the
COURT
AUDIT COMMITTEE
MINUTES of the thirdmeeting of the 2011/2012 academic year held on
Monday, 5th March, 2012, in Room 084, Queen Anne Court, Greenwich Campus,
Park Row, Greenwich SE10 9LS, commencing at 5.00 pm.
Present:
Mr S Davie (Chairman)
Ms S Patel
Mr J Stoker
Mrs H Wyatt
In attendance:
Mrs T A Brighton (Minutes Clerk)
Mrs L Cording (Secretary and Registrar)
Mr R Daly (Director of Finance)
Mr L Devlin (Head of Campus Services)
Professor D Maguire (Vice-Chancellor)
Professor M Snowden (Head of School of Science)
Mr D Barnes (External Auditor)
Ms A Lancefield (Internal Auditor)
11/26PRIVATE MEETING
The meeting was preceded by a private meeting of the Committee Members.
11/27DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
There were no declarationsof conflict of interests.
11/28MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING (A 11/31)
The minutes of the meeting held on 14thNovember 2011 were agreed and signed as a true record
11/29MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
29.1Finance Office Staffing
The Director of Finance tabled an updated organisational chart for the Finance Office and gave an overview of the individual posts and line management responsibilities. The calibre of candidates at the recent interviews for the vacant management accountant position had been disappointing and an appointment had not been made. He reported that, following an internal transfer, a second vacancy for a management accountant post had now arisen. Interviews for these two vacancies would be held in April. The Committee noted the current staffing level and emphasised the importance of succession planning.
29.22010/2011 Annual Report of the Committee
The Committee noted that, at its meeting on 28th November 2011, the Court had approved the annual report of the Audit Committee for submission to HEFCE.
11/30VALUE FOR MONEY STUDY ON MARKETING (A 11/32)
The Committee considered the executive summary of the Value for Money (VfM) study report on marketing. Following preliminary discussion by the Committee at the October 2011 meeting, the report had been revised to take account of the views of the Marketing team.
The Committee recognised that the University’s marketing activities were crucial to the recruitment of students and to the promotion of the brand of the University. The study had focussed on activities relating to student recruitment and had assessed their value for money against five criteria (expenditure per enquiry, website management, staffing levels, strategic planning processes and open days).
The Committee noted the Marketing Department’s responsibility for developing and implementing the web presence for the University and the apparent dichotomy of view among staff as to the purpose of the website. The website had for some time focussed on prospective students and had performed well in the recent Times Higher national survey. Internally, however, there was an expectation that the website, together with staff and student portals, should be available for use as a communication and information tool.
The Committee also noted that the report highlighted the need for improvements in the Marketing team’s relations with some Schools and Offices where tensions clearly existed. Although the study identified possible ways in which to bring about more effective communication, this aspect would also form part of the Efficiency Project currently being undertaken by the Secretary & Registrar and the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Resources). The Committee askedto see the final report of the Efficiency Project when it became available.
The Committee noted the conclusion that the University was achieving VfM in terms of efficiency, economy and effectiveness in many of its student focussed marketing activities. The recommendations for further enhancements were noted and the Committee looked forward to reviewing progress at the time of the annual follow-up report.
11/31ARRANGEMENTS FOR RISK MANAGEMENT (A 11/33)
The Committee considered proposed revisions to the University’s Risk Management Guide and Policy.
It was noted that the amendments reflected changes following the request of the Audit Committee that the Vice-Chancellor’s Group review the current arrangements. The new arrangements now required that:
- local risk registers should be kept by each School and Office;
- Schools and Offices should identify their top five risks to the Executive Committee, twice a year, in autumn and spring, which would then discuss the existing Institutional Risk Register and the risks from Schools and Offices;
- VCG shoulduse the Executive Committee’s discussion to inform the updating of the Institutional Risk Register.
The review had been informed by analysis of the risk management approach adopted by other higher education institutions which had confirmed that the University’s practices were similar to those elsewhere in the sector.
In discussing the amended documentation, the Committee agreed that the revised arrangements for risk management generally addressed their earlier concerns. The arrangements at local level had been strengthened thereby ensuring that local risks identified as part of the planning cycle informed the central strategic register. The bottom-up nature of the procedure for assessing, identifying and reporting risk was now clearly stated. The Committee was pleased to note the greater role of both the Vice-Chancellor’s Group and the Executive Committee in the arrangements. Feedback following formal consideration of risks was of fundamental importance to the management of risk and Members believed that it might be helpful for the documents to be a little clearer about the mechanisms for top-down reporting.
The Committee endorsed the changes to the way in which the University conducted its risk management arrangements and,
subject to the clarification requested, agreed to recommendto Court that the revised Risk Management Guide and Policy be approved for immediate implementation.
11/32REQUIREMENTS OF THE ANNUAL DATA AUDIT (A 11/34)
The Committee received a note setting out the requirements of the annual data audit.
The Secretary & Registrar recalled that, since 2008-09, the Committee had been required, as part of their annual opinion, to give an assurance about the management and quality of data submitted in statutory returns. To this end, the Internal Auditors annually reviewed data quality in order to provide assurance to the Committee. Officers now believed that setting out a planned programme for data audits by the internal auditors over the next four years would provide an improved set of reports upon which the Committee could rely. The programme would focus on statutory returns submitted to HESA and HEFCE including the new KIS (Key Information Sets) submission required in 2012. Two data audits would be carried out each academic sessionwith individual terms of reference being drawn up for each.
The Committeeagreed that, along with the annual meeting between the Chair of the Committee and the Head of Planning & Statistics,the proposed schedule of audits would provide considerable comfort. The following calendar of future internal audit reviews on data audit was approved:
Statutory Return / Session for audit / Session for subsequent auditHESA Student / 2011-12 / 2013-14
HESA Destinations of leavers from Higher Education / 2011-12
HESA Estates Management Survey / 2012-13
HESA Overseas Aggregate Return / 2012-13
HESA Staff Return / 2013-14
HESA Finance return / 2013-14
HESA Key Information Sets / 2014-15
HEFCE Higher Education Student Early Survey / 2012-13 / 2014-15
11/33EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW OF AUDIT COMMITTEE : METHODOLOGY (A 11/35)
The Chairman recalled that the Committee had decided it should review its effectiveness during this academic session. It was now being proposed that this should be carried out by means of a self-assessment questionnaire, recommended by the Committee of University Chairmen. The questionnaire would be completed by all groups attending the meetings, ie Members, Observers and Internal and External Auditors, and their responses would be collated separately and anonymised.
Members were generally satisfied that the survey covered the major questions to ensure committee effectiveness but asked that each section include space for respondents to comment on how they derived assurance. Subject to this variation, and the need for the rubric above the answer columns to be better formulated, the Committee agreed that the questionnaire should be circulated electronically for completion in time for discussion at the next meeting of the Committee prior to reporting to the July meeting of Court.
11/34USE OF THE WHISTLEBLOWING POLICY (A 11/36)
The Committee noted the report on the use of the University’s Public Interest Disclosure ”Whistleblowing” Policy. The Secretary & Registrar reported that theProcedures would be reviewed to ensure their effectiveness for future use.
11/35INTERNAL AUDIT
35.1Internal Audit Reports
The Committee considered the findings and recommendations of the following internal audit reports:
1-11-12 – Management of Staff Performance – Appraisals (A 11/37)
2-11-12 – Follow-Up – Part 1 (A 11/38)
3-11-12 – TRAC (A 11/39)
4-11-12 – Recruitment: Use of e-Recruitment Package (A 11/40)
The Management Responses for the internal audit reviews were regarded as satisfactory by the Committee and Auditors. The following issues were highlighted in discussion:
35.1.1Management of Staff Performance (A 11/37)
The Committee noted that the review of the management of staff performance, which had focussed on the University’s appraisal processes, had received an amber-red level of assurance. Under the existing arrangements, staff were appraised annually and forms completed by the end of May. Only 62% of staff had met this requirement in 2011 and, as a consequence, staff appraisal completion was now being tracked and closely monitored. The benefits of an electronic process were discussed.
The Committee noted the recommendation of the Internal Auditors that staff should be encouraged to attend appraisal training. Attendance figures for 2011 appraisal training had been quoted in the report butMembers had found these confusing. The figures had not, for example, distinguished between appraisee and appraiser training and the Internal Auditor was asked to provide clarification of the data at the next meeting.
The Committee further noted that a new framework for identifying and allocating balanced academic workloads was being implemented in full this academic session. In the absence of any existing arrangements, the Internal Auditors had made a recommendation for robust monitoring arrangements to be established.
35.1.2Follow-Up Review – Part 1 (A 11/38)
The Committee noted that the first part of the follow-up review had covered 28 recommendations raised from six separate reviews conducted during 2010/11. It was also noted that 62% of the recommendations had been implemented which, according to the report, represented “good” progress. The Chair queried the validity of the figures in Appendix A (Definitions for Progress Made) and the Internal Auditor agreed to correct these in future reports.
35.1.3Recruitment: Use of e-Recruitment Package (A 11/40)
The Committee noted that the audit of the e-recruitment package had provided an amber-green level of assurance. The system had been fully launched in December 2011 and was operating well, although only a small number of vacancies had been processed via the system at the time of the review. The Internal Auditors had highlighted the need for baseline data to be established in order to be able to determine whether the anticipated benefits had been realised when the system was reviewed at the end of its first full year of operation. The Committee was pleased to note that the transition from a paper to electronic recruitment system appeared to be going smoothly. It was thought that the system would help create a favourable impression of the University to prospective employees.
35.2Internal Audit Progress Report (A 11/41)
The Committee noted with some concern that the 2011/12 internal audit plan was behind schedule. Delays in drafting reports meant that the Committee was now expected to review eleven reports at its next meeting. The Internal Auditor acknowledged that there had been some slippage and undertook to finalise the reportsmore quickly.
The Committee asked that the next audit programme examine the internal processes for rationalising the portfolio of programmes.
35.3Internal Audit Strategy 2011/12 – 2013/14
The Committeeendorsed the following changes to the 2011/2012 audit programme:
ithat a health and safety audit on legionella management replace the cancelled audit on league tables
iithat the planned audit on the Resource Allocation Model be cancelled
iiithat two additional audits, on Payroll and the Collection of Tuition Fees, be carried out.
11/36MATTERS FOR REPORT (A 11/42)
36.1External Audit – Approval of non-Audit Services
The Committee received a schedule setting out the non-audit work carried out by Grant Thornton during the current session to date.
11/37THANKS
On behalf of the Committee, the Chairman thanked Anna Lancefield, the Internal Auditor Manager, who was leaving RSM Tenon after six years, for her contribution to the work of the Committee.
The meeting ended at 6.40 pm.
T.A.Brighton
12.03.12
LC/AuditCtte/Minutes/Audit/05 March 2012
Audit Committee:5 March 2012 page 1