UNIVERSITY OF EXETER
CNL/14/76
COUNCIL
A meeting of the Council was held on Thursday 10 July 2014 at 2.00pm in the Council Chamber,
Northcote House.
PRESENT:
Pro-Chancellor, Miss S J Turvill (Chair)
Mr C J Allwood
Provost and Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor N Armstrong
Ms H Barton
Mr G Brown
Dr S Buck
Mr N Bull
Ms A Conroy
Professor K E Evans
Mr R M P Hughes
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor J M Kay
Mr P Lacey
Professor D A Myhill
Sir Robin Nicholson
Mr C C Pomfret
Dr A M Shaw
Vice-Chancellor and Chief Executive, Professor Sir Steve Smith
Professor S Tomlinson
Ms S Wilcox
IN ATTENDANCE:
Director of Communication and Corporate Affairs, Mrs J Chafer
Chief Financial Officer, Mr A Connolly
Chief Executive to the Students’ Guild, Ms T Costello
Exeter FXU President Elect, Mr R Davies
Students’ Guild President Elect, Ms R Gillies
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor M Goodwin
Director of Development & Alumni Relations, Ms S Jarman
Director of Student Education and Engagement, Mr S Mackney (in attendance for
discussions under minute 14.56)
Exeter FXU President, Mr C Malyon
Director of Human Resources, Ms J A Marshall
Acting Chief Operating Officer, Mr R G Pringle
Planning Officer, Ms L Reichwald (in attendance for discussions under minutes
14.59 and 14.61)
Director of Academic Services and Deputy Chief Operating Officer, Ms M I
Shoebridge
Planning and Business Intelligence Officer, Mr I Springate (in attendance for
discussions under minutes 14.59 and 14.61)
Executive Officer, Mrs J Williams
APOLOGIES:
Ms J Hargadon, Mr P J M Hodges, Ms B Rigg, Professor N J Talbot
14.53
Chair’s Opening Remarks
The Chair welcomed Rachel Gillies, Students’ Guild President (Elect) and, Rhun Davies, Exeter
FXU President (Elect) to the meeting, and Sarah Jarman, Director of Development & Alumni
Relations (DARO), as an observer to the meeting.
14.54
Declarations of Interest
Members NOTED the register of members’ interests in relation to the business of the agenda
including standing declarations of interest.
Page 1 of 14
14.55
Minutes
The minutes of the meeting held on 21 May 2014 were CONFIRMED (CNL/14/49).
14.56
Education Strategy
Sean Mackney in attendance
Council RECEIVED a presentation and CONSIDERED a paper on the Education Strategy
(CNL/14/50).
Sarah Buck, Lay Lead for Education, introduced the presentation and noted that a huge amount of
work had been done in bringing the strategy together since Council had last considered a draft of
the strategy in December 2013. This had included an immense consultation period across all
campuses.
Sarah commended the strategy to Council as a very good document that had achieved the
balance of encompassing the input that had been received whilst also being very forward looking.
Professor Janice Kay recorded her thanks to staff, students and Council for their active discussion
of the document as it had evolved, and to Sean Mackney who had pulled the document together.
There had been significant discussion of the document. Senate had considered it four times,
colleagues had met with the ASA twice and all staff through different forums had been given
opportunity to comment. Sarah Buck had also been given progress reports at every Dual
Assurance meeting.
Professor Kay noted the following key points in presentation of the strategy to Council:
•
The Strategy was intended to take the University through the challenges that the HE sector
might be faced within the years ahead whilst also remaining true to the concept of innovation
in Education at Exeter which was part of Exeter’s distinctiveness.
•
The Strategy would be a living document on the website. This would enable the University to
prioritise and make changes as necessary. The web pages for the strategy would also be
more interactive and joined up with other resources that could be accessed online – including
case studies.
•
The final edit would also address the need for a more sophisticated look at the student
population and whether they were engaging in activities that made them more employable.
•
There were a number of key questions posed to Council about the strategy:
o Are the words and values right?
o Does the University have the right resources to deliver?
o Is it distinctive enough?
o Is it radical enough and ready for the digital age?
Professor Nick Kaye, Dean of Humanities and DVC (Education) Elect discussed how the ongoing
delivery of the Strategy would be led and noted that the common thread that ran across all of the
themes of the strategy was clarity. There were a number of key platforms that would be used to
take forward the next steps for the Strategy:
th
o
The 4 age of Education & international collaboration
o
Research led teaching
o
Positively enabling interdisciplinary modes of study (methodology for Grand Challenges)
o
Technology that deepens and augments pedagogy
o
Outwardly looking and impactful - a strategy that touches every student and every member of
staff
o
Accountability
Page 2 of 14
Members were invited to discuss and comment on the Strategy. The following key points were
noted from this discussion:
•
The strategy was clearly outward looking, positioning the University as a global player.
