1 July 2002
(2.45 pm to 5.30 pm)
MINUTES
Present: Mr Melville-Ross (Chair), the Pro-Chancellors (Mr Jordan, Mr Pertwee), the
Vice-Chancellor, the Treasurer (Mr Lewis), the Pro-Vice-Chancellors
(Professor Crossick, Professor Massara, Professor Richmond, Professor
Sherer), Mr Burrow, Professor Busfield, Ms Colston, Professor Downton, Dr
Elston, Mr Glossop, Mrs Gould, Mr Harker, Mr Hayman, Mr Hughes,
Professor Lahiri, Professor Lubbock, Sir Robin Mountfield, Mr Owen, Mr
Rainbird, Professor Scott, Professor Tsang, Professor Turner, Ms Wright, the
President of the Students' Union (Ms Nwachukwu) and the Vice-President
(Finance and Services) of the Students' Union (Ms O’Sullivan).
By invitation: Mr Hewlett, Mr Sansom, the President-elect of the Students' Union (Mr
Jones) and the Vice-President-elect (Finance and Services) of the Students'
Union (Ms Lockmun).
In attendance: The Registrar and Secretary, the Director of Finance, the Director of Estate
Management, the Director of Personnel Services, the Director of Information
Systems, the Academic Registrar, the Public Relations Officer, the
Publications Officer, the Planning Officer and the Council and Court Officer.
SECTION A: UNRESERVED BUSINESS
CORRESPONDENCE AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
On behalf of Council, the Chair welcomed the President-elect of the Students' Union, Darren
Jones, and the Vice-President-elect (Finance and Services) of the Students' Union, Ashvina
Lockmun, who had been invited to attend the meeting of Council as observers.
Council noted that both the Vice-Chancellor and Lord Newton had been appointed as Deputy
Lieutenants for the County of Essex and congratulated them on their appointments.
The Registrar and Secretary reported that apologies for absence had been received from Miss
Clarke, Ms Manning-Press, Lord Newton, Professor Smith and Dr Steel.
STARRING OF AGENDA ITEMS
At the request of members of Council and the Chair, the following items were starred for discussion in addition to those indicated on the Agenda:

Item 4: Matters Arising from the Minutes (M.152/02)

Item 8(b): Update to Strategic Plan for 2002/03 to 2005/06

Item 10(g): Arts Committee
173/02
174/02
175/02
176/02

177/02
178/02
179/02
180/02
181/02
182/02
183/02
184/02

Item 13: Amendments to Ordinances

Item 19: Any Other Unreserved Business (paper C/02/46)
The unstarred items of the Agenda were then deemed to have been received and noted or approved by Council as appropriate.
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (SECTION A: UNRESERVED
BUSINESS)
The Minutes of the meeting held on 29 April 2002 (Section A: Unreserved Business) were signed as a correct record.
MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
M.152/02: Socio-Technical Research and Innovation Centre
Further to the circulation with the Minutes of the Business Plan for the Centre, a member of
Council queried the contribution of overheads to the University and asked whether Council could receive an annual report in future on the financial performance of the Centre now known as Chimera : The Institute for Socio-Technical Research and Innovation.
RESOLVED:
(i) that the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research) respond to the query about overheads outside the meeting;
(ii) that Council receive an annual update on the financial performance of the Centre.
VICE-CHANCELLOR’S REPORT
Applications and Admissions
The Vice-Chancellor reported on the latest position with respect to applications and admissions for 2002/03. With respect to Home/EU undergraduate students, applications were down by 3.5 per cent overall, with those from EU students down by 9 per cent largely as a result of a decline in the Greek market. However, firm acceptances were up by 1 per cent, showing that the conversion rate had improved this year, due to the efforts of both individual departments and the Admissions Office. Actual recruitment would depend on the size of the clearing pool and the number of deferrals which were difficult to forecast. The safest prediction was that Home/EU undergraduate recruitment would be static, that is below what was needed to prevent some holdback from the HEFCE as a result of failing to fill contracted
FTEs.
By contrast, Overseas undergraduate recruitment looked very strong with applications 36 per cent up on last year and firm acceptances 40 per cent up. However, numbers were concentrated in only a few departments, with almost half being in Accounting, Finance and
Management and others in Economics, Computer Science and Electronic Systems
Engineering.
Offers to Home/EU postgraduates were 9 per cent down on last year, continuing a long trend of decline. However, offers to Overseas postgraduates had spiralled by 82 per cent, largely as a result of a surge in applications from China, together with increases from India and West
2

