Heads of Colleges Committee Working Group on the Vice-Chancellor S Development Fund (Vcdf)

VICE-CHANCELLOR’S DEVELOPMENT FUND (VCDF)

REPORT BY:The Vice-Chancellor

1.At its meeting on 22 February 2008, the Heads of College Committee (HOCC) agreed that:

‘(i) a Working Group of Heads of the External System Lead Colleges should be convened to consider proposals for changes to the External System contributions to the VCDF;

(ii) that the proposals should take into account the consequences of proposed changes for other parts of the University which were currently benefiting from the VCDF; and

(iii) that applications to the VCDF for 2008-09 should be considered within the context of utilising VCDF reserves rather than the expectation of inflows to the Fund at levels the same as for previous years.’

2.In relation to recommendation (i) above, immediately after themeeting of the HOCC on 23 May 2008, the following Heads of Colleges and the Vice-Chancellor (Chairman)convened to consider proposals for changes to the External System contributions to the VCDF:

(i) Professor Geoffrey Crossick (Warden, Goldsmiths, University of London);

(ii) Professor Malcolm Grant (President and Provost, UCL);

(iii) Professor Janet Hartley (Acting Director, London School of Economics and Political Science);

(iv) Professor Stephen Hill (Principal, Royal Holloway, University of London);

(v) Professor David Latchman (Master, Birkbeck, University of London);

(vi) Professor Adrian Smith (Principal, Queen Mary, University of London); and

(vii) Professor Dylan Wiliam (Acting Director, Institute of Education, University of London).

3.The Working Group noted that the Council had resolved in December 2001 that the External System should be charged 5% of its turnover for use of the University of London brand - the amounts generated from this charge have hitherto been diverted into the VCDF. With regard to the use of the VCDF, it was reported that bids for funding from the VCDF were considered on an annual basis, with academic initiatives which benefited the collective interests of the Colleges looked upon most favourably. Details of funding allocations from the VCDF for 2004 to 2006 were received by the Working Group and allocations for 2007-08 are elsewhere on the agenda (see item 26, Document C932).

4.The Working Group noted thatthe charge on the External System for 2007-08 had been reduced to 3% of turnover as a result of the HOCC’s conclusion in May 2007that the current arrangements were unsatisfactory because it was felt that the External System Lead Colleges should be the sole beneficiaries of External System revenues. The 3% charge had been viewed as transitional until a decision about the future of the VCDF had been formally approved by the HOCC and the Council.

5.The Working Group expressed disquiet about the inequity of the current arrangements whereby: (i) External System revenues were cross-subsidising unrelated activities; (ii) a subset of Colleges was generating revenues which, through the VCDF, were funding activities which benefited other Colleges of the University; and (iii) only the Lead Colleges were being charged for the use of the University of London brand. Consequently, the Working Group concluded that the charge on the External System for use of the University of London brand could no longer be justified and the HOCC, at its meeting on 20 June 2008, supported this conclusion.

6.In discussing the prospective discontinuation of the charge, the Working Group considered the consequences upon those parts of the University which had, to a significant extent, relied upon VCDF funding, most notably activities within the School of Advanced Study (SAS). Whilst members agreed that SAS was a great academic asset to the University, it was felt that its reliance upon VCDF funding was imprudent. However, it was noted that SAS and the University of London Research Library Services (ULRLS) (which had also benefited from VCDF allocations) would both be undertaking programmes of significant change in the next few years following the outcomes of recent reviews by the Higher Education Funding Council for England. In view of the foreseeable upheaval within both SAS and the ULRLS arising from these programmes of change, members noted the importance of avoiding further measures which might destabilise either. Consequently, the Working Group and the HOCC agreed that there should be a phased abatement of the VCDF.

7.At its meeting on 20 June 2008, the HOCC approved a proposal that the phased abatement should be such that contributions from the External System turnover to the VCDF should decline as follows:

(i) 2008-093%

(ii) 2009-102%

(iii) 2010-111%

(iv) 0% thereafter

8.The HOCC noted that the proposed phasing took into account the current balance in the VCDF and current and future commitments, and would ensure the necessary level of support for ongoing projects. In particular, it was noted that the proposals would ensure adequate coverage of existing SAS commitments during its five year transition to its new funding basis following its recent review by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE).

9.In view of the recommendation that the VCDF be phased out, the Working Group discussed possible alternative funding streams for future academic initiatives which might benefit the collective interests of the Colleges. It was agreed that the most appropriate mechanism would be for bids to be submitted directly to the Collegiate Council, which would then consider proposals (together with proposals for the federal Subscription and Charges for services) annually at its May meeting. Bids to this ‘third stream’ of funding would need to demonstrate how collective funding could offer strategic benefits which could not otherwise be derived from Colleges acting alone or collaboratively. The HOCC, at its meeting on 20 June 2008, supported both these recommendations.

RECOMMENDED TO THE COUNCIL

(i) That the current charge on the External System for use of the University of London brand should be phased out as follows so as to avoid any destabilization of those parts of the University reliant, to a significant extent, upon funds from the VCDF:

(a) 2008-093% of turnover

(b) 2009-102%

(c) 2010-111%

(d) 0% thereafter

(ii) That,in future, funding bids for academic initiatives which would previously have been submitted to the VCDF should instead be considered by the Collegiate Council annually at its May meeting.

(iii) That any future bids to the Collegiate Council ‘third stream’ of funding would need to demonstrate how collective funding could offer strategic benefits which could not otherwise be derived from Colleges acting alone or collaboratively.

Sir Graeme Davies

Cs/council/june08/vcdf

1