SENATE
SEN10-M1
Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of
Senate on
|
Jo Aldridge Simon Austin Chris Backhouse Alan Bairner Morag Bell David Berry Richard Bibb Jon Binner Ed Brown (ab) James Carroll (ab) Jim Chandler Mike Cropper Sandra Dann David Deacon Jack Demaine Phill Dickens Neil Dixon (ab) Neil Halliwell Jon Harper Daniel Harris |
Shirley Pearce Janet Harrison (ab) Roger Haslam Elaine Hobby Tony Hodgson Phil Hubbard Ruth Jenkins Terry Kavanagh Ruth Kinna Feo Kusmartsev Chris Linton Ruth Lister Julian Mackenzie (ab) Graham Matthews Marsha Meskimmon (ab) Paul Palmer Rob Parkin Brian Parkinson Ken Parsons |
Chris Peel Eric Pentecost Iain Phillips Ian Reid Stephen Rice Chris Rielly Carol Robinson Richard Stobart Elizabeth Stokoe Gerry Swallowe Tony Thorpe David Twigg (ab) Yiannis Vardaxoglou Scott Vickers (ab) Peter Warwick Andrew Watson Mark Webber John Whittaker Huaizhong Zhao |
In attendance: Jemima Barnes (in place of James Carroll),
Sophie Crouchman, Chris Dunbobbin, Jennifer Nutkins.
Apologies for absence were received from: Ed Brown, James
Carroll, Neil Dixon, Janet Harrison, Marsha Meskimmon, David Twigg.
10/1 Valedictory
The Vice-Chancellor noted that it
was John Harper’s last meeting of Senate, and Senate thanked him for his excellent
work in the establishment of the
10/2 Minutes
Senate
RESOLVED to confirm and sign the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting held on
10/3 Matters Arising from the Minutes
Further to minute 09/111 (Proposal for a Change to the name of
the Loughborough University School of Art and Design) Senate RESOLVED to
approve the following clarification: That the new name of the Loughborough
University School of Art and Design (LUSAD), with effect from 1 August 2010,
should be the School of the Arts (SA), for both internal and external purposes.
10/4 Financial
Matters and Higher Education Funding 2010-11
SEN10-P1
Senate RECEIVED a
report from the Director of Finance on the Financial Outlook for the University.
A Five Year Plan, in support of the University Strategy Towards 2016, and
building on the Silver Scenario developed in 2008, had been considered by
Council in November 2009. However, whilst approving the forecasts for
submission to HEFCE and noting the significant uncertainty on which the
assumptions contained within the Plan were based, Council had asked that
further work be undertaken before it was approved for future planning purposes.
Loughborough was
starting from a sound financial position. However, it was expected that HEFCE
funding would be cut in each of the following three years (the Plan assumed
cuts of 5%, 3%, and 3%, followed by growth). HEFCE would be notifying
institutions of their grants for 2010-11 on 17 March 2010, and the University
would have a clearer sense of the immediate savings required at that stage.
The Plan assumed annual savings on
pay (1%) and non-pay (1.5%); additional income from advancement, enterprise and
research grants; and pay inflation lower than previous assumptions. However,
even if these objectives were achieved, the University would be in financial
deficit in 2012-13. It was essential, therefore, to begin to consider now what
measures were necessary to avert serious difficulties.
The following points
were raised in discussion:
(i)
Although a lifting of the cap on tuition
fees to £5,000 from 2013-14 might help to improve the position, it would not
provide a complete solution. There was much uncertainty about the extent to
which the cap would be lifted. Even if
it was lifted, the University would need to increase expenditure in order to
justify and deliver on higher tuition fee levels.
(ii)
There was a danger that if the University
budgeted for a larger cut in funding than that which materialised, it would
miss the opportunity to use those resources in the most positive way to meet
strategic objectives. However, the position beyond 2010/11 was highly
uncertain. Savings would be easier to implement and less damaging if introduced
in a planned way rather than in response to a financial crisis.
(iii)
Initiatives in learning and teaching,
such as two year degrees, were a potential source of additional income. It was
noted, however, that Loughborough would not wish to undermine its research-led
approach to teaching, and that Universities offering such degrees had found
them difficult and expensive to run.
(iv)
Some reservations were expressed as to
whether the Plan’s assumption that income from research grants and
contracts would continue to grow at 5% per annum was realistic. There was
optimism, however, based in part on the University’s recent recruitment
of a range of very good research staff. It was noted in this context that both
expenditure and overhead recovery were also assumed to increase by 5% so the
net benefit to University’s financial position could be achieved by
improving on existing overhead recovery rates.
