Paper reference number: sert Number"
FOIA Status: Open
University assembly
Minutes of the meeting held on 3 May 2017
Present: / Professor B Cantor;Professor C Oltean-Dumbrava;
Ms J Marshall;
120 members of Assembly. / Professor W McCarthy;
Professor G Bradshaw;
Mr C Malish; / Professor S Congdon;
Professor R Parkin
Ms A Jones;
Apologies: / 1 member of staff;
In Attendance: / Mr M Rollinson; Mrs B Mistry
6.16-17 Welcome from the Chair of the Standing Committee
noted:
6.1 That the Chair of the Standing Committee of the Assembly, Professor Crina Oltean-Dumbrava welcomed the Vice-Chancellor, Deputy Vice-Chancellors; Pro-Vice-Chancellors; University Secretary, the Director of Human Resources and Organisational Development and the Interim Finance Director
6.2 That the answers to the questions not presented in the Assembly will be uploaded on the following website: http://www.bradford.ac.uk/governance/university-assembly/meetings/;
6.3 That the minutes from the Assembly meeting held on 25 November 2016 were available on the link above.
7.16-17 Report from the Standing Committee of Assembly held on 3 May 2017
NOTED:
7.1 That the current Senate members on the Standing Committee were Crina Oltean-Dumbrava, Julia Buckberry and Shakil Ismail;
7.2 That the present Chairs of Faculty Assembly were:-
· Alison Hartley – Faculty of Health Studies;
· Lorraine Lucas – Faculty of Management and Law;
· Julia Jeyacheya – Faculty of Social Studies;
· Rachel Birds /Samantha Mclean from June – Faculty of Life Sciences;
· Crina Oltean-Dumbrava – Faculty of Engineering and Informatics;
7.3 That a vacancy still exists for the Chair of Professional Services Assembly;
7.4 That the following main issues had been discussed at the Faculty Assemblies;
· Academic Portfolio Review outcomes;
· NSS;
· Marketing and recruitment;
· League table position;
· Financial situation in Faculties;
· New UG and PG developments;
· Student Retention;
· Implementation of Work Load model in Faculties and Schools;
· Student and Academic Administration Review (StAAR Review);
· STEM;
· CE: SET
· The importance of sharing success stores;
· Estate Development;
· Communication;
· Athena Swan;
· Prevent and CMA;
· Research and Knowledge Transfer;
· REF preparation
· DHE
· IT restructuring
· New policies and approaches to procurement
8.16-17 Vice-Chancellor’s Address
Noted:
8.1 That the University was now about to enter the growth phase of the University Strategy, to fulfil its ambition of becoming a world leading technology University;
8.2 That recent improvements to student quality through raising entry tariff requirements had resulted in improvements in league table position;
8.3 That 5 things that would be discussed today were:-
· Student Recruitment;
· BEP;
· Three major developments;
8.4 The importance of hitting student number targets and maximising recruitment and retention;
8.5 That the BEP objective was to deliver the University Strategy, to do things better and to work collectively, to ensure sustainability;
8.6 That the three key University academic development projects were Bradford Medical School, Learning Hub and the STEM Nucleus. The three projects would be dependent on progress with the BEP, on improved student recruitment, favourable interest rates and the development of detailed and financially robust business cases;
8.7 That the Government requires a minimum of 1500 home grown doctors by 2018, 500 of these would be delivered through existing Medical Schools. It was anticipated that bids would be submitted to the Department of Health, in Autumn 2017 with students starting programme in 2019;
8.8 That the Learning Hub would connect Richmond Building to the Re:Centre and would bring the Faculty of Management and Law to the heart of the campus;
8.9 That the STEM Nucleus project would be led by the new Dean of Faculty of Engineering and Informatics, Professor Martin Priest and would facilitate work across the FEI/FHS divide;
8.10 That the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) would oversee Project Boards for each of the major developments;
8.11 That the new building projects would not proceed in the absence of viable, robust business cases.
9.16-17 Questions for the Vice-Chancellor
noted:
9.1 That the following question had been submitted;
‘Following the six month review of the centralisation of Marketing and Admissions, will there be an evaluation of changes and improvements in these services, including the need for any further investment. Given the importance of this area to student recruitment, can we understand what has been learned and how this will be shared with the University community?’;
9.1.1 That Professor Bill McCarthy, Deputy Vice Chancellor (Operations) responded both to this question and the question referred to in 9.2 below;
9.1.2 That BEP had been launched 18 months ago; all areas of the administration had been reviewed or were about to undergo review;
9.1.3 That BEP was a response to the scale of challenges faced by the University;
9.1.4 That demands on staff were recognised and staff were thanked for their contribution;
9.1.5 That despite some criticism about the pace of change, the need for proper engagement with staff was recognised;
9.1.6 That BEP changes were designed to improve quality, bear down on cost and maximise flexibility and agility;
9.1.7 That there was acknowledgement of the University’s previously patchy track record of successful delivery of change;
9.1.8 That any further investment would need a robust business case;
9.1.9 That Mark Garratt, Director of External Affairs responded;
9.1.10 That work was focusing on prioritisation of resource, improving processes and developing the new team in a culture consistent with the University’s values;
9.1.11 That current application levels for postgraduate taught Home/EU students were up when compared to April 2016 and conversion remained positive;
9.1.12 That levels of International (undergraduate and postgraduate) applications and offers were higher than last year, although further work would be needed to improve conversion;
9.1.13 That there was greater emphasis on ‘boots on the ground’ and getting University staff into key recruitment areas (e.g. Dubai, Malaysia and China). The recent University visit to the Gulf region had been successful and publicised effectively through social media and had produced positive results (e.g. 11 new Cyber Security students);
9.1.14 That there was a need to ensure that applications continued to be generated and that existing applicants were converted through timely and effective marketing activities in order to maximise recruitment across all market segments;
9.1.15 That the University had been shortlisted for a THELMA award for the Admissions Strategy;
9.1.16 That the University’s virtual experience online tool used was ranked in the top 50 in the world;
9.2 That the following question had been submitted;
‘In relation to the StAAR review is there an alternative plan if changes implemented as a result of the STAAR review impact negatively on the student experience?’;
9.2.1 That Nikki Pierce, Director of Student and Academic Services responded;
9.2.2 The StAAR process targeted specific process improvements which would have a positive input on the student experience, e.g. in relation to organisation and timetabling;
9.2.3 The appropriate external benchmarking would be sought;
9.2.4 That it was intended to implement the new structure from 1 July 2017;
9.2.5 That there would be a light touch review either side of enrolment, with a formal review within 12 months;
9.2.6 That the review aimed to embed a culture of continuous improvement;
9.2.7 That the review included a framework for staff development (role based, management development and professional/career development);
9.2.8 That key areas of risk had been identified and appropriate contingency was in place;
9.3 That the following question had been submitted;
9.3.1 ‘Are there any plans for academic staff restructure across the institution as there has been with some of the other Faculty BEP workstreams?’;
9.3.2 That Professor Shirley Congdon, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) responded;
9.3.3 That as a result of Academic Portfolio Review, some areas had been invited to consider structure;
9.3.4 That any further proposals for structural change would be dependent on a review of performance against strategy.
9.4 Additional Questions
NOTED:
9.4.1 That three additional questions were asked;
9.4.2 Question: The potential for the StAAR changes to impact on academic staff to the detriment of the student experience;
9.4.3 In response, Nikki Pierce reported on the very helpful feedback received from all quarters during the consultation period which had been very helpful in taking proposals forward;
9.4.4 Question: The timing of the next Staff Satisfaction Survey;
9.4.5 In response, Joanne Marshall, Director of Human Resources advised that the next full survey would be carried out in 2017-18, following a recent light touch review in selected areas;
9.4.6 Question: The potential for poor implementation of technology to impact negatively on the StAAR review;
9.4.7 That in response, Bill McCarthy referred to the Investment in WI-FI connectivity, planned investment in telecoms and the re-shaping of IT Services and delivery as a result of BEP.
10.16-17 Any other Business
noted:
10.1 That there was no other business.
11.16-17 Date of next meeting
11.1 That the date of the next meeting would take place on 24 November 2017 at 1pm.
5