However, the University’s role as an education partner in the City and region could be clearer.
Exeter’s rootedness in the region needed to be more explicit and the University could be more
precise about what its role was. There were key exemplars of this with health partners, Exeter
Maths School and others. The detail in the WP Strategy paralleled this and could be linked
from the strategy on the website pages.
•
Development of the document had included an assessment of threats and risks e.g. cost
pressures on students and what other institutions were doing around employability. Whilst the
strategy was not explicit about these threats it aimed to enable the University to deal with the
potential changes and turbulence in HE. Whilst not all the detailed work had been done
around these risks the ground work was in place to maintain the student experience and
ensure that there was the resource to do this.
•
The University had a record of being very proactive at looking at its portfolio of programmes
and ensuring that they were fit for purpose. This process of review would continue and
subjects would be looked at in the whole – not only in relation to what students and employers
valued but also in terms of research performance. The University had a living portfolio but it
was recognised that it did not have the right Postgraduate Taught (PGT) portfolio currently in
all Colleges. College and Service colleagues were working hard to address this. Two
examples of this were:
i)
The College of Humanities (HUMS) had established a partnership with the London School
of Film to launch and deliver a new MA in International Film Business. The London Film
School attracted a high proportion of international students and the programme would be
premium fee. For 2014/15 (the first year of the programme) there were already 24
students who had paid their deposits.
ii) Colleagues in HUMS were discussing with Fudan University a collaboration to deliver a
double degree Masters programme. This would not only result in students coming to
Exeter for their Masters but also provide a platform for research partnership and
collaboration. This evidenced how the Education Strategy could provide synthesis with the
other key strategies of Research and Internationalisation.
Across the institution the function of PGT courses needed to be looked at and Colleges
needed to respond to employers and look for more jointly funded programmes. Whilst this
was not all reflected in the language of the strategy it could be made more explicit in the
executive actions.
•
There were a large number of actions listed in the strategy. These actions mapped on to the
University’s key objectives but could be joined up more.
•
The Guild had been heavily involved in the development of the strategy and would be picking
up some of the themes in their presentations to Council. The Guild would continue to be
significantly involved as the strategy was implemented.
•
It was testimony to the process that the strategy had gone through that Council did not have
more comments to make. Clearly comments had been taken on board as the strategy had
developed and this had resulted in a sharp and focussed document.
The Chair of Council recorded her congratulations to all colleagues who had been involved with
the development of the strategy and in bringing this together and to Alex Louch and Charles
Malyon from the Students’ Guild and FXU for their involvement.
Council APPROVED the final draft of the new Education Strategy 2014-2020.
Page 3 of 14
14.57
Vice-Chancellor’s Report
(a) Council RECEIVED a report from the Vice-Chancellor (CNL/14/51), which covered the
following topics:
(i)
Announcements:
• Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Impact Awards 2014 – held at the
Royal Society on 5th June, Professor Debra Myhill was awarded first prize in the
Outstanding Impact in Society category for her research into the development of
writing in school-aged children. The ESRC noted that the work led by Professor
Myhill had ‘shaped national and international policy, improved children’s writing
abilities and changed classroom practice.’
• National Teaching Fellowship - Dr Carol Evans in the Graduate School of Education
had been awarded a National Teaching Fellowship, for her pioneering role in the
development of the Personal Learning Styles Pedagogy (PLSP), by the Higher
Education Academy.
(ii)
Rankings Update:
th
• Times Higher Education Student Satisfaction Survey - Exeter had been ranked 7
nationally in the Times Higher Education Student Satisfaction Survey – up 19 places
from joint 26th last year. This made Exeter the fastest riser in the top 30, and was
the first time that Exeter had been ranked in the top ten in this Survey. Falmouth
th
University had been ranked 12 in the Survey (the highest new entrant), which was
a positive statement about the quality of the student experience on the Penryn
Campus.
• DLHE Survey - the Destination of Leavers in Higher Education (DLHE) Survey
2012-13 had been published and the Graduate destination score for the University
was 79.6%, encouragingly up from last year's 77.1% result, which saw the
University ranked at 17th in the sector. Data on competitor performance was not
released until July 2014 and until this was available colleagues were unable to
report Exeter's rank within the sector.
• ISI Thomson Reuters Highly Cited Researchers List 2014 - The ISI Thomson
Reuters Highly Cited Researchers list for 2014 was published on 12 June, and the
total number of Exeter academics listed was now 8 (up from 1 in the last list
produced in 2001). This made Exeter joint 6th in the UK universities list (after
Oxford, Cambridge, UCL, Imperial and Southampton), equal to the University of
Manchester. Exeter’s performance in Environmental subject areas was particularly
strong, with three highly-cited researchers listed under “Geosciences”, and two
listed under “Environment/Ecology”.
• University Business Incubator (UBI) Index - SETsquared (an enterprise
collaboration between Exeter and the universities of Bath, Bristol, Southampton and
Surrey which supported high tech start-up companies, providing student enterprise
and enabling academics to maximise the impact of their research) had been ranked
as the top university business incubator in Europe and second best in the world.
The ranking, published by the University Business Incubator Index, placed
SETsquared as one of the world’s leading three incubators, ahead of SCUT Science
Park at South China University of Technology and just behind number one, The
Rice Alliance for Technology and Entrepreneurship at Rice University Houston.
(iii)
Immigration Issues - On 24 June, Immigration Minister James Brokenshire told the
House of Commons that an inquiry into abuse of the student visa system had found
evidence of criminal activity. Following a BBC Panorama expose into fraudulent
activity around English Language examinations, immigration officials uncovered
evidence of serious concern at some UK campuses.
As a result, the UK government suspended Glyndwr University from its status as a
highly-trusted sponsor of student visas. Fifty seven private further education colleges
also had their licences for admitting foreign students suspended. In addition, the
universities of Bedfordshire and West London were no longer allowed to sponsor new
students pending further investigations.
The University of Exeter remained vigilant over its HTS status, and had established an
Immigration Compliance Unit within Academic Services to maintain a central oversight
Page 4 of 14
of compliance with the Home Office’s requirements for Tier 4 sponsors across the
University.
(iv)
HEFCE Agreement on Institutional Designation - HEFCE had published the final
version of the agreement on institutional delegation. This agreement applied to those
higher education institutions and further education colleges that receive HEFCE
funding. The agreement set out to use existing powers and regulations to:
• Make a more explicit link between institutional accountability requirements and
automatic designation for student support for ‘authority funded institutions’; and
• Set out a process for addressing non-compliance with accountability measures.
The agreement was voluntary and would sit alongside the financial memorandum
between institutions and HEFCE. The agreement was aligned with the requirements in
the financial memorandum and would come in to effect from 1 August 2014 for three
years.
Further information about the agreement and a copy of the final signed version of the
agreement were available at:
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2014/cl152014/name,87297,en.html
(v)
Thanks to Colleagues – the Vice-Chancellor formally thanked colleagues on Council for
all their work, and for the time that they had committed to the University over the past
year.
In particular, he recorded his gratitude to the retiring members and attendees:
Professor Neil Armstrong, Guild President Hannah Barton and FXU President Charles
Malyon.
(b) In addition to the written report, the Vice-Chancellor drew attention to the following:
i)
Director of Campus Services - Phil Attwell had been appointed to the permanent
position of Director of Campus Services, following a competitive process.
A new
Director of Sport would now be appointed. Consequently, Geoff Pringle had stepped
down as a Director of the FXPlus Board and Phil Attwell would take his place as
Director. Council RECORDED their congratulations to Phil.
ii)
Head of Stakeholder and Internal Communications - Lindsay Aitken had been
appointed to the post of Head of Stakeholder and Internal Communications. Lindsay
was currently Head of Communications at Taunton and Somerset NHS Foundation
th
Trust. She would join the University on September 8 2014.
iii)
Students’ Union Awards – The University, Students’ Guild and FXU had been awarded
the 2014 Students’ Union and Institution Partnership Award by the Higher Education
Academy and National Union of Students.
In addition the Students’ Guild had won the Academic Representation Award at the
rd
NUS Awards 2014. The award was presented at a gala ceremony held in Bolton on 3
July.
Council RECORDED their sincere congratulations to the Guild and FXU.
iv)
Institute of Physics Bragg Award – Professor Peter Vukusic in Physics had been
named as the 2014 winner of the Bragg Medal, awarded by the Institute of Physics, for
his “significant and impactful contribution to widening participation in physics education
and outreach”. This was a hugely prestigious award, which recognised leading and
innovative contributions to the teaching of physics to encourage those people active in
developing new methods and approaches, named after Sir Lawrence Bragg, who had
an international reputation for the popularisation and teaching of physics. Council
RECORDED their congratulations to Professor Vukusic.
v)
ZSL Award – Professor David Hosken in the College of Life and Environmental
Sciences had also been awarded a prestigious prize – the 2013 ZSL Scientific Medal –
from the Zoological Society of London in recognition of outstanding scientific merit.
Council RECORDED their congratulations to Professor Hosken.
Page 5 of 14
vi)
Northcott Theatre Funding – Arts Council England had announced a three-year funding
deal for the Exeter Northcott Theatre under its National Portfolio Programme for 20152018. The Vice-Chancellor congratulated Lady Lucy Studholme, Chair of the Theatre’s
Board of Trustees, and the entire team who had worked so hard to achieve this.
vii)
UPP Refinancing – in 2008/09 the University had entered in to a 43 year partnership
with UPP. UPP had originally financed their investment through short term loans which
would end in 2016. UPP had therefore formally advised the University that they had
started the process of re-financing, which would require the University’s approval. This
would be brought to Council in October for approval.
viii)
Pensions – the Vice-Chancellor noted that pension arrangements had been the biggest
single item discussed at a recent Russell Group (RG) Board meeting.
