|
|
|
The
Council
COUN09-M7
Minutes
of the meeting of the University Council held on Friday
27 November 2009.
Members:
Sir
Bryan Carsberg (Chair); Dr Memis
Acar; Dr Jo Aldridge (ab); Dr Anja Baumhoff; John Blackwell; Penny Coates;
Arthur Deakin; Brian Dent (ab); Gifty Edila (ab); Sir John Gains; Professor Neil
Halliwell; Rob Hulme; Sir John Jennings; Jamie Morgado (ab); Jim Murphy; Jim
Mutton (ab); Terry Neale; Professor Ric Parker (ab); Professor Richard
Parry-Jones; Professor Shirley Pearce; Simon Proffitt; Professor Ian Reid (ab);
Mark Sismey-Durrant; Jackie Strong; Nigel Tamplin; Philip Wilkinson-Blake; Alan
A Woods; Dr Dominic Wring.
In
attendance:
Rob Allen; Professor Morag Bell; Professor Phill Dickens; Fidelma Hannah; Dr Mark Hollingsworth; Professor Terry Kavanagh; Professor Chris Linton; Dr Jennifer Nutkins; Professor Ken Parsons; Miranda Routledge; Will Spinks; Professor Tony Thorpe; Caroline Walker; Jon Walker.
Apologies
for absence were received from:
Dr
Jo Aldridge; Brian Dent; Gifty Edila; Jim Mutton; Ric Parker, Professor Ian
Reid
09/89 Business of
the Agenda
Items 09/101 and 09/102 were unstarred.
09/90
Minutes
Minutes of the Meeting of Council held on 9 October 2009 [COUN09-M5] were CONFIRMED.
09/91 Matters
Arising from the Minutes
There were no matters arising that were not covered elsewhere on the agenda.
09/92 University
Strategy/Planning
09/92.1
Review of University
Strategy
COUN09-P114
Council
CONSIDERED a paper outlining the outcome of the Review of University Strategy
following the Joint Senate/Council meeting held on 9 October 2009. HEFCE
required the University to review its strategy formally every three years. The
joint meeting had been structured to focus on eight cross cutting themes and had
initiated some very interesting and useful discussions. In general terms, the
strategy was still judged to be relevant and had stood the test of time.
However, some modifications were recommended in order to amplify certain areas,
particularly in response to a changing external environment. The report
presented to Council included a refreshing of priorities which would be
incorporated into revised implementation plans to be submitted to Council in
July 2010.
The
report was an excellent representation of the discussions and Council wished to
thank the Planning Team for their efforts both in arranging the joint meeting
and compiling the report.
During
discussion, it was AGREED that the section of the report on sustainability could
usefully be amended to state more explicitly the University’s high-level
ambition and direction in this challenging area. Subject to this amendment,
Council APPROVED the report.
09/92.2 Corporate Planning
Statement
COUN09-P115
Council
APPROVED the Corporate Planning Statement for submission to
HEFCE.
09/93 Key
Performance Indicators
COUN09-P116
Council
RECEIVED an update on Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). The commentary provided
an explanation for significant fluctuations in the data. Council’s attention was
drawn to the following KPIs:
· Table 1.2: International Student Satisfaction: The data was collected from two surveys, one completed in the summer and one in the autumn of each year. The graph plotted all results together but the questions of the two surveys were not comparable. In relation to each survey, results were improving year on year.
· Table 3.1.1: FT Undergraduate UK/EU Student Intakes and Targets: The drop in intake for 2009-10 represented a good result as the University had needed to reduce its population in order to bring it back within the HEFCE contract range despite significant growth in applications.
· Table 3.1.3: FT Postgraduate UK/EU Student Intakes and Targets: The increase in postgraduate students was thought to be a result of the economic climate.
· Table 3.5: Graduate Employment: The drop in graduate employment was reflected across the sector. Loughborough remained above its benchmark on this indicator.
· Table 9.1: Ratio of Public to Private Revenue: For accounting purposes, the revenue from tuition fees was counted as public rather than private. This meant that the graph was misleading as it showed an increasing reliance on public funds when actually the reverse was the case. It was AGREED that an additional line, disaggregating the tuition fees, should be added for future reports. Action: Planning Office
· Tables 12.1-12.3: Advancement KPIs: This was a new set of indicators and the definitions needed correcting. These would be updated for the next report.
