NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY
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).
NOTES
1.
NOTES OF THE 10 MAY 2006 MEETING
Reported that the notes of the meeting of Academic Board held on 10 May 2006 had been
previously circulated and were available on the web at:
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/internal/academic
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
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/congregations/Honorary.htm
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 http://www.ncl.ac.uk/congregations/Honorary.htm
Proposals should be sent in enveloped marked ‘Confidential – Honorary
Fellowships’ to Dr J V Hogan, Registrar, 6 Kensington Terrace, by Friday,
31 August 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)
4.
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,
6 Kensington Terrace together with confirmation that the nominee was willing
to be nominated. Nominees should be members of Academic Board.
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
2.
3.
There had been a significant increase in the level of staff costs over the three year
budget period, as shown in the table below:
2005-06
actual staff costs
2006-07
forecast
2007-08
forecast
£157,117,000
£171,800,000
£176,699,000
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.
3
6.
It was hoped that planning permission for the new Student and Administrative
Services Building 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.
Science City
Noted that:
1.
Science City 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
Science City activity.
4
Energy Technologies Institute
Noted that:
5.
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.
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 three written 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
Porter Cowen Building 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
5
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.
6