COUNCIL
MEETING HELD ON 1st OCTOBER 2010
Staff &
Student
Members
Independent
Members
ExOfficio
Mr A Bagri (Chair)
Mr R Woodward (Deputy Chair)
Prof P Curran (VC)



Mr R Bright
Prof Sir Drummond Bone
Ms C Freeman
Mr A Halper
Mr K Murphy
Ms C Regan
Mr M Robson
Professor H Schreuder
Mr D Turner
Prof D Bolton
Mr N Raj Cumlajee
Mr R Gillingwater
Mr Philip Harding
Prof C Slade
A






A






Key:  In Attendance A Apologies P Part Attendance
In Attendance
Mr F Toop
Prof J Weinberg
Prof D Arcoumanis
Ms H Royle
Miss A Kite
Mr R Farmer
Mr K Gibbons
Meeting 6
11.07.10
Meeting 5
16.05.11
Meeting 4
28.03.11
Meeting 3
31.01.11
Meeting 1
01.10.10
Members (2009/10)
Meeting 2
16.11.10
APPROVED MINUTES
T by Telephone * Conflict of Interest
Reason and Meeting Section
University Secretary
DVC
DVC (Research & International)
Chief Operating Officer
Council Secretariat
Director of Human Resources for item 9 only
Director of Property and facilities for item 11 only
MINUTES SECTION A – OPEN FOR PUBLICATION
Part One – Preliminary Items
1.
Items for Starring
Council agreed the starred items for discussion.
2.
Minutes
The minutes of the meeting held on 12th July 2010 were approved.
3.
Matters Arising
None.
1
4.
Conflicts of Interest
None.
5.
Items Specially Brought Forward by the Chair
The Chair welcomed the new Vice-Chancellor, Professor Curran.
Council noted that Professor Schreuder would discuss his attendance difficulties
with the Chair before the November meeting (Action: Chair).
6.
Staff and Student Members of Council
The President of the Students Union reported that elections for new sabbaticals
would be concluded by the 29th November 2010 and that he and his fellow
sabbaticals would continue in post till then.
Professors Arcoumanis, Bolton and Weinberg did not attend for the following
agenda item.
Council agreed the following appointments of staff members of Council on the
recommendation of CGNC:
(i)
Professor David Bolton with immediate effect to end on 31 July 2011;
(ii)
Professor Julius Weinberg from 1 January 2011 for a period of twelve
months to end on 31 December 2011; and
(iii)
Professor Dinos Arcoumanis from 1 August 2011 for a period of three
years to end on 31 July 2014.
It was noted that the Ordinance covering such appointments had not been
followed fully this time for pragmatic reasons but that it should be for future
appointments.
Part Two – Major Items for Discussion or Decision
Council agreed to re-order this section of the agenda: 8, 7.1, 9, 10, 7.2, 11, 12, 13.
8.
City University at Fifty: Developing a Vision and Associated Strategy
Council agreed a ‘two track’ process for the development of a Vision and
associated Strategy, as follows: (i) operational initiatives to enhance City’s ability
to compete on quality, aimed at the fundamental issues City must address
regardless of future strategy and (ii) developing the new Strategy 2012-2016.
The stages of Strategy development would include (1) Determining where City
was positioned now, (2) Determining where Council would wish City to be
positioned in the future – the Vision – the key foci might include competing on
quality, strong engagement in research and investment in elements of the
academic portfolio which are strong or have potential, (3) How the journey
between where we are now and where we want to be should be achieved – the
Strategy.
Council agreed a timetable that would deliver a Vision in March 2011 and a
Strategy with KPIs in May 2012. The Executive would shorten the timescale if
possible, but Council recognised that the significant changes anticipated would
require significant changes to the University’s operational processes before the
Strategy could be implemented. The Vice-Chancellor noted that staffing issues
would be the biggest challenge and that finance would not be a limiting factor in
developing the Strategy. It was agreed that the Executive should be invited to
produce a more detailed timetable for consideration by Council in November
(Action: VC).
Council would be involved in each stage of the Strategy development and at its
next meeting would consider City’s current position in relation to 30 comparable
institutions (Action: VC).
2
7.
Report of the Vice-Chancellor
The Vice-Chancellor invited comments on the topics, layout and level of detail
provided to guide future development of this standing report.
He highlighted the following key items in his report:
(i)
More information on government funding for the University would be
known at the next meeting of Council following the issuing of the Browne
Review and the Comprehensive Spending Review. It was noted that
many countries were investing significantly in HE – USA, Canada and
France.
(ii)
The Vice-Chancellor had introduced a new two-level cabinet structure.
The University Executive Team (UET) met weekly and took operational
decisions and developed strategic “green papers”, which were then
considered by ExCo.
(iii)
City had gained a good position in the top 5% of universities in the world
in the new league table published in the Times Higher - International
Rankings. This had been due among other things to the very good
international score, though it was noted that the University did not score
well in citations for research.
(iv)
New immediate priority educational initiatives being implemented
included:





increasing the undergraduate entry points significantly;
shaping the undergraduate portfolio by re-allocating annually a
proportion of City’s capped HEFCE-funded student numbers
between programmes;
shortening the student assessment feedback time to 3 weeks;
improving the student module feedback; and
setting targets for NSS outcomes at the level of individual questions.
Council noted that drop-out rates were already being addressed through
initiatives currently underway.
(v)
New immediate priority research and enterprise initiatives being
implemented included:



Measures to enhance the organisation of research and enterprise
including the introduction of a repository to raise the citation scores
of individual staff members and improving data to demonstrate if
research is improving or declining;
increasing the numbers and quality of doctoral students and
improving their experience; and
Supporting academic staff by increasing the number of staff trained
in research; reviewing the academic contract and career grades; and
implementing the Research Concordat.
Council noted that investment in doctoral studentships would focus on
success areas, potential success areas and the interface between
Schools.
(vi)
The Hutton Review of public sector pensions was expected to impact on
the LPFA Pension Scheme;
(vii)
The University was moving to the use of language common to the old
university sector; and
3
(viii)
A Working Party from the University of London was due to visit City on
the 14th October 2010 as part of the consideration of membership. A full
report would be made to Council in November.
The Director of HR joined the meeting at this point.
9.
Presentation from HR Director
Council received a presentation from the HR Director on the structure and
delivery of HR support in the University, recent achievements including the good
result of the staff survey and proposed immediate objectives for the HR
Department. The immediate objectives were to support the Vice-Chancellor in
achieving the quality improvement initiatives in Education and Research and
Enterprise and, in due course, in implementing the Strategic Plan.
Council agreed that detail of the breakdown of the £10m “non payroll staff costs”
should be reported back for further consideration (Action: HR Director).
Council expressed its appreciation for the report and the achievements
demonstrated.
This Item is covered in Section B of the Minutes, Closed Business.
The Director of HR left the meeting at this point.
10.
Finance
10.1
Risk range for the 2010/2011 Budget
Council noted the approved budget of £2m deficit after allowing for restructuring
costs of £3m. The CFO reported a narrowing of the risk range from +/-£2.5m
(£0.5m surplus - £4.5m deficit) reported in July 2010 to +£1.7m to -£2.1m
(£0.3m deficit - £4.1m deficit) but noted that it was still too early in the financial
year for greater certainty.
The budget included capital expenditure of £18.6m for 2010-11, with the
balance of cash and short-term deposits forecast to be £62.6m by July 2011.
The budget did not include cost savings or financial benefits arising from a major
restructuring of academic provision or further reductions in the support functions
beyond that agreed to date. Further restructuring and the Zero Based Review
might deliver additional benefits.
It was noted that HEFCE might have to reduce the grant announced for April
2011 onwards in the light of the government spending plans. At the November
meeting the flash forecast would be presented with a revised risk range
assessment. (Action: CFO).
It was agreed that a report on the lower than expected recruitment to INTO
programmes would considered by Council in November 2010 (Action: DVC(E)).
INTO had recruited well other than for the new London site.
Council praised the format of the report which would be continued in future.
10.2
4
Annual Financial Statements
The close out meeting on the Financial Statements with the External Auditors
had been held on Wednesday 29th September and had resulted in no material
changes to the accounts.
The Financial Statements would be presented to Council for approval in
November 2010. They reported an operating deficit of £53k on a turnover of
£179m, after taking account of £1.8m restructuring costs and including City’s
share of the loss of the INTO venture of £1.275m (£1.1m forecast). This
represented a good measure of improvement on the forecast £2m deficit. Every
School had produced an outcome which was better than forecast and the overall
cost of central services was below the figure forecast. There was evidence of
widespread recognition of financial difficulties faced. Cash stood at £77m
compared with £80m last year.
One accounting issue needed to be resolved - the treatment of the
Government’s change to indexing pension benefits from CPI to RPI which would
give rise to a direct gain in the LPFA scheme of £3m. This was being discussed
with the auditors – the gain might need to be shown as a credit to the Income
and Expenditure Account..
Council noted the commendable action taken to prepare for future reductions in
funding by bringing down costs aggressively at an earlier time than many
competitors. It noted that this would affect the previous forecast assumptions
and consideration should be given to changing financial expectations in the light
of this.
7.2
Financial Strategy Implementation
Council considered a progress report from the CFO. Modelling the effect of a
revised set of assumptions that better reflected current intelligence regarding
future funding assumptions did not suggest that the original conclusions of the
Financial Strategy as to scale or timing should be changed. The implementation
of the Financial Strategy was on target.
Council received a comprehensive report on the Zero Based Review including
details on the project team. The first set of recommendations should be
available at the end of October. The teams were doing as much benchmarking
as possible though this was difficult. The CFO report also covered progress on
the Spend Efficiency Review.
11.
Northampton Square Educational Projects
The proposal recommended developing a scheme where the City Innovation
Centre building was converted for the City Law School and its current occupants
(Information Services, Property & Facilities and HR) relocated to new leased
office premises at nearby No.1 Myddelton St. Office and course office space for