(v)
Despite
the difficult economic climate, there might be opportunities to enrich and
extend commercial partnerships. It was
important in this context to ensure that the confidence of existing and
potential partners, including students and their parents, was retained, by
making clear that the University would seek to reduce costs by operating in a
more efficient manner, rather than by cutting back on its core services.
(vi)
It
would be possible for the University to avoid going into deficit in 2012 by delaying
its capital programme. However, the implications of such action in terms of
achieving strategic goals, meeting HEFCE sustainability requirements and
attracting the best students and staff, would be significant and far-reaching.
The Vice-Chancellor invited all members to contribute ideas
for new initiatives or ways of building on existing strengths in order to help the
University meet the financial challenges that lay ahead.
10/5 Future
Shape and Structure of the University
SEN10-P2
Senate RECEIVED a paper from the Provost containing outline proposals
for the future organisation of University academic activity including the completion
of the move to larger cost centres (Schools), each headed by a Dean reporting
directly to the Provost. The proposed new structure was intended to allow the
University to be robust in responding to the uncertain financial future facing
the HE sector through a greater sharing of resources. Four main benefits were
identified: (i) Financial savings in the longer term, through sharing infrastructure
costs; (ii) More robust team-based operation structures, reducing reliance on
key individuals; (iii) More efficient use of space and facilities; and (iv)
Less administrative load on academic staff.
The following points were noted in support of the proposals:
(i)
Larger
academic cost centres had the potential to be more robust and resilient, and to
thereby reduce the administrative load on academic staff. Loughborough already
had a number of successful examples of the benefits which could be achieved
from previous establishment of existing larger schools.
(ii)
The
proposed Super Directorate would provide the opportunity for increased
interactivity across all disciplines; for Heads of Schools to work closely and
directly with the Executive Leadership Team, enhancing their contribution to
strategy; and for the University as a whole to be more responsive to change.
(iii)
The
removal of the Faculty layer had the potential to improve communications
between Schools and “the centre” and provided for an immediate cost
saving.
(iv)
The
proposals offered flexibility, with considerable scope for Schools to determine
their own internal structures.
(v)
The
Head of the
(vi)
The
Head of the School of Sport, Exercise, and Health Sciences noted that prior to
the formation of the School, there had been concerns within the School of Sport
and Exercise Sciences (that its identity would be diluted) and the Department
of Human Sciences (that it was being “taken over”). However, the
new School structure appeared to be beneficial to both, in being more robust,
and offering the potential for a greater degree of flexibility and co-operation
in interdisciplinary work. It was noted that significant efficiency gains would
take some time to materialise.
A number of concerns were expressed in relation to the
proposals:
(i)
The
paper did not contain a detailed cost-saving analysis, and the main benefits relating
to financial savings were not presented in a manner that was felt by some
members to be sufficiently convincing. It was not clear, for example, that the
costs of transition would not outweigh any savings that would accrue from the
new structure.
(ii)
Details
of the proposals had been circulated only a few days prior to the meeting and
there had been limited time for members to consult with colleagues. The support
of staff was felt to be crucial in taking forward a major structural change of
this nature, and there appeared to be scope for a wider and more detailed
consultation process.
(iii)
With
reference to the Schools that had already been formed, it was noted that the
coming together of departments was where this was desired by those concerned,
and where academic synergies existed. However, forced unions, where synergies
were less obvious; and where a range of quite different disciplines were represented,
were likely to be much more problematic.
(iv)
There
was no reference to other institutions which had experienced difficulties with
restructuring, particularly in relation to the impact on staff motivation and
time available for core activities during periods of significant change. In a
difficult economic climate, the risk of causing disquiet in a number of areas
of the University would risk lowering morale.
(v)
The
proposed structure was felt by some members to be too centralised. It was noted
in this context that Heads of Department/Division/Discipline would not be
represented on the Super Directorate, and that the demands placed on the
Provost to manage 11 Heads of School seemed excessive. The extent to which
staff and student views would be represented within the proposed structure was
unclear.
(vi)
There
was concern that the removal of the Faculty structure, despite the cost saving,
would lead to a reduced level of interaction (and the growth of a silo
mentality) between Schools.
