Minutes of
the meeting of the University Council held on Friday 28 October 2005.
Members:
Sir Bryan Carsberg (Chair); Dr Memis Acar; Phil Blake; Dr
Jim Blood; Roger Boissier; Dr Sandie Dann (ab); Peter Davenport; Gareth Davies
(ab); Venu Dhupa; Peter Haslehurst; Norma Honey; Sir John Jennings; Rob
Kirkwood; Mansoor Moghal (ab); Dr Bill Moss; Jim Mutton (ab); Professor Richard
Parry-Jones (ab); Simon Proffitt; Professor Phil Roberts; Dr Fytton Rowland;
Professor Peter Smith (ab): Gab Stone; Jackie Strong; Professor Rachel Thomson;
Margaret Tomlinson; Professor Sir David Wallace; Professor Peter Warwick; Bob
Wilson; Dr Cyril Woodruff (ab); Dr Alan A Woods
In attendance:
Professor Chris Backhouse; Professor Morag Bell; Sir John Gains; Professor Neil Halliwell; Professor Terry Kavanagh; Professor Ron McCaffer; Professor Ken Parsons; Michael Pearson; Miranda Routledge; John Town; Jon Walker
Apologies for absence were received from:
Mansoor Moghal; Jim Mutton; Professor Peter Smith; Dr Cyril
Woodruff
05/86 Chairman’s
Introduction
The Chairman welcomed new members to Council. The year ahead was likely to pose a number of challenges for the University and the Council, notably the introduction of top-up fees and changes to senior University Personnel (Vice-Chancellor and Deputy Vice-Chancellor).
05/87 Business
of the Agenda
Item 12 [COUN05-P95] relating to Debt Re-Financing and item 16 [COUN05-P98] relating to Community Relations Strategy on the Agenda were unstarred.
05/88 Minutes
The Minutes of the Meeting of the Council held on 19 July 2005 [COUN05-M3] were CONFIRMED.
05/89 Matters
Arising
05/89.1 Review of Effectiveness of Council
Questionnaires had been circulated to all 2004/05 members. Responses would be collated and sent to an external facilitator, Brian Manley. From the questionnaires, a report would be formulated and presented to the next meeting of Council. ACTION: Chair and Assistant Secretary to Council
COUN05-P79
The Chair of
Council introduced a paper which outlined the duties and responsibilities of
Council members, likened to members of the Board of Directors of a private
company. As the governing body of the
University, Council was ultimately responsible for ensuring that the University
was well-managed and, in particular, ensuring that financial controls were
appropriate and properly adhered to. It
was specifically noted that detailed discussion regarding academic matters was
the remit of Senate which reported regularly to Council. Detailed discussions and preliminary decision
making were often delegated to joint committees of Senate and Council. There was sometimes a tendency for work/items
of business to be duplicated, particularly on the Resources and Planning
Committee and Council agendas. Work was
being undertaken to establish which processes Council could formally delegate
to Resources and Planning Committee.
Members who had questions or concerns about the role of Council were
encouraged to contact either the Chair of Council or the Registrar for
clarification. It was commented that the
Governance Handbook was a useful resource.
It was
acknowledged that, because of the very limited number of new lay members,
formal induction for members of Council had lapsed in recent years. The Registrar would resurrect the induction
programme in the near future. ACTION:
Registrar
05/91 University
Strategic Review
COUN05-P80
The
Deputy Vice-Chancellor’s paper on the Strategic Review of the University
was well received. The review was
far-reaching and focussed attention on a number of important issues, bringing
them together and providing a steer for the future direction of the University. Council had discussed the academic structure
of the University on previous occasions and had approved a number of
recommendations at its last meeting. In
presenting the paper, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor drew attention to the need to
review relations between academic and support services to reduce inefficient
use of resource by duplicating effort and information systems. Through a series of working groups, chaired
by senior members of staff, the University hoped to develop mechanisms that
allowed it to benefit from devolved decision making without duplication of
functions. Other important issues
arising from the work conducted so far included:
The Estates Strategy Review Group, which had
formed an integral part of the Strategic Review to date, had largely achieved
the aims of its formal remit and the Deputy Vice-Chancellor wished to place on
record his thanks to its members – Alan A Woods, Dr Cyril Woodruff,
Professor Peter Golding, Dr Marsha Meskimmon, Michael Pearson, Malcolm Brown,
Roy Hill and representatives from GVA Grimley.
The Group would remain a useful sounding board for future developments.
Much of the work
already conducted under the Strategic Review was useful groundwork for the
preparation of the next Strategic Plan which would be submitted to HEFCE in
July 2007. Away Days involving members
of Senate and Council would be organised to assist in the formulation of the
Strategic Plan.
05/92 Capital
Programme
05/92.1 Progress Report
COUN05-P81
- NOTED
05/92.2 Residential Halls Development
COUN05-P82
The University was committed, subject to demand and take-up,
to making an additional 2600 residential hall rooms available on campus. The first phase was to build 1200 rooms on
the site of Car Park 7. Elvyn Richards
and Falkner Egginton Halls would have to be replaced in the near future as they
would eventually fail to be compliant with environmental legislation.
The total cost of residential halls development was likely
to stretch to £75M, severely restricting
opportunities for investing in the core activities of research and teaching
developments if funded wholly by the University. The challenge facing the University was
finding a suitable development partner to share the risk. This was an extremely complex process which
needed to be conducted properly and would be time consuming and costly. It involved complicated legal documentation
which required serious attention to fully understand the implications for the
University. The arrangement, once agreed
with a partner, would be inflexible and so the University had to be confident
that the project specification was correct from the outset. Dialogue between the University and the
Students’ Union was centred on whether new hall provision should be
catered or self-catered and the possible impact of a change in provision on the
overall student experience. It was very
important that the right decision was reached and the University was grateful
for the Students’ Union continued co-operation in discussions. Student pastoral care/welfare issues were
being addressed through the Residential Provision and Management Sub-Committee
and were specifically included in the project specification.
Sir John Gains had agreed to join the Steering Group
overseeing the project to contribute his advice and expertise. Council AGREED to extend the remit of the
Steering Group to include the redevelopment of William Morris Hall.
05/92.3 Item
redacted due to commercially sensitive information
COUN05-P83
05/92.4 New Finance System
COUN05-P84
Council
RECEIVED a progress report on the procurement of a new Finance System. A preferred supplier had been identified and
the final case would be made to Operations Sub-Committee and Treasurer’s
Committee before the next meeting of Council where the final decision would be
made.
The
preferred supplier was a well established system, already in use by a number of
universities, several of whom had given positive reports on its
functionality. Some level of risk was
unavoidable when purchasing a new finance system but the University had identified
the risks and mitigated them as far as possible.
05/93 Matters for
Report
05/93.1 Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research)
(a) Research Grants and Contracts (partially redacted due to
commercially sensitive information)
COUN05-P85
The PVC(R) presented the latest data on research grant and contract applications and awards. The target was for an average of two applications per year per member of staff and many departments were achieving this.
(b) Update on RAE 2008
RAE sub-panels
had met to discuss feedback on their draft criteria and working methods, the
final version of which would be published in December 2005. As soon as final criteria and working methods
were published, the University would start work on the textual commentary of
the submissions.
(c) HEFCE Performance
Indicators for Research
Over the past
three years, the University had been ranked in first or second place in terms
of the ratio of research grant and contract income to academic staff costs. The
PVCR expected the position to remain in the top ten when the latest performance
indicators were published by HEFCE.
05/93.2 Pro-Vice-Chancellor
(Teaching)
(a) Recruitment for 2005/06 Entry
COUN05-P86
UK/EU UG: Applications
had increased 14% on the previous year (compared to 8% nationally) and final
intake had been slightly above target.
The Science Faculty had done particularly well to meet its target. The University was entering unknown territory
with the introduction of top-up fees and would have to monitor applications
carefully to assess their impact on student recruitment. Maintaining and marketing the
University’s good reputation were essential.
Int. UG: Intake
was virtually on target, largely due to the efforts of staff in academic
departments and support services.
UK/EU PGT: As
expected from continual monitoring of applications data, the intake was
slightly down on target. This market
represented a challenge for the future.
Int. PGT: Overall
a good result for the University although institutional data disguised some
vulnerability at departmental level. The
(b) National Student Survey
COUN05-P87
The results of the first ever
National Student Survey had been published, ranking Loughborough as equal first
for overall satisfaction. Science had
done particularly well with Physical Science (incorporating the departments of
Chemistry and Physics) coming out with the highest overall satisfaction score
of any subject in any institution across the country. The survey had received national press
coverage and the results meant that Loughborough had benefited from some
excellent publicity. It was hoped that this would benefit student recruitment
across the Faculties. Preparations were
already underway for the next survey which would take place in January/February
2006.
(c) Additional Student Numbers
The
University’s request for an additional 80 student numbers phased over two
years had been informally accepted by HEFCE.