Africa. The same small number of departments were affected, together with Law and some of the humanities departments, notably Language and Linguistics, Literature and Philosophy.
The pattern of applications and offers had led to a change in the University’s medium-term financial strategy, which would be dealt with later in the Agenda.
Government Spending Review
The Vice-Chancellor reported that there was likely to be an announcement on the
Government’s Spending Review in the next couple of weeks. However, this would almost certainly only indicate the broad amounts available, what the Government saw as priorities for universities, and any targets which universities would be expected to deliver. There was likely then to be a period during which the Government decided upon their internal allocations, with the final amount available to Higher Education not being known until the autumn at the earliest.
The Vice-Chancellor drew attention to the fact that Government Spending Review announcements were as much about presentation and politics as about money, so that the headline figures might be misleading. They would almost certainly include very large sums of money and be described as an excellent settlement, but they might well include expenditure commitments that had already been announced and assumptions about a growth in student numbers which would mean that spending per student was not greater, perhaps less, than before.
However, informal feedback suggested that the arguments on research funding had made an impact with Government as had arguments in support of investment in access programmes and, to a certain extent, on pay. It appeared to have been more difficult to win the Treasury over on teaching infrastructure.
Announcements
The University had been successful in its bid, with Anglia Polytechnic University, Thurrock and Basildon College and South East Essex College, for a New Technology Institute (NTI) which would help to establish the University’s independent presence in Southend providing courses in IT and business related studies.
The new Institute for Socio-Technical Research and Innovation, now known as Chimera, had been successfully launched at Adastral Park in Martlesham.
The University had received accreditation from the Institute for Biomedical Science for the new BSc degree scheme in Biomedical Sciences which was being organised in collaboration with four local Health Trusts
FINANCIAL SITUATION
Council considered paper C/02/33 setting out the financial situation, comprising an update on the budget for 2001/02, the draft budget for 2002/03 and financial forecasts up to 2005/06, which had been discussed by Finance Committee at its meeting on 17 June 2002.
The Director of Finance reported that the latest forecast for 2001/02 was for a surplus of
£1.329m, which compared with the original budgeted surplus of £1.244m approved by
Council at its meeting in July 2001 (C.M.192/01 refers) and the surplus of £1.579m reported to the last meeting of Council in April (C.M.124/02 refers). Whilst disappointing, this would
185/02
186/02
187/02
188/02
189/02
190/02
191/02
192/02
193/02
3

194/02
195/02
196/02
197/02
198/02 have been much worse had corrective action not been taken earlier and had departments not responded well to a requirement to make a 5 per cent reduction in their non-staff budgets and to refrain from spending brought forward balances. It was, therefore, proposed to remove such restraints in future years and to return to the University’s devolved budgeting structure.
A “baseline” budget for 2002/03, extrapolated from the current year, would have provided a surplus of only £205k, against the previous forecast reported to Council in April of £751k
(C.M.125/02 refers), with deficits in later years. This was largely as a result of the gap in inflation between the HEFCE grant and actual pay costs and increased pension costs. The proposed budget had, therefore, incorporated a range of short and medium term measures to increase the surplus, including a projected increase in overseas student numbers, increases in locally determined tuition fees, increases in accommodation rents, reductions in net expenditure in specific areas and restrictions on the recruitment and replacement of staff, although provision had also been made for additional staffing. This had resulted in a forecast surplus of £1.216m in 2002/03, falling to £821k in 2003/04 and then rising to £2.457m in
2004/05 and £2.151m in 2005/06.
This strategy was not without risk, particularly in relation to the projected increase in overseas student numbers; however the budget assumptions were cautious and the level of surplus was deliverable. In the short-term, when surpluses were less than £1m, risk could be managed by restricting capital expenditure and continuing with prudent financial management particularly in respect of releasing replacement posts or creating new posts. A range of as yet unquantified issues could further increase income, including the restoration by the HEFCE of the RAE unit of resource for grade 4 and grade 5 departments, an improvement in the widening participation premium, “third leg” funding activity through the
Research and Business Development Office and the partnership with South East Essex
College. However, any increase in the level of employer’s contributions to the USS pension scheme would result in additional expenditure.
In the longer term, there was a need to explore more strategic options, including income diversification, and the creation of a new Earned Income Group.
The Treasurer reported that a surplus below target for the second year running was a disappointment. Some of the assumptions were conservative but there were two main areas of risk, the likelihood of increased pension costs and the reliance on increased overseas student recruitment. In the circumstances the proposed cautious approach to capital investment was correct and a contingency plan was under consideration. Overall, the financial forecasts should be seen as a work-in-progress and there would be a further update on the strategic options available for discussion by Council in the autumn.
During discussion, it was noted that any investment in major academic restructuring of the
University would only be undertaken in the light of long term analysis of the likely popularity of subjects. The Dean of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences spoke at length about the need not to ignore the importance of increasing Home/EU undergraduate recruitment and urged that the University give priority to expenditure that would address some of the concerns highlighted by recent surveys of applicants who had declined offers at the
University. These included factors such as the University’s location and reputation, which could be addressed by a public relations campaign, and issues such as the poor provision of student facilities, the lack of a Students' Union building and the overall environment of the campus. He suggested to Council that the decision to proceed with Building 2001, comprising offices and teaching space, had been taken at the expense of a new Students'
Union building which, he believed, could have had a major impact on the recruitment of
Home/EU undergraduate students, especially in the arts and social sciences.
4

In response, the Vice-Chancellor explained that it had been agreed that the proposed expenditure on a new Students' Union building would not have been justified in the light of the likely impact on student recruitment. Students declined offers of places at the University for a number of reasons, including its location on the edge of Colchester and the associations with the poor image of the County of Essex. Any public relations campaign to address these issues would be both expensive and relatively short term. It was important for the University to continue to invest in new laboratories, teaching space and offices in order to attract high quality staff which were the real key to the University’s financial success. The External
Relations Section continually sought feedback from students on the University’s image and a suggestion from the Students' Union that they might be involved in this was welcomed.
RESOLVED: that the 2002/03 budget, with a surplus of £1.216m, and the Financial
Forecasts to 2005/06 as set out in paper C/02/33 be approved.
CAPITAL BUILDING PROGRAMME
Council considered paper C/02/34 setting out the latest position on the Capital Building
Programme which had been discussed by Finance Committee at its meeting on 17 June 2002.
The Vice-Chancellor reported that the complexity of the legal agreements with the Developer over the University Quays project had delayed the signing of the contract, but this was now expected to be before the end of July at the latest. In the meantime, the Developer, who had already started work on site at his own risk, had asked the University for a letter of intent.
The overall costs of the project had risen by £241k to a total of £25.884m largely as a result of changes to specifications.
It was important for the University to be cautious in its Capital Building Programme given the financial situation. Each scheme would be judged against criteria that included whether or not it would attract additional funding, whether it was critical for the University to maintain or expand its activities and whether it gave value for money. In the light of these criteria, three additional schemes involving the provision of rehearsal space at the Lakeside
Theatre, phase 1 of refurbishment to the Lecture Theatre Building and the conversion of space vacated by moves to Building 2001, were now proposed for approval. Should the financial surplus for 2002/03 turn out to be less than that forecast, the first two of these might be deferred. Those schemes which appeared on the list for approval at a later date would be looked at very closely before being recommended for approval and it was quite possible that none of them would proceed in the near future.
RESOLVED:
(i) that a letter of intent be issued to the Developer in connection with the University
Quays project;
(ii) that the increased costs of the University Quays project to £25.884m be approved;
(iii) that the following capital schemes be approved:
 conversion of space vacated by moves to Building 2001 (£200k, comprising £50k in 2001/02 and £150k in 2002/03) (C.M.138/02 refers)
 Lakeside Theatre rehearsal space (£100k)
199/02
200/02
201/02
202/02
203/02
204/02
205/02
206/02
5

