Apologies for absence were received from: Professor Arnold, Professor Backhouse, Professor Baldwin, Dr Bouazza-Marouf, Professor Bowman, Professor Cox, Mr Harper, Professor Infield, Professor Jones, Professor Kalawsky, Mr Lewis, Mr Reed.

Items 11 and 20 on the agenda had been unstarred.

SEN00-M3, SEN00-M5

It was RESOLVED to confirm the Minutes of the 334th and 336th Meetings held on 28 June and 25 October 2000 respectively.

.1 The Deputy Vice-Chancellor reported that the situation was ongoing; some progress had been made and in some cases discussions with individuals were underway. Should the establishment of a Redundancy Committee appear necessary, such a decision would be taken at the December or February meeting of Council. It was hoped that developments in the next few weeks would make that unnecessary.

.2 An update was requested on the Vice-Chancellor's undertaking to follow up the involvement of Human Resources Committee in the discussion on any policy issues in this regard. It was recognised that the policy had already been set on this occasion, but the Vice-Chancellor assured Senate that he and other members of Senate on Human Resources Committee would ensure that Committee's involvement in relevant policy matters in the future, in accordance with its terms of reference.

The Vice-Chancellor reported that:-

.1 The funding settlement for 2002-2003 and 2003-2004, the second and third years of funding following the comprehensive spending review, would provide core funding a little above inflation. With the increased margin on MASN from +2% to +4%, the effect would probably be at best level funding per student in real terms. An outcome of the comprehensive spending review had been the establishment of the Science Research Infrastructure Fund. Additional funding for widening participation was as yet unclear. Additional HEROBC (Reach Out) funding had also been confirmed. Funding was being made available to the HE sector to address issues within the Bett Report; rising to £170M in 2003/2004. This represented about 2.4% of the sector pay bill, and was identified for modernisation of human resource management in the University system and equal opportunities. It seemed inevitable that institutions would need to move to a system of performance-based appraisal.

.2 With the exception of the AUT, campus trade unions had balloted members on the 3% pay offer. As a result MSF and UNISON would be taking action short of a strike with effect from 5 December. The impact of this for the University was as yet unknown.

.3 The University's Optical Engineering Group had recently been awarded a Queen's Anniversary Prize for Higher and Further Education 2000 in recognition of its pioneering role in developing applications of modern optics and laser technologies to find practical solutions to real-world problems. This was the University's third Queen's Anniversary Prize, which had only been awarded on four occasions so far. No institution had achieved four awards and the university was amongst only a handful of institutions which had achieved three. This was a great credit to the University and all those involved were to be congratulated.

.4 On the previous day His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh had officially opened the University's new Engineering Building complex. The event, also attended by Lord Wolfson, had been most successful and enjoyable. The Vice-Chancellor thanked all those who had been involved.

The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching) report that:-

.1 Recent ESRs had resulted in a well deserved maximum score of 24 for Information Science and an 'excellent' score of 22 for both Mathematical Sciences and for Business and Management. The latter had involved the Ford undergraduate programme in Retail Automotive Management, for which the outcome had been very pleasing, the postgraduate programme in Airport Planning and Management and the undergraduate programme in Transport Management and Planning, for which some problems in currency of material had been revealed. Points raised during the ESR visits would be acted on. There were three remaining ESRs to be undertaken under the existing methodology in the New Year, after which the new methodology would be adopted when scrutiny of subject areas would extend throughout the year.

.2 The University had submitted bids for Additional Student Numbers, phased over three years, for the following programmes:-

.3 The University had been informed of its quota of bursaries for students from disadvantaged backgrounds for 2001 entry, and of its formulaic allocation in regard to widening participation, which was similar to the previous allocation. The University would be required to inform HEFCE in the summer of its widening participation activities.

.4 Developments with a consortium of universities in Nigeria had already resulted in a significant increase in the recruitment of postgraduate students from that country. UK/EU applications for 2001 were down on last year's at this time. Though there had been processing delays associated with computer problems at UCAS, the University was not holding its position in the sector. The Vice-Chancellor highlighted the need for Heads of Department to be aware of the recruitment position in their departments and take appropriate action as necessary.

.5 The response of Heads of Department to the questionnaire on international recruitment had shown a lack of evidence of a case for a dedicated international recruitment person in each department. This issue would need to be considered further in an effort to sharpen departmental activity in this area.

.6 A discussion paper on Service Teaching had been submitted to Directorates. Senate could expect to receive proposals in due course through Learning and Teaching Committee.

.7 The Peterborough Project had not achieved its notional student quota for 2000. The Peterborough Company was undertaking a demand study which would report in the next few days. Consideration would then need to be given to the future of the Peterborough Project.

.8 A member raised the issue of the suggestion of a second University Open Day and consequent removal of central support for overnight visits to departments by potential students. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching) informed Senate of the need for an Autumn Open Day, commencing in 2001, in view of its expectation by potential students, and the patchy use of overnight visits. In view of the different approaches by departments it was being put forward that departments wishing to retain overnight visits should fund these themselves. Members commented on the value of overnight visits, the benefits of recruitment to departments other than the recruiting department, and the difficulty deficit departments would have in meeting such costs. A compromise was suggested that central support be provided for one overnight visit per year. It was AGREED that the PVC(T) would request AD(T)s to seek the views of their departments with the aim of finding a satisfactory conclusion that would be feasible within the budget situation.

Attention was drawn to the importance of a dynamic website in attracting potential students. Senate was informed that this was in hand, together with the development of a recruitment video which would be available in CD form and on the website.

The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research) reported that:-

.1 Notification was expected shortly of the University's allocation from the Science Research Infrastructure Fund. The allocation would be available to the University on the basis of strategically acceptable bids; there would be no competitive bidding.

.2 Full-time postgraduate research (FT PGR) student numbers had shown an increase on last year from 390 to 474. The Engineering and Science Faculties had shown a 39% and 25% increase in numbers respectively. Overseas FT PGR numbers had increased by 48. Part-time PGR numbers had shown a reduction of 30%.

.3 £7.7M had been achieved in research grants and contracts for the year so far, which compared with an expected £8.5M on the basis of last year's performance. The Engineering and Science Faculties were above target but SSH was not yet approaching last year's figure.

.4 Three Gatsby Innovation Fellowships were currently in place to aid the exploitation of research. Two staff had been funded to undertake feasibility studies on the fellowship funding. Some funding still remained and publicity for another round of fellowships could be expected in January.

.5 The second dummy run for the RAE was in progress. Pressures were being felt by the Research Office. The Registrar informed Senate that additional support for the Office was being provided by the Academic Registry.

.6 The discussion on Research Schools at Senate's 'away day' would be followed up by the Research Team and raised with Directorates early in the New Year. The discussion had highlighted the greater opportunities available if research could operate more flexibly across departmental boundaries; it needed to be addressed whether Research Schools were the best way of achieving this. Senate would be provided with a summary of the 'away day' at its next meeting, together with a commentary as to how issues would be/were being taken forward.

.1 Further to Minute 00/97 of the meeting on 25 October 2000, Senate received a verbal update from the Deputy Vice-Chancellor. The Dean of Science had been working to revitalise the Centre Site proposals, which would now take into account the offer of funds from the East Midlands Development Agency for the development of 'incubator units', which might involve some work on the AAE building. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor felt that the basis of the strategy should be to achieve a better output in terms of research grants and contracts and quality of students, and that this point had yet to be reached.

.2 The Dean of Science assured Senate that the main driver in his proposals would be the output factors described. Better output could be expected from the co-location of Computer Science and Information Science. The case had been accepted for geographical co-location of the Engineering Faculty; the case for the Science Faculty, with less natural cohesion than the Engineering Departments, was stronger.

.3 Members raised matters they felt should be taken into account in the development of the strategy. Buildings would be available for use and should be looked at in terms of the best function they could perform. The highest priority should be to bring together departments spread across different buildings. The opportunity could be taken to minimise travel across campus for staff and students. The Vice-Chancellor advised Senate of the need for a clear academic vision and firm business case to drive the centre site development.

.4 A member raised the increasing demand for large lecture theatres. Senate was advised that the Director of AVS was undertaking an analysis of lecture room needs and would be reporting to the Executive Management Group. The Director of AVS informed members of a workshop that would be held on 19 December which would feed into that report. Members were reminded of the refurbishment of the Great Hall and the availability of lecture theatres in both LUSAD and Loughborough College, which provided some opportunity for immediate relief of pressure.

00/112 Procedures for Programme Review

00/113 Amendments to Statute XIII: The Council

SEN00-P62

.1 Senate considered proposals from the Council Nominating Committee to amend Statute XIII in regard to the size and composition of Council, and the comments of General Assembly thereon. The Registrar outlined the external pressures for change, and reminded Senate that the decision for change would be Council's following consultation with General Assembly and Senate. The proposals were for a reduction in size from 49 to 30, together with a change in the balance of the membership and method of appointment categories, resulting in an increase in lay membership from 53% to 57%. Senate was informed that it was not the intention to move towards the Dearing Committee's recommendation of no more than 25 members, in view of the need, as in other pre-1992 universities, to provide for representation by a wide range of stakeholders. A member raised the possible advantage of retaining an uneven membership number for Council for voting purposes. It was noted, however, that the Chair's casting vote was a complicating factor, and that full attendance at Council meetings was in any event rare.

.2 Members expressed support for the suggested revisions to the proposals put forward by General Assembly. The revisions would effectively disenfranchise two ex-officio Academic Officers and it was suggested that these be the PVC(R) and PVC(T), who could be invited to attend Council meetings without voting rights as was the current position for Deans. Senate was informed that the requirement for a lay majority had as its premise the good governance principle of differentiating between governance and management. It was put forward that the removal of the PVC(R) and PVC(T) from automatic membership and the increase in elected staff members included within the suggested revisions would be in accordance with that principle.

Senate AGREED its support for the General Assembly's suggestion for an increase in the proposed Council membership to 32, to include:-

• two Academic Officers (rather than four in proposed model)
• four elected by Senate (as in proposed model)
• three members of General Assembly (rather than one in proposed model)
• three representatives of non-academic staff (rather than one in proposed model)

Should Council find such an increase in membership unacceptable, Senate AGREED its support for the General Assembly's alternative suggestion to maintain membership at 30, to include:-

• two Academic Officers (rather than four in proposed model)
• three elected by Senate (rather than four in proposed model)
• three members of General Assembly (rather than one in proposed model)
• two representatives of non-academic staff (rather than one in proposed model)

.3 The view was expressed that lay Council members were not always well apprised of particular issues and that a stronger engagement with the University was needed. Heads of Departments were reminded that lay members were linked with particular departments, but that in some cases departments had not followed this up. It was AGREED that Heads of Departments should encourage their associated lay members of Council to visit the department.

SEN00-P63

.1 On the recommendation of Learning and Teaching Committee, on the advice of Curriculum Sub-Committee, it was RESOLVED to recommend to Council as appropriate:

On the recommendation of Ordinances and Regulations Committee:

It was RESOLVED to approve, and recommend to Council where appropriate, amendments to the following Ordinances and Regulations in relation to the newly-titled posts of:-

(i) Deputy Vice-Chancellor (subject to the approval by the Privy Council of amendments to The Charter para 9 and Statute VI)

(ii) Director of Registry Services (with immediate effect)

Ordinances: X, XIV, XV, XVIII, XX, XXVIII, XXX

Regulations: III, VII, XIV, GRUA (1999 and 2000), ARUA (1999 and 2000), GRMPA, ARMPA, GRIS, ARIS, RHDR

SEN00-P67

On the recommendation of Resources and Planning Committee, it was RESOLVED to approve UK/EU undergraduate intake quotas for 2001/2002.

SEN00-P68

On the recommendation of Prizes Committee, it was RESOLVED to recommend to Council the establishment of prizes and altered conditions to an existing prize.

00/118 LUSAD Further Education Academic Year

It was RESOLVED to approve the following dates for the 2001/2002 Academic Year for Further Education Programmes in LUSAD:-

Monday 3 September to Friday 14 December 2001 (15 weeks)
Monday 7 January to Friday 22 March 2002 (11 weeks)
Monday 8 April to Friday 31 May 2002 (8 weeks)

SEN00-P69

Senate received the Annual Report for 1999/2000 from the Librarian.

SEN00-P70

Senate noted the Operational Plan for 2000/2001.

SEN00-P71

Senate noted the University's response to the QAA Position Paper (July 2000) on the National Qualifications Framework for Higher Education Qualifications.

Senate noted that following the successful collaborative bid in the last round for ASNs in respect of CertHE/Dip HE programmes at Peterborough Regional College and Stamford College, Lincolnshire, the University was proposing to enter into a consortium agreement with the two colleges. An agreement had been drawn up in accordance with HEFCE guidance and HEFCE 'recognition' would be sought for funding purposes.

Senate received reports from the following Committees:

Senate was notified of the need to establish a Committee to appoint the next Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research). Nominations for Senate members would be sought shortly.

Wednesday 31 January 2001 (if required)

Wednesday 7 March 2001

Author - Jennie Elliott
Date - December 2000
Copyright (c) Loughborough University. All rights reserved.