(d) HEFCE Performance Indicators for
Learning and Teaching
COUN05-P88
HEFCE
Performance Indicators showed that the University had been increasing student
numbers in under represented groups and was now very close to the benchmark set
by HEFCE. Retention rates at
Loughborough remained high.
05/93.3 Director of Business Partnerships,
Innovation and Knowledge Transfer
COUN05-P89
Council RECEIVED the report from the Director of
Business Partnerships, Innovation and Knowledge Transfer, noting in particular
the continued support from emda
regarding the framework agreement to develop part of
05/93.4 Director
of External Relations
COUN05-P90
Council RECEIVED a report from the Director of External Relations, noting in particular the need to exploit the results of the National Student Survey effectively both in terms of general public relations and detailed targeted marketing. More work was needed to develop new programmes ahead of market changes rather than in response to them.
05/94 Vice-Chancellors Report
COUN05-P91
Council APPROVED the Facility
Agreement with Fortis Bank
05/96 Membership of Council and its Committees
05/96.1 Council Membership
2005/06
COUN05-P92 - NOTED
05/96.2 Appointments to Council Committees and Joint Committees with
Senate
COUN05-P93 - NOTED
05/96.3 LSU Appointments to Council Committees and
Joint Committees with Senate
COUN05-P94 - NOTED
05/97 Debt
Re-Financing
COUN05-P95
On the recommendation of the
Treasurer's Committee, Council APPROVED a debt refinancing facility with Lloyds
TSB Bank and DELEGATED authority to the Treasurer’s Committee to enter
into appropriate strategies for the ongoing interest rate management of these
facilities.
This item was unstarred to comment on the favourable interest rates negotiated by the University.
05/98 University
Ordinances
Further to Minute 05/53 and Paper COUN05-P51, Council
CONFIRMED:
a.
amendments to Ordinance III: Substantive Awards and
Honorary Degrees, with effect from 3 October 2005
b.
amendments to Ordinance VI: Appointment of Academic
and certain Academic Related Staff, with effect from 19 July 2005
c.
amendments to Ordinance XVII: Conduct and Discipline
of Students, with effect from 3 October 2005
d.
repeal of Ordinance XIX: Assessment, with effect from
28 October 2005
e.
repeal of Ordinance XX: Standing Committees of
Senate, with effect from 28 October 2005
f.
amendments to Ordinance XXXVIII: Student Complaints
Procedures, with effect from 3 October 2005
05/99 Senate: Chair’s Action
Council NOTED that the Vice-Chancellor had, on behalf of Senate and Council, APPROVED:
i.
Change of title: MSc Construction Innovation and
Management to MSc Engineering Innovation and Management.
ii.
New Programme: PG Diploma in Management (NG Bailey).
05/100 Resources and Planning Committee
05/100.1 Tuition Fees 2005/06
COUN05-P96
Council NOTED that the Chair of Council had taken action of behalf of Council to APPROVE Tuition Fees for 2005/06.
05/100.2 Revisions to the University’s Access Agreement
COUN05-P97
On the recommendation of the Chair of Resources and Planning Committee, Council APPROVED changes to the Access Agreement relating to the bursary scheme for undergraduates.
05/101 Community
Relations Strategy
COUN05-P98
[This
item was unstarred]
Council RECEIVED and APPROVED the University’s Community Relations
Strategy report.
A member queried why funds had not been made available for the
perception study which was a valuable way of measuring the work that was being
carried out under the Community Relations Strategy. It was generally agreed that, whilst
perception surveys were valuable, the community relations budget had
necessarily been prioritised to other areas of activity. Much good work had been done and, on balance,
members of the local community seemed to have changed their opinion about the
University and now viewed it in a more favourable light. There was still further work to be done in
this area and the University needed to focus its efforts on being proactive
rather than reactive. Involvement in the
preparations for the 2012 London Olympics created an excellent opportunity to
raise the profile of the University both locally and nationally.
COUN05-P99
Council RATIFIED the action of the Registrar in affixing the University Seal to the documents listed.
NOTED:
Friday 17 February 2006 at 2.00pm
NOTED (as detailed in the agenda)
COUN05-P100 - NOTED
Tuesday, 20 December 2005 (10.15am)
Friday, 17 February 2006 (10.15am)
Friday, 31 March 2006 (10.15am)
Tuesday, 18 July 2006 (2.30pm)
Author – Miranda
Routledge
Date – November 2005
Copyright (c)