207/02
208/02
209/02
210/02
211/02
212/02
213/02
 Lecture Theatre Building refurbishment phase 1 (£203k)
STRATEGIC PLAN
Annual Operating Statement for 2001/02
Council received and noted paper C/02/35 comprising the Annual Operating Statement for
2001/02.
Update to Strategic Plan for 2002/03 to 2005/06
Council considered paper C/02/36 comprising the update to the Strategic Plan for 2002/03 to
2005/06. It was suggested that the actions identified under objective 1 of strategic aim three concerning growth and development (page 6) should include reference to increasing applications from postgraduate students as well as overseas students.
RESOLVED: that the Update to the Strategic Plan for 2002/03 to 2005/06 be amended accordingly.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM SENATE (UNRESERVED
BUSINESS)
Council considered the report and recommendations (Unreserved Business) from the meeting of Senate held on 12 June 2002 as set out in paper C/02/37.
Centre for Remote Sensing and Environmetrics
RESOLVED: that a Centre for Remote Sensing and Environmetrics be established with effect from the 2002/03 academic year.
Future of the Department of Mathematics
The Vice-Chancellor reported on the latest situation with respect to the future of the
Department of Mathematics (C.MM.127-131/02 refer). It was the view of Budget Sub-
Committee that the Department of Mathematics had a bleak future, largely as a result of its poor record of student recruitment and future national trends in the demand for degrees in
Mathematics. It would be financially unviable at the minimum level of staffing required to offer degrees in Mathematics of an acceptable standard and to provide students with an acceptable education and the prospects of recovery in the medium term were poor. The
Budget Sub-Committee’s position was that the Department should be closed down over the next two years in a planned way.
Departments could not be closed down without the explicit recommendation of Senate to
Council. The Budget Sub-Committee had first presented its proposal for closure to the
March meeting of Senate which had voted to establish a Senate Committee of Enquiry. The
Report of that Enquiry to the June meeting of Senate had provided additional information and had covered a wider range of issues than the paper originally presented in March by the
Budget Sub-Committee but had made no specific recommendations. The Report had not contained information that persuaded the Budget Sub-Committee to change its view and it had again recommended closure to Senate. However, Senate had voted to establish a
Committee to seek to produce a recovery plan, based on radical restructuring, which would report to the December meeting of Senate.
6

This Committee would be led by the Department of Mathematics and chaired by its Head,
Professor Dowden. It would comprise the Heads, or their nominees, of the four departments with which the Department undertook joint activities, Accounting, Finance and Management,
Economics, Computer Science and Electronic Systems Engineering, and such others as the
Head of the Department chose to co-opt.
The remit of the Committee was to produce a recovery business plan which met six conditions:
 a return to break-even by no later than 2008/09;
 assumptions about future student recruitment and numbers which were based on available evidence;
 proposals for new degree schemes to be accompanied by integrated plans for associated student numbers, staff recruitment and staff teaching duties;
 income and expenditure accounts, including their underlying assumptions, validated by the Finance Section, for the period of the recovery plan;
 explicit endorsement by the Heads of all outside departments affected, including Heads who were members of the Committee;
 explicit endorsement by at least six of the nine current academic staff members of the
Department.
Any recovery plan was very likely to involve the Department incurring substantial deficits over the transition period as a result of poor student numbers and investment in new or additional staff. The University’s financial forecasts and medium-term strategy currently made no provision for these deficits and the Budget Sub-Committee would, therefore, prepare a Note to accompany the recovery plan, setting out proposals for the transfer of resources from other departments to Mathematics in order to fund the recovery plan. These proposals would largely consist of a cut in posts in some other departments. Thus Senate would be able to consider the viability of any recovery plan proposed by the Committee in the light of its consequences for the future staffing of other departments.
During discussion, it was suggested that it would be helpful for Council to have copies of the
Report of the Senate Committee of Enquiry together with the Budget Sub-Committee’s comments on the Report. It was noted that the Budget Sub-Committee viewed the
Department of Mathematics in a different light from other departments in deficit, believing its prospects of recovery were bleak, and it was important, therefore, that the financial consequences of any recovery plan on other areas of the University were presented to Senate to enable it to make a fully informed judgement.
RESOLVED: that the Report of the Senate Committee of Enquiry, together with the Budget
Sub-Committee’s comments be circulated to members of Council with the
Minutes.
Appointment of Dean
(Secretary’s Note: Subsequent to the meeting of Council, the Vice-Chancellor and the Chair of Council took action on behalf of Senate and of Council respectively to approve the appointment of Mr Bob Mack as Dean of Collaborative Education for three years with effect from 1 August 2002 to 31 July 2005.)
214/02
215/02
216/02
217/02
218/02
219/02
7

