SENATE
SEN11-M1
Minutes of the Ordinary
Meeting of Senate on Wednesday 26 January 2011.
|
|
In attendance: Chris Dunbobbin, Jennifer
Nutkins, Will Spinks, Caroline Walker.
Apologies
for absence were received from: Simon Austin, Jon Binner, David Deacon, Rob
Dover, Ruth Jenkins, Dulanjan Kaggodaarachchi, Ruth Kinna, Chris Linton, Marsha
Meskimmon, Ian Reid, Richard Stobart.
The Vice-Chancellor welcomed Professor David Allen,
who was attending his first meeting as Head of the Department of Politics,
History, and International Relations.
11/1 Minutes
Senate RESOLVED to confirm and sign the Minutes of the
Ordinary meeting held on 16 November 2010 (SEN10-M8).
11/2 Financial Context
SEN11-P1
Senate RECEIVED an update from the Director
of Finance on the financial context for the HE sector, post Browne and CSR.
On 20 December 2010, BIS had issued a letter
with details of the allocations it would make to HEFCE in the 2011-12 financial
year and beyond, and the priorities it was setting.
The letter confirmed, inter alia, that HEFCE’s
budget would be cut by 40% over 4 years from April 2011; it made reference to
the imposition of participation targets for institutions charging tuition fees
of £6,000 or over; and hinted at a greater concentration of QR research
funding. A White Paper, setting out BIS’s overall plans for HE in more
detail was expected in spring 2011, and individual institutional grant letters
would be issued in March 2011. The University would be required to submit its
Access Agreement just a few days later, by the end of March 2011. A number of
difficult decisions on tuition fees, widening participation and student support
for 2012 entry would therefore need to be reached within a very tight timescale,
and in the absence of detailed information on teaching funding for 2012-13.
The following points were noted in
discussion:
(i)
There
was LSU representation on the group that had been tasked with considering the
University’s response to the post Browne and CSR context so far. This
would continue, and further updates would be available for staff.
(ii)
LSU
had created a web-page inviting Loughborough students to comment on what
changes they would like to see in a higher-fees regime (at http://www.lufbra.net/ourlufbra/). A range of
interesting and useful responses had been posted.
(iii)
There
was concern that some parents and students seemed to be unaware of the
withdrawal of public funding that would precede increased tuition fees. It
would be important for the University and the sector as a whole to address this
in order to manage expectations effectively.
(iv)
The
University needed to be prepared for the further concentration of QR research
funding, including the removal of funding for 2* research.
(v)
At
present, there seemed to be most support within the University for a single tuition fee for all programmes, in recognition of the
breadth of the Loughborough Student Experience. However, it would not be
prudent for the University to commit to this position until more information
was available and a full impact analysis had been undertaken.
(vi)
The
extension of the availability of student loans to part-time students was
welcome.
11/3 Implementation of New Organisational
Structure
SEN11-P2
3.1.1
Senate
NOTED key issues discussed by the Structure Implementation Project Management
Board at its meeting on 13 December 2010, and RECEIVED a verbal update on matters
discussed at its meeting on 24 January 2011. It was noted in particular that
the first meeting of the new Academic Leadership Team (ALT) had taken place and
been very positive. The ALT would continue to meet regularly until it became
fully operational in August 2011.
A point was raised concerning the consistent
use of the term ‘Learning and Teaching,’ including its application
to the titles of the PVC(T) and AD(T)s (i.e. that they
should be PVC(L&T) and AD(L&T)). The PVC(T)
agreed to follow this up with the Teaching and Learning Project Working Group.
SEN11-P3
3.2 Senate APPROVED proposals relating to the
future membership of Senate under the new organisational structure, subject to
a further amendment to Ordinance XXX to make explicit that the term ‘the
Academic Staff’ referred to staff within the R&T job family.
The following points were also noted:
(i)
The
proposals were intended to adapt the existing membership to fit the new
organisational structure in the most effective way, and the following basic
principles had been borne in mind:
·
The
existing total number of members should be maintained.
·
The
academic membership should be determined with reference to the number of
R&T staff in each school.
