Board minutes

Board Meeting 20 January 2011

Open session

1. Apologies for Absence

   Sarah Lupton and Bernard Wyld.

2. Members’ Interests

   The Board noted the declarations of interest as stated in the Board’s Register of Interests.  It was agreed that there were no conflicts of interest arising from the declarations.

3. Minutes

   It was recommended that the Minutes of the Open Session held on 16 September 2010 be approved.

   Proposer: Gordon Gibb
   Seconder: Neil Watts

   The recommendation was agreed unanimously.

4. Matters arising

   There were no matters arising.

5. Chair’s Report.

   The Chair reported that she had received an invitation from the Minister to discuss the effective working relationship between the RIBA and ARB, and she had met with Ruth Reed, President of the RIBA, and Andrew Stunnell MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at Communities and Local Government (CLG). The Chair reported that she had found the meeting extremely interesting and useful. Mr Stunnell had provided a statement confirming that he welcomed the organisations working together, where possible, in the future. The statement from Mr Stunnell would be included in the ARB eBulletin.

   The Chair highlighted the importance of maintaining good working relationships with several bodies and reported that she had been invited to an awards event at the House of Lords for the Association of Building Engineers. Both the Chair and Registrar would be attending the Association of Consultant Architects (ACA) Council Away Afternoon, as well as a Council meeting with the Royal Society of Ulster Architects (RSUA) in Belfast.

6. Registrar’s Report

   The Board noted the Registrar’s Report.  The Registrar additionally reported that ARB continued to review its obligations under the CLG Framework Agreement and that she was satisfied ARB had met the majority of those obligations in 2010.

   The Registrar also reported that the Review of the Qualifications Directive had been issued for public consultation by the European Commission and that information on how architects and other interested parties could comment would be provided in the eBulletin. Board Members were also advised that the consultation was available on the Board’s Intranet.

   The Registrar reported that a member of staff had been asked by the European Commission to give a presentation about ARB’s experience of using the Internal Market Information System (IMI) which provided a swift exchange of information between competent authorities when dealing with registration matters.

7. Update on 2010 Year End Accounts

   The Deputy Registrar provided the Board with a verbal update and asked the Board to note the short timescale in which these figures were being presented following the year end.

   It was reported that a surplus of £41k had been forecast against the original budgeted loss of £176k for 2010. This followed the revised budget set in June 2010.

   As some projects were unable to be concluded in 2010, £36k had been carried over to 2011 and would finance these projects from reserves. Capital expenditure of £55k would also be carried forward from 2010 to 2011.

   One member asked the Board to consider the amount the Board had in its reserves and to bear this in mind when setting the level of the retention fee in future. It was noted that 2011 would be a particularly challenging year in view of the reduction in the retention fee and that the Board had a reserves policy in place to deal with such situations.

    

   Matters for Decision

8. Review of the Risk Management Strategy

   This item was introduced by the Registrar and members were reminded that this had been discussed at a post-Board discussion in 2010.

   The Board was asked to consider one change to the Risk Management Strategy as part of its annual review by acknowledging that to be too risk averse could also mean that opportunities were missed. 

   It was recommended that the Board should agree the updated Risk Management Strategy as shown at Annex A of the papers, and that the strategy should be the subject of an ongoing annual review.

   Proposer: David Jones
   Seconder: Peter Coe

   The recommendation was agreed unanimously.

9. Approval of the Scheme of Decision Making

   The Deputy Registrar introduced this item and drew the Board’s attention to the recommendations outlined in the paper. 

   It was recommended that the Board should agree the amendments to the Scheme of Decision Making as shown in Annex A of the papers and as recommended by the Audit Committee.

   Proposer: Agnes Grunwald-Spier
   Seconder: Alex Galloway

   The recommendations were agreed unanimously.

10. Investigations and Professional Conduct Committee Rules

    The Professional Standards Manager introduced this item and reminded the Board of its earlier decision to issue the proposed changes to the Rules for a three month consultation at its meeting in July 2010. The consultation had now closed and all responses were recorded in the attached paper.

    It was reported that following the consultation very few changes were recommended to the actual content of the proposed Rules, but that stylistic changes would also be implemented to ensure the Rules corresponded with ARB’s current format. The Board was, however, asked to note two additions at page 40 of its papers to insert 20 January 2011 as the date the Rules were made by the Board, and to substitute 1 January 2011 with 1 April 2011.

    It was recommended that the Board should approve the revised Investigations and Professional Conduct Committee Rules shown at Appendix A of the paper, subject to stylistic changes and the addition of the dates on which the Rules were made and implemented (1 January 2011 and 1 April 2011).

    Proposer: Alex Galloway
    Seconder: Alan Jago

    The recommendation was agreed unanimously.

11. Revised General Rules – Rule 20

    The Head of Qualifications introduced this item and asked the Board to consider the proposals set out in the paper together with the attached consultation responses. It was noted that the recommendation was that the Board approve the revision of General Rule 20, but that further discussion would continue to take place with the RIBA in respect of the accompanying Guidelines.  

    Having considered the consultation responses, it was recommended that the Board agree:

    1. to approve the revised version of General Rule 20; and  
    2. that the Prescription Committee should be delegated with the authority to approve the Guidelines, if revisions to these were necessary following further discussion with the RIBA.

    Proposer: David Jones
    Seconder: Gordon Gibb

    The recommendation was agreed unanimously.

12. Revision to the Electoral Scheme for Architects and General Rule 5a

    The Registrar drew the Board’s attention to the recommendations set out in the paper. It was noted that whilst the Board could approve the Electoral Scheme following a period of consultation, the revised scheme was also subject to approval by the Privy Council. If the Privy Council did not approve the scheme, it would be referred back to the Board.

    A discussion was held concerning paragraph 5.7 of the Scheme which specified that statements should not express views on the ability or integrity of other candidates, be defamatory or contain misleading statements. Members queried whether the wording detailed the consequences of a candidate’s failure to conform clearly enough, but later noted that paragraph 5.9 provided a safeguard to this. Members also felt that the section regarding canvassing at paragraph 7.1 should correspond with paragraph 5.7 and suggested that it should be strengthened. It was agreed that the Registrar was delegated to consider this and produce a revised version of this point to reflect the Board’s views.

    It was recommended that the Board should:

    1. approve the revised electoral scheme at Annex C of the paper, including amendments to be made by the Registrar to paragraph 7.1;
    2. approve revised General Rule 5a to read:
       “Persons wishing to stand for election must be nominated by 10 Part 1 Registrants. The nomination papers must be returned to the person designated as Returning Officer by the Board at the address specified in the election notice by noon on the tenth day of January in an election year”;
    3. note that final approval of the scheme, and consequently General Rule 5a, is   dependent on the Privy Council approving the revised scheme; and
    4. delegate to the Registrar the finalisation of the implementation date for changes to the Scheme and General Rule 5a, after Privy Council approval.

    Proposer: Neil Watts
    Seconder: Agnes Grunwald-Spier

    The recommendations were agreed unanimously.

13. Item 13 was postponed

14. Policy for the Suspension of Prescription

    The Head of Qualifications introduced this item and drew the Board’s attention to the recommendations set out in the paper. It was noted that several institutions had made enquiries in relation to the possibility of suspending delivery of their ARB prescribed qualifications in light of the current economic and employment situation. It was reported that students would not be disadvantaged by this process and it was important that ARB reflected actions which needed to be taken by Schools of Architecture in light of current circumstances.  

    It was recommended that the Board should agree that:

    1. if institutions interrupt delivery of and/or recruitment to a qualification for a period of less than two years, prescription can also be suspended for that period;
    2. any requests to suspend prescription are dealt with on a case-by-case basis;
    3. before a suspension is granted, institutions must clearly demonstrate that there will be no residual students who may graduate with the qualification during the period of suspension;
    4. where institutions interrupt delivery of and/or recruitment to a prescribed qualification, they are asked to update ARB about the position on an annual basis, including information on what future plans there are for the qualification, and how much change it is likely to have undergone by the time prescription is reinstated;
    5. institutions should demonstrate the objectives outlined in the paper when they wished to restart the delivery of and/or recruitment to a prescribed qualification;
    6. when an institution makes a request for suspension to be lifted, the Board reserves the right to ask the institution to apply for full prescription if it deems the qualification to be significantly different from what was previously prescribed.

    Proposer: David Jones
    Seconder: Myra Kinghorn

    The recommendations were agreed unanimously.

    Matters for Note

15. Review of the Risk Register

    The Registrar reported that there had been some movement on the risks recorded on the Risk Register which were illustrated in column 9 of the Table contained within the Board’s papers. A risk assurance mapping exercise was currently being undertaken by the internal auditors, both to review the controls ARB has in place and the actions it takes to mitigate risk. This would be reported back and considered by the Audit Committee in due course.

    The Board noted the Risk Register as at January 2011.

16. Feedback from the Chair on Board Member Appraisals

    The Chair reported that she had found the one-to-one conversations with Board members useful and would like to discuss some wider issues that had been raised in respect of how members would like to shape the Board Development Day.

    The Chair also provided assurances that all appraisals were kept confidential, but that she now asked each member individually whether they had any objection to the papers being kept securely in ARB’s offices in the event that the Chair becomes unavailable.

    The Board noted the feedback from the Chair on Board Member Appraisals.

17. Timetable for the Chair/ Vice Chair Elections

    The Registrar requested that if any Board members were away during the key dates set out in the paper to please inform her as soon as possible.  Alternative arrangements could then be made so that they would still be able to vote if they wished.