The results from the 2014 USS valuation would not be officially released until this
autumn, but it was known that the deficit would have risen from £2.9bn in 2011 to
around £8bn. Whilst the employers had indicated that they could afford to increase the
employer’s contribution rate by no more than 2%, this would be insufficient to address
the financial challenges and therefore it was very likely significant changes would be
required to the benefit package for the future service of all USS contributors.
The sector would need to have an agreed deficit recovery plan approved by the
pension regulator by June 2015.
The cost to the University for each percentage point that the employer USS contribution
rate increased was £1m. This would be in addition to the changes in National
Insurance (NI) in April 2016 that would result in both employers and employees NI
rates rising.
The University’s financial plans had factored in both a 2 per cent
increase in USS contribution and the 2 per cent impact of the NI changes.
It was noted that the Human Resources (HR) and Communication teams would need to
work with staff to increase understanding and awareness of pension arrangements in
the future.
ix)
Met Office and Science Park – the Met Office had announced that its new Chief
Executive would be Rob Varley. Rob had worked for the Met Office for more than 30
years, starting his career as a weather forecaster. He had been a Met Office Director
since 2007, and was currently Operations and Services Director. The University had
an established working relationship with Rob already, and the Vice-Chancellor had
written to him to congratulate him on his appointment.
It was now looking extremely probable that the Supercomputer would be located at the
Science Park but there would be no formal decision until September or October. If
confirmed, the implementation of the Supercomputer would begin in 2015 and it would
be fully functional by 2017.
In addition, the Environmental Futures campus on the science park had been allocated
£2.5m for 2015/16 as part of the Heart of the South West LEP Growth Deal, finalised
by the government last week. This was a joint proposal between the University and the
Met Office. This would build on current links between the two organisations and would
use the big data that could be provided by the new supercomputer. It would enhance
Exeter’s reputation in Climate Change and other associated subjects.
Council noted the number of people who had done an enormous amount of work to
achieve these outcomes; in particular Professor Nick Talbot, Sean Fielding and the
Research & Knowledge Transfer (RKT) team, Sir Bill Wakeham and the all of the local
authorities involved. Whilst there was still a lot of hard work to be done to take this
forward, the achievements to-date made a significant statement about Exeter and its
reputation.
x)
PGT Review – Professor Wendy Robinson had been asked to undertake a
fundamental review of the University’s PGT portfolio. This would report to Council
during the 2014/15 academic year.
xi)
The Vice-Chancellor provided members with a confidential update on the current tuition
fees and higher education funding situation.
Page 6 of 14
14.58
Effectiveness Review Reports
Council CONSIDERED the Effectiveness Review Reports as follows:
(a) COUNCIL (STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL) (CNL/14/52)
As members were aware a review of the Effectiveness of Council had been conducted over
the last eight months, led by a steering group and advised by John Lauwerys. The Chair of
Council, Sarah Turvill, introduced the Council Effectiveness Review report produced by John
Lauwerys and the summary of the steering committee’s response to it.
In discussion with members the following points were noted:
• The University was on a journey to becoming more commercial and therefore it would be
useful to look at other commercial organisations and governance best practice within them
to compare with what the University was doing. The University needed to be more
outward looking in terms of the composition of Council, succession planning, and training.
• Council needed to be forward looking. In the 4 Age of Research, it would have been
useful if the report had considered the internationalisation of the governing body for
instance.
th
• More could have been done to challenge Council to be ‘sector leading’. Members felt that
this had been a missed opportunity.
• Overall, lessons had been learnt from the review about getting the brief right and looking
more widely outside the sector for best practice and advice.
Council AGREED:
i) That an action plan for the recommendations would be drawn up and implemented.
ii) That during the course of 2014/15 time would be set aside for all members to discuss how
Council could be more effective as a body and what it needed to do to be best in class.
(b) SENATE (CNL/14/53)
The Senate Effectiveness Review was submitted to Council for consideration and discussion.
Michele Shoebridge, Director of Academic Services and Deputy Chief Operating Officer,
introduced the report on behalf of Professor Nick Talbot.
The Senate Effectiveness Review had been set up to:
• Review the effectiveness of Senate in providing assurance to Council that academic
standards were well managed across the University.
• Review the membership of Senate to ensure that it effectively represented and gave voice
to the whole academic community (including students) across all campuses, colleges and
disciplines.
• Ensure the powers of Senate were effectively and clearly articulated and aligned with
external expectations (of HEFCE, and QAA for example) and that the remits and work of
Senate were clearly defined and monitored.
