Council Minutes: 29 September 2006
Present: Dr J M Woolley (Chair), Mr J O Bailey, Mr N Barnett, Mrs A Bernays, Mr J Bramhall, Mr D Burn, Professor D Clarke, Mr C Curling, Professor R Deem, Lady M Dunrossil, Mr R Dufton, Mr J Foulds, Ms A Ganapathy, Mr S Goldsmith, Professor L Hall, Professor S Knox, Mr T MacDonald, Mr R Massie, Dr S Lyne, Mrs D Moore, Mr G Morton, Mr T Stevenson, Mr T Thom, Professor E Thomas, Mr B Ullmann, Mrs J Venner-Pack, Mr J Wadsworth, Mrs C Waithe, Professor A Waterman-Pearson
In Attendance: Registrar, Secretary, Deputy Registrar, Finance Director, Professor Malcolm Anderson, Personnel and Staff Development Director, Bursar
Apologies: Cllr T Cook, Mr D Ord, Mr T Ross
________________________________________________________________________
Council had received a presentation by Professor Malcolm Anderson, Dr Sian Thomas and Dr Neil Bradshaw on "Developing an inspiring, innovative and enterprising culture at Bristol" before the meeting.
The Chairman welcomed Dr Stephen Lyne, Professor Rosemary Deem and James Wadsworth to their first Council meeting.
1. Apologies for absence
Apologies were received from Councillor Terry Cook, Mr David Ord and Mr Tim Ross.
2. Minutes of the meeting on 30 June 2006
APPROVED: minutes of the meeting dated 30 June 2006 (previously circulated, copy in the minute book).
3. Chairman's Report
RECEIVED: the Chairman’s Report (reference number CN/06/102, previously circulated, copy in the minute book).
3.1 NOTED: that the Chairman had exercised his powers under Ordinance 3 to approve the decision of the Council Appeal Committee in the Daniel Doherty decision.
3.2 NOTED: that Mr Keith Bonham, Mrs Pip Willoughby and Mr Alastair Scott had been reappointed to serve on the Nominations Committee of Court for 3 years from 1st August 2006.
4. Matters for Decision
4.1 AGREED: the following amendment to statute 12 (Meetings of Court) proposed by the University Secretary (Reference No.CN/06/105, previously circulated). The change was approved by Special Resolution but would not take effect until approved by the Privy Council.
STATUTE 12 - Meetings of Court
Place and time
1. All meetings of Court shall be held in Bristol.
Annual meeting
2. The Annual Meeting of Court shall normally be held in November or December. Council shall determine the date and place. Council shall present a report of its proceedings during the preceding academic year, including a report on Ordinance changes, and an audited statement of accounts for the preceding financial year. A copy of the report and statement shall be sent to every member of Court at least seven days before the meeting.
Special meetings
3. The Chancellor may call a meeting of Court at any time and shall call a meeting to be held within eight weeks of the receipt by him or her of a written request to do so from Council or from no fewer than twenty-five members of Court. The Chancellor shall determine the date and place of any meeting so called.
Notice
4. The Secretary shall send notice of every meeting of Court not less than twenty eight thirty five days before the day fixed for such meeting. Any member of Court wishing to bring forward any business at a meeting shall give the Secretary written notice of it not less than twenty one days before the day appointed for the meeting provided that such business shall not be included on the agenda unless no fewer than 9 other members of Court have indicated their support either by signing the notice or writing to the Secretary indicating their support for the business to be discussed. This shall not apply to business brought forward by Council. Not less than seven days before any meeting of Court the Secretary shall send every member of Court a statement of all business, and no business shall be considered at the meeting except that included in the statement. For the purposes of this Statute, any notice or written communication to the Secretary may be given by email.
Quorum
5. The quorum of Court shall be forty-five. If there is not a quorum present at a meeting, the Chancellor shall adjourn the meeting to a time later the same day. If there is still no quorum present, the meeting may be adjourned to another day as the Chancellor thinks fit.
