Council Minutes: 17 May 2002
1. Minutes
2. Chairman's Report
3. Vice-Chancellor's Financial Report
4. The Budget 2002/2003 and Capital Priorities
5. Vice-Chancellor's Report
6. Senate Report
7. Appeals and Grievances
8. People Strategy
Present:
Mr J M Woolley (Chairman)
| The Vice-Chancellor | Professor D V Evans | Councillor W L Martin |
| Mr J O Bailey | Councillor P Fisher | Mr T Pearce |
| Councillor K Barnard | Mr J S Foulds | Mr T Ross |
| Mrs A Bernays | Mr S A Goldsmith | Mr T R Thom |
| Mr N Biddle | Mr M J Gorman | Miss B Turner |
| Mr J Bramhall | Mr R Hinton | Mrs J Venner-Pack |
| Professor P Broadfoot | Professor R Hodder-Williams | Mr K Yarwood |
| Dr S R Clarke | Dr J S Littler | |
| Miss S Docherty | Mr M Liversidge |
In attendance: Registrar, Secretary, Finance Director.
Apologies were received from Ms M Ali, Professor R Bailey-Harris, Professor Sir John Beringer, Dr D Clark, Mavis Lady Dunrossil and Mr G A Matthews.
The Chairman congratulated Councillor Martin on his appointment as Lord Mayor of Bristol. The Chairman thanked the Finance Director for his presentation on the budget for 2002/2003 which had taken place from 9.30-10.30am.
1. MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on 22 March 2002 were confirmed.
2. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
2.1 Council committees
Council’s Nominations Committee would meet in June, to consider committee membership from 1 August 2002 and to review the terms of reference of Council committees. Those coming to the end of a term of office were as follows:
Development Committee
Mr Michael Gorman
Professor Selby Knox
Estates Committee
Mr Tim Pearce
Professor Stephen Lisney
Joint Committee on Honorary Degrees
Mrs Jane Venner-Pack
Safety Committee
Mr Peter Fisher
Professor Max Headley
Dr Ken MacNeil
Dr John May
Staff Committee Dr Ken MacNeil
Dr Kay Barnard Dr John May
Strategic Planning Committee
Dr Kay Barnard Professor
Equal Opportunities Advisory Group
Professor Richard Hodder-Williams
Joint Committee with the Students’ Union
Michael Gorman
Professor Patricia Broadfootn
Dr Sean Collins
Finance Advisory Group (unless replaced by a Finance Committee)
Mr Roderick Davidson
Mr Normal Biddle
2.2 Audit Committee
Court’s Nominations Committee had agreed that Mr Geoff Williams should continue to serve on the Audit Committee from 2002 to 2005.
3. VICE -CHANCELLOR’S FINANCIAL REPORT
Received: Vice-Chancellor's Financial Report. Full report available from the Finance Office.
The Finance Director introduced the report, saying there was an improvement since the last report in the surplus on the income and expenditure account. The April figures were encouraging and indicated that the University was moving towards achieving its budgeted surplus. However cash flow was more difficult and it was unlikely that the original budget would be achieved.
Mrs Venner-Pack asked why income from residences and catering had gone down. The Registrar replied that the University now had fewer student beds, but it was thought that the income target would be met. Dr Barnard asked why there was an overspend on salaries in the Faculty of Medicine. The Finance Director replied that the expected turnover in staff had not been achieved, so salary spend was over budget. In addition there were significant budgetary pressures within ALSPAC. ALSPAC was now taking appropriate steps to rectify the situation. ALSPAC was well supported with funds of nearly £8m from the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council.
Councillor Martin asked for further information about the overspend in Medicine. The Vice-Chancellor replied that at its meeting in July, Council would be receiving a report from the review of Clinical Medicine when these issues could be further considered.
4. THE BUDGET 2002/2003 AND CAPITAL PRIORITIES
Received: Paper from the Registrar and Bursar on Capital Priorities, and the Budget 2002/2003, see Appendix 1.
The Registrar gave a presentation on capital priorities and the financial strategy. The Registrar and the Bursar had submitted a paper setting out the University’s capital demands over the next ten years. Council would be responsible for the University’s financial strategy, with input from the Committee of Deans and the Estates Committee.
To meet the demand for capital expenditure to sustain buildings and equipment in steady state, the University needed to increase its annual operating surplus to £8m or more. In the last two years, budgeted surpluses had been met only by VAT savings or sales of shares. The University should not increase its borrowings beyond the current maximum permitted level of £75m.
University departments had been invited to identify their capital requirements. The total cost was just under £300m. Potential disposals had been identified to a total of £42.5m, but before they could be realised, many of the disposals would bring costs, for example to relocate departments. The next tasks were to complete the academic, pastoral and financial cases for projects, edit the lists of projects, manage expectations and prepare a Precinct Master Plan. Optimal funding sources should be identified for each project and the projects should then be ranked. Ranking criteria included the risks involved in not proceeding with a project, the fitness of existing buildings for their purpose, infra-structural needs, legitimate plans for expansion, cost savings, income generation and overall fairness.
Mr Goldsmith thanked the Registrar for a professional presentation in a difficult area. He noted that large developments in the past, particularly the Synthetic Chemistry Building, the Dorothy Hodgkin Building and the new Sports Centre, had proceeded on the basis of business plans which would repay the costs over a period of years. Mr Goldsmith asked whether any follow-up had been carried out to see whether, for example in the case of Chemistry, the predicted returns had been achieved. The Registrar replied that this had been discussed with Professor Knox. The School of Chemistry was bringing in good returns. However part of the investment had been made for teaching laboratories in Medical Sciences, and Medical Sciences appeared not to have been party to the business plan. It was accepted that a post-completion report covering this issue should be taken to Council through the Estates Committee.
The Vice-Chancellor pointed out that such cost-covering business plans were relatively easy to prepare for scientific departments, but were more or less impossible in the Arts Faculty, where similar income streams were not readily available.
Mr Foulds noted the size of the capital priorities list and asked what the impact would be on departments if they were not awarded the investment they were seeking. He asked whether it might not be better to reduce the number of departments, in order to sustain the University’s position on a global scale. The Vice Chancellor replied that he would be apprehensive about changing the academic shape of the University. The University was not large, nor were its academic endeavours thinly spread. In the Vice-Chancellor’s view, the real question was where capital could be found to fund the University’s ambitions. This would be the real issue over the next 5-7 years.
Professor Hodder-Williams observed that he had just completed three internal departmental reviews in which outside assessors had been involved. All three reports would say that the department in question provided working conditions which were less than satisfactory and had second-rate laboratories.
Mr Ross asked whether it was realistic for the University to attempt to be world class across the board. The Vice-Chancellor replied that this was at the heart of the University’s vision. In many areas the University was already world class. The sector was now global - the Financial Times had recently listed a global University league table. It was essential to look to the rest of the world, otherwise the University would enter a period of decline. What was required was additional finance.
Council thanked the Registrar and the Bursar for their clear and helpful papers.
The Finance Director reviewed the University’s budget objectives and explained how they had been met. It was essential to maintain investment in the academic initiative and this had been achieved by a significant increase in income from the block grant for research, and student fees. It had been decided to reverse the reduced investment in support services, where real cuts had been applied year by year in spite of increases in workload. The base had been corrected and inflationary increases added. There was £2.6m of investment in corporate activities, for example in IT and Information Systems support, the Library and Widening Participation.
It was essential to continue with operating surpluses and the budget allowed for a surplus of £5.25m in line with the University Plan. Borrowings had to be controlled to a level which would not threaten the University’s well-being. Planned net borrowings were £68m, which was within the current authorised maximum borrowing level of £75m. This retained a cushion in case of emergency.
There were real risks within the budget, but steps had been taken to reduce them to an acceptable level. These included, for example, the possibility that the University might not be in a position to lease student residences to the Higher Education Trust.
Mr Gorman proposed that the University should put more effort into attempts to increase income from non-government sources. Council should be in charge of such a programme. Mr Biddle supported this idea, suggesting the appointment of a commercial research manager.
