Senate

[Minutes]

SEN99-M1

Minutes of the 324th (Ordinary) Meeting of Senate held on Wednesday 27 January 1999

Apologies for absence were received from: Professor J L Alty, Dr D Edwards,
Professor J McGuirk

99/1 Business of the Agenda

Item 3.1 was unstarred.

99/2 Minutes

The Minutes of the meeting held on 25 November 1998 (SEN98-M5) were confirmed and signed.

99/3 Matters Arising from the Minutes

1. Identity Cards
   (SEN99-P1)

Further to Minute 98/82 of Senate's 322nd Meeting held on 25 November 1998 the current position regarding identity cards was noted. A paper tabled on behalf of the AUT was received.

It was reported to Senate that the AUT, while accepting that Council had approved the policy of all staff wearing ID cards, objected to the apparent creation of a new disciplinary offence in the event of the non wearing of ID cards by staff and that this had not been negotiated. Mr P Cole, Head of Personnel Services, advised Senate that the matter was an operational issue and not a matter of conditions of service. On this basis Council had taken an operational decision on ID card policy that could be compared with the University's smoking policy. Extensive consultation had taken place although there was no requirement for negotiation.

It was recognised that there were still concerns about the policy. At the suggestion of the Vice-Chancellor, Senate AGREED that there would be a further round of consultations over implementation of the policy to see whether some of the concerns of the AUT could be allayed. It was NOTED that the AUT would raise the matter at the next meeting of ARSNC. A further report would be made to Senate in March.

It was estimated that it would cost £20K to introduce the wearing of ID cards and the cost effectiveness of the scheme was questioned. However, Senate was advised by the Head of Security that there had been a recent theft of Sun Computers valued at £100K and that Security had to be the responsibility of all members of the University.

2. Further to Minute 98/81.3 of the previous meeting it was NOTED that the academic progress of students from the Foundation Year would be systematically analysed and that a report would be forthcoming in the future.

99/4 Matters for report by the Vice-Chancellor

Executive Management Group Responsibilities
(SEN99-P2)

The Vice-Chancellor reported that following the Support Services Review and the re-defining of the role of Registrar it had been felt appropriate to clarify the responsibilities of the senior managers. The Agenda paper was a working document and would change with the appointment of the PVC(ISS). It encapsulated the view that teams should support the University's core activities.

99/5 Report by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research)

The University had received a grant of £200K over 3 years from the Gatsby Foundation for Innovation. It was intended to fund six one-year fellowships which would provide sabbatical opportunities for staff in order to facilitate exploitation of their work. Mr J Walker was congratulated on his success in obtaining this grant.

99/6 Report by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching)

Senate was advised that the QAA Institutional Audit Report produced after a week long visit to the University had been received and was available for consultation on the Web. It was exceptionally positive and was a credit to the PVC(T) and his team. The University had now consistently received outstanding recognition in a number of external reviews. It was to be hoped that in future this could be built on and the University should feel under less pressure.

99/7 Strategic Planning

(SEN99-P3)

1. The Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor presented a summary of Teaching and Research issues from the conference convened for Council, Council's input to Strategic Planning considerations relating to Teaching and Research, and a proposal for a Fast-Track Targeted Research Initiative (FTRI). A summary of the data was presented to Senate highlighting that the University was a modest player in the undergraduate market albeit a major player in terms of Engineering recruitment. In other areas where recruitment was more limited it raised the question as to whether institutional alliances should be sought. The University did not recruit substantially in the international market, notably not in the EU. It was however influential in the Asian market. In terms of Teaching the quality of the University was unassailable, but in RAE terms the institution peaked at departmental ratings of 4. The research student population was not growing which was a matter for concern. Research income, however, was growing and improving. The University must determine where it wished to be in terms of the balance between Teaching and Research.
2. The Bursar reported that over the past six years the HEFCE grant to the University had increased at a slightly below average level. The University had performed less well in RAE terms than comparable institutions such as the University of Bath. Under the Teaching funding model the University appeared to more expensive than the average. The University had not been able to benefit from the expansion of part-time registrations nor the funding available for medicine. RAE performance and the ability to respond to initiatives for teaching funding were of central importance to the University in the future.
3. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (T) felt that it was accepted that quality issues within the University were under control but they would need to be maintained and improved. It was felt that growth in the full-time undergraduate market should not be a principal strategy as it was not financially attractive. The University would need to respond to the 'exclusion agenda' by reviewing its Access policies. It should also aim to expand its taught postgraduate numbers and aim to develop distance learning programmes. The Peterborough initiative could be built upon and developed.
4. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (R) reported that in terms of research activity the current Strategic Plan aimed to place the University in the top 20 nationally. In terms of research indicators per member of staff performance was encouraging. Nevertheless, whilst a position in the top 20 seemed an achievable target, a position in the top 10 within 10 years presented a great challenge. The obvious weakness in the University profile was the absence of 5* departments and the Fast-Track Research Initiative was intended to address this.
5. The Vice-Chancellor had analysed SSRs within the sector on the basis of the data in the Sunday Times league tables. In the context of apparently flawed data, the SSRs at Loughborough University did not appear to be significantly higher overall.
6. Senate discussed in detail the concerns raised by the presentations on Teaching and Research issues. While it was noted that there was little opportunity to expand full-time undergraduate numbers, it was recognised that there was still a need to recruit in Science and Technology areas and that links with feeder institutions should be more developed. It was noted that links with Loughborough College were being more fully established and particularly in respect of pre-sessional English language. New degree programmes such as Biology might also be developed. Such new areas and interdisciplinary programmes were being explored by the Science Faculty.