Procedure
6. The procedure at meetings of Court shall be in accordance with standing orders of Court
4.2 Not available.
4.3 Capital Priorities - New Mathematics Building
RECEIVED: a paper on Capital Priorities –seeking Council’s approval for a new Mathematics building (Reference No. CN/06/118, previously circulated, copy in the minute book)
APPROVED: the proposed investment of £34,417,000 in the new Mathematics building. As the proposal had been the subject of a presentation at the previous day’s Council Away Day there was no further discussion on the paper. However, the ratio between gross and net floor area in the paper was noted and the Bursar agreed to review this. He considered it likely that it reflected the intention to create interactive space rather than corridors within the new building. NOTED: the approval was for capital investment of £34,417,000 but £8million of the proposed investment was subject to review of identified items in the expenditure.
Jane Venner-Pack asked that consideration be given to the reinstatement of smaller projects, in particular the Equine Surgery at Langford, where their timing in coming to Sifting Committee was affected adversely by the priority given to large proposals such as the new Mathematics building.
NOTED: that the provision of large scale teaching facilities had been included in the Nucleus project but that consideration would be given to whether the alternative inclusion of a 500 seat lecture theatre within the new Mathematics building could provide this facility. The Vice-Chancellor said that analysis of the need for large scale teaching facilities had not yet been completed. He needed further reassurance that any such facility would be fully utilised.
4.4 Staff Social Facilities
RECEIVED: a paper on Staff Social Facilities (Reference No. CN/06/119 previously circulated, copy in the minute book). The existence of two social clubs, one for academic and one for non-academic staff, was outdated. The proposal was to combine facilities for all categories of staff into a single facility within the Hawthorns. This entailed approximately £100,000 of funding and was consistent with the PWC agenda which stresses the importance of every member of the University staff. The proposal was to re-provide the same level of facilities that the two groups’ memberships currently enjoy. The proposal was approved.
4.5 University RAE 2008 Code of Practice
RECEIVED: proposed University of Bristol RAE 2008 Code of Practice (Reference No. CN/06/120 previously circulated, copy in the minute book).
NOTED: the code was a requirement of HEFCE. It would fall away once the RAE was complete. In the meantime the University needed to be able to respond quickly to staff appeals. The procedure in the code follows the procedure for other appeals but on expedited basis. The Code was approved.
4.6 Review of the University Research Strategy
RECEIVED: Review of the University Research Strategy 2003-2008 (Reference No. CN/06/116 previously circulated, copy in the minute book).
This item and item 4.7 have not yet been approved by UPARC and were, therefore, not currently with Council for approval but only for comment. They would be resubmitted to Council for approval at a later date. The Vice-Chair of Council asked that reference be made in the revised Research Strategy to the role of the Ethics of Research Committee.
The Treasurer asked that consideration be given to appointing to Council a lay member or members with specific expertise or experience in research (page 5 action item 3.14). The Vice-Chair of Council noted this suggestion as something that could be taken up by the Nominations Committee of Court.
4.7 University Knowledge Exchange and Enterprise Action Plan
RECEIVED: Knowledge Exchange and Enterprise Action Plan 2006-2009 (Reference No. CN/06/117, previously circulated, copy in the minute book).
4.8 Grant of Honorary Academic Status as a Visiting Professor in the Graduate School of Education to Patricia Broadfoot
APPROVED: (with acclaim) the exercise of "Vacation Powers" by the Vice-Chancellor on behalf of Senate in granting honorary status as a Visiting Professor to Patricia Broadfoot.
4.9 Change of Authorised Signatories for the Bank Mandate
RECEIVED AND APPROVED: a paper from the Finance Office requesting the removal of Professor Patricia Broadfoot and the addition of Professor Avril Waterman-Pearson as an authorised signatory for the University’s Bank Mandate.
5.0 Matters for Discussion
5.1 Vice-Chancellor's Matters:
5.1.1 RECEIVED: Vice-Chancellor’s Financial Report, including matters for report from Finance Committee (Reference No. CN/06/109 previously circulated, copy in the minute book). The Finance Director presented this paper.
NOTED: that the Finance Committee had approved expenditure of £1.4million on Arts equipment upgrade, phased over 3 years and expenditure of £3.97million on a new animal behaviour and welfare building, both within the Committee’s delegated authority.