    The Board noted the timetable for the election of the Chair and Vice Chair.

18. Report against the Business Plan 2010

    The Registrar noted that there was a great deal of linkage between Items 18 and 19 as this was the first time these two items were being presented to the Board at the same time.

    The Registrar flagged up one amendment to the Business Plan in respect of the timescale for processing applications for registration. The Business Plan referred to the statutory timescale of three months; however, the aim was to turn these around much sooner and as such, the Reporting to the Board paper records this timescale as one month. The reporting mechanism is not sufficiently robust to be able to state categorically that this item should be marked as ‘green’ on the Business Plan and should be amended to ‘amber’.

    The Registrar noted that the Board’s performance against the Business Plan in 2010 was particularly good in view of the unforeseen and challenging circumstances it experienced half way through last year.

    One member queried why some areas which were noted as ‘amber’ had commentary, whilst others did not. It was agreed that this would be amended future reports against the Business Plan and explanations would be given for each instance where ‘amber’ was recorded.

    The Board noted the annual report against the 2010 Business Plan.

19. Report on Statistics, Trends and Performance Indicators for 2010

    The Registrar introduced this item and noted the challenges presented in producing annual statistics so close to the end of the year. It was for this reason that some statistics, particularly in respect of registration, would require further testing to ensure they were entirely accurate.

    The Board was encouraged to provide feedback on whether the information presented was sufficient, or whether it required further data.

    One member queried the breakdown of the Register by gender in 2010 and whether there were barriers preventing women from becoming architects. The issue was discussed at some length with many Board members expressing their view that there were no specific obstacles, and that there were in fact more female students studying architecture and subsequently joining the Register. As this was considered to be a slow change in the registration statistics it was felt that the percentage shift would be small and take time to feed through. The Board agreed to discuss this wide topic at a future date.

    Having reviewed the statistics relating to the registration of individuals holding European qualifications, it was agreed that it would be helpful to have a briefing session about registration through the European Route as well as a summary of the review of the Qualifications Directive at a future date.

    Another member queried point 4.3 of the paper in respect of Absence Records and whether staff absence and sickness could impact on how ARB delivers its work. The Registrar confirmed that this may have some knock-on effect to some of ARB’s administrative functions such as timescales. The Registrar stated that detailed consideration of staffing issues was reported to the Remuneration Committee.

    One member felt from talking to the profession that there was a greater awareness and recognition of ARB and its work and questioned whether, in light of the reduced attendance at trade shows, this was solely through the work undertaken on the website. Sue Young confirmed that this was a combination of a number of things which included the website and a newsletter circulated to the profession by way of the eBulletin. It was noted that a review of the Stakeholder Engagement Register had recently been undertaken, which had also helped to focus on ways to raise ARB’s profile.

    The Board noted the Report on ARB’s Statistics, Trends and Performance Indicators for 2010.

20. Qualifications Department’s Annual Report 2009-2010

    The Chair of the Prescription Committee introduced this item.  He highlighted that the average time taken to process an annual monitoring submission had been reduced from nine weeks to four and a half weeks and offered congratulations to staff for this.

    The Board noted the Qualifications Department’s Annual Report on its performance during the period between September 2009 and September 2010.

21. Annual Report from the Audit Committee

    The Chair of the Audit Committee introduced this item and reported that the Committee had held a meeting to look at the changing shape of the Board’s accounts for 2010 as requested under the CLG/ ARB Framework Agreement. They had also considered the potential changes for 2011. It was noted that the Committee would look at the detailed 2010 accounts at its meeting in March, after they had been audited.

    The Board noted the Audit Committee’s Annual Report for 2010.

22. Annual Report from the Professional Conduct Committee

    The Chair introduced Alexandra Marks, Chair of the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC), to the Board who had been newly appointed to the post in September 2010. Ms Marks explained that her purpose in attending the meeting was to enhance the communication between the PCC and ARB while retaining the independence of the PCC’s decision making. It was noted that formal channels of communication were important in the event that policies required reviewing or consideration.

    Ms Marks outlined her background, experience and briefly reflected on her experience as PCC Chair to date.

    The Board noted the Report of the Chair of the Professional Conduct Committee.

23. Minutes

    The Board noted the minutes of:

    1. The Investigations Committee meeting held on 21 September 2010
    2. The Investigations Committee meeting held on 13 December 2010
    3. The Remuneration Committee on 17 November 2010
    4. The Audit Committee on 18 October 2010

24. AOB

    There was none

25. Dates of Next Meetings

    The Board agreed the dates of its next meetings as follows:

    7 April 2011 (Board members also noted the Board development day that follows on Friday 8 April 2011)
    21 July 2011
    22 September 2011
    15 December 2011