across the institution. For example, who can authorise financial
transactions (to what levels); who can authorise human resources decisions (in relation to
different categories of professional and academic staff); who can authorise travel (locally,
interstate and overseas); who can authorise applications and sign contracts (to what level of
commitment); who can authorise risk; who can authorise decisions about teaching, learning and
research (such as admissions, credit transfer, assessment, course approvals and intellectual
property). Delegations documentation seeks to answer these and related questions.
Kaplan (2004) suggests that “while the patterns of delegation and practices of shared governance
are neither absolute nor uniform … understanding how governance is defined and implemented
… constitutes an essential project for understanding the behaviour of higher education
organisations” (p. 166). In this sense an appreciation of delegations of authority as governance
instruments can inform and support policy, which effectively articulates university academic and
administration intent.
What does the current UTAS delegations documentation look like?
The current University of Tasmania Delegations Register identifies which positions, universitywide, can exercise delegations for a limited number of administrative matters – including most
financial transactions, some contracts matters, a small number of human resources matters, and
external representation. The Delegations Register does not identify academic delegations. The
Delegations Register contains a lengthy introductory piece providing information regarding
delegations principles. The content is drawn from delegations prescribed in governance
instruments, that is, the formal governance documentation including the University of Tasmania
Act 1992, University By-laws 1993, Ordinances and Rules. The content is also derived from nonprescribed delegations determined by key university decision-making authorities.
Who (actually) does what? Exploring university delegations of authority: Brigid Freeman (2011)
What was the scope of the Review of the University of Tasmania Delegations
Register?
The Review of the University of Tasmania Delegations Register was established to identify
prescribed and non-prescribed delegations; ensure alignment with governance and policy
instruments; examine breadth of delegations categories; examine accessibility and presentation;
and consider professional development requirements.
So how did I undertake the Review?
The Review involved a literature review, document analysis, interviews, workshops, consultation
via the UTAS Policy Network, and benchmarking. The wealth of university governance literature
provided background information regarding shared and collegial decision-making processes.
Document analysis was undertaken to identify the delegations prescribed in governance
instruments and key policy statements. Semi-structured face-to-face, telephone and Skype
interviews were undertaken with nearly 100 staff (and two National Tertiary Education Union
officials). The interviews provided an opportunity to determine current delegations arrangements,
discuss underpinning principles and breadth of delegations categorisation, and consider
opportunities for reform. Two workshops were held in Hobart involving 13 staff to introduce the
Review, identify discrepancies and omissions in the current delegations documentation, and
discuss presentation and professional development requirements. Delegations policy
benchmarking was undertaken as a „policy learning‟ exercise (Lundvall and Tomlinson, 2002;
Paasi, 2005) to examine web-based delegations documentation from Australian universities to
consider scope and categorisation, types of delegations instruments and underpinning principles.
Draft documentation was circulated to the UTAS Policy Network, targeting some 350 key staff
involved in decision-making and university policy matters. The Review is currently nearing
completion, with one final round of consultations scheduled for the coming month, followed by
senior executive and University Council consideration. New arrangements will be implemented
in early 2012.
What was the context for the Review?
The Review of the University of Tasmania Delegations Register was undertaken within the same
period as other key governance and operational reviews, including the review of the size and
composition of University Council, the review of University Institutes, the review of Academic
Senate, the university Travel Review, the review of the senior executive structure and subsequent
restructure of the Provost, Chief Operating Officers and Deputy Vice-Chancellor‟s Divisions, and
corresponding reviews of key committees. The review was also undertaken whilst the University
sought to develop a suite of academic policy statements to govern academic endeavour. Whilst
overarching policy statements can frequently withstand such significant change, governance and
organisational structure, relationships and relativities are at the very heart of delegations
documentation. This context attests to a vibrant organisation undergoing significant change, and
confirms both the dynamic nature of delegations themselves and the imperative for designing
expedited approval authorities.
In addition to this background of significant change, working with „independently-minded
academics‟ has frequently been described as „herding cats‟ (Hammond, 2004). Cohen and March
(1986) went so far as to suggest that universities represent „organised anarchies‟. The new
Who (actually) does what? Exploring university delegations of authority: Brigid Freeman (2011)
delegations documentation unpacks the university governance and management hierarchies in an
attempt to establish a workable framework.
So, what did I come up with?
The proposed delegations documentation includes a Delegations Policy and attendant Schedules,
including a Schedule of Financial Delegations, Schedule of Human Resources Delegations
(including Part A – Academic Staff and Part B – Professional Staff), Schedule of Contract
Delegations, Schedule of Risk Delegations, Schedule of Travel Delegations and Schedule of
Committee Delegations.
