NEWCASTLEUNIVERSITY
ACADEMIC BOARD
16 May 2007
Present:The Vice-Chancellor (in the Chair) and 26 members of the Academic Board.
There were insufficient members at the meeting to constitute a quorum (100 members).
N O T E S
1.NOTES OF THE 10 MAY 2006 MEETING
Reported that the notes of the meeting of Academic Board held on 10 May 2006had been previously circulated and were available on the web at:
2.NOMINATIONS FOR HONORARY AWARDS 2008
(a)Honorary Degrees
The Honorary Degrees Committee invited nominations in writing for next year’s Congregation. Any member of Academic Board may make a nomination and support for nominees for honorary degrees should be sought only from members of Academic Board. Where several members made a joint nomination, one should be shown as the nominator and the others as supporters. The grounds on which the nomination was made should be clearly stated.
Principles for the award of Honorary Degrees could be found at
Proposals should be sent in envelopes marked ‘Confidential – Honorary Degrees’ to Dr J V Hogan, Registrar, 6 Kensington Terrace, by Friday,31 August 2007.
Noted that:
1.Both the regular Honorary Degrees Ceremony held in April, and the special Honorary Degree Ceremony held to mark the contribution of individuals in support of the campaign against world poverty held in January 2007, had been extremely successful and reflected well upon the University.
2.Nominations were sought, in particular, for women and members of ethnic minorities.
(b)Honorary Fellowships of the University
Court invited nominations in writing for the award of next year’s Honorary Fellowships of the University. Any lay member of Court and Council and any member of Academic Board may make a nomination. Where several members made a joint nomination, one should be shown as the nominator and the others as supporters. The grounds on which the nomination was made should be clearly stated.
Principles for the award of Honorary Fellowships of the University could be found at
Proposals should be sent in enveloped marked ‘Confidential – Honorary Fellowships’ to Dr J V Hogan, Registrar, 6 Kensington Terrace, by Friday, 31August 2007.
3.MEMBERS OF COURT APPOINTED BY ACADEMIC BOARD
Reported that:
(a)The term of appointment of the following members of Court appointed by Academic Board would terminate on 31 July 2007. All four were eligible for re-appointment:
Professor T Anderson
Professor D R Charles
Professor P J W Olive
Professor M J Whitaker
(b)Members of Academic Board were invited to submit nominations in writing by not later than Friday, 22 June 2007 to Dr J V Hogan, Registrar, 6Kensington Terrace together with confirmation that the nominee was willing to be nominated. Nominees should be members of Academic Board.
4.REPORT BY THE VICE-CHANCELLOR
Received an oral report by the Vice-Chancellor on current business.
Budget 2007-08
Noted that:
1.Council, at its meeting to be held on 21 May 2007, would be requested to approve the University’s budget for 2007-08. The budget had been prepared for the University to produce a 1% surplus against turnover and with 3% of the expenditure allocated to ‘Headroom’, which could be used to support major strategic projects. In addition, there was a 1% contingency element. These three elements ensured that the University had some flexibility in its overall financial planning.
2.There had been a significant increase in the level of staff costs over the three year budget period, as shown in the table below:
2005-062006-072007-08
actual staff costsforecastforecast
£157,117,000£171,800,000£176,699,000
3.The increase in staff costs nationally had produced some financial pressures in other universities, resulting in freezes on posts and similar measures. The position at Newcastle seemed to be a little healthier and the general allocation to the three faculties had increased by approximately 10%. Nevertheless, there were still some concerns. The staff/student ratios in some parts of the University remained too high and there would be little significant improvement during 2007-08.
Capital Plan
Noted that:
1.Council, at its meeting to be held on 21 May 2007, would consider the University’s proposed Capital Plan. This was based on those projects that would cost over £2m, all of which would require an element of external funding, and internal projects below £2m which might be funded from internal sources only, but only where business cases for such projects had been produced and already approved.
2.The Capital Plan was divided into four main sections: projects costing over £2m that the University was obliged to carry out in the next two years, this included Boiler House re-provision and the moves arising out of the INTO arrangements; projects costing over £2m that the University wished to carry out in the next two years, this included the Student and Administrative Services Building, Centre for Bacterial Cell Biology, Institute of Health and Society and the Music New Build; projects costing over £2m that the University wished to carry out in the next two to four years, this included Northern Writers’ Centre and an extension to the Union Society; student residential accommodation projects the University wished to carry out in the next two to four years.
3.There was a need to improve both the quality and quantity of student accommodation and this would be undertaken on a self-funding basis.
4.There was a need to improve the accommodation available to the students in the Union Society and this project would be based, in part, on external fundraising.
5.The Union Society’s finances had undergone a difficult period, but with the appointment of a new General Manager and some additional help from the University, it was hoped that the recurrent funding position could be improved and some surpluses generated to help meet the additional running costs from an extension to the building.
6.It was hoped that planning permission for the new Student and AdministrativeServicesBuilding would be secured by the end of June, with the building in operation in January 2010.