The Vice Chancellor replied that the University was increasing its income, for example income on research contracts had increased by 10%. It was certainly important to increase it further and to try to maximise income from intellectual property, but returns from intellectual property in higher education had tended to be less than expected. With regard to philanthropic funds, these could sometimes result in a net cost to the University, for example, following the appointment of a professor without funds to provide staff support and facilities. However the Vice-Chancellor would welcome any ideas from Council on ways to increase income.
Professor Broadfoot felt that the University could increase its income from postgraduate students. This was an area which had been somewhat neglected in the past. The Finance Director agreed that student fees were a growth area, particularly for postgraduates and overseas students. The Vice Chancellor pointed out that there were capacity problems, as significant increases in student numbers would require significant investment in residences and support services. The Government was working to a 50% participation rate in higher education by 2010 and the University of Bristol would have to decide whether or not it was going to participate fully in this programme. In areas such as History and English, where the ratio of applicants to places was more than 30:1, this would be relatively easy to do, but it would have to be carefully costed.
Council approved the budget for 2002/2003.
5. VICE CHANCELLOR’S REPORT
5.1 HEFCE Audit Report
The University had been audited by the HEFCE and seven recommendations had been made. The Vice Chancellor pointed out that it was not unusual to have tens of recommendations, so the outcome of the audit was not a bad one. The recommendations were:
- Council and senior management should consider the role of the Finance Advisory Group and the role of the Treasurer
- Council’s quorum should be amended to include a requirement for a lay majority
- Each Council committee should be given quorum, indicating both numbers types of member
- A fraud policy should be adopted
- The internal audit report should include an opinion on the University’s arrangements for value for money, highlighting the arrangements supporting that opinion
- The Audit Committee’s annual report should include an opinion on the University’s arrangements for value for money
- Work to embed risk management procedures should ensure that these were in place by August 2002
The Vice Chancellor recommended agreement to proposals 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. With regard to proposal 1, it was agreed that Council’s Nominations Committee would consider, on 6 June 2002, the possible constitution of a Finance Committee, which Council would discuss at its meeting in July together with consideration of the role of the Treasurer. With regard to recommendation 7, the concern had been that academic departments were not yet fully engaged in risk management ways of thinking. The University Secretary had just given a successful forum on risk management to heads of academic departments and a risk management policy would be brought to Council in July.
5.2 Capital projects
A schedule of capital projects is at Appendix 2 (Word 446 KB, PDF 976 KB).
The Vice Chancellor brought Council briefly up to date with the main current capital projects. There was a delay of at least 6 weeks in the Centre for Sport, Exercise and Health, which was being closely monitored. Liquidated damages were available within the contract at £12,000 per week.
The Vice Chancellor said there were different levels of risk on various SRIF projects and some would need to be revisited. For example, ALSPAC were now settled in the old Children’s Hospital and it might be possible for them to stay there, rather than moving into Hampton House. It might then be possible to use some of the SRIF money for the purchase of the Children’s Hospital site and Hampton House could then be used for further undergraduate accommodation.
5.3 Long Ashton Research Station
The planning application for development of Long Ashton site had now been registered with North Somerset Council, following a review meeting with a team of Directorate staff. It was hoped that the application would be considered formally at the September 2002 local area committee meeting.
Councillor Fisher said there was a need to align University thinking with that of North Somerset Council. The planning application was not agreed and there were serious loose ends to sort out. Mr Pearce supported this, saying that if the University wanted a successful outcome by September 2002, it might have to make some concessions. Unless agreement was reached with the planners there could be considerable delay, which would mean a delay in obtaining capital value from the land.
The Registrar said the Bursar was very aware of these difficulties and was working hard to reach a satisfactory outcome, but the Registrar would reinforce those points with him.
5.4 Future of the Students’ Union Building
The Vice Chancellor said there were still concerns about the future of the Students’ Union building and the students needed clear guidance as to the University’s plans. This had been discussed in detail at the Estates Committee on 3 May 2002. There was concern that money was being spent on the Union building for no return. It was agreed that the Bursar would produce a detailed paper for Council. Given pressures on the Bursar arising from current projects, this paper would probably be presented to Council in October 2002.Mr Biddle noted that he disagreed with the Bursar’s figures and he would speak directly to the Bursar about this.
5.5 Information Strategy
The Registrar, together with Information Services, had produced a draft Information Systems and IT Strategy, which would be presented to Council at its meeting in July 2002.
5.6 UBPAS
The Vice Chancellor said he had chaired a meeting of the Trustees of UBPAS, staff members and University members, when the process for negotiating staff benefits, including pensions benefits, had been discussed. The trade unions had highlighted the fact that there was no forum in which pensions benefits could be considered. It had been agreed that there would be meetings in the future to discuss all benefits of employment. The Personnel Director was establishing a framework with the unions. Any proposed changes to benefits would of course be discussed at the Staff Committee and Council.
5.7 Review of Clinical Medicine
A group under the chairmanship of Professor Hodder-Williams had been conducting a review of Clinical Medicine and would report to Council in July.
5.8 Current issues in the Development Office
The Vice-Chancellor informed Council that Dr Lockhart had resigned as Development Director and would be moving to University College London. There were significant staff losses in the Development Office, as both Deputy Development Directors, Mr Stevenson and Ms Richardson, were also leaving.
However this afforded a timely opportunity for the University to rethink its Development Strategy up to the Centenary celebrations of 2009, and to review the structure of the Development Office. Ian Moore Associates had been engaged to help the University to consider these issues, which would also be discussed at the Development Committee.
Council sent messages of thanks to Dr Lockhart, Mr Stevenson and all the staff in the Development Office, with congratulations on the new appointments.
5.9 Charter Day
Charter Day would take place on 22 May, when some sixty guests would be invited.
5.10 Chair committees
The following chair appointments had been made.
Chair of Lifespan Psychology (within ALSPAC)
Professor Dieter Wolke, currently Research Professor of Psychology at the University of Hertfordshire. This appointment was made under the Exceptional Talent procedure.
Urban Studies
Dr Adrian Franklin, currently Reader in the School of Sociology and Social Work at the University of Tasmania, Australia.
Philosophy
Dr Steven French, Reader in the Philosophy of Science at the University of Leeds. However Dr French declined to take up the appointment.
Sir George White Chair in Aerospace Engineering
Professor Michael Friswell, currently Professor of Mechanical Engineering, University of Wales Swansea.
6. SENATE REPORT
See Appendix 3.
The Vice Chancellor noted in particular that the quota on promotions to senior lecturer grade had been removed. This had resulted in a small increase in the number of academic staff promoted, and had meant that the promotions procedure had been conducted in a more positive spirit than before.
Work on the academic reorganisation was continuing. Council would be given regular updates on progress.
Council agreed to the recommendations in Part A of the report and under reserved business.
7. APPEALS AND GRIEVANCES
Not Available.
8. PEOPLE STRATEGY
At 2.00pm the Personnel Director attended Council’s discussion of the People Strategy, together with Ms Fiona Ford and Ms Kim England (Deputy Personnel Directors) and Mr Rick Glover (Personnel Adviser – Reward).
Mr Foulds introduced the People Strategy, which was due to be submitted to the HEFCE by the end of May 2002. He emphasised that the University’s People Strategy was not new, it would evolve over time and was personal to the University. Much progress had been made and he congratulated all who had been involved.
The shape of the People Strategy had been improved as a result of the articulation of the University’s vision. The Strategy now included action plans, which would shape events to come. It was important to ensure that there was full consultation and widespread ownership of the Strategy. Its implementation would involve considerable cost in staff time and effort and it was sensible to adopt reasonable timescales to accommodate this. However, the benefits were potentially very substantial.
The Personnel Director then gave a presentation on the People Strategy, which was followed by discussion, which mainly centred on the University’s proposals for job evaluation and regrading. It was noted that there were differing opinions as to the most appropriate job evaluation scheme.
Professor Evans felt that further work needed to be done in managing poor performance. The Vice Chancellor said that overall this was not a significant problem and it was important not to damage morale by over-reacting. It was agreed that there was a need to improve training within the University, in particular management training.
Council approved the People Strategy for submission to the HEFCE.
Date of next meeting: Friday 5 July 2002
Note: Some of the documents on this page are in PDF format. In order to view the PDF you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader