11 of 11
UNIVERSITY OF EXETER
Council
A meeting of the Council was held on Monday 17 July 2006 at 2.15pm in Committee Room A, Northcote House.
PRESENT: Pro-Chancellor, Mr K R Seal (Chair)
Treasurer, Mr G A Sturtridge
Vice-Chancellor, Professor S M Smith
Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor P Webley
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor R J P Kain
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor J M Kay
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor N Armstrong
Mr B M Biscoe Professor M R Macnair
The Rt Revd the Lord Bishop of Exeter Sir Robin Nicholson
Mr S R Bosworth Mr L Pollard
Councillor Mrs C Channon Professor W B Richardson
Mrs J L Davey Councillor R Slack
Mr A Desmier Dr P M Smith
Professor P Draper Mr H W J Stubbs
Mr R M P Hughes Dr R F Symes
Mr P Lacey Professor N J Talbot
Professor H Lappin-Scott
Registrar and Secretary, Mr D J Allen
Director of Finance, Mr J C Lindley
Academic Secretary, Mr D F Batty
Senior Assistant Registrar, Miss S E Odell
APOLOGIES: Professor R J Hawker, Ms R King, Dame Suzi Leather.
IN ATTENDANCE: Professor M Overton (Deputy Vice-Chancellor-designate), Professor K Atkinson (Cornwall Provost).
06.31 Resignation of Council Member
The Chair REPORTED with regret the resignation from Council in June of Mr T D D Hoffman, owing to pressure of other commitments.
06.32 Death of Dr K C H Rowe, Pro-Chancellor, 1972-85
The Chair REPORTED the death in June 2006 of Dr Kenneth Rowe, who had been Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of the Council of the University from 1972-85. From the honorary degree oration to him in 1986, it had been obvious that he had been a well respected and loved member of the University, and the Vice-Chancellor had written to his family with the University’s condolences.
06.33 Congratulations
The Chair congratulated the following on behalf of Council:
(a) Dame Suzi Leather who had been appointed Chair of the Charity Commission from 1 August 2006;
(b) The Rt Revd the Lord Bishop of Exeter who had been awarded an Honorary Doctorate of Divinity by the University of Birmingham, for the systematic and sustained application of theology to public life;
(c) Professor Hilary Lappin-Scott who had been elected President of the International Society of Microbial Ecology (ISME) from August 2006;
(d) Professor John Tooke who had been elected Chair of the Council of Heads of Medical Schools, with immediate effect, to 2009.
06.34 Declarations of Interest
The Chair indicated that the Register of Members’ Interests was available with the Secretary and invited members to declare any pecuniary, family or other personal interests pertaining to the business before Council. No such declarations were made.
06.35 Minutes
The minutes of the meeting held on 6 April 2006 were CONFIRMED (CNL/06/29).
MINUTE 06.3 – MINUTES/MINUTE 05.71 – UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE AND MINUTE 05.88 – GUILD OF STUDENTS
It was REPORTED that the Privy Council had approved the amendments to the Charter and Statutes, approved by Council in December 2005.
MINUTE 06.9 – UNIVERSITY OF EXETER CORNWALL CAMPUS – PLANNING FOR PHASE 3
It was REPORTED that it had been decided not to finalise the statement on the University of Cornwall given discussions undertaken in the interim period.
06.36 Office of Chancellor
It was REPORTED that it had been agreed in May 2006, by correspondence with Council members, that Dr Floella Benjamin OBE be appointed to the office of Chancellor and that the Installation had taken place on 11 July 2006.
The Degree Days the previous week had been very happy and successful occasions, owing in no small part to the Chancellor’s personality and interaction with students and parents.
06.37 Vice-Chancellor’s Report
Council RECEIVED a report from the Vice-Chancellor (CNL/06/30).
In addition he reported on the following:
(a) Staff Salaries and Framework Agreement
The recent nationally-negotiated pay deal had been accepted by the three main support staff unions but the result of the University and College Union (UCU) ballot was not expected until that day. If UCU members accepted the deal, in addition to the other unions, it would be implemented from 1 August 2006. If it did not accept the deal, problems would result as it was a national three-year deal, common to all University staff. The deal represented an average minimum increase over three years of 17%, compared to a public sector increase of 2% pa. So far as the Framework Agreement was concerned, a meeting of the Joint Negotiating Committee would be held the following day to see if agreement could be reached, for implementation of the Agreement from 1 August 2006. Again, the three main support staff unions had agreed and there was a remaining problem for UCU concerning no detriment on the first point of the scale. It was important for Council to be aware that Senior Lecturers and Readers would be assimilated across to Senior Lecturer or Associate Professor (a new nomenclature) under the new arrangements.
(b) Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR)
The next CSR was expected to be very tight indeed, so much so that the University management team was considering the possibility of a 2-3% reduction in the unit of resource as a result of it.
(c) Political Parties: HE Policy
It was important for universities to seek to influence the HE policies of the main political parties, and to this end he had agreed to attend meetings of the Conservative Party’s HE group in his capacity as Chair of the 1994 Group, to offer advice. He and others would try to persuade both main parties to set up a joint working party to consider the lifting of the fees cap after 2009.
(d) 1994 Group
He had now taken office as Chair of the 1994 Group, which had agreed to admit additional members – Leicester, Loughborough, SOAS, and Queen Mary and Westfield. In effect, the binary line had now been redrawn under the 38 research-intensive institutions which were members of the Russell Group and 1994 Group.
06.38 Higher Education Research Assessment and Funding
Having received an information pack about the Government’s consultation on the Reform of HE Research Assessment and Funding, Council CONSIDERED oral reports from the Vice-Chancellor and the Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research (Professor Kain).
Referring to the relevant item in the Report from Senate (CNL/06/44), the Vice-Chancellor reiterated the following points:
· The peer-reviewed Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) enabled HEFCE to allocate £1.4b pa of public funding, mostly to QR (the tranche of funding dependant on the grading in the exercise).
· The Roberts Review in 2003 had concluded that the sector wanted to keep the RAE, contrary to expectations, and it had been decided to continue with a version of the original process.
· A document issued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time of his Budget Statement in March 2006 had, however suggested that cancellation of the RAE 2008 might be a possibility, to be replaced by use of “metrics” to assign the £1.4b.
· Following intensive lobbying, including by the Vice-Chancellor as incoming Chair of the 1994 Group, the 2008 RAE would now be going ahead, but the Government was now consulting on the Reform of HE Research Assessment and Funding post the RAE, with a closing date for comments of 13 October, so that the information could be collated in time for the Chancellor’s Pre-Budget Statement.
· If metrics were applied in accordance with some modelling, Exeter would lose 25% of its QR funding but this was unlikely in practice.
· The proposals were designed to direct more funds into Science and applied research, and, counter-intuitively, the post-92 institutions stood to gain the most.
· The dual support system would be under threat if the proposals were adopted.
· It was hoped that the Russell Group and 1994 Group would work together on a combined response to the consultation.
Professor Kain made the following points:
· He was a member of a HEFCE/AHRC Working Party on the use of metrics.
· Research Committee was leading on Exeter’s response, which would take close account of the responses being prepared by the 1994 Group and Russell Group.
· It was crucial not to lose sight of the RAE 2008, the outcomes of which were likely to calibrate the shadow metrics being worked on and would determine QR in 2009/10 at least. Quality benchmarks would be set for a long time by this RAE, and would provide entrance tickets for some streams of competitive funding.
· The pilot RAE was in process and the external assessors were at work, with feedback due by the end of July. From comments already being received, there was support for the calibration of quality resulting from the University’s research output monitoring (ROM) process.
· By the end of August, the templates would be received for the substantive returns to the RAE.
· There would be a further round of ROM in January 2007, followed by meetings of the RAE Review Group which would take decisions about the staff to be submitted.
· Pressure on submitting applications for research grants and contracts would be maintained.
· These were pivotal months for the research future of the University.
In discussion, points made included the following:
(a) given the nature of Treasury interest in University research funding, thought should perhaps be given to applied research by those at the cutting edge: the Treasury was clearly wanting a dividend from the additional funding it had given to research;
(b) even the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) had made a knowledge transfer appointment;
(c) the method put forward in the consultation paper seemed very complex if the aims were to increase science spending and the amount of applied research;
(d) the split was not simply between Science and Arts/Humanities: there was a split within Sciences;
(e) it was important to find the right balance in Science;
(f) it was hoped that the Russell Group and 1994 Group would seek an equitable result, not just for their own institutions;
(g) the drop in research applications at Exeter was worrying and urgent action was needed;
(h) 2006/07 would be an investment year, including good new appointments which would contribute to research success;
(i) the University was on target to submit more than 94% of its academic staff to the RAE, which represented a significant improvement since 2001, the year of the last RAE;
(j) following the RAE, there should be a new HR environment for academic staff motivation;
(k) every effort was being made to ensure that academic staff understood the possible developments ahead.
In conclusion, the Chair commented that Council had had a good preliminary discussion about future research assessment and funding, and would await further reports as appropriate.
06.39 Institutional Performance Review – Corporate Plan and Key Performance Indicators
Council RECEIVED the third and final review of the indicators of success for 2005/06, together with update on the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) presented in the context of the Key Characteristics they supported (CNL/06/31).
The Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor drew attention to the main areas of concern among the indicators of success – research applications and postgraduate research student numbers.
So far as the KPIs were concerned, he drew attention to the following: research outputs (which were good), graduate employability (which was improving), library/IT spend, consultancy income and A level tariff points.
06.40 Corporate Plan 2006-2010
Council CONSIDERED the draft Corporate Plan 2006-2010 (CNL/06/32).
The Chair said that this was the final iteration of the process in which Council had been involved through the year. Risk had been integrated into the Plan and there were ongoing debates on the Education and Estate Strategies.
The Vice-Chancellor added that in future the Corporate Plan would be linked to the Top 20 by 2010 strategy, as would the KPIs. The Chair alerted Council to the significant resources that would be required to underpin the Top 20 Strategy and the difficult decisions that would need to be made.
In discussion, points made included the following:
(a) more mention could perhaps be made of the Cornwall Campus under Outreach;
(b) there appeared to be a gap relating to the need for continuing updating of staff teaching skills in a fast-changing environment under the Core Aims - Education, although members were assured by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor Education that this aspect was not being neglected and would be a key plank of the Education Strategy;
(c) so far as the sections relating to objectives and indicators of success were concerned, it would be good to identify aspects that were uniquely Exeter, with benefits for marketing;
(d) there was some vagueness attached to certain indicators – for example, page 8, 5th bullet point, applications and awards – which should be more specific, page 10, 5th bullet point – percentage of students gaining graduate-level employment – specify x to y%.
Council APPROVED the Corporate Plan 2006-2010, noting that the points made by Council would be taken into account when the next year’s Plan was being drawn up.
06.41 Budget 2006/07 and Financial Forecasts to 2009/10
Council CONSIDERED a paper (CNL/06/33), presenting the budget for 2006/07 and financial forecast to 2009/10.