09/94 HEFCE
Assurance Visit Report
COUN09-P117
Council
RECEIVED the HEFCE Assurance Visit Report. A number of minor issues had been
raised and these had been addressed by the University. The one area in which the
University did not comply with CUC guidance was the size of Council and there
were no proposals to reduce its size in view of the possible negative impact on
collegiality. HEFCE’s required that the divergence from CUC guidance was
acknowledged in the Corporate Governance Statement and this had now been
implemented.
09/95 University
Finance
09/95.1 University Financial
Statements/Accounts
COUN09-P118 and
COUN09-P119
Council was reminded of its responsibility to
receive and approve the University Accounts prior to their submission to HEFCE.
A full briefing on the Accounts had taken place immediately before the
meeting.
The Financial Statements presented to Council
had been considered by the Audit Committee and the External Auditors. The Audit
Committee was satisfied with the Financial Statements and congratulated the
Finance Team. The only issue raised by the External Auditors related to over
estimate of provision required for bad debt and this area was under review by
the Finance Office and Treasurer’s Committee.
Council was also presented with a
reconciliation of accounts to explain the differences between the original
budget for 2008-09 and the final position reflected in the Financial Statements.
The biggest item contributing to the additional surplus was international
student recruitment which had been well above expectations. The original budget
had included a contingency fund for under-recruitment of international students
which had, in the event, not been required and therefore added to the
surplus.
On the issue of pensions, Council was
reminded that the University participated in two schemes – USS and LGPS. USS was
a national scheme and therefore, in accordance with accounting conventions, was
off balance sheet. Whilst there was a deficit in the scheme which would have
implications in the future, the figures were not therefore represented in the
Financial Statements. LGPS was a county scheme, covering multiple employers.
However, the University’s contribution was identifiable and it was included in
the Financial Statements. The deficit of around £43M was of considerable concern
but the Chair of Council commented that there were considerable challenges in
estimating the value of pension funds and the overall position was highly
sensitive to the assumptions used, for example, for interest rates. In response
to a question, it was confirmed that USS had last been valued in 2008 and its
value had deteriorated significantly since then. Discussions were underway
between UCU and UCEA concerning how to address the situation and consultation
with institutions was currently anticipated in April 2010. The LGPS had been
valued in 2007, some adjustments had been made, and a further valuation was
scheduled for 2010. Universities were represented on the LGPS by De Montfort
University and members of the executive were exploring how to work more closely
with those directly involved with the scheme to contribute to effective planning
for the future. Leicestershire County Council was a major stakeholder and would
have a strong interest in adjustments to ensure the sustainability of the
scheme.
Council AGREED to RECEIVE the University Financial Statements for the year ended 31 July 2009 and, on the
recommendation of Audit Committee and the Treasurer, APPROVED the adoption of
the accounts.
09/95.2 Financial Compliance
Review 2008-09
COUN09-P120
Council RECEIVED the Financial Compliance
Review for 2008-09 which illustrated the various financial covenants imposed by
the Funding Council and Lloyds Bank as a major lender to the University. The
covenants were an important control and had all been met in 2008-09. No problems
were anticipated in continuing to meet the covenants in the medium term.
However, Council’s attention was drawn to the covenant imposed by Lloyds Bank
which stipulated there should be no deficit above £2M in any one year. This
could be challenging in future years (five-year forecasts
referred).
09/95.3 2009-10
Budget
COUN09-P121
Council RECEIVED an updated budget for
2009-10. The overall surplus remained at £9.5M but the assumptions regarding
income and expenditure had been revised. These included a cut to the HEFCE
teaching grant which was bigger than anticipated but which was offset by other
movements. Council APPROVED the updated budget.
09/95.4 Five Year Financial
Forecasts
COUN09-P122
The Director of Finance presented the
five-year forecasts to Council which showed a steeply declining surplus and
eventually a deficit in 2012/13. The figures presented to Council were in line
with the silver scenario which included savings on pay (1%) and non-pay (1.5%)
each year. Assumptions relating to inflation and public sector funding cuts had
been amended but other factors remained broadly in line with those previously
presented to Council.
The University faced enormous financial
uncertainty over the coming years and the assumptions on which the forecasts had
been based were likely to vary significantly. Whilst it was expected that the
sector would continue to face cuts in funding from HEFCE, the nature and extent
of those cuts were unknown. The outcome of the review of tuition fees would also
have a significant impact on the financial position of the University. It was
hoped that the position would become clearer in the next 12 months when the
outcome of various government policy reviews became public. For internal
purposes, the forecasts had been extended by an additional year to model the
impact of an increase in the tuition fee to £5000 in
2013-14.
