Minutes of
the meeting of the University Council held on Tuesday 20 December 2005.
Members:
Sir Bryan Carsberg (Chair); Dr Memis Acar (ab); Phil
Blake; Dr Jim Blood; Roger Boissier; Dr Sandie Dann (ab); Peter Davenport;
Gareth Davies; Venu Dhupa (ab); Peter Haslehurst; Norma Honey; Sir John
Jennings; Rob Kirkwood; Mansoor Moghal; Dr Bill Moss; Jim Mutton; Professor
Richard Parry-Jones; Simon Proffitt; Professor Phil Roberts; Dr Fytton Rowland;
Professor Peter Smith (ab): Gab Stone; Jackie Strong (ab); Professor Rachel
Thomson; Margaret Tomlinson; Professor Sir David Wallace; Professor Peter
Warwick; Bob Wilson; Dr Cyril Woodruff; Dr Alan A Woods
In attendance:
Professor Chris Backhouse; Professor Morag Bell; Professor Neil Halliwell; Professor Terry Kavanagh; Professor Ron McCaffer; Sir Charles McCullough, Brian Manley (for item 05/117), Professor Ken Parsons; Michael Pearson; Miranda Routledge; John Town; Jon Walker
Apologies for absence were received from:
Dr Memis Acar, Dr Sandie Dann, Venu Dhupa, Professor Peter
Smith, Jackie Strong
05/115 Chairman’s
Welcome
The Chairman welcomed Sir Charles McCullough, the University Visitor, and Brian Manley, who had written the report for the Review of Effectiveness of Council, to the meeting.
05/116 Minutes
The Minutes of the Meeting of Council held on 28 October 2005 [COUN05-M5] were CONFIRMED.
COUN05-P103
Brian Manley
introduced his report of the Review of Effectiveness of Council. He prefaced discussion by stating that, in
his view, the University was well run and that he believed Council functioned
effectively as a governing body. The
report had been written to reflect the concerns of members gathered from
questionnaire responses and in one-to-one discussion with Brian Manley.
Several members
had commented in their responses on a lack of participation in debate and of
rigorous challenge to the Executive.
Whilst the report made no recommendations in this area, it was a
concern. Brian
Manley concluded that it resulted from an overcrowded agenda and Council papers
which sometimes made it difficult to identify key issues. The report made a number of
recommendations to address this including greater use of the Chairman’s
Advisory Group, more delegation of routine approvals to Committees, clearer
identification of key issues for debate on the agenda and the introduction of
Executive Summaries for agenda papers.
The report was
discussed in full and the following comments made by Council members:
i.
The suggestion
that the Chairman’s Advisory Group meet more often was supported. This would help the Chairs of Council
Committees to take a more holistic view of what was happening in the University
and would help committees to take decisions in the context of the University
vision/strategy.
ii.
Council
would like more frequent opportunities to discuss University strategy and it
was suggested that an annual review would be more appropriate than the current
three-year cycle.
iii.
Members
felt that, although Council performed its “legitimising” or
“approving” role effectively, too much time was spent on due
diligence issues and could be better spent discussing the strategic direction
of the University and advising/challenging the Executive on this.
iv.
Too much
time was spent on routine reporting and discussion of agenda papers that
members had already read. Time could be
better used to challenge/question the Executive and to explore the key issues
facing the University.
v.
Council
could increase its efficiency by delegating more routine business to its
Committees. The Committee structure
would benefit from further review to avoid excessive overlap and
repetition of business.
vi.
The
introduction of Executive Summaries for Council papers was supported. Papers were often written for multiple
audiences and the requirement to produce an Executive Summary would help the
authors to focus on exactly what was required from Council. Executive Summaries should be a succinct
summary of why recommendations had been arrived at, what other options had been
explored and how risk had been mitigated.
vii.
More
thought should be given to presenting the risk factors of initial decisions to
Council and it would also be useful to monitor progress against decisions.
viii.
It would
be useful to receive presentations from the Executive regarding the issues they
face which could then be discussed and debated.
ix.
If key
performance indicators were introduced, Council should receive regular reports
but only discuss/debate issues where a warning signal indicated potential
problems.
x.
Induction
and on-going training/briefings were essential.
It was important that this was available to staff members as well as lay
members.
xi.