·
The
Dean of the Graduate School should become an ex-officio member.
·
The
existing level of student representation should be maintained.
(ii)
A
full review would be carried out after 2 years, at which time consideration
would be given to abolishing members appointed by the Dean of School, and
reducing the number of elected representatives.
(iii)
Deans’
appointments would be made after the election of school representatives, and Deans
would seek to ensure that all subject areas within their school were
represented as far as possible, and that considerations relating to equal
opportunities and diversity were taken into account.
SEN11-P4
3.3 Senate APPROVED a new procedure for the
appointment of Associate Deans, subject to the following amendments:
(i)
To
include a consultation phase involving all staff within the school, with the
resulting comments being taken into account by the Dean and relevant PVC.
(ii)
To
make explicit that the term ‘Academic Staff’ referred to staff
within the R&T job family.
(iii)
To
allow appointments to be extended for an unlimited number of 3 year periods,
providing the full selection procedure was repeated at the end of each period.
It was noted that some schools had already
made AD equivalent appointments using different procedures. It was AGREED,
however, that all AD’s should be appointed by the new process to ensure a
consistent and fair approach to AD appointments across the University, and that
the institutional aspects of the role had been addressed.
SEN11-P5
3.4 After some discussion as to whether
candidates should be drawn from the Department or the School as a whole, Senate
APPROVED a new procedure for the appointment of Heads of Department, subject to
two amendments:
(i)
To
include a consultation phase involving all staff within the school, with the
resulting comments being taken into account by the Dean and Provost and DVC.
(ii)
To
make explicit that the term ‘Academic Staff’ referred to staff
within the R&T job family.
SEN11-P6
3.5 Senate NOTED the appointment of Deans of
Schools.
11/4 New Academic Initiatives
Senate RECEIVED reports on ongoing
discussions relating to the following:
SEN11-P7
4.1 East Midlands Sports Medicine and
Wellness Centre.
In March 2009, the East Midlands Health
Science Cluster (EMHSC) had responded to an invitation to tender to be a
National Sports Medicine and Wellness Centre, a concept initially developed as
a specific Olympic legacy commitment. The role to be played by the Department
of Health was unclear, but it was possible that some supporting finance would
be available, and there were a range of other benefits. The scale and exact
remit of the Centre was yet to be determined, and a draft MOU outlining the way
in which the parties would work together to develop the concept would be
considered at the next EMHSC meeting in February 2011. Relevant proposals regarding
the formal establishment of the Centre and any implications for academic
programmes would then be brought to Senate as appropriate.
SEN11-P8
4.2 Singapore Institute of Sports Research.
A six month feasibility study to consider the
development of a Singapore Institute of Sports Research, as a
collaboration between Loughborough and Nanyang
Technological University was close to completion. As the outcome of this
process, a business plan was being developed to define a five year plan for the
Institute, with a launch date of mid-2011. The intention was that the Institute
would be the focus for joint research projects and a significant number of
jointly supervised PhD students. Operations Committee would reach a decision in
February 2011 on whether to take the project to the next stage.
Senate NOTED its support in principle for
both projects, and thanked those involved.
11/5 Matters for Report by the
Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research)
SEN11-P9
Senate
RECEIVED a report from the PVC(R). The following points were highlighted:
(i)
Research applications and new grants
and contracts data showed a very good performance for the first quarter of
2010-11, with a number of large ESPRC awards. It was noted, however, that there
was scope for more activity in the areas covered by the other UK Research
Councils.
(ii)
Detailed plans were being finalised to
ensure a successful outcome for the University in the REF 2014. The following
points were noted:
·
Seven Loughborough staff had been
appointed as panel or sub-panel members.
·
Senate members were encouraged to ask
all staff to concentrate on their PRPs, and to report any problems with the
submission of electronic PRPs as soon as possible.
·
More information was beginning to
emerge on the criteria for ‘impact.’
·
Research Office would shortly be
giving detailed feedback and advice on the ‘impact’ case studies
that had been submitted.
(iii)
Loughborough
had received a relatively disappointing ranking in the recent THE World
Rankings league table, partly as a consequence of a low citation count. A
number of actions were being pursued to better manage and monitor the
University’s citation performance.
11/6 Matters for Report by the
Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching)
Senate
RECEIVED a verbal report on the following matters:
6.1 UG Applications.
The deadline for 2011-12 entry had passed,
and applications for the sector as a whole were up by 7%. Loughborough’s
final total, meanwhile, was slightly down on the 2010-11. However a number of
competitor institutions had also experienced a similar small decline. It was
noted further that some of the subject areas which had seen an increase
nationally were not offered at Loughborough; that there were variations between
departments; and that the quality of applications was at least as good or
slightly better than in the previous year. It would be important to tightly
control the issuing of offers, as penalties would be imposed for
over-recruitment.
6.2 National Student Survey.
The NSS was due to begin on 7 February 2011,
and the University was geared up to work towards ensuring another high response
rate. LSU was thanked for its ongoing support in relation to the survey.
11/7 Matters for
Report by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Enterprise)
SEN11-P10
Senate
RECEIVED a report. The following highlights were NOTED:
(i)
Science and Enterprise Park.
A new longer term strategy was being considered, and would relate to a range of
activities across all schools. The Enterprise Office would be consulting with
Departments/Schools on organisations they would wish to attract, and the likely
benefits to both parties.
(ii)
Innovation Centre.
The move to the Charnwood Building had been delayed until the end of January
2011, due to problems arising from severe weather in December 2010, but was now
underway.
(iii)
Enterprise Office.
It had been announced that Higher Education Innovation Funding would continue
at current levels, but uncertainty remained about how it would be allocated to institutions.
(iv)
Technology and Innovation Centres
(TICs).
The
Technology Strategy Board had published a prospectus for establishing a new
network of TICs, including an invitation for organisations to register their
interest in forming a TIC focussed on high value manufacturing. A number of
opportunities for Loughborough had been identified, and the Provost and Deputy
Vice-Chancellor would be leading and co-ordinating University strategy in this
area.
11/8 Matters for Report by the Vice-Chancellor
The Vice-Chancellor reported on the
following matters:
(i)
USS Pension Scheme. The consultation on the proposed reform of
the USS pension scheme had closed, and a response from USS was awaited.
(ii)
National Pay Negotiations. Most of the unions
had accepted UCEA’s offer of a 0.4% pay increase for 2010-11 (although
UCU and EIS had not). With the first round of the 2011-12 pay negotiations
imminent, Loughborough would be following UCEA’s advice to implement the
0.4% increase without any further delay.
(iii)
Visit from Minister of State for Universities and Science. David Willetts had visited the University on 13 January 2011, to
announce the establishment of an Industrial Doctorate Centre, supported by the Wolfson School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering,
and had been particularly impressed by the Loughborough students he had met.
(iv)
The
Vice-Chancellor thanked staff from Facilities Management and other areas, who
had worked so hard to keep the campus going during the extreme weather over the
Christmas period. Particular thanks were given to Professor Paul Thomas and
others in the Department of Chemistry, which had been especially badly
affected.
(v)
Congratulations
were offered to Professor Ruth Lister on her appointment to the House of Lords.
(vi)
Congratulations
were offered to Professor Jonathon Chambers for his elevation to IEEE Fellow
from 1 January 2011 for contributions to adaptive signal processing and its
applications.
11/9 Reports
from Committees
Senate RECEIVED reports from the
following Committees:
9.1 SEN11-P11 Costing
and Pricing Committee of 28 September 2010.
9.2 SEN11-P12 Estates Management Committee of 16 December 2010.
9.3 SEN11-P13 Performance
Monitoring Group of 7 December 2010.
9.4 SEN11-P14 Research
Committee of 6 December 2010.
9.5 SEN11-P15 Research
Performance Monitoring Committee of 26 October 2010.
11/10 Dates of Future
Meetings
Wednesday
9 March 2011, 9.15am.
Wednesday
6 July 2011, 9.15am.
Author – Chris
Dunbobbin
Date – February
2011
Copyright
© Loughborough University. All
rights reserved.