NOTED: the Finance Committee also approved the principle of taking a ten year lease (with a break clause at 5 years) of 103 Temple Street at annualised costs of £730,000 (including service charges, rates and VAT). This project would provide space to ALSPAC and would also require £2.5million in refurbishment and relocation costs. The rental cost and capital were not yet reflected in the University’s financial forecasts.
NOTED: the Financial Statements for the year ended 31st July 2006 were being worked on by the external auditors, PriceWaterhouse Coopers, and would be finalised by the next Council meeting.
NOTED: that additional borrowing facilities of £50million were being negotiated with European Investment Bank. Mr George Morton suggested that a larger facility be negotiated, of say £60million, to take advantage of very attractive terms even if this meant refinancing other elements of the University's borrowing facilities. It was noted that these facilities had to be drawn for particular projects but the University had no difficulty in identifying projects to which such funding could be applied. Acceptance of a new European Investment Bank facility was approved in principle.
5.1.2 Vice-Chancellor's Report:
RECEIVED: the Vice Chancellor’s Report (reference number CN/06/110, previously circulated, copy in the minute book).
(i) Changes to the RAE and Potential Implications: The Vice-Chancellor reported that the RAE 2008 would be completed and would inform funding decisions for a couple of years beyond 2008. After that universities would increasingly be moving towards metrics based allocations so that, in his opinion, by about 2014 the current RAE process would have been superseded by metrics.
(ii) Safeguarding Children in Higher Education: The Vice-Chancellor noted that the Children Act 1989 places substantial responsibilities on staff coming into contact with people under the age of 18 (as well as adults described as vulnerable). The Minister of State for Education, Mr Bill Rammel, had written to all HEI's to ensure that robust arrangements are in place to protect children. Given that universities are autonomous institutions the Vice-Chancellor felt that they should not have received this instruction from the Department for Education and Skills. Nevertheless the University of Bristol was working towards developing a policy in relation to its interaction with children (for example Summer Schools and Widening Participation initiatives) and was reviewing its policy not to take as students people under the age of 18 in the light of new age discrimination legislation. The Vice-Chancellor was comfortable that where the University is running activities for children they are being carried out to the requisite standard of care. He was less comfortable that this was the case where the activities are being run by third parties, for example language schools using University halls of residence over the summer. Even where the University would not be strictly liable for failures in relation to these activities, its reputation could be damaged where children and young people are not being properly safeguarded. The fact that the University's insurance covers third party liabilities was not a complete answer to these concerns.
(iii) CACS Update: The Vice-Chancellor said that the petitioners objecting to the closure of CACS had wrongly claimed on the radio and in print that the Council meeting had been deliberately moved from Senate House to Langford to avoid their demonstration. The evidence clearly showed that this was not true and that the decision to hold the meeting at Langford had been taken several months before the demonstration was organised. As regards the decision to close the course, although acknowledging that this was a great loss to the students on the course, the reasons for the decision remained sound. Lifelong Learning programmes delivered by academic department might be able to offer scaled down versions of the courses as part of their public engagement programme, but this would need to be part of, and funded by, their core activities.
(iv) BA Festival of Science 2009: The Vice-Chancellor was delighted that the University had been invited to host the British Association for the Advancement of Science Festival and it had chosen to do so in 2009, the University’s centenary year.
(v) University Personnel Association 2006 Awards: The Vice-Chancellor congratulated Mr Guy Gregory and his team in Personnel and Staff Development on the award of “Highly Commended” at the University Personnel Association 2006 Awards.
(vi) World University Rankings: The Vice-Chancellor noted that Newsweek's ranking of the University as 49th in the world was good news but he also noted that maintaining this position would remain a challenge.
(vii) Spark Emersons Green - Memorandum of Understanding with Bath and UWE: The Vice-Chancellor noted that the development of the Science Park was going ahead and that a developer had been selected (although as yet the contract had not been signed). The first building in the project would include the innovation centre and incubator unit. Eventually, when the Science Park was fully operational, the RDA was looking to create 5,500 jobs.
(viii) National Student Survey: The Vice-Chancellor stated that as around 190,000 students had responded to the National Student Survey and it therefore represented a sufficient number of views to be important. An average score of 4.1 out of 5 represented a high degree of satisfaction with Bristol and was to be celebrated. The President of the Students’ Union pointed out that a good use of the survey was not so much in comparing ranking, but comparing changes in survey results year on year. He expressed concern that the capital programme in relation to the Nucleus Project no longer appeared in the University's budget up to 2010. He flagged with Council how important the new facilities for students within the Nucleus Project were in relation to improving the student experience at Bristol. The Vice-Chancellor confirmed his personal commitment to re-provide the Students’ Union with a building that was fit for purpose and which would be in the heart of the University's campus. However the Nucleus Project had inflated the costs of this proposition to around £90million and it was this cost that needed review not the objective to fund a new Students’ Union building.
(ix) Progress Report on 2005/06 Admissions: The Vice-Chancellor reported that this year the University was close to admitting students with an average entry attainment of three A's. The selection of suitable entrants and the ability to differentiate remained a challenge. In addition this year the UCAS new computer had caused some difficulties and delays. UCAS was proposing to allow students to submit different personal statements in relation to each of their 6 chosen universities. Various headteachers had asked that representatives be able to attend interviews for Medical School. The Vice-Chancellor was concerned that if he declined the University would appear to lack transparency. However if observers attended for one interview it might put that applicant at a disadvantage relative to others and therefore the observers would have to attend for all interviews. In answer to a concern that increasing admissions would put pressure on the student residences, the Registrar replied that with growth currently at 1 to 2% per annum the pressure on residences was manageable. The Vice-Chancellor reported that home undergraduate application numbers had remained steady this year, indicating that the introduction of the £3000 tuition fee had not significantly affected Bristol applicants. Overseas application numbers had fallen for the second year running but offer and acceptance rates were higher (351 students this year compared with 284 in 2005 and 324 in 2004). Numbers for postgraduate admissions for 2006 were more difficult to predict. However the numbers currently imply that home postgraduate numbers are likely to be lower than last year but with a possible increase in international postgraduate admissions. Numbers will be firmer by November. Council members expressed concern that postgraduate students should have the necessary language skills to do well at Bristol. There was also a request that the closing dates across the University for postgraduate admissions be rationalised to enable the University to tell the students earlier what financial help they may be eligible for.
(x) The Vice-Chancellor reported that Professor Kathy Sykes had been given a permanent Chair as Professor of Public Engagement in Science and Engineering. Professor Sykes’ contribution to the University was applauded.
5.2 Faculty of Medical & Veterinary Sciences Report
RECEIVED: Dean's Report on the Faculty of Medical & Veterinary Sciences 2006-07 (Reference No. CN/06/111, previously circulated, copy in the minute book). The Dean presented his paper drawing Council’s attention to the key issues for the Faculty: namely the Langford Clinical Veterinary Services Project (aimed at creating an independent, self sustaining clinical business at Langford under the auspices of the University but with freedom to reinvest its income and promote its business), the refurbishment of the animal accommodation (where delays in completing the refurbishment had impacted adversely on the Faculty but which should be complete by Christmas), the success of the Centre of Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) and the AIMS Centre, which included the successful mannequin suite and would include a mobile laboratory to enable outreach activity.
Income from teaching in the Faculty had been rising at approximately 14% per annum (43% over the past 3 years). The 2005 National Student Survey ranked Bristol as Best Veterinary School in the UK and in 2006 ranked Medical Sciences as Best in the UK. Undergraduate recruitment continued to be buoyant with a meteoric increase in student applications in the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine following its renaming. Recruitment of postgraduate research students has remained unchanged over the past 4 years largely due to limited availability of studentships to fund these students. However the current year sees the addition of six more Research Council PhD studentships per annum following the award of a BBSRC doctoral training account to anatomy, physiology and pharmacology.
Research income, which accounts for virtually half of the Faculty’s income, showed a 10% increase over 4 years although within this figure some departments were doing much better than this in increasing their research incomes.
The Faculty had been careful to control rising staff costs and had achieved a decrease of 2% in staff numbers since the Faculty was formed 4 years ago. This saving had released cash for non-salary spending. The Faculty’s cash contribution to the University continued to rise (26% in 2005/06) and was budgeted to be over 30% in 2006/07. All the departments in the Faculty had achieved their budgets in the previous financial year.
The Vice-Chancellor congratulated the Dean on his well managed and well led Faculty which he described as a “jewel in the University’s crown”.
In reply to an enquiry about postgraduate numbers the Dean referred to the recently introduced MSc in Biomedical Sciences Research, the purpose of which was not so much to make money as to persuade good quality students to stay on to do a PhD at the University.
In reply to a question about the impact of transferring staff from fixed term to permanent contracts the Dean felt that it was early days and the Faculty was probably experiencing much the same turnover of staff. However the culture has changed so that staff think longer term and before recruiting they now look around the Faculty to see who may be available when writing their grant applications. On the whole the Dean believed the change had been positive
5.3 Ethics of Research Committee Annual Report
RECEIVED: Ethics of Research Committee Annual Report (reference number CN/06/112, previously circulated, copy in the minute book).
NOTED: Ethics Committees and Faculty Ethics Officers have now been appointed for each Faculty and the Ethics Committee is moving to an oversight role. Training had been provided for Faculty Ethics Officers and Research Directors and although no ongoing programme of training in ethics issues is currently offered the Committee believed that regular training should be made available as a minimum for FEOs, Faculty and Departmental Ethics Committee members and Heads of Department. This issue had been referred to the Personnel and Staff Development Committee. Professor Anderson reminded Council that the introduction of the Human Tissue Act 2004 (fully implemented on 1st September 2006) required the University strictly to comply in relation to use, monitoring and disposal of human tissue. The ramifications of this Act for the University had been and continued to be substantial.
NOTED: the University had been invited by the Council for Industry and Higher Education (CIHE) to become involved in developing on overarching ethics framework as part of the the CIHE initiative “managing ethical issues in higher education”. The University had commissioned an audit to identify gaps in University regulation against the CIHE checklist. The result of the audit would be a website “toolkit” for FEOs. Professor Avril Waterman-Pearson asked for clarification as to the remit of the Ethics Committee and the University’s work dealing with animals. It was agreed that this question would be clarified by the Ethics of Research Committee.
5.4 Draft Annual Report from Council to Court
RECEIVED: a draft Annual Report from Council to Court (reference number CN/06/114, previously circulated, copy in the minute book). Although the Director of Communications and Marketing was not at the Council meeting he was seeking feedback on the draft report either to himself or to Nick Riddle before the next Council meeting as the report would need to be finalised before that. A Convocation member at the previous Court meeting had asked that the Annual Report include issues that the University had successfully confronted during the year i.e. so that it was not universally good news. The Vice-Chancellor agreed to include such issues in his presentation but it was generally considered inappropriate to include negative matters in the Annual Report. At the request of Denis Burn the Vice-Chancellor agreed to mention the involvement of the University with the Withywood Academy in the report.
6.0 Matters for Information
6.1 RED Annual Report
RECEIVED: RED Annual Report (reference number CN/06/115, previously circulated, copy in the minute book).
There were no questions on this report.
6.2 Remuneration Committee Report
RECEIVED: Remuneration Committee Report (reference number CN/06/121, previously circulated, copy in the minute book).
There were no questions on this report.
7.0 Any Other Business
RECEIVED: written questions from Mr Rob Massie and Mr Tony MacDonald (reference number CN/06/123, previously circulated, copy in the minute book).
NOTED: Mr Massie and Mr MacDonald were exercising their right under Ordinance 3 to submit to the Secretary written questions addressed to the Vice-Chancellor, or other University Officers, to be placed on the agenda of a Council meeting. Provisional responses to these questions had also been circulated with the papers. The Bursar, who had been on holiday when the written questions were received, regretted that they had been put to Council at this early stage before they had been considered by him and at the Resource Managers’ meeting. Concern was also expressed that the tabling of the issues might preclude Council members from hearing the related staff appeals. Mr Massie assured Council that the questions had been framed to avoid this being an issue. The Registrar made a general request that if Council members wished to use their rights under Ordinance 3 to put written questions to Council they first take up those issues with University Officers and only if they are unsatisfied with the outcome or wanted to draw attention to the responses would they take them on to a Council meeting.
8.0 Date of Next Meeting: Wednesday 22nd November 2006