The Chair of Council reminded members that
the University was required to submit these forecasts to HEFCE and to that end,
Council was being asked to endorse the figures in the agenda paper. However,
Council was not being asked to approve the deficit position in 2012-13. Council
accepted the uncertainties that surrounded the forecasts and APPROVED the
forecasts for submission to HEFCE.
During discussion, a number of issues were
raised:
·
The
current forecasts did not include a significant cash injection to cover
additional pension contributions. An additional 2% had been incorporated across
the forecast period in relation to increased USS costs implemented in October
2009. Given the current uncertainty regarding the future of the pension schemes,
it was felt premature to make assumptions about increased contributions but this
possibility could be included in future scenario planning.
·
Other
members expressed concern regarding the research income assumption of a 5%
increase per annum across the forecast period. Members queried whether this was
realistic given the financial pressures that the Research Councils and other
funders were likely to be suffering in the next few years. The PVC(R)
acknowledged that there would be threats to some income sources but the
University was well aware of the situation and was monitoring it closely. Recent
increases in academic staff numbers should begin to impact on income during the
period. It should be recognised that if grants and contracts were not secured
much, though not all, of the related expenditure would not be required.
Nevertheless, the University had classified the risk associated with research
income as high on the risk register, was taking mitigating actions accordingly
and Council was kept informed through the PVC(R)’s report. Partnerships were
particularly relevant and work had already commenced on enhancement of the
University’s approach to managing its relationships with external
organisations.
·
Members
felt that it would be useful if further information could be provided to assist
Council with its role of monitoring medium and long term financial performance
and risk. The Executive would investigate possible approaches to this for future
consideration. Action: Provost/Director of Finance
·
It was
noted that the forecasts indicated that the current capital plan for 2012/13 and
2013/14 was not fundable from within existing borrowing facilities. Further work
would be undertaken in this area when the financial situation became clearer in
2010.
·
One
member commented that the productivity gains were insufficient and encouraged
the University to be more ambitious in this area. The University was
congratulated on its ability to generate income but should aim to improve cost
reduction in parallel.
09/96 Capital
Programme
09/96.1 Capital
Plan
COUN09-P123
Council RECEIVED a progress report and NOTED
the revised Capital Plan as a framework for making decisions on individual major
projects.
09/96.2 Estates
Strategy
COUN09-P124
The Director of Facilities Management
presented the Estates Strategy which was an updated version of the document
approved by Council in 2006. Included was a Landscape Strategy to bring together
the
On the recommendation of Estates Management
Committee, Council APPROVED the updated Estates Strategy.
09/96.3
COUN09-P125
The Director of Facilities presented a video
simulation of the proposed East Park Design Centre. Members were very impressed
with the concept and designs and agreed that it was an exciting development for
the University. The innovative design of the new building was expected to
provide a modern and fit for purpose learning environment for students in the
21st century in one of the University’s areas of strength.
Collaboration between the architects, Facilities Management and the academic
departments involved had been very good and the project was progressing
according to agreed timescales as follows:
·
Planning
permission had been granted with some travel plan obligations requiring
an s106 agreement.
·
The
contract had gone out to tender.
·
Enabling
works had started.
·
Building
would start in March 2010 and was due to complete in May
2011.
Council AGREED to DELEGATE authority to Chair
of Council to approve a Stage 3 application, subject to the approval of Estates
Management Committee.
09/96.4 Land Strategy
Group
COUN09-P126 (withdrawn)
The Director of Finance gave a verbal report
on behalf of the Land Strategy Group which had met the previous day and
comprised: Chairman of Council (Chair), Treasurer, Vice-Chancellor, Provost
& Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Chief Operating Officer. The item was deemed to
be commercially sensitive and members were requested to maintain
confidentiality. The University had been given the opportunity to purchase a
piece of land and an associated commercial business which was expected to
generate significant income. The venture would cost the University approximately
£4M and would involve taking on a new loan. This would not affect current
borrowing facilities. It was not possible to disclose any additional details of
the proposed transaction at this stage and the Land Strategy Group recommended
that Council delegate authority to the Chair of Council to approve the
expenditure between this meeting and the next.
The Chair of Council regretted the need for
confidentiality but reassured members on a number of
issues:
·
The
project had been under consideration for some time and considerable work had
gone into the business case which showed a good financial
outcome.
·
There
was always a risk associated with purchases of this nature but the financial
scenarios had been modelled carefully and would not affect the University’s
ability to continue with the existing Capital Plan.
·
The
proposed use of the land and building was not core activity but was
complementary to existing activity. Ownership would be of strategic value to the
University and the purchase was in line with the strategic plan in terms of
generating new sources of income.
Following discussion, Council AGREED to
DELEGATE authority to the Chair of Council to approve the purchase, subject to
support from other members of the Land Strategy Group.
09/97
Audit
Committee
09/97.1 Report of Meetings from
18 September, 22 October and 13 November 2009
COUN09-P127
and COUN09-P128
Council RECEIVED reports from the meetings of the Audit Committee held on 18 September, 22 October and 13 November 2009 and:
- NOTED
the Audit Committee’s findings in relation to the
VFM Annual Report for 2008-09.
- RECEIVED the
Internal
Audit Annual Report 2008-09 and NOTED the Audit Committee’s
findings.
- NOTED
that Audit Committee’s opinion was that the University had satisfactory
arrangements in place to provide an assurance to Council concerning the
effectiveness and adequacy of the risk management, control and governance
processes. The
Chair of the Audit Committee drew Council’s
attention to three areas in which the Internal Auditors felt that there was
notable scope to enhance the framework of internal control, risk management
and governance:
- Purchasing
procedures on Agresso.
- Compliance
with the HEFCE guidance on identifying non-completions in the HESA and HESES
Student Data returns. It was acknowledged that there was no financial risk
as the University was well within its contract range.
- Formalisation
of business continuity and emergency planning processes.
- Purchasing
procedures on Agresso.
- NOTED
a
summary of the Internal
Audit Strategy and Operational Plan 2009-10.
- NOTED
the
VFM
Plan of Work 2009-10. The Chair of the Audit Committee reported that
measurable targets in this area were being sought.
- APPROVED
amendments to the Terms of Reference of the Audit Committee.
09/97.2 Audit Committee Annual
Report 2008-09
COUN09-P129:
RECEIVED
09/95 Matters for
Report
09/95.1 Pro-Vice-Chancellor
(Research)
(i)
Research Grants and Contracts
COUN09-P130: NOTED
09/95.2 Pro-Vice-Chancellor
(Teaching)
(i)
Student Recruitment: 2009-10
COUN09-P131
As
illustrated by the agenda paper, the University had essentially met its
recruitment targets. UK/EU undergraduate recruitment was well within the
previous year’s figure and so would not be subject to any financial penalty from
the Funding Council. Entry grades across all subjects had increased and 80% of
students had achieved or exceeded their offer grades. Very few concessions had
been made and no department had entered Clearing in 2009.
Postgraduate
taught recruitment had exceeded targets, particularly with respect to UK/EU
students. This was believed to be partially due to the economic climate. 40% had
already studied as undergraduates at the University and the offer of an Alumni
Bursary appeared to have been a successful recruitment
strategy.
Initial
concerns regarding the effect of the new Points Based System (PBS) for
immigration on international recruitment appeared to be unfounded. There was no
evidence to suggest that visa delays had worsened and international student
recruitment was on target. The next phase of PBS which included attendance
monitoring would come into force in 2010 and the area therefore continued to be
one of potential risk.
(ii)
National Student Survey
COUN09-P132
As
in previous years, the University had performed well in the National Student
Survey for 2009. There was some variation across subjects and some departments
had been disappointed with their individual results. The University had formal
procedures in place for addressing these areas.
09/95.3 Pro-Vice-Chancellor
(
COUN09-P133: NOTED
09/96 Chairman’s
Report
Following
the most recent Review of Effectiveness of Council, it had been agreed that the
Chairman would make a verbal report at each meeting to pick up on relevant
issues discussed by Chairman's Advisory Group (CAG) that had not been covered
elsewhere on the agenda.
CAG
had focussed discussions at its last meeting on financial forecasting and
planning, including detailed discussions on pension funds together with a report
on the work of the Audit Committee. These items had already been covered
elsewhere on the agenda.
09/97
Vice-Chancellor's Business
09/97.1 Recent Developments at
the University
i. The latest position with regard to pay negotiations was that UCEA had made a final offer of a 0.5% increase which had been rejected by four of the five Trade Unions. ACAS was involved in the negotiations. UCEA had made it clear that there would be no further increase in the pay offer but it was looking at a shared approach based on agreed good practice in relation to redundancy processes to provide reassurance to Union representatives. The University already had similar arrangements in place and therefore did not envisage any problems signing up to an agreement of the nature envisaged.
ii.
The University’s team of students on “University
Challenge” had reached the second televised round where they had been narrowly
defeated by
iii. The football for the 2010 World Cup had been developed at the University and was a great example of collaboration between sport and engineering academic disciplines and industrial partnership.