Table 1: Snapshot of Proposed Delegations Documentation and Significant Reforms
DELEGATIONS POLICY AND
SNAPSHOT OF CHANGES
DELEGATIONS SCHEDULES
Delegations Policy
Differs significantly to the introductory section of the current Delegations Register
Schedule of Financial Delegations
Small number of large changes; large number of small changes
Schedule of Human Resources
Completely new, detailed delegations aligned to industrial instruments for
Delegations
professional and academic staff
Schedule of Contract Delegations
Completely revised reflecting current practice and a small number of changes
Schedule of Risk Delegations
Reflecting current practice; directly extracted from the Risk Management Policy
Schedule of Travel Delegations
Reflecting current practice and incorporating a small number of reforms arising
from the Travel Review
Schedule of Committee Delegations
Completely updated presentation of current delegations capturing recent changes
Reference in Delegations Policy to
References to WHS Responsibilities Policy, Heads of School Policy, Finance Policies
various administrative policies
(such as the Purchasing Policy) and Policy Development and Review Policy
Reference in Delegations Policy to
References to relevant Ordinances, Rules, emerging academic policy statements
various academic delegations
and academic standards framework
The schedules are intentionally succinct and presented holistically. While the delegations
themselves are hierarchical, they do not necessarily always follow reporting lines.
The Delegations Policy provides an overarching statement of principle regarding formal
University of Tasmania administrative delegations of authority. The policy identifies powers
reserved for the sole discretion of University Council, the Vice-Chancellor and Academic Senate;
it articulates key principles of delegation. This document is being developed in accordance with
the University‟s Policy Development and Review Policy.
The Schedule of Financial Delegations introduces delegation banding, similar to arrangements
instituted by other Australian universities. The Schedule provides a consistent, hierarchical
framework for financial delegations from positions holding minimal financial delegation ($5,000)
through to University Council (unlimited). The Schedule of Financial Delegations differentiates
between the key types of financial transactions embedded in the University‟s TechnologyOne
electronic finance system (accounts payable and purchasing; accounts receivable; journal
transfers) and the manually managed systems relating to asset register variation and debt writeoff. Whilst financial delegations are held by a large number of staff (400) located throughout all
sections of the university, the financial delegations schedule is intentionally hierarchical in
relation to monetary amounts and position seniority. Decisions involving relatively small
amounts of money (up to $5,000 per individual transaction) are highly dispersed; decisions
involving larger amounts of money (over $50,000) are highly centralised. This approach
concurrently reflects operational requirements and risk mitigation. The banded framework mostly
– but not always – establishes parity and relativity between positions.
Who (actually) does what? Exploring university delegations of authority: Brigid Freeman (2011)
Table 2: Skeleton Schedule of Financial Delegations (simplified)
BAND
POSITIONS OR COUNCIL
Band 8
Band 6-7
Band 5
Band 2-4
Band 1
Council
Vice-Chancellor and Chief Operating Officer
Senior management positions
Mid-level positions
Junior Positions
FINANCIAL DELEGATION (INDIVIDUAL TRANSACTIONS)
(accounts payable/purchasing; accounts receivable; journal
transfers; asset register variation and debt write-off)
Unlimited
$1m - $2m
$500,000
$50,000 - $250,000
$5,000
The Schedule of Contract Delegations encompasses delegations for both applications and
contracts (including contract variations), and identifies differentiated delegations for incoming
and outgoing monies. The concept of „outgoing monies‟ incorporates in-kind contributions, as
both cash and in-kind contributions represent a University commitment. The schedule
differentiates between: general contracts, memorandums of understanding, research and graduate
research contracts, real property contracts, leases and licenses, intellectual property agreements
and deeds of release. Variables include contract value (such that the delegations are directly
aligned to the Schedule of Financial Delegations), and contract length (in relation to realproperty). The new Schedule of Contract Delegations suggests that, as application or contract
amounts increase, or length of contract period increases, seniority of the delegation holder also
increases. The schedule also supports the understanding that committing the University to paying
money out represents a higher level of risk or exposure than agreeing to receive monies and, as
such, the position of the delegation holders are higher in seniority. In centralising some
delegations – such as authority to sign research applications and contracts to the Deputy ViceChancellor (Research) – the schedule reflects the imperative for centralised research income
tracking for future „knock-on‟ Commonwealth research funding.
Table 3: Skeleton Schedule of Contract Delegations (simplified)
CONTRACT TYPE
General contracts other than the ones listed below …
Memorandums of Understanding
Research contracts including research grant agreements,
contract research agreements and consultancy agreements
Graduate research contracts
Real property contracts including real property ownership,
real property leases and occupation licenses
Intellectual property contracts including deeds of agreement,
materials or data transfer agreements, confidentiality
agreements and intellectual property license agreements
Deeds of release
APPLICATIONS and CONTRACTS
Band 1 – Band 8 from Schedule of Financial Delegations
Members of the senior executive (in their area of responsibility)
Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research)
Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research)
Chief Operating Officer, VC, Council (depending on length of contract)
Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research)
Director, Governance and Legal (to $50k), then COO to $1m (both
excluding ex gratia payments) then VC (including all ex gratia payments)
The Schedule of Travel Delegations establishes delegation arrangements for international travel
by air, land and sea (for DFAT travel advisories levels 1-5), and interstate travel by air, land and
sea. The schedule identifies approval authorities for different categories of traveller (senior
executive, heads, other staff, students travelling for course requirements). The documentation
explicitly differentiates authorisation for travel from authorisation for travel expenditure, which
reflects duty of care and staff management considerations. As a consequence, travel delegations
are highly centralised and senior executive members are responsible for authorising travel
involving relatively low levels of expenditure (for example, Provost approval of interstate travel
of Deans; Deans approval of interstate travel for Heads of School). The schedule also reflects the
principle that „delegations go up‟: approval to travel interstate and overseas is given by one‟s
manager.
Who (actually) does what? Exploring university delegations of authority: Brigid Freeman (2011)
Table 4: Skeleton Schedule of Travel Delegations (simplified)
TRAVELLER
Vice-Chancellor
Senior management positions
Mid-level positions
Junior Positions
DELEGATION HELD BY
Chancellor
Provost
Senior management positions
Mid-level positions
The new Schedule of Human Resources Delegations identifies human resources delegations
from the University‟s industrial instruments for all position classifications. These classifications
are: academic staff (casual; levels A-E; senior executive); and professional staff (casual; Higher
Education Officers, Research Assistants; English Language Centre staff and senior manages and
senior executive). The schedule establishes a new, University-wide framework for the consistent
exercise of human resources delegations. The schedule illustrates highly centralised human
resources arrangements for all recruits and staff other than casuals, with most authorities vested
in Deans and heads of Division rather than Heads of School or Budget Centre. Again the
schedule clearly illustrates the principle that „delegations go up‟; approval of conditions and
benefits of employment – such as leave, allowances and performance management – is given by
one‟s manager.
Table 5: Skeleton Schedule of Human Resources Delegations (simplified)
HR DELEGATIONS
CASUALS
Classifications and payments
Employment arrangements
Leave provisions
Miscellaneous
Positions holding delegation
Positions holding delegation
Positions holding delegation
Positions holding delegation
PROFESSIONAL STAFF
(casuals, HEOs, RAs, ELC,
senior managers)
Positions holding delegation
Positions holding delegation
Positions holding delegation
Positions holding delegation
ACADEMIC STAFF (casuals, levels
A-E, Deans, heads of Institutes,
senior executive, VC)
Positions holding delegation
Positions holding delegation
Positions holding delegation
Positions holding delegation
The Schedule of Committee Delegations provides information regarding key University of
Tasmania governance committees, derived from the University of Tasmania Act 1992,
Ordinances and Rules. The schedule consistently presents information regarding: committee
delegations (that is, terms of reference), membership, term of office and secretariat details. As the
details are drawn directly from governance instruments which are currently, and in future
occasionally, subject to review, the Delegations Policy proposes that where governance
instruments are amended by University Council, amendments to the Schedule of Committee
Delegations be automatically approved to ensure currency. The objective of the schedule is to
support transparency and participation in University governance and decision-making.
Table 6: Skeleton Schedule of Committee Delegations (simplified)
COMMITTEES
University Council and sub-committees
Academic Senate and sub-committees
Senior Management Team and sub-committees
University committees (Quality,
Internationalisation, WHS, Alumni, Foundation
Board)
University Institute Boards
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Terms of reference
Terms of reference
Terms of reference
Terms of reference
MEMBERSHIP
Positions and terms of office
Positions and terms of office
Positions and terms of office
Positions and terms of office
SECRETARIAT
Position
Position
Position
Position
Terms of reference
Positions and terms of office
Position
In relation to academic delegations, the initial plan included potentially articulating the academic
delegations spanning teaching, learning and research. However, consultations confirmed both the
limited scope of current academic policy, and considerable body of policy work remaining
outstanding; for example, academic policy under development includes the Assessment
Procedures, Course Approval Policy, Credit Transfer Policy, Generic Attributes Policy, most
research and all graduate research policy. The challenge of specifying academic delegations
before key academic policy statements were finalized proved both inappropriate and
insurmountable.
Who (actually) does what? Exploring university delegations of authority: Brigid Freeman (2011)
So, is ‘university policy’ the same as ‘delegations of authority’?
One could presume a high level of similarity as delegations of authority documentation is derived
from governance instruments and ideally aligned to university policy, as illustrated in Figure 1,
overleaf.
GOVERNANCE
INSTRUMENTS
POLICY
STATEMENTS
DELEGATIONS
POLICY & SCHEDULES
Figure 1: Overlap between university governance instruments, policy and delegations documentation
However, the points of difference between university policy and delegations of authority are
many and fundamental, as suggested in Table 7, below.
Table 7: Comparison: Policy and Delegations Documentation
POLICY
DELEGATIONS DOCUMENTATION
Policy Development and Review Policy
Internal review
Stable (reviewed 3-5 yrs)
Dynamic (regularly amended)
Umbrella “what” statements
Detailed “who can do what” statements
Large numbers of people (generally involving ‘delegation Large numbers of people holding low-level delegations; small
down’)
number holding mid-high level delegations (generally involving
‘no delegation down unless stated’)
Teaching, learning, research, administration
UTAS - administration only at this stage
Aligned to governance instruments and plans
Drawn from governance instruments and current practice
Simple or complex; short/succinct or lengthy
Generally complex; generally lengthy
Policy implementation not easily monitored
Delegations implementation readily monitored through
electronic systems (finance; contracts; some HR)
University policy is developed in accordance with the university Policy on Policy and at the
University of Tasmania, using our University Policy Development Cycle. The proposed
delegations documentation resulted from an internal review process. Policy is intentionally
stable, generally for a period of some 3-5 years; delegations documentation is intentionally
dynamic and subject to regular, routine amendment. Policy represents umbrella „what‟
statements; delegations documentation represents detailed „who can do what‟ statements. Policy
is operationalised by large numbers of people often involving „delegation down‟. For example,
policy statements identify what the university as a whole will do. Many staff throughout the
university – most of whom are not explicitly identified in the policy - are then involved in
implementation. Delegations documentation explicitly identifies positions able to exercise
authorities, and generally reflects the principle of „no delegation down unless otherwise stated‟.
Policy spans all university operations (teaching, learning, research, administration, community)
applicable across all organisational units. Delegations documentation can certainly articulate both
Who (actually) does what? Exploring university delegations of authority: Brigid Freeman (2011)
academic and administrative authorities, however, mid to high level delegations are highly
centralized to senior faculty and executive staff. Policy provisions can be simple or complex and
policy statements short or long; delegations are inherently complex and documentation is
generally lengthy. Policy implementation is not easily monitored or evaluated; whereas
sophisticated ICT-based systems which electronically workflow delegations (such as
TechnologyOne and human resources online systems) contain inbuilt checks and balances
supportive of monitoring regimes.
In conclusion, what are the lessons most relevant to university policy
development?
In some senses the Review confirms some things that we already know or, at the very least,
suspect. We know that words on paper do not necessarily mirror or drive practice. We know that
meaningful pre-approval consultation is imperative to determine current practice and to identify
realistic opportunities for change. We know that consultation, accessible documentation and
professional development are almost pre-requisites for successful implementation. The Review
has also clarified that policy and delegations are related, but different, and while writing broad
delegations into policy is possible and common practice, we now know that writing academic
delegations in the absence of academic policy is practically impossible. These findings can
inform both the new delegations documentation, and the way we proceed with our policy
development initiatives.
References
Cohen, M.D., & March, J.G. (1974). Leadership and Ambiguity: The American College President. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Ehrenberg, R.G. (2004). Introduction. In Ehrenberg, R.G. (ed) Governing Academia: who is in charge at the modern
university. London: Cornell University Press.
Hammond, T.H. (2004). Herding Cats in University Hierarchies. In Ehrenberg, R.G. (ed) Governing Academic: who
is in charge at the modern university. London: Cornell University Press.
Hines, E.R. 2000. The Governance of Higher Education. In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research,
J.C. Smart (ed), vol. 15, 105-56. New York: Agathon Press.
Kaplan, G.E. (2004). How academic ships actually navigate. In Ehrenberg, R.G. (ed) Governing Academic: who is in
charge at the modern university. London: Cornell University Press.
Lundvall, B.A. & Tomlinson, M. (2002). International benchmarking as a policy learning tool. In Rodrigues, M.J.
The new knowledge economy in Europe: a strategy for international competitiveness and social cohesion.
Cheltenham UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Paasi, M. (2005). Benchmarking policies Collective benchmarking of policies: an instrument for policy learning in
adaptive research and innovation policy. Science and Public Policy, 32(1), 17-27.
Shattock, M. 2006. Managing good governance in higher education. UK: Open University Press.
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the source of the hat analogy as Jeff Bronstein, Lawyer, University of Tasmania.
Contact details
Brigid Freeman
Manager, Policy and Delegations
Governance and Legal
University of Tasmania
Newnham Campus
LAUNCESTON TAS 7248
Telephone: (03) 6324 3651
Email: [email protected]
Who (actually) does what? Exploring university delegations of authority: Brigid Freeman (2011)