Policy on Centres 2003 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 Centres 2001 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