There
may be more challenging debates if the diversity of members was addressed. Council should be looking to appoint members
with different backgrounds to bring new perspectives to discussion.
xii.
There
should be better management of the annual agenda.
xiii.
Members
would like more opportunities to contribute to agendas.
xiv.
It would
be helpful if agendas and papers could be circulated earlier, giving more time
for members to read them.
xv.
The
recommendations relating to the Health, Safety and Environmental Committee were
endorsed by its Chair.
The Chair of
Council welcomed the report and suggested that it be referred back to Executive
Officers to come forward with a set of prioritised recommendations for the
March 2006 meeting. This would allow the
new Vice-Chancellor an opportunity to get involved. ACTION: Executive Officers
Brian
Manley was thanked for all his efforts and for the production of a very useful
piece of work.
05/118 University
Accounts
05/118.1 Financial Statements
COUN05-P104
The Treasurer and the Bursar introduced the
University Financial Statements for the year ended 31 July 2005 and made the
following comments:
i.
Staff
costs continued to rise at a higher rate than turnover.
ii.
The Local
Government Pension Scheme was projecting a deficit and would require
considerable increases in employer contributions over the next few years. USS remained relatively stable.
iii.
International
student fees remained an important source of income. It also remained a significant area of risk
as 50% currently came from one country (
iv.
UK/EU fee
income would increase with the introduction of top-up fees from 2006.
v.
Research
grant income was peer reviewed and awarded in a competitive environment. The proportion of income that the University
received from this source was encouraging.
vi.
Conference
and residential fees were an increasingly important source of income.
It was confirmed that the Audit Committee had been entirely satisfied with the presentation of the accounts and that there were no issues from the Auditors that needed to be brought to Council’s attention. Council APPROVED the adoption of accounts for 2004/05.
05/118.2 Financial Compliance Review 2004/05
COUN05-P105: RECEIVED
05/118.3 Income Summary 2004/05
COUN05-P106: RECEIVED
05/119 Capital
Programme
05/119.1 Progress Report
COUN05-P107
Council RECEIVED a progress report, noting that the
05/119.2 New Finance System
COUN05-P108
Further to Council’s last meeting, proposals for the
new Finance System had been considered by Operations Sub-Committee and the
Treasurer’s Committee. The
Treasurer’s Committee’s challenge had focused on ensuring that the
implementation programme was sufficiently monitored and managed. A member commented that a number of
departments and sections currently ran their own systems and therefore clear
communication was essential to ensure that all requirements were met by the new
system.
Council APPROVED the purchase of the Agresso system, subject to final
agreement on the contractual terms, and requested that it receive regular
progress reports. ACTION: Bursar
05/119.3 Development of Residential Accommodation
COUN05-P109
05/119.4 Health and
COUN05-P110
Council NOTED that the Chair of Council had approved the release of £1.5M for asbestos removal and £1.2M for design and pre-construction fees.
05/120 Residential Hall Fees
COUN05-P111
Meetings had been held with representatives of
Loughborough Students’ Union (LSU) to agree increases to the residential
hall fees. LSU were thanked for their
responsible negotiations. Council APPROVED a rate of increase of 4.9%. This rate of increase had been agreed on the
condition that students be allowed to stay in halls over the Christmas vacation
period. The Dean of Engineering
commented that potential students were traditionally invited to stay on campus
over the Christmas vacation and he was concerned that, if the rooms were not
available for this purpose, it could have a negative impact on
recruitment. Mechanisms were needed to
resolve the dialogue between imago and the academic departments affected as
soon as possible. ACTION: Bursar
05/121 Audit Committee
05/121.1 Report
of Meeting
COUN05-P112
Council RECEIVED a report of the meeting held on 27 October
2005. The Chair of the Audit Committee
drew Council’s attention to the discussions on the governance aspects of
the Health, Safety and Environmental Committee which would be further
investigated by the internal auditors (KPMG).
Council also noted that all outstanding fire safety assessments were
expected to have been completed by the end of June 2006.
05/121.2 Annual Report of the Audit Committee 2004/05
COUN05-P113:
RECEIVED
05/122 Health, Safety and Environmental Committee
COUN05-P114
Council RECEIVED a report of the
meeting held on 16 November 2005 and APPROVED the following recommendations:
i.
Blood Borne Viruses Policy
ii.