From the start of the process Professor Talbot had continually emphasised the importance of
an effective Senate to an ambitious, well-managed University and that Senate should provide
scrutiny, evaluation and challenge to academic plans and also act as a barometer of the
views of the academic community.
The Senate Effectiveness Review Group met on four occasions and there were four wellattended consultation meetings with a wider body of academic staff, including current and
former Senators.
The Review group had representation from the ASA leadership, from Council, from Deans
and a selection of academic and professional services staff, as well as the external adviser
John Lauwerys.
Page 7 of 14
The review had made recommendations regarding:
• The Powers of Senate: the Powers had been modernised to articulate a greater level of
scrutiny and strategic focus. The work of Senate had also been linked to the planning
cycle of the University.
• The biannual Cycle of Business: a biannual cycle of Senate business had been proposed
with core business to include scrutiny of the strategic plans of the University and of each of
its constituent Colleges and assurance of the quality of academic standards of the
University’s research and teaching programmes.
• The Membership of Senate: the membership had been modified to ensure that all of the
Colleges of the University were equally represented, along with Senators from each
campus. Delegated elections would take place in each College. Heads of Discipline
would also be represented providing academic voice, consistent with recommendations of
the Britten review.
The Review had also made important recommendations concerning the communication of the
role of Senate, including how it fitted into induction processes and training of academic staff,
and also the relationship of Senate and Council.
One important and innovative recommendation was that Senate and Council have a joint
meeting every year and that Senate and Council members have other opportunities to interact
and share ideas and perspectives. This would begin with a joint meeting on the morning of
Council in December 2014 to look at the outcomes from the REF, and would be followed up
with a further event in May 2015.
It was recommended that the new Senate arrangements came in to operation for academic
session 2014/15 with elections in October 2014. The only exceptions would be that Senators
who served on Council would continue to serve for the remainder of their current term.
nd
The Senate Effectiveness Review was endorsed by the current Senate at its meeting on 2
July 2014, subject to minor modifications to the Powers of Senate (see CNL/14/61). The
Review was wholeheartedly supported by the current Chair and Deputy Chair of ASA who
served on the Review Group.
Michele recorded her thanks to Derfel Owen, Head of Academic Policy and Standards, for the
support he gave to the Review Group.
Peter Lacey, who had served on the Review Group, commented on the process and
recommendations. The following key points were noted:
• The process of review had been excellent. The way it had been conducted and the
interest of academic staff indicated a real desire to look at the effectiveness of Senate and
how it could be improved.
• There was a great readiness to engage with Council and establish a relationship that did
not exist at the moment. There was a real desire to build bridges, communicate more
usefully and exchange ideas on matters of importance.
• Becoming a Senator was something that should be aspired to amongst those that might be
elected. It should be a role of real value and significance in the way it was presented on
individuals’ CVs.
In discussion with Council members the following points were noted:
• Under the proposed list of Powers of Senate (paragraph 5.6) it would be useful to ensure
there was sufficient opportunity for Senate to make ‘recommendations’ to Council. This
would be provided for alongside evaluation, assurance and scrutiny.
• Council needed to be clear about what it wanted in terms of reporting from Senate and
confirmation of particular issues and data. This could then be picked up through Senate’s
annual report to Council. Similarly, there should be an annual report from Council to all
stakeholders about what it was doing.
• The opportunity for Council and Senate to meet and establish opportunities for discussion
and engagement were welcomed.
Page 8 of 14
• It was important that academics felt that Senate was a body that they were proud to be
part of. The process of election was incredibly important to ensure that Senate was a real
academic partner of Council. Colleagues wished to revitalise Senate and there would be a
strong communications plan around this.
• The organogram of the relationship between Council and Senate (Annex 1) needed to
indicate where the operational and executive decision making and management scrutiny
would take place across the boards. This could be done through a scheme of delegation.
It needed to be clear whether Senate or Council were making decisions or monitoring the
decision making.
• The new structure and agenda for Senate was of fundamental importance to establishing
Senate as academic partner.
• The size of the membership of Senate would increase but was not out of line with other
Russell Group Universities.
The increase in number ensured that there was
representation from all Colleges, including four elected members from each College.
• The Powers still required some wordsmithing to ensure that they took in to account
Senate’s responsibilities with regards to student disciplinary and expulsion procedures.
• The resource for the support of Senate would also be looked at going forward.
Council APPROVED the recommendations set out in the Senate Effectiveness Review report
and the associated changes to Ordinances 20, 21 and 22. Council RECORDED its thanks to
Professor Nick Talbot and Michele Shoebridge for leading an excellent review.
14.59
Outcomes of the Planning and Budgeting Process (COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE)
Iain Springate and Lucy Reichwald in attendance.