the School of Community and Health Sciences would be provided at No.1
Myddelton St and the staff from West Smithfield would be joined by most of the
SCHS staff currently at Northampton Square. This would be a major advance in
the integration of SCHS, both in itself and with the rest of the University, and
would provide SCHS with a clear identity at the main campus. General teaching
space would need to be replaced, as a consequence of the loss of West
Smithfield. The aim would be to achieve this on the Northampton Square
envelope. The total development cost of the works was estimated at £14.6m.
It was noted that a separate business case for further main library work would
be presented in due course to accommodate the SCHS student footfall at a cost
of around £1m.
The Executive aimed to bring the finalised detail of the lease proposal for No.1
Myddleton Street with a request for authority to proceed to the November
meeting of Council (Action:COO). The aim was for an entry date of March
2012.
5
Council noted that the implementation would be difficult because of the volume
of works being carried out on a busy site in term time and this would impact on
the University’s business and that an excellent communication strategy would
be critical. The UCU Branch President had written to the Chair concerning the
project and the Chair had replied to say that this was a management issue and
that Council was looking to management to ensure appropriate communications
were undertaken.
The new Dean of SCHS was in discussions with the NHS about its contribution
to the relocation of the School and a Working Party was exploring options for
the future of the Whitechapel site.
It was noted that the recommended option did not have the lowest net present
value (NPV). However, the qualitative benefits of this option, particularly its
better use of the estate and significantly reduced impact on the student
experience, particularly in the School of Social Sciences, more than outweighed
the lower NPV. Following discussion, Council accepted that it was appropriate
to take these qualitative factors into account in reaching a decision as to which
option was optimal for the University as a whole.
Council agreed to:
(i)
approve the Scheme and authorise the Vice-Chancellor to proceed with
developing the Scheme – incurring such expenditure as was necessary
to the stage where Council could be presented with tendered prices and
a firm budget.
(ii)
Receive for Council’s financial approval the final budget for the Scheme
following tendering but before the contracts to deliver the key works had
been signed – probably at the March 2011 meeting (Action: COO). The
Executive was invited to bring back any commentary on the timeline and
any issues arising to the November or January meetings.
12.
Annual Review of CREU and CRIDO 2009/10
Council received the annual review of the work of the City Research and
Enterprise Unit (CREU) and the City Research Development and International
Relations Office (CRIDO) in support of research and enterprise. Council
welcomed the report and asked to receive expanded information on one or two
research and enterprise cases (Action DVC(R&I). It noted that the financial
figures achieved were small at this stage compared with comparable institutions.
City was working closely with UCL on the development of business cases for
licensing spinouts.
13.
WC2
World Cities World Class (WC2) was a new international network that had been
launched by City University London with the aim of building closer links
between universities, local governments and business communities across the
globe. It had been designed to encourage and facilitate international
collaboration in research and education of world class universities located in
the heart of major economic and cultural hubs.
Founding members were all in the top 500 world ranking institutions and
included: City University London; Hong Kong Polytechnic University;
Politecnico di Milano; St. Petersburg State Polytechnic University; Seoul
National University; Technical University of Berlin; Universidad Autonoma
Metropolitana, Mexico City; and University of Sao Paulo. An approach was
being made to two US institutions and others to join.
6
Academic collaboration would focus on five major concerns of world cities:
transport; global health; sustainability; business; and cultural industries.
An inaugural conference at City University London with a global delegation of
more than 100 academics and representatives had launched the network.
Council noted that the network was being managed by Deputy ViceChancellors/Vice-Presidents from each institution and commented that it might
need to appoint a dedicated manager if it was to develop fully. It also noted that
membership of WC2 would not be affected by a move to membership of the
University of London.
The following items were not starred for discussion and therefore not discussed and
taken as read, with the exception of Items 17 and 19.
Part Three – Other Matters for Discussion or Decision
14.
Financial Memorandum
The key changes to the HEFCE Financial Memorandum were noted.
Part Four – Items for Information
15.
Minutes for Note
ARC Minutes of 13 September 2010.
16.
National Student Survey
A report on the results of NSS 2010 for City University London.
17.
Other Business
Members received a ‘Governance Information Folder’ which would remain
current by circulation of updated inserts as required
The next meeting would be preceded by a visit to the School of Informatics and
Members were asked to attend if at all possible. There would also be a
photograph of current Council members at the start of the next meeting.
18.
Date of Next Meeting
16 November 2010 at 5.00pm.
19.
Short Meeting of the Independent Members
There was a short meeting of the Independent Members.
Apurv Bagri
Pro-Chancellor and Chair of Council
October 2010
7