220/02
221/02
222/02
223/02
224/02
225/02
226/02
227/02
228/02
229/02
MINUTES OF COMMITTEES
CAREERS AND EMPLOYABILITY COMMITTEE
Council received and noted the Minutes of the meeting of the Careers and Employability
Committee held on 24 April 2002.
HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE
Council considered the Minutes of the meeting of the Health and Safety Committee held on 8
May 2002.
Membership and Terms of Reference Review (HSC.MM.31-34/02)
RESOLVED: that the amended terms of reference and membership as proposed be approved.
INFORMATION SYSTEMS STRATEGY COMMITTEE
Council received and noted the Minutes of the meeting of the Information Systems Strategy
Committee held on 15 May 2002.
EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES STEERING GROUP
Council considered the Minutes of the meeting of the Equal Opportunities Steering Group held on 15 May 2002.
Proposals for Race Relations Policy and Code of Practice (EOSG.MM.55-59/02)
RESOLVED:
(i) that a separate Policy and Code of Practice on the Promotion of Racial Equality should be established alongside and complementary to the existing Equal
Opportunities Policies and Codes of Practice;
(ii) that the Policy and Code of Practice on the Promotion of Racial Equality, attached as
Appendix A to the Minutes, be approved.
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Council received and noted the Minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 27 May 2002.
STANDING COMMITTEE
Council considered the Minutes of the meeting of the Standing Committee held on 10 June
2002.
Research Park (CSC.MM.45-51/02)
The Chair of Council reported on further discussions by the lay members of the Committee, together with the Vice-Chancellor and the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research), as indicated in the Minutes of the Committee (CSC.M.51/02 refers). The decision on whether or not to
8

proceed with the current Partnership proposals was a very difficult one, given the background of the deteriorating economy and the market for such development in the Colchester area, and two main areas of concern had been identified: whether the current deal with the proposed
Developer was the right one, and whether it was the right time for the University to embark on the project at all.
Following a detailed look at the risks to the University, it was proposed that the project should proceed in Partnership with the current Developer. In taking this view, the difficult market conditions had been noted together with the extent of the University’s exposure in borrowing terms; given that, at least initially, loans would be secured on the University land, the reality was that ultimately the University would bear the financial risk as it was unlikely to wish to give up the land in the event of default on the loan. It was, therefore, suggested that in order to minimise the overall financial impact on the University, a ceiling on the level of borrowing at any one time of £5m be set. The lay members of the Committee were happy with this proposal with the exception of the Treasurer. It was accepted that there was a risk to the University in the early days of the development, but this would be mitigated by the proposed ceiling on borrowing, and against this, the University had a long-standing policy to establish a Research Park which could provide an important income stream in future; there was also the question of the University’s involvement in the local and regional economies.
The Treasurer stressed that he was enthusiastic about the establishment of a Research Park, but did not believe that the current proposals were at the right time or on the right terms.
There had been a number of changes since the original discussions in January 2002, which had envisaged a phased project with the University able to terminate the Partnership at each phase without penalty. Subsequent negotiations with the Developer had revealed that this was no longer acceptable and two cut-off points, comprising the provision of 20,000 square feet by the end of three years and 40,000 square feet by the end of five years, had been proposed instead; these should be seen against the total planned development of 600,000 square feet. There were three main areas of concern. Firstly, the market was uncertain. The development would need large commercial tenants to be profitable and the due diligence carried out by the Developer had indicated that there was a limited demand from such companies. The experience of the Colchester Business Park supported this view as did local property agents who suggested that demand would only run at the level of 20,000 square feet a year for the near future. Building was likely to be speculative with no pre-lets which increased the risk to the University. Secondly, the nature of the proposed Partnership meant that the University would be using its own financial capacity to underwrite expenditure up to
£5m. Given that to give up the land would represent a damaging loss of assets to the
University, it had to be assumed that the University would stand behind any loan and take on the debt in case of a default. In effect this meant that the borrowing associated with the
Partnership should be treated as part of the University’s overall borrowing and this raised questions as to the priority of spending up to £5m on this project at a time of cautious capital investment in other areas. Thirdly, the current financial situation of the University, including the risks inherent in the financial strategy and the moratorium on capital expenditure, suggested that, irrespective of the market conditions, this was not the right time for the
University to proceed with the development. It would be prudent, therefore, to delay the project for a year or so to see how the market and the financial situation developed; the risk of loss of momentum and the possible withdrawal of the Developer should not prevent the
University from taking this course.
During discussion, the current decline in the technology, media and telecommunications sector, which it was hoped would play a large part in the Research Park, was noted but it was suggested that this was not the long-term scenario. Opinions in favour of proceeding included the fact that it was important to take the long-term view, particularly in relation to
230/02
231/02
232/02
9