Council CONSIDERED:
14.60
(a)
OUTCOMES OF THE 2014/15 PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESS (CNL/14/54)
(b)
BUDGET 2014/15 AND LATER YEAR PLANS TO 2018/19 (CNL/14/55)
Finance
Iain Springate and Lucy Reichwald in attendance.
Council NOTED the schedule for signing-off of year-end accounts (CNL/14/56).
Council members would be required to consider and approve the documents, sending any
comments and queries to the Chief Financial Officer and Pro-Chancellor (Finance) with copies to
the Acting Chief Operating Officer and Executive Officer between Friday 14 November and Friday
21 November 2014.
The only change this year would be that members would receive the draft Audit Committee Annual
Report for consideration at the October meeting of Council.
The Chair emphasised how important it was for all Council members to give their agreement to
sign off the accounts in good time.
14.61
Institutional Performance and Risk Report
Iain Springate and Lucy Reichwald in attendance.
14.62
Reward and Retention Strategy
(COMMERCIAL
IN
CONFIDENCE)
Council CONSIDERED the draft reward and retention strategy (CNL/14/58).
The Director of HR, Jacqui Marshall, introduced the report and highlighted the following key points:
•
The incoming Director of HR had been tasked with developing a new Reward Strategy. The
University had introduced a number of initiatives to support its REF strategy which needed to
be reviewed post-REF and it was timely to review reward structures and arrangements that
had been introduced several years ago to assess whether they were fit for purpose in the next
phase of the University’s development.
Page 9 of 14
•
The review of the current reward arrangements had found in particular that there was a lack of
transparency for managers and employees and a lack of flexibility.
•
The new Reward Strategy would recognise different categories within the University’s
workforce, which would require different approaches – not one size fits all. Splitting staff in to
these categories would also allow the University to benchmark against sector data.
•
The Executive Tier of staff would be paid spot salaries. Hay Russell Group data would be
used and salaries would be set at 95% of the median. If staff were offered above this point
then annual increments would not be expected. This would also address the current pay
differential in some cases between externally appointed staff and internally promoted staff.
•
The performance related pay (PRP) scheme for the Executive Tier, which would be overseen
by the Remuneration Committee, would offer competitive bonuses both annually and
additionally for a three year target. This would support the delivery of strategic activities and
programmes of work. The key would be to set appropriate objectives and ensure moderation
across the whole tier. The Director of HR was working with the CFO and Director of Strategic
Planning to develop the corporate objectives that would be set for all staff in this tier.
•
It was proposed that merit pay arrangements be more performance related.
Objectives
needed to be set more tightly in this area so that the top 10-15% of performers could be
identified.
•
Professorial salary was currently reviewed annually. The process was not transparent and the
criteria were not sufficiently clear for this. Therefore it was proposed that three levels were
introduced for professorial pay with clear criteria for each. Professors would be able to selfnominate themselves against the three levels and this would be ratified and moderated by the
Deans and DVCs. Market rates/outside rates would be provided for comparison and for
payment of any market supplements.
•
For the most junior staff grades the living wage had been introduced. Spot bonuses would
also be introduced that could be paid on impact and where a good piece of work had been
delivered.
•
The implementation of the new reward arrangements for the Executive tier, and the use of
spot bonuses for junior grade staff would be introduced for the next academic year. However,
the proposals for the new professorial salary arrangements would take longer to develop as
they were more complex. A senior academic would be asked to lead the project to develop
these arrangements so that it was designed by and for academics. This would be delivered by
the end of the 2014/15 academic year.
•
Two committees were proposed to handle senior and executive pay – the Remuneration
Committee and a new Professorial and Senior Salaries Committee. This new committee would
be chaired by the Vice-Chancellor and the Provost and COO would sit on it. This committee
would have delegated authority to look at senior professorial and senior PS objectives and
performance. Outcomes from the committees would be reported to Council lay members at
an annual lay session.
In discussion with members the following points were noted:
•
The University did have an input in to awards such as Clinical Excellence Awards and worked
with staff to get these awards. These were considered as part of the total package for staff.
•
The new rewards strategy should be budget neutral and by removing current in-year
adjustments would allow the University to define the pay bill more accurately. The demand for
training for up-skilling might increase as a result of the strategy but this would be seen as part
of an individual’s total package. The new strategy would identify salary anomalies and outliers
and some members of staff would have to be asked to mark time. The changes in relation to
annual increases would need to be carefully communicated.
•
The timing and content of the new strategy was commended. However, there would need to
be ongoing management of the new arrangements and line managers would need to have the
appropriate training to deal with how these arrangements were implemented and
communicated. This would be important for the success of the strategy.
Page 10 of 14
•
Colleagues were looking at the academic career pathway and as part of this were identifying
key leadership roles so that targeted support and training could be provided ahead of people
taking on those roles.