09/97.2 Policy Developments for
HE in the
COUN09-P134
The Vice-Chancellor drew Council’s attention to the recently published Government Framework for Higher Education. Many aspects of the report were expected to be retained regardless of which government was in power. As previously mentioned, the sector was facing a great deal of uncertainty with respect to HEFCE funding and tuition fees. The framework referred to “contestability” for public money. It was not clear exactly how this might operate but it could mean, for instance, that teaching funding would be driven by quality of provision.
The framework recognised the need to meet skills in STEM subjects which was good news for the University. Most of the report played to the University’s strengths and the Executive were looking in detail at all the documents and would provide a summary of key issues to Council at a future date.
09/98
Confirmation of Amendments to the University
Charter
Further to Minute 09/76, Council CONFIRMED
amendments to paragraph 5 of the Charter.
The full set of amendments would go forward to the Privy Council for
approval on 9 December.
09/99 Health,
Safety and Environment Office – Annual Plan
COUN09-P135
The Health, Safety and Environment (HSE)
Office Annual Plan illustrated progress against the previous year’s targets and
outlined work for the upcoming year. The University’s Health and Safety policies
were set by the HSE Committee. The plan formally assigned accountability for
various aspects of the work conducted by the Office. Within the HSE Office,
roles were assigned to cover specific areas of legislation such as fire safety
and radiation protection. A recent inspection from the Environment Agency had
resulted in a good report on radiation protection but had highlighted
over-reliance on an individual member of staff as a risk. The University was
seeking to address this.
The Staff Survey had highlighted that a large
proportion of staff had not been aware of accident reporting procedures and the
University had responded with an awareness-raising campaign shortly after the
publication of the results. The HSE Office was working with departments across
campus to embed health and safety procedures further. Good relations were in
place with departmental safety officers and the training matrix attached to the
annual plan would help to ensure that staff received appropriate training on an
ongoing basis. In response to a question, it was noted that the number of days
lost through accidents was now being reported to the HSE Committee and Council.
Comparative data with the rest of the sector would be reviewed at the Committee
meeting in March 2010.
Council APPROVED the Health, Safety and
Environment Office Annual Plan.
09/100 Confirmation of Amendment to
Ordinance
Further to Minute 09/77, Council CONFIRMED
amendments to Ordinance XXXIII.
09/101 Banking Mandate with Natwest
Bank
COUN09-P136
This
item was unstarred.
A
member questioned whether a single signature on the Banking Mandate was
appropriate. The Treasurer confirmed that in addition to the Banking Mandate,
which set out the bank’s own requirements, the University had a Treasury Policy
that required multiple signatures. Not withstanding this provision, it was
AGREED that the Banking Mandate should be amended to include at least two
signatories. Subject to this amendment, Council APPROVED the Banking Mandate
with Natwest Bank.
All other Banking Mandates would be reviewed
to ensure that they required more than one signature. Action: Director of
Finance/Treasurer’s Committee
09/102 Senate
COUN09-P137
This item was unstarred to receive the report
of the meeting of Senate held on 17 November 2009. Council
APPROVED:
09/102.1
Programme
Proposals
09/102.2
Establishment of the
COUN09-P138
09/102.3
COUN09-P139
09/103 Membership of
Committees
09/103.1 Council NOTED membership of Council
Members on Committees.
COUN09-P140
09/103.2 Council APPROVED LSU appointments
to Council Committees and Joint Committees with Senate.
COUN09-P141
09/103.3 Council NOTED membership of the
Timothy Godfrey Memorial Fund Advisory Committee.
COUN09-P142
09/104 Research Performance
Monitoring Group
COUN09-P143
Council
RECEIVED the reports of the meetings of the Research Performance Monitoring
Group held on 7 July, 25 September and 27 October 2009 and APPROVED amendments
to the title and Terms of Reference.
09/105 Reports of Committees
Council RECEIVED reports from the following Committees:
09/105.1 Advancement
Committee – 4 November 2009 [COUN09-P144]
09/105.2 Costing
and Pricing Committee – 23 July and 7 September 2009
[COUN09-P145]
09/105.3
09/105.4 Estates
Management Committee – 28 July and 22 September 2009
[COUN09-P147]
09/105.5 Health,
Safety and Environmental Committee – 29 October 2009
[COUN09-P148]
09/105.6 Performance
Monitoring Group – 26 June 2009 [COUN09-P149]
09/106 Date of Next
Meeting
Friday,
19 March 2010 (9.30 am for pre-meeting Briefing)
Author – Jennifer Nutkins/Miranda Routledge
Date –
December 2009
Copyright (c)