233/02
234/02
235/02
236/02
237/02
238/02 the University’s involvement in the local and regional economy and the proposed economic and population growth in Colchester. The Developer was keen to move into the business of university research parks and had every incentive to be successful. The original investigations into potential developers had revealed that there were no other developers on the same scale who had expertise in university research parks. Negotiations with the
Developer had been taking place for a considerable time and it was necessary that a decision be made. The University currently had B1 planning permission for the use of the land, which enabled general purpose commercial development; alternative permission for leisure or retail activities had been sought in the past and was not available. The freehold of the land would remain with the University through a subsidiary company; the leasehold would be transferred to the Partnership in phases as the development proceeded. The University’s exposure would be limited to the ceiling of £5m.
Against these points, it was noted that the University was not in the business of speculative property development and, if it were to go ahead, it was important that the development, including the provision of the infrastructure, be phased. The proposed financing was unclear and Council had not been presented with any detailed proposals. It was reiterated that the proposals represented a commitment by the University and the use of the University’s borrowing capacity and were, therefore, to be seen as a contingent liability; it was likely that the University would be required by a lender to stand guarantor to any loan.
In summing up, the Vice-Chancellor was in favour of proceeding with the development at the present time, although the concerns expressed by the Treasurer had been noted. The development was a project of 10-15 years’ duration and its viability could not be judged on the basis of short-term predictions. The University would not be committing itself to possible expenditure of £5m in the immediate future as the development would be phased and the
University would retain control of the phasing of the development with respect both to the release of the land and also to the amount and terms of the borrowing. It would be possible, for example, for the University to delay on building and borrowing if the market suggested that would be prudent. If no decision were made, it was likely that the current Developer would withdraw from the project and the University was unlikely to get as good a deal with another developer. There were no alternative uses of the land which would be more profitable and it would not be required for student residential accommodation as that was likely to develop either on or adjacent to the main campus or in the town centre. Any decision to defer the project at this stage would do great damage to the relationship between the University and the local and regional economic agencies and might affect the University’s chances of securing financial and planning help in future.
The Chair proposed that Council approve the Partnership with the Developer on the terms proposed as presented to Standing Committee, subject to a ceiling on borrowing at any one time of £5m.
The Treasurer asked that his objection to the proposal be recorded in the Minutes.
The Chair declined a request that the matter be put to a vote and asked for those dissenting from the proposal to indicate; three such indications were made.
RESOLVED: that the University proceed with the Partnership with the Developer on the terms proposed, subject to a ceiling on University borrowing of £5m to support the Research Park at any one time.
10

Appointment of Chancellor (CSC.MM.73-77/02)
The Vice-Chancellor reported that Lord Nolan had indicated his wish to retire after the forthcoming degree congregation in July 2002. Under the University Statutes a new
Chancellor was to be appointed by Court on the recommendation of Senate and Council, following a Joint meeting of Senate and Council held specifically for that purpose.
It was proposed that, once Lord Nolan’s resignation had been formally notified, Standing
Committee (or its successor body, the new Finance & Strategy Committee) be constituted as a Joint Committee of Senate and Council. This would nominate a new Chancellor to a special Joint meeting of Senate and Council to be held immediately prior to the scheduled meeting of Council on 20 January 2003. To enable Standing Committee (or the Finance and
Strategy Committee) to make a recommendation to Senate and Council it was proposed that a sub-group be established to seek nominations and bring forward one or two names for consideration during the autumn term.
The Vice-Chancellor invited members of Council to suggest possible names for the
Chancellor, bearing in mind that the formal role of the Chancellor was to preside over the
Annual Meeting of Court and the bi-annual degree congregations in April and July. In addition a Chancellor could fulfil a number of informal roles, of which the most important were acting as ambassador for the University in the worlds of government, finance, business, the media and higher education at national and international levels; and mediating at a time of crisis in the institution.
The essential requirements of a Chancellor were, therefore, a capacity to preside over large formal meetings; ‘presence’; a degree of stamina; reliability, and a genuine interest in the
University and in higher education generally. The desirable requirements were good connections in the worlds of government, finance, business or the media; a personal history and identity that confirmed rather than contradicted the University’s desired image; an interest in the University between formal occasions without trespassing on the role of
Council or senior management; a name and face that students and parents would recognise, and an age closer to 60 than 70 with under 60 being even better. Non-essential bonuses would include a prior connection with the University and a regional or local address. It was noted that the Chancellor did not need to be British.
During discussion, reassurances were given that the selection process would ensure fair treatment and consideration of women candidates.
RESOLVED:
(i) that approval be given to the proposed procedures for the appointment of the
Chancellor;
(ii) that a sub-group be set up to seek nominations and bring forward names for consideration by Standing Committee (or Finance and Strategy Committee) during the autumn term; the membership of the sub-group to comprise:

Chair of Council

Vice-Chair of Council

Vice-Chancellor

Professor Massara, as senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor

Registrar and Secretary
239/02
240/02
241/02
242/02
243/02
244/02
245/02
11

246/02
247/02
248/02
249/02
250/02
251/02
252/02
253/02
254/02
255/02
Membership of Council for 2002/03 (CSC.MM.78-80/02)
The Chair of Council reported on two possible names for new lay members of Council arising from discussion at Standing Committee.
RESOLVED:
(i) that Caroline Hobbs be appointed as a co-opted member of Council for three years from 1 August 2002 to 31 July 2005;
(ii) that Auriol Stevens be appointed as a co-opted member of Council for three years from 1 August 2002 to 31 July 2005
ARTS COMMITTEE
Council considered the Minutes of the meeting of the Arts Committee held on 11 June 2002, together with the Annual Report for 2001/02.
Annual Report to Council (AC.MM.41-43/02)
The Chair of the Committee drew attention to the latest Annual Report and the ongoing development of the Arts Strategy. Some activities were being funded externally and others were helping to improve facilities on campus. He paid tribute to the contribution made by
Professor Crossick as Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Academic Development) who had been instrumental in getting the Strategy off the ground originally.
AUDIT COMMITTEE
Council considered the Minutes of the meeting of the Audit Committee held on 11 June
2002.
Terms of Reference, Title and Membership of the Committee (AUDC.MM.43-46/02)
RESOLVED:
(i) that the Committee Terms of Reference be amended as set out in Appendix A to the
Minutes;
(ii) that the title of the Committee be widened to read “Audit and Risk Management
Committee”;
(iii) that the membership of the Committee be increased to seven, by the addition of one further non-Council member.
Future Arrangements for the Provision of an Internal Audit Service (AUDC.MM.51-
55/02)
RESOLVED: that a Consortium be formed with Colchester Institute for the provision of an internal audit service from 1 January 2003.
12

FINANCE COMMITTEE (SECTION A: UNRESERVED BUSINESS)
Council considered the Minutes of the meeting of the Finance Committee (Section A:
Unreserved Business) held on 17 June 2002.
ICENI Fund (FC.MM.92-96/02)
Council ratified the action taken by the Vice-Chair and the Treasurer on behalf of Council to approve the contribution of £300k to the ICENI Fund.
MEMBERSHIP OF COUNCIL FOR 2002/03
Council received and noted paper C/02/38 concerning the membership of Council for
2002/03.
Senate Members
Council noted that the following would continue as members of Council elected by Senate:

Professor Busfield


Professor Scott

Professor Downton
Dr Steel

Professor Wright
In addition, Senate had elected the following new members of Council:

Professor Nedwell

Dr Venn
Elections were being held for the remaining three vacancies and the result would be announced as soon as possible.
(Secretary’s Note: subsequent to the meeting of Council, Professor Dowden, Mr Lyons and
Professor Muthoo were elected for two years from 1 August 2002 to 31 July 2004.)
Students' Union Members
Council noted that the Students' Union members of Council for 2002/03 would be as follows:

Mr Darren Jones – President

Ms Ashvina Lockmun – Vice-President (Finance and Services)
Non-Academic Staff Observers
Council noted that consideration was being given to the future of the appointment of two members of non-academic staff as observers at Council given the proposed changes to the structure of those Council Committees of which they were also members.
256/02
257/02
258/02
259/02
260/02
261/02
262/02
263/02
264/02
13

265/02
266/02
267/02
268/02
269/02
270/02
271/02
272/02
273/02
274/02
COUNCIL COMMITTEES
Review of Council Committees
Council considered paper C/02/39 setting out proposals relating to Development Committee,
Finance Committee and Standing Committee.
The Registrar and Secretary reported that it was proposed to merge the existing Finance and
Standing Committees to form a new Finance and Strategy Committee which would enable both academic and lay expertise to be brought to bear on issues of both finance and strategy.
It was also proposed to change the composition and terms of reference of Development
Committee to make better use of lay members’ time.
During discussion, it was noted that the new Committee would be dealing with both academic and financial strategy and it was suggested that appropriate papers should be submitted to Senate. The Vice-President (Finance and Services) of the Students' Union asked that the Finance and Communications Manager of the Students' Union be in attendance at meetings of the new Finance and Strategy Committee in order to advise the student member.
In response, the Registrar and Secretary stressed the importance of keeping the numbers of those at meetings of the Committee to a minimum to assist the conduct of business; however, it would be possible for the Finance and Communications Manager of the Students' Union to receive copies of the papers and to be asked to attend meetings when relevant items were under consideration. It was noted that the new structures would be reviewed after one year of working at the time of the annual review of all Council Committees.
RESOLVED:
(i) that Finance Committee and Standing Committee be merged to form a single Finance and Strategy Committee, with membership and terms of reference as set out in paper
C/02/39;
(ii) that papers concerning academic strategy be routed through Senate for comment before being submitted to Council;
(iii) that papers be sent to the Finance and Communications Manager of the Students'
Union for information and that s/he be invited to attend meetings for consideration of relevant items;
(iv) that the Sub-Committee structure of the Finance and Strategy Committee be as set out in paper C/02/39;
(v) that Development Committee and its Sub-Committees be reconstituted as set out in paper C/02/39;
(vi) that the Chair be authorised to take action on behalf of Council to approve the membership of the Finance and Strategy Committee, Development Committee and appropriate Sub-Committees.
Membership and Terms of Reference for 2002/03
Council considered paper C/02/40 setting out the terms of reference and the proposals for membership of Council Committees for 2002/03 as recommended by Standing Committee at its meeting on 10 June 2002. The proposals took account of the recommendations made by
14

the Audit Committee, the Health and Safety Committee and the Senior Staff Committee which appeared elsewhere on the Agenda. In the light of the previous discussion (MM.265-
273/02 above refer), the proposals relating to Development Committee, Finance Committee and Standing Committee were withdrawn.
RESOLVED: that the membership and terms of reference of Council Committees for
2002/03 be as set out in paper C/02/40, with the exception of those relating to Development Committee, Finance Committee and Standing Committee.
AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCES
Council considered the revised version of paper C/02/32 setting out proposed amendments to
University Ordinances.
RESOLVED: that the proposed amendments to the following Ordinances be as set out in paper C/02/32 be approved:

Ordinance 3: Ex officio Members of the Court

Ordinance 4: Representative Members of the Court
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
League Tables
Council received and noted paper C/02/41 setting out details of the Financial Times , the
Guardian and The Times league tables and commentaries on the University’s position.
STAFF DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY GROUP
Council received and noted paper C/02/42 comprising the annual report of the Staff
Development Advisory Group.
AWARD OF HONORARY DEGREES AT WRITTLE COLLEGE
Council received and noted paper C/02/43 giving details of the Honorary Degrees to be awarded at Writtle College as approved by the Vice-Chancellor.
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
Formal Delegation of Powers
Council considered paper C/02/44 comprising the schedule of powers which had been formally delegated by Council to other bodies.
RESOLVED: that approval be given to the schedule of powers formally delegated by
Council to other bodies as set out in paper C/02/44.
Delegation of Authority for Summer Period
RESOLVED: that the Chair be authorised to take action on behalf of Council during the summer break.
275/02
276/02
277/02
278/02
279/02
280/02
281/02
282/02
283/02
15

284/02
285/02
286/02
287/02
288/02
289/02
290/02
291/02
DATES OF MEETINGS FOR 2002/03