The Vice-Chancellor welcomed the strategy and asked Council to allow the HR team sufficient
time to implement the strategy as there were some significant cultural changes to be made.
The Chair of Council thanked Jacqui for the amount of work that had been done on this strategy
and noted that it had been through a stringent governance process. It had been taken to two
meetings of Remuneration Committee where there had been robust debate on a number of areas.
Council APPROVED the strategy but made clear that reward and retention was also about
management of poor performance and VCEG must ensure that this was dealt with.
14.63
Equality and Diversity: Annual Report
Council CONSIDERED the Equality and Diversity (E&D) Annual Report for 2013/14 (CNL/14/59).
Professor Mark Goodwin, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Cornwall and External Affairs), introduced the
annual report and firstly paid tribute to Dorcas Cowan, Equality and Diversity Manager, for the
amount that had been achieved in this area in the last year, and to Bettina Rigg who had been the
model of a supportive but challenging Dual Assurance lay lead. The report highlighted the
following achievements and priorities:
Achievements 2013/14
• All Colleges at the University had now achieved or were working towards an external equality
charter mark – either through Athena SWAN, the Race Equality Charter Mark or the Gender
Equality Charter Mark. This was a major achievement and the University was working closely
with the Equality Challenge Unit on all of these.
• The REF E&D Mitigation panel had considered over 1,000 personal circumstances forms
during 2012 and 2013. This had been an enormous amount of work that had been carried out
very thoroughly as indicated by only two appeals being considered by the REF Appeals Panel
on the grounds of E&D, both of which were upheld.
• There had been a significant increase in the compliance to mandatory E&D training from 32%
of staff to 58% (in March 2014). Further meetings with Deans of Colleges had been held
recently to ensure this number continued to rise further.
Priorities 2014/15
• The aim was to integrate E&D principles into the core business of each College and
professional service – moving towards a model where E&D principles were exercised in
everyday business rather than as a special project or add-on.
• There were four ways in which this would be done:
o Working with Colleges and Professional Services to deliver a devolved structure.
o Integrating initiatives and standardising the way that E&D was talked about.
o Improving student engagement on equality and diversity issues. Colleagues were working
more closely with the Guild and students to dovetail what the University did with what
students were doing. Gareth Oughton from the Students’ Guild would be attending the next
dual assurance meeting to discuss how the University and Guild could work together.
o Reviewing awareness-raising communications for both staff and students.
In discussion with members the following points were noted:
• It would be useful to be able to break down all of the data so that the statistics could be worked
through in more detail. An HR dashboard was being developed that would allow the University
to examine the data in many more ways.
• It would also be helpful to see the data on student ethnicity split by international and home/EU.
The data on the ethnicity of home/EU students allowed the University to identify the schools
that Black Minority Ethnic (BME) students were from and this supported the University’s work
Page 11 of 14
on outreach and widening participation. The University was keen to go in to these schools to
raise aspiration.
• The report should include reference to the initiative that the College of Humanities had
undertaken to positively promote female academics by looking at their CVs and assessing
whether they warranted promotion. This was now being rolled out across other Colleges.
• One of the most effective ways to get students involved in E&D initiatives was through the cocreation of events. Colleagues thanked the President of the Students’ Guild, Hannah Barton,
and her team for all their work on International Women’s Day. It was important to provide
female role models for undergraduate students whilst they were at the University and even
before they arrived.
Council CONGRATULATED colleagues on the steps taken in 2013/14 to move further forward in
the management of Equality and Diversity and SUPPORTED the next steps and priorities for
2014/15.
14.64
Senate
Council RECEIVED a report from the meeting of Senate on 2 July 2014 (CNL/14/61) and:
• APPROVED the recommendations for Senate Membership of Council (SEN/14/39).
• APPROVED the amendments to Ordinance 5 (The Conduct of Examinations), Ordinance 15
(Post Obitum Awards) and Ordinance 16 (Aegrotat Awards) recommended as a result of the
revision of the Teaching Quality Assurance Manual (SEN/14/41a).
• APPROVED the amendments to Ordinance 7 (para 7.4) (Title of Degrees) and Ordinance 13
(The Degrees of Doctor of Philosophy, Doctor of Clinical and Community Psychology, Doctor of
Education and Doctor of Educational Psychology) as recommended by the Board of the Faculty
of Graduate Research (SEN/14/42).
• APPROVED the amendments to Ordinances as set out in SEN/14/48, SEN/14/49 and
SEN/14/50.
14.65
Audit Committee
Council RECEIVED the minutes from the meeting of Audit Committee held on 13 June 2014
(CNL/14/62).
• The Chair of the Audit Committee referred members to the Committee’s concern with regard to
the progress being made on IT security and the request that VCEG took a more proactive role
in monitoring this.