In the overseas market great emphasis was given to the need to offer scholarships and to review fees particularly for part-time students. The importance of researching the market and targeting sectors of the economy and specific institutions were identified.

The development of distance learning programmes was seen as important for the future but raised the importance of quality control. It was felt that in Engineering full-time postgraduate programmes were in decline and that the future lay in part-time study. It was felt that a more flexible approach to issues of credit and registration on postgraduate programmes should be considered. It was noted that an EPSRC training initiative was underway and would be co-ordinated by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (T).

7. On the basis of current performance indicators the question was raised as to whether too much resource was devoted to teaching activities and too little to research. In the course of the Support Services Review it had emerged that too little support was provided for research and this had led to the establishment of the Research Office.

The question was raised, however, about the limits to expansion. It had to be assumed that physical resources would remain the same whatever new initiatives were adopted. The impact of any expansion would, however, significantly depend on the market segment which might include widening access or obtaining external funding. The University did need to establish where its aspirations lay.

8. On the basis of most research indicators the University was ranked about 30. It must aim to improve research income and research student numbers. The Fast Track Targeted Research Initiative was intended to enable the University to shine in the next RAE. The introduction of this scheme was widely supported by Senate. It was hoped, however, that a degree of flexibility could operate where a department had experienced a very high staff turnover since the last RAE. The principle of selectively supporting departments and targeting resources under this initiative was welcomed. Whilst it was felt that there was an argument for the University's resources to be used more selectively, it was also felt that departments must not be allowed to slip down in their rating either.

The Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor asked Senate whether it would be against a redistribution of Teaching and Research income to support research given that boosting research performance was a strategic priority. It was suggested that consideration should be given to modelling the impact of such a re-distribution.

9. Whilst the Fast Track Targeted Research Initiative was welcomed it was agreed that the best use should be made of existing resources to support research staff, especially with bridging funding and underwriting. It was further suggested that in order to retain staff the promotions process should be brought forward. Retirements and linked replacements should also be targeted. In response, it was pointed out that there were now no fixed quotas on promotions, and more flexible procedures to enable staff retention were in place. The use of overlap posts with respect to future retirements were also in place. The importance of investing in research studentships to improve research student numbers was emphasised.

99/8 Strategy for Year 2000 Compliance

(SEN99-P4)

Progress on the Y2K compliance issue was reported to Senate by Dr R Akers, Year 2000 Project Manager. As far as central systems were concerned the requirements were well in hand. In terms of contingency planning key IT staff would not be permitted to take leave in January 2000. All Heads of Departments should identify such personnel now and ensure that they will be available. This would ensure that early checks could be made on systems.

It was emphasised that this was an issue for departments to address and that there were some departments with the greatest computing needs and equipment exposure who still needed to take action. The Librarian reported that she had been advised that their system would be compliant by Easter. It was suggested that there might be a need to improve physical security in the event of the possible failure of security systems. Senate was reassured that to date there was no evidence of the existence of a Millennium virus.

99/9 Finance System

(SEN99-P5)

Mr R Kilburn, Finance Project Officer, advised Senate that the new finance system project had three stages: - system implementation; financial process review and development and training. The training element was felt to be the most significant part of the project. All Heads of Departments were requested to enable their staff to undertake their training. There were three levels in the training: financial management and budget planning, intended mainly for senior staff and their support staff; financial processes; and website access intended for a wider range of users. It was anticipated that significant numbers of users would require training. It was NOTED that this was a major activity of greater significance than activating new software.

99/10 Date of Next Meeting

Wednesday 10 March 1999 at 9.15 am