MINUTES of the Fourth Meeting of the 2010/2011 Academic Year Held On

the

COURT

MINUTES of the fourth meeting of the 2010/2011 academic year held on

Monday, 9 May, 2011, in the Edinburgh Room, Queen Anne Court,

Greenwich Campus, Park Row, Greenwich, SE10 9LS, commencing at 5.30 pm.

Present:Sir Stuart Etherington (in the Chair)

Mr A Albert / Ms M Hay
Mr J Barnes / Mr P F Hazell
Baroness Blackstone / Mr A L Holmes
Mr J E Brathwaite / Mr S Howlett
Mrs S Clarke / Ms S Patel
Mr S H Davie / Prof M Snowden
Mr L A Devlin / Mr J Stoker
Mr N Eastwell / Mrs H Wyatt

In attendance:

Prof T Barnes (Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research & Enterprise))

Prof C Bellamy (Director, Greenwich Maritime Institute)

Mrs T A Brighton (Minutes Clerk)

Mrs L Cording (Secretary and Registrar)

Mr R Daly (Director of Finance)

Prof N Garrod (Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Resources))

Prof S Jarvis (Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic Development))

Apologies for Absence:

Prof P Maras

Mr M Sekhon

10/69WELCOME

The Chairman welcomed Mr Lee Devlin to his first meeting.

10/70DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

In relation to minute 10/71 on the work and research of the Greenwich Maritime Institute, Jim Brathwaite declared a possible conflict of interest in relation to algae research.

10/71PRESENTATION BY DIRECTOR OF GREENWICH MARITIME INSTITUTE

The Court received a presentation from the Director of Greenwich Maritime Instituteon the work and research activitiesof the Greenwich Maritime Institute.

10/72MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (CRT 10/65)

The minutes of the meeting held on 28 March 2011 were taken as read and signed as a true record.

10/73 MATTERS ARISING

73.1Honorary Degrees 2011

The Court noted that William Fletcher had accepted the offer of an Honorary Doctor of Business Administration. Due to unavoidable commitments this year, his conferment had been deferred to July 2012.

73.2Court Strategy Day

It was noted that a paper to follow-up discussions at the Court Strategy Day would now be presented to the June meeting.

73.3QAA Collaborative Provision

It was noted that, following its audit of collaborative provision earlier in the year, the Quality Assurance Agency had now provided an indication of its preliminary findings. The draft report, which would be received later in the month, would confirm confidence in the University’s management of its academic standards and the quality of its learning opportunities. The Court congratulated staff involved with the audit for this pleasing outcome.

10/74UNDERGRADUATE FEES 2012-13 (CRT 10/67(i))

74.1Fees for 2012-13

The Chair recalled that, at its last meeting, the Court had agreed a fee for undergraduate students for the 2012-13 academic year. Subsequent to that decision, further consideration on the appropriate level of fees had taken place and the Court had approved a revisedfee by correspondence. The Court agreed to:

(i)ratify the tuition fee of £8,300 for undergraduate BA/BSc Honours courses undertaken on campus for 2012-13. (The fee would be subject to an annual increase in line with the amount set by government each year)

(ii)confirmed a fee of £6,000 for full-time Foundation Degree and HNDs franchised to the Partner Colleges, and continuing to be offered on campus

(iii)confirmed that all part-time fees to be pro-rated to the number of registered credits

(iv)confirmed that Partner Colleges offering specialist courses should be permitted to charge up to £7,900.

The Court noted that the fee for the MPharmacy programme, jointly offered with the University of Kent, would remain at £9,000.

The Court also noted that all fees above £6,000 were subject to acceptance by OFFA of the Access Agreement.

74.2Access Agreement 2012 Onwards (CRT 10/67(ii))

The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic Development) reported that the revised fee had been included in the University’s Access Agreement submitted to OFFA in April. The principal objectives were to:

• sustain the percentage of under-represented groups
• improve the retention of students and enhancing student success.

He further reported that the improvement of retention rates remained an institutional priority and challenging but realistic targets had been set to bring Greenwich up to the national average within five years. A working group was currently examining best practices elsewhere in order to bring about improvements. The importance of having processes in place to evaluate the effectiveness of any measures introduced to improve retention was recognised. The University had committed to spending 30% of the additional fee income over £6,000 to achieve these objectives by 2015-16.

The Court noted that the Agreement set out the University’s intention to match the funds allocated through the National Scholarship Programme by doubling the number of national scholarship programmes within the University. Students would benefit from a package worth £5,000 over the three years of study. Consideration was now being given to the criteria for allocating the scholarships as it was anticipated that the number of eligible students would exceed availability.

10/75ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION FOR DEVELOPING THE NEW ESTATE STRATEGY (CRT 10/68)

The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Resources) recalled that the current Estate Strategy covering the period 2006-2016 primarily aimed to:

• replace functionally unsuitable and dilapidated space at the AveryHillMansion site
• provide new accommodation for the School of Architecture & Construction
• provide additional space for increased numbers of students
• continue to consolidate the estate by development of the Avery Hill Southwood site and disposal of the Mansion site and the Bathway Building at Woolwich.

He reported that much had been achieved since 2006 and attention was now being given to the development of a new Estate Strategy. The new strategy would be closely linked to the institutional strategic plan and reflect the future provision of academic programmes. The early views of Court Members were being sought on a number of key issues before production of the document progressed.

Noting that University’s operations were currently dispersed over three sites, the options for discussion were summarised as follows:

1. Avery Hill (Architecture & Construction (until 2014), Education & Health & Social Care)

Strategic issue: Should the campus be reduced from two sites to one?

As the Schools of Education and Health & Social Care had a broadly local catchment it made strategic sense for them to remain at the Avery Hill campus.

Owing to the change in the property market in the last few years, the sale price for the Mansion site assumed in the strategy wasnow over-stated. An informal offer for part of the Mansion site had been received. Mothballing of the site was an option.

1. Greenwich(Business, CMS and Humanities & Social Sciences)

Strategic issue: How should the campus be used once the Stockwell Street building is completed?

The planned move of the library from the Dreadnought Building created a welcome opportunity to review the current occupation of space and to relocate new activities to the campus.

1. Medway (Engineering, Science, NRI and Pharmacy (with UofKent))

Strategic issue: Should the University’s campus be retained if the reversionary lease cannot be renewed?

Greenwich’s operations at Medway form part of the Universities at Medway collaboration. Greenwich’s buildings are currently housed in buildings leased from the Department for International Development (DFID) until June 2014. The strategy assumes that the reversionary lease will be renewed for a further 100 years.

There following a lengthy discussion on the issues set out above. The Court understood that the strategic question of whether the University’s operations should be consolidated further in Greenwich or whether it wished to retain its presence in the Medway area needed to be addressed. There was opposition generally to withdrawing from the Medway campus. Members were particularly sensitive to the political significance of the Universities of Medway collaboration, its role in the regeneration of the local economy and the investment by HEFCE and SEEDA. Concerns about thelevel of disruption to staff and students and reputational damage were also cited.

On the other hand, Members noted that communications with DfID had been difficult andwere conscious that time was running short. The Vice-Chancellor stated that there were many advantages to operating on one site but that the University operated well on three. The likelihood of appropriate accommodation near Greenwich becoming available was remote and the University needed to give serious consideration to suitable premises elsewhere in the Medway area for the Medway-based Schools. It was now becoming imperative that the University receive clarity on the lease and she would approach the Secretary of State of BIS to request his intervention with DfID.

In relation to Medway, the Court:

ireaffirmed its support for the University’s continuing operations at the Medway campus

iiagreed that Officers should continue to negotiate with DfID on the terms of renewal of the reversionary lease for a further 100 years

iiiresolved that, if agreement could not be reached with DFID, detailed appraisals on the alternative options for accommodating the Medway operations be presented to a future meeting of the Finance Committee prior to consideration by Court.

In relation to Avery Hill, the Court:

confirmed that the disposal of the Mansion site and relocation of the School of Education to the Southwood site remained long-term strategic objectives.

It was noted that the first draft of the new Estate Strategy was likely to be available by Easter 2012.

10/76THE CASE FOR AN OVERSEAS CAMPUS FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF GREENWICH IN INDIA (CRT 10/69))

Lesley Hayman, International Strategy Consultant, attended for this item.

Introducing the paper, the Vice-Chancellor said that an investigation of the prospects of the University establishing a campus in India had taken place over the last six months. The University had strong connections with India and the new Foreign Education Institutions (FEI) Act 2010, although not yet passed, would allow foreign institutions to offer degrees on their own campuses in India.

Lesley Hayman reported that the paper set out the rationale for a campus in India and outlined potential partners, finances, risks and critical success factors. The proposed changes in legislation created an opportunity for Greenwich to demonstrate that it was an international university and to gain a competitive edge in the increasingly global higher education market. The proposals for an overseas campus made a number of assumptions; that the University would make a long term commitment of 20 years and beyond, that a local infrastructure partner would provide the building and fit out to Greenwich’s specifications, and that the University would retain operational management of the campus and overall academic control. The paper outlined six potential business models, involving different levels of investment.

The Court considered at length the case for the establishment of the campus as set out in the paper. It was noted that early entry into the Indian market was recommended. It was possible that the FEI Act 2010 might be passed within the next 6 months or so and the University might benefit from making a definite commitment to the project by the end of the year in order to apply for approval as a foreign education provider.

The Court acknowledged that development of acampus in India fitted well strategically with the work of the University’s Centre for Indian Business but believed that the project needed to be assessed in the context of the overall international strategy. The financial and reputational risks were discussed and the consequences of a delay in passing the FEI Act 2010 noted. The selection of business partners would be crucial to the success of the project. It was anticipated that the campus would be run as a surplus-generating business but the surplus revenue might not be available for repatriation. This was an issue on which Members required clarification. A comprehensive business plan and detailed modelling of revenue was requested to allow further consideration.

There was a general consensus that the University should proceed with considerable caution. Members emphasised the need for greater clarity on the long-term objectives of the international strategy and better intelligence about alternative plans and opportunities that might exist besides moving into India.

Noting the reservations aired in discussion, the Court however:

(i)confirmed its support for the continuation of the development of the case for an overseas campus in India

(ii)agreed that detailed proposals be submitted to a future meeting of Court for further consideration before any agreements are made.

10/77MARKETING AND FUND-RAISING : FOLLOW-UP REPORT (CRT 10/70)

The Court received a progress report on the University’s marketing and fundraising activities.

The University had continued to use digital technologies as a means of marketing itself. Development of the web site continued and the web pages would be transferring to a new style later in the year. A number of interactive tools, such as a virtual Open Day, werealso due for launch later in the year. The Customer Relationship Management system was being installed in phases and the initial phases had proved successful and popular with students. Development of the provision of digital prospectuses enabling students to tailor their own electronic prospectus was under way. The process would bring about welcome economies in postage, printing and administration costs.

The University was continuing to build and maintain relationships locally and globally for the benefit of its students. Officers were working with industry, employers and alumni who provided advice and guidance on the University’s academic programmes. Efforts to raise philanthropic income continued to be challenging. The University had performed well in regard to fundraising compared to its peer group and had particularly benefited from its strategy of growing regular support from small donations. The Stockwell Street project provided an opportunity to attract donors and a capital campaign plan was being formulated.

10/78KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS: MONITORING REPORT (CRT 10/71)

The Court received a report monitoring the University’s performance against its key performance indicators and progress towards achieving its operational targets.

10/79VICE-CHANCELLOR’S REPORT

The Vice-Chancellor reported verbally on the following recent developments:

79.1Student Protests – A small group of students had recently demonstrated against the decision of the School of Humanities & Social Sciences to stop teaching philosophy as a single subject programme. Philosophy would continue to be taught as part of a joint programme.

79.2Government Policy – The following changes in governmental policy were reported:

• Training & Development Agency – The School of Education was currently considering the implications of the decision to abolish the TDA and the proposed transfer of teacher training from universities to schools.
• Student Loans – the Secretary of State for BIS would be assuming new powers for the setting of interest rates for student loans. These had previously required Parliamentary approval.
• Change of Student Fee Regime – the government would shortly be starting a campaign to publicise the new graduate-contribution policies on student fees.
• Loans for Students – The government had recently announced its proposals to allow part-time students and also students of alternative providers of higher education to be eligible for loans for fees.

79.3Dean of School of Health & Social Care – Professor Liz Meerabeau would be retiring as Dean at the end of the summer. The search for her replacement was under way.

79.4School of Engineering – The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research & Enterprise) would be leading a review of the School of Engineering following difficulty in recruiting home students.

10/80ACADEMIC COUNCIL (CRT 10/72)

The Court received a report on items of academic significance arising from the meeting of Academic Council held on 24 March 2011 and noted that:

ithe Council had scrutinised degree classification statistics for 2009-2010. The percentage of Firsts and Upper Seconds had marginally dropped and in view of the relationship between these degree classifications and employment, Council had instigated a more thorough investigation of the results. The new university assessment policy being drawn up would help ensure consistency across the institution;

iithe new Arrivals and Transition Policy designed to improve engagement with students from the ‘acceptance’ stage through to their first week at the University had been approved. Council had also agreed that the equivalent policy for postgraduate students should be reworked and that named tutors should be allocated to students before they started their studies;

iiithe Council had received the annual report on learner services in Information and Library Services. Learner resources had scored above the sector mean in the 2010 National Student Survey and spend on books and journals had exceeded the Court KPI of £50 per FTE. Higher student numbers, however, meant that the targets for spend on resources would continue to be challenging.

10/81BERGMAN OSTERBERG TRUST (CRT 10/73)

The Court considered a draft Resolution proposing amendment of the charitable objects and a change of name of the Bergman Osterberg Trust. The Trust was administered by the University as sole Trustee in accordance with a Scheme established in 2003 and provided for the awarding of prizes to its students. However, despite efforts to promote the availability of awards, applications had declined. In the light of the major impending changes to student funding, it was now being proposed that the Trust’s objects should be varied so that the current practice of awarding prizes could be replaced with more appropriate forms of financial support for students. It was further proposed that the objects should allow the University to seek major donations for the benefit of its students.

It was noted that Charity Commission agreement in principle to the proposed revisions had been secured on the basis that they remained sympathetic to the spirit of the original Scheme. The Commission also advised that the University’s intention to seek philanthropic donations and adopt a new name for the charity would be acceptable. The Court approved the following resolution:

That the Trustees recognise that every attempt has been made to promote the availability of funds as prizes to students under the Scheme rules for the Bergman Osterberg Trust but that notwithstanding the efforts of officers there has been little interest in taking up awards available. Moreover, the annual cost of administering the awards outweighs the benefit to students of the prize funds available.