Sally Wilcox, Lay Lead for IT, noted that this had been discussed regularly at dual assurance
meetings and whilst significant improvements had been made in areas such as laptop
encryption, the University and Council needed to decide what level of risk it was willing to
accept. Whilst laptop encryption was now at 95%, this did not cover personal devices.
Similarly whilst the University had adequate access mechanisms it would be helpful to tighten
up the working policies for staff in relation to how they accessed their equipment, whether data
could be downloaded on personal devices etc. The biggest concern was inappropriate use.
It had been agreed that the Chief Information Officer, Lynne Tucker, would report to VCEG
during the next session on progress and the University would ensure that there were adequate
policies that were adhered to.
• The Chair of the Audit Committee noted to Council that the policies to be adopted in light of the
accounting standards changes would mean radical changes to the University’s profit and loss
account. A paper would be brought to Council in February 2015 to advise of these changes
and ask for approval of the adoption of policies.
• Council APPROVED the appointment of BDO LLP as Internal Auditors for the period 1 August
2014 to 31 July 2016 with the option to extend for two years, subject to contract.
• Council NOTED the HEFCE Institutional Risk letter which indicated that the University was ‘not
at higher risk’; the highest possible ranking.
Page 12 of 14
14.66
Joint Selection Committee for Chairs (STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL)
Council RECEIVED a report from the Joint Selection Committees for Chairs (CNL/14/63).
14.67
Academic Promotions (STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL)
Council RECEIVED a report of promotions agreed between 28 October 2013 and 17 March 2014
(CNL/14/24).
14.68
Remuneration Committee
Council RECEIVED a report from Remuneration Committee (CNL/14/65) and:
• APPROVED the revised terms of reference for Remuneration Committee.
• APPROVED the appointment of a Professorial and Senior Salaries Review Committee.
• AGREED that a part of one meeting of Council each year would be reserved for Council to
review the work of the Remuneration Committee.
• AGREED with the need to review whether a change to the University’s statutes and ordinances
was necessary so that in future appointments to the role of Deputy Vice-Chancellor and
College Dean were made following open competition.
14.69
Council Nominations Committee (STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL)
Council RECEIVED a report from the meeting of Council Nominations Committee held on 1 July
2014 (CNL/14/66) and APPROVED the membership of Committees and Trusts for 2014/15.
14.70
Joint Committee for Consultation and Negotiation
Council CONSIDRED the minutes from the meeting held on 20 May 2014 (CNL/14/67).
14.71
Budget Scrutiny Group
Council RECEIVED the minutes from the meeting of the Budget Scrutiny Group held on 3 June
2014 (CNL/14/68).
14.72
Honorary Degrees (STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT)
Council CONSIDERED and APPROVED the nominations for Honorary Degrees to be awarded at
the ceremonies to be held in July 2015 and January 2016 (CNL/14/69).
14.73
Capital Strategy
(a) Council RECEIVED a report on infrastructure projects (CNL/14/70).
(b) Council RECEIVED the minutes of the Capital Strategy Group meetings held on 20 May
(confirmed) and 17 June 2014 (unconfirmed) (CNL/14/71 and CNL/14/72).
14.74
University Senior Management 2014/15
Council RECEIVED a paper on the University Senior Management for 2014/15 (CNL/14/73) and:
• APPROVED the recommendation that Professor Janice Kay be re-appointed as Provost and
Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor for a further period of five years to 31 July 2019.
• APPROVED the recommendation that Professor Michelle Ryan be appointed as Dean of
Graduate Research and Director of the Exeter Doctoral College with effect from 1 August 2014.
• APPROVED the extension of Professor Steve Rippon’s term as Dean of Graduate Research
until January 2015.
14.75
Emergency Powers in Summer Recess
Council DECIDED to empower the Pro-Chancellors and Vice-Chancellor (or, in the absence of
one, the other three) to act on behalf of Council in any urgent matters which might arise during the
Summer Recess.
Page 13 of 14
14.76
Powers of Selection Committees in Summer Recess
Council DECIDED to empower the Vice-Chancellor to approve recommendations of Selection
Committees in respect of academic and academic-related posts during the Summer Recess.
14.77
Retiring Members, 31 July 2014
Council RECORDED its gratitude to retiring members, as follows:
Professor Neil Armstrong
Hannah Barton
14.78
Conflicts of Interest: A Guide for Charity Trustees
Council RECEIVED a report from the Charity Commission on the Conflicts of Interest: A Guide for
Charity Trustees (CNL/14/74).
14.79
Affixing the Seal
Council AUTHORISED the fixing of the University seal to the documents listed in CNL/14/75.
14.80
Chair’s Closing Remarks (COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE)
JW/JAL
10 July 2014
M:\Exec Officer\COUNCIL\2013-14\July 2014\Draft Council Minutes 10 July 2014 - Jean's version.doc
Page 14 of 14