Pathogens Policy
iii. Display
Screen Equipment Policy
The Chair of the Committee drew Council’s
attention, once again, to the jet nozzle rig issue which the Committee had been
grappling with for several months. The
remedy for resolving the issue had now been progressed to stage D of the
Capital Programme. The Committee and the
University took the matter very seriously and had worked hard to find a
solution. The Health and Safety
Executive were reportedly satisfied with the continued action from the
University and were not contemplating serving an enforcement notice.
An agreed operating protocol was in place and
was being adhered to. In the event of a
breach of the protocol, the Dean of Engineering would be informed
immediately. However, the protocol meant
that what amounted to a very important piece of equipment was only available
for use out of hours. Whilst this was a
short term solution, it was not satisfactory for the long term. Relocation was the best option and a
potential site on
05/123 Matters for
Report
05/123.1 Pro-Vice-Chancellor
(Research)
i.
Research
Grant Applications – first quarter
COUN05-P115:
NOTED
ii.
Research
Grants Awarded – first quarter
COUN05-P116:
NOTED
05/123.2 Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching)
i.
Preliminary
Student Intake Targets 2006
Preliminary
intake targets for 2006 had been agreed with departments and were in line with
University strategy to maintain the undergraduate population at its current
level and to increase postgraduate students.
ii.
Applications
for 2006 Entry
The
current round of undergraduate applications was the first under the new fee
regime. UCAS were reporting a national
decrease in applications (approximately 6%).
The University’s applications for 2006 reflected this.
05/123.3 Director
of Business Partnerships, Innovation and Knowledge Transfer
COUN05-P117
Council RECEIVED a report from the Director of
Business Partnerships, Innovation and Knowledge Transfer. The Chair of Council noted the complexity of
the work in this area and suggested that it would be useful for Council to have
a strategy session at some point in the future.
05/123.4 Director
of External Relations
COUN05-P118
Council RECEIVED a
report from the Director of External Relations.
As part of the celebrations of the 40th Anniversary of the
Royal Charter being granted, Council APPROVED an additional University
05/124 Vice-Chancellors Report
COUN05-P119
Council APPROVED Travel, Expenses
and Benefits: Policy & Procedures.
05/126 Guarantee to Co-operative Bank plc
Note: this Guarantee supports
the hire purchase of new fitness equipment for
05/127 Senate
COUN05-P120
Council RECEIVED a report of the
meeting held on 23 November 2005 and APPROVED the following recommendations:
i.
Introduction of Master of Research Award (MRes)
ii.
Programme Proposals
iii.
Establishment of New Prizes, Amendments to Existing
Prizes and Discontinuation of Prizes
iv.
Establishment and Revisions to Constitution and/or
Terms of Reference of Committees and Sub-Committees:
a.
Performance Monitoring Group
b.
Estates Management Committee
c.
Student Services Committee
d.
Residential Provision and Management Sub-Committee
e.
(Establishment of) Student Support Sub-Committee
05/128 University
Ordinances
COUN05-P121
On the
recommendation of Senate, Council APPROVED:
i.
amendments to Ordinance III: Substantive Awards and
Honorary Degrees, with immediate effect
ii.
amendments to Ordinance IV: Titles of Degrees and Conditions
of Award, with effect from 2 October 2006
iii.
amendments to Ordinance XVII: Conduct and Discipline
of Students, with immediate effect.
COUN05-P122
Council RATIFIED the action of the Registrar in affixing the University Seal to the documents listed.
COUN05-P123: NOTED
COUN05-P122
Council
RECEIVED a report from the Loughborough University Development Trust and
summary financial statements for the period to 31 July 2005.
Council RECEIVED reports from the following Committees:
i.
Audit Committee/Treasurer’s Committee - 24
November 2005 [COUN05-P125]
ii. Performance
Monitoring Group – 1 December 2005 [COUN05-P126]
iii. Research
Committee – 27 October 2005 [COUN05-P127]
iv. Resources and Planning Committee
– 28 October 2005 [COUN05-P128]
v. Student Services Committee – 2 November 2005 [COUN05-P129]
vi. Treasurer’s Committee - on 24
November 2005 [COUN05-P130]
Friday, 31 March 2006 (10.15am)
Wednesday, 19 July 2006 (10.15 am)
Author – Miranda
Routledge
Date – December 2005
Copyright (c)