(vii)
It
was acknowledged that the proposals were intended to maintain and enhance the
student experience. However, concerns were expressed about the potential impact
on students. It was unclear whether the close relationship that existed between
students and the Head of Department / key senior administrator in smaller
departments could be replicated in larger Schools. The impact on the number of
learning and teaching co-ordinators, and the level of subject specialised
administrative support was also uncertain.
(viii)
A
loss of collegiality between Heads of Department within the existing Faculty
structure. It was noted, however, that this would be replaced by a collegiality
between Heads of Schools, and between colleagues within each School.
(ix)
The
potential loss of internationally renowned brands that existed within the
current structure.
(x)
No
details were provided of the composition and terms of reference of the proposed
Project Management Board.
A number of other points were noted:
(i)
LSU
had been able to undertake some initial consultation with students. It had no
fundamental objection to the proposals, providing that the student experience
was not harmed, and that students’ views were appropriately represented
within the new structure.
(ii)
It
was suggested that consideration should be given to a similar restructuring of
support services, in order to identify potential savings in those areas.
(iii)
Careful
consideration needed to be given to a number of issues including:
(a) The timing of any proposed
restructuring, in the context of significant external events such as the first
REF Exercise.
(b) The support that would be given to
departments during the transition.
(c) The importance of geographical
co-location in achieving the efficiencies envisaged.
(d) The range of tasks that were
currently undertaken at Faculty level that would need to be addressed within
the new structure.
(e) The extent to which Schools were
able to retain strategic autonomy, while at the same time enjoying a
substantial and meaningful input into University Strategy.
Senate acknowledged that there was a need to consider how
the University could best position itself to negotiate the uncertain economic
and financial landscape that lay ahead. However, on the basis of the paper
submitted, there was not consensus to move to the establishment of no more than
11 Schools by August 2011. It was AGREED therefore that a revised proposal would
be submitted to Senate in June 2010.
10/6 Matters
for Report by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research)
SEN10-P3
6.1 Research
Applications – Quarterly Analysis by Department.
NOTED.
SEN10-P4
6.2 New Research
Grants and Contracts.
NOTED.
6.3
Other Matters.
The PVC(R) thanked all who had contributed to the University’s
response to the REF consultation document.
10/7 Matters
for Report by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching)
The PVC(T) reported on the following
matters:
7.1
Student Recruitment.
Undergraduate applications were at a similar level as in
2009, and the quality was good. It would be important, as in the previous year,
not to exceed the intake target. UK/EU and International taught postgraduate
applications were up compared to the same point in the previous year. The
International Office had been undertaking some work on the increasingly
important role of agents in the recruitment of international students, and
would be submitting a report to Faculty Directorates and Operations Committee
shortly.
7.2
National Student Survey (NSS)
The NSS 2010 was due to begin in week commencing 1 February,
and would run until the end of April
2010. LSU was thanked for its support with encouraging students to respond.
Some new initiatives were planned for this year and further ideas for promoting
the survey were invited.
10/8 Matters for Report by the
Pro-Vice-Chancellor (
SEN10-P5
Senate RECEIVED a report from the
PVC(E). The following points were highlighted.
(i)
Science and
(ii)
Innovation Centre. Intelligent Energy (IE) had moved out of the Innovation Centre to the
Science and
10/9 Matters for Report by the Vice-Chancellor
The Vice-Chancellor
reported on the following matters:
(i)
Thanks were given to all within the University who
had contributed to the University being ranked in first place in the THE Best
Student Experience survey for the fourth
consecutive year.
(ii)
In January 2010, Loughborough had launched the
Athena Forum Guide, together with the
(iii)
The
University had purchased the former Quality Hotel on
10/10 Student Experience
Committee
SEN10-P6
Senate
RECEIVED a report of the meeting held on
SEN10-P7
10.1 An
amendment to the Terms of Reference of Student Experience Committee.
10/11 Term Dates
SEN10-P8
Senate RESOLVED to approve term
dates for the 2011-12 academic year.
10/12 Reports from Committees
Senate
RECEIVED reports from the following Committees:
12.1 SEN10-P9 Advancement Committee of
12.2 SEN10-P10
12.3 SEN10-P11 Estates Management Committee of 5 November
and
12.4 SEN10-P12 Learning and Teaching Committee of
12.5 SEN10-P13 Performance Monitoring Group of 19 November
and
12.6 SEN10-P14 Prizes Committee of
12.7 SEN10-P15 Student Discipline Committee of
10/13 Dates of Future Meetings in 2009-10
Author – Chris Dunbobbin/Jennifer
Nutkins
Date – February 2010
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved