SENATE

 

SEN10-M7

 

 

Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting of Senate on Wednesday 15 September 2010.

 

 

 

 

Memis Acar

Jo Aldridge (ab)

Simon Austin  

Chris Backhouse

Alan Bairner

Morag Bell

Richard Bibb (ab)

Jon Binner

James Carroll

Jonathan Chambers

Jim Chandler

Mike Cropper

Sandra Dann

David Deacon

Jack Demaine

Phill Dickens

Rob Dover

John Downey

 

Shirley Pearce

 

John Feather

Neil Halliwell (ab)

Janet Harrison

Elaine Hobby

Tony Hodgson

Ruth Jenkins

David Kerr

Ruth Kinna

Feo Kusmartsev (ab)

Angus Laing

Chris Linton

Julian Mackenzie (ab)

Graham Matthews

Marsha Meskimmon (ab)

Myra Nimmo

Rob Parkin

Ken Parsons

Iain Phillips

 

 

 

Jonathan Potter

Ian Reid

Helen Rendell

Stephen Rice

Chris Rielly

Carol Robinson

Richard Stobart

Elizabeth Stokoe (ab)

Gerry Swallowe (ab)

Alice Swinscoe

Tony Thorpe

Yiannis Vardaxoglou

Peter Warwick (ab)

Andrew Watson (ab)

Mark Webber

Jonathon Wright

Huaizhong Zhao

In attendance: Chris Dunbobbin, Jennifer Nutkins, Will Spinks, Caroline Walker.

                                               

Apologies for absence were received from: Jo Aldridge, Richard Bibb, Neil Halliwell, Tony Hodgson, Marsha Meskimmon, Myra Nimmo, Elizabeth Stokoe, Gerry Swallowe, Peter Warwick, Andrew Watson.

 

 

10/94   Minutes

Senate NOTED the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting held on 30 June 2010 (SEN10-M5) and RESOLVED to approve minute 10/52 relating to the Shape and Structure of the University. Senate NOTED that the remainder of the minutes and any other matters arising would be considered at the Ordinary meeting on 16 November 2010.

 

10/95   Implementing the New Organisational Structure

 

            SEN10-P93

95.1     At the June 2010 meeting of Senate, it had been agreed that further consultations should take place to determine the final allocation of departments to schools in the new structure. There had been subsequent discussions with staff and current Heads of Department in SSH Faculty, and agreement had been reached on the formation of schools as proposed to Senate in June 2010. Discussions had also been held with staff and Heads of Department in Science Faculty, but some concerns remained that the formation of a School of Science might be regarded externally as diminishing the importance of science subjects at Loughborough. The PMB had therefore recommended that:

 

·         10 Schools be formed based on the departmental groupings outlined in the paper to Senate in June 2010.

·         Proposals for the naming of individual Schools be submitted to Senate for approval.

 

Senate was invited to consider whether Senate should have the flexibility to allow academic units to use the term Faculty, primarily for external marketing purposes, in order to help preserve individual subject and departmental identities within the new organisational structure.

 

The following points were noted in discussion:

 

i)              While the desire to retain subject identity was understood, some members were concerned that a structure containing both schools and faculties had the potential to be confusing for students and those external to the University. Similar concerns were expressed about naming academic units differently for internal and external purposes. It was noted, however, that within its existing structure the University had a mixture of departments and schools, and that many prestigious institutions also used mixed terminology to describe its academic structures. It was noted further that the external marketing of the University was of critical importance, and that it was necessary to balance the desire for a homogenous internal structure, with the need for individual subject areas and departments to be able to market themselves effectively externally, according to the differing contexts in which they operated.

 

ii)            There were a number of permutations in terms of the way in which the science departments could be grouped together within the new school structure. However, none had unanimous support, and keeping the departments together in a single grouping seemed to be the only practicable approach. Given the considerable uncertainties that existed in the HE sector, it was impossible to say that the current proposal involving the formation of a single school comprising all of the science departments would continue to be the best solution in the future, and there would be opportunities for review.

 

iii)            The proposed school comprising all of the science departments would be the largest unit (although not disproportionately large compared to the other schools), and some concerns were expressed about whether its disparate nature in terms of subject mix and geographical location would mean that it was more difficult to achieve the desired efficiencies and increased organisational robustness. This and other issues would need to be addressed in the detailed implementation of the new structure.

 

iv)           There was some discussion about the organisational layer immediately below the 10 schools. The PMB report had stated that all current departments would continue to exist within the new school structure (unless it was agreed by particular schools to organise themselves differently). It was noted, however, that some schools would be comprised of a number of departments, while others would not, and that in some cases there would be a school within a school. This issue already existed, and was being managed, in relation to the School of Business and Economics because for external/marketing reasons it was essential that the Business School continued to be named as such, notwithstanding that it formed part of the School of Business and Economics. In view of the above, it was suggested that proposals for the naming of the units which composed the next organisational layer should be submitted alongside proposals for the naming of each school.

 

v)            Comments submitted by email by absent members (Marsha Meskimmon and Gerry Swallowe) were noted.

 

Senate RESOLVED to approve the recommendations of the PMB and looked forward to proposals for the naming of all schools and discipline-based sub-units being brought to Senate, at the same time (having first been considered by the PMB), in November 2010 or January 2011.

 

The Vice-Chancellor thanked all who had been involved in the consultations relating to the new organisational structure, within the PMB and elsewhere.

 

            SEN10-P94

95.2     Senate NOTED matters discussed by the PMB. The following points were highlighted:

i)          The PMB would seek to ensure that the transition to a school structure, and the new structure itself, operated in the most efficient manner possible. Senate would continue to be provided with regular updates.

 

ii)         The PMB would give due consideration to succession planning in relation to the new senior positions that would be created within the new structure, and to ensuring that appropriate career progression routes existed.

 

10/96   Matters for Report by the Vice-Chancellor

 

            The Vice-Chancellor reported on the following matters:

 

i)              Financial Climate

Speeches made by Steve Smith and David Willetts to the Universities UK Annual Conference were available on the web at http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/Events/Annual-Conference-2010/Pages/Default.aspx). Significant uncertainties remained in relation to the future government funding of the HE sector, and it seemed likely that there would be substantial cuts to the budget for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), including the budget for science.

 

Lord Browne’s report on HE funding and student finance was due to be published on 11 October 2010, and the outcome of the government’s spending review would follow on 20 October 2010. BIS would then determine how it responded to the anticipated cuts to its budget, and how this would impact on the HE sector. HEFCE would begin to finalise decisions on how it allocated its resources to individual institutions for 2011-12 after it received its annual grant letter in December 2010, and allocations to individual institutions would be made know in March 2011. It was noted that even if the Browne Review recommended that the cap on tuition fees be removed or raised, it was unlikely that any change would be put into effect before 2012-13 at the earliest.

 

It was clear from other recent government announcements on HE that there would be an emphasis on improving teaching standards, and a move towards a concentration of research funding on a smaller number of research intensive institutions. It was felt that the emphasis on teaching might be intended as a means of nurturing those institutions which received a smaller proportion of research funding, and/or as a means of encouraging research intensive institutions to place greater emphasis on teaching. It might also be viewed as paving the way towards an expectation that institutions delivered more in terms of teaching, in anticipation of an increase in tuition fees.

 

ii)             National Pay Negotiations

UCEA’s final offer of 0.4% for 2010-11 had been rejected by UCU and EIS but was still being considered by the other unions.

 

iii)            Proposed Reform of the USS Pension Scheme

The University was awaiting a request from USS Board of Trustees to consult with its members regarding the proposals for scheme reforms. The consultation period was expected to run from early October until early December 2010. Indications were that more than 130,000 actual and eligible members would be entitled to participate, and it was anticipated, therefore, that the consultation would be conducted electronically. It was likely that an early meeting of Remuneration Committee would be arranged during October 2010, in order to consider how the proposed changes would impact on staff at LU. A number of open sessions would then be arranged to provide an opportunity for USS members at the University to find out more about the proposals, before taking part in the consultation. In mid-January 2011 the USS Board of Trustees would meet to decide whether to proceed with the proposed changes.

 

iv)           League Tables

Loughborough had been ranked 15th, and commented upon very favourably in the Sunday Times University Guide. The Vice Chancellor thanked Lucy Hopkins for her comments that had been reported in the Guide.

 

10/97   Department of Materials - Change of Faculty

 

Senate NOTED the action of the Chairs of Senate and Council on behalf of Senate and Council respectively, in approving the transfer of the Department of Materials from the Faculty of Science into the Faculty of Engineering for 2010/11, whilst the current Faculty structure continued to operate. This request had been made by the Head of Department for operational reasons to assist the transition to the School structure from 2011/12.

 

10/98   Membership of Senate 2010-11

 

            SEN10-P95

            The membership of Senate for 2010-11 was NOTED.        

 

10/99   Dates of Meetings in 2010-11

 

            Tuesday 16 November 2010, 9.15am

            Wednesday 26 January 2011, 9.15am (if necessary)

            Wednesday 9 March 2011, 9.15am

            Wednesday 6 July 2011, 9.15am

 

Author – Chris Dunbobbin

Date – September  2010

Copyright © Loughborough University.  All rights reserved.