The Council

COUN05-M5

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

05/90 Duties/Responsibilities of Members of Council/Committee Guidance

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:

i. work to address increasing salary costs

ii. a more detailed analysis of TRAC data (conducted through Directorates) to better understand departmental differences in the amount of time academic staff spent on teaching, research and administration

iii. further work on the Environmental Impact Study – this should be forward looking to aid future planning applications and contribute to proactive positive public relations. It was suggested that the Chairman’s Advisory Group should look specifically at this item in the New Year. ACTION: Registrar

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.

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 Business School and Department of Economics had exceeded their target, making up for a shortfall in other areas. Final intake was below the original target which was generally accepted as over ambitious. The international market was a volatile one and the University had adjusted its 2005/06 budget in recognition of this. In fact the worst case scenario had been avoided and intake was higher than in the previous year, thereby securing the budget for the current year. Useful lessons had been learnt but there was still more to learn. Departments should share best practice.

(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.

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 Holywell Park (and adjacent land) and the Systems Engineering Innovation Centre.

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

i. The University had slipped to 15^th place in the Sunday Times league table. One of the reasons for this appeared to be inclusion of a new metric – Head Teachers’ views – in which the University had not scored very highly. Action was being taken to address this and raise the profile of Loughborough with Head Teachers. In recognition of the outstanding performance in the National Student Survey, the University had been (for the third time since 1999) short-listed for the Sunday Times University of the Year award.

ii. The PVCR was chairing a committee to co-ordinate the University’s contributions to the preparations for the 2012 London Olympics.

iii. The University had held its first graduation celebration in China in August. The ceremony had been very well received and the University had awarded Honorary Degrees to two prominent and prestigious individuals.

iv. The Vice-Chancellor congratulated the Students’ Union on the production of the Strategic Plan leaflet which had been circulated at the start of the meeting.

05/95 Facility Agreement with Fortis Bank

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.

05/102 Common Seal

COUN05-P99

Council RATIFIED the action of the Registrar in affixing the University Seal to the documents listed.

05/103 Date of University Court Meeting

NOTED: Friday 17 February 2006 at 2.00pm

05/104 Dates of Graduation Ceremonies 2005/06

NOTED (as detailed in the agenda)

05/105 Report of Performance Monitoring Group - 6 October 2005

COUN05-P100 - NOTED

05/106 Dates of Future Meetings in 2005/06

Tuesday, 20 December 2005 (10.15am)
Friday, 17 February 2006 (10.15am)
Friday, 31 March 2006 (10.15am)
Tuesday, 18 July 2006 (2.30pm)