Student Surveys
Noted that the National Student Survey was becoming increasingly important as a component in newspaper league tables. The results in 2005 had been disappointing and in particular, concern had been expressed by students about the quality and speed of student assessment feedback. Substantial work had been undertaken on this and the most recent internal student survey seemed to show a marked improvement on the assessment of our performance by our students.
National Student Recruitment
Noted that there were concerns about the downturn in applications for taught postgraduate programmes from overseas students. It was recognised that the market was becoming more competitive, but the University depended heavily on the income generated from international students, as well as benefiting from the international experience such students brought to the community. The new arrangements with INTO represented a potential opportunity for recruitment directly into degree programmes using INTO’s range of international agents, as well as supporting the access route via the new Joint Venture with INTO.
Comprehensive Spending Review
Noted that some information was now beginning to emerge about the Comprehensive Spending Review. It looked probable that the funding for science would be maintained and that a capital stream would still continue to be made available to higher education institutions. This was important for the University’s Capital Plan.
ScienceCity
Noted that:
1.ScienceCity continued to represent the single biggest opportunity available to the University. One NorthEast had supported the University’s appointment of a range of outstanding professorial staff, including a number of Professors of Practice who would support our work in translating our academic expertise into commercial opportunities.
2.The Masterplanners for the Science Central site had been appointed.
3.Discussions were continuing about the possible establishment of a ScienceCo as a vehicle that would help to lever in additional private and public funding to the ScienceCity activity.
Energy Technologies Institute
Noted that:
1.The University was part of the North East Consortium which was one of five bids that had been shortlisted for the Energy Technologies Institute (ETI). This was a major Government initiative, jointly funded by a number of high profile private companies. The project could be worth up to £1b over a ten year period.
2.Securing the ETI for the North East could help to begin to redress the appalling imbalance in the level of Government-funded research and development activity in the North East. The Government nationally spent something like £2b on R&D, but less than £6m in the North East region. The next lowest region had over ten times the spend in the North East.
5.QUESTIONS
It was reported that the Vice-Chancellor would be pleased to answer questions at the meeting from members of Academic Board and would be grateful to receive notice of these as far as possible. Members were asked to submit to him in writing details of any questions they wished to raise by noon on Monday, 14 May 2007.
Noted that threewritten questions had been received by the Vice-Chancellor.
Question 1
‘What has been done to minimise the disruption to the University as buildings are vacated to enable construction of the INTO Newcastle accommodation?’
Noted that:
1.In response, the Vice-Chancellor confirmed that planning was being undertaken to ensure that the University’s Centres and Schools which were required to vacate the PorterCowenBuilding would be housed in better accommodation. The decanting would be phased. He regarded it as one of the benefits of the INTO project to enable the University to move people from highly unsatisfactory accommodation in the Porter Cowen complex. Particular care would need to be taken over the issue of access to the campus during the building works.
2.The Vice-Chancellor confirmed that it was the University’s intention to move people to better accommodation.
3.In response to a follow-up question concerning the provision of the library store, the Vice-Chancellor drew attention to the large amount of space that was currently designated as ‘storage’ within the University. Approximately 1,000 rooms were used for this purpose and many of them contained items which should not be stored but, rather, thrown away. If the University was able to improve its use of space, and particularly storage needs, it could reduce dramatically some of its running costs. The University had recently appointed a person in the Estate Support Service to specifically focus on improving the University’s storage arrangements. This could include the provision of an off-site store.
Question 2
‘Does INTO Newcastle pay the full economic rent for teaching rooms and other University facilities it uses?’
Noted that the Vice-Chancellor confirmed that INTO would pay the full economic rent for teaching rooms. In addition, specific charges would be made for the University’s work on accrediting the Foundation Programmes and a charge would be made for the use of IT and library facilities.
Question 3
‘Why does the INTO website describe INTO Newcastle as a ‘university-based initiative’ when the Advertising Standards Authority have ruled against this description?’
Noted that:
1.The Vice-Chancellor explained that he believed that there appeared to be a mistake in the question. When INTO had originally established a partnership with the University of East Anglia, it had been described as a university-led initiative. This phrase had subsequently been used and had been challenged since a number of universities were involved. The Advertising Standards Authority had agreed that this phrase should not be used and INTO had agreed to change its description to a university-based initiative.
2.In a follow-up question, it was pointed out that there were other third parties based on the University’s campus and the University would not necessarily wish those organisations to describe themselves as being in a university-based initiative. The Vice-Chancellor replied that not only would INTO be based physically on the University’s campus, but that the legal entity to be established would be a joint venture, 50% owned by INTO and 50% owned by the University. The success of the venture would depend on students being recruited both to the Foundation Programmes and also coming onto the University’s normal degree routes. In this situation, he believed that it was appropriate for the activity to be described as ‘university-based’.
3.The Vice-Chancellor emphasised that steps had been taken to minimise the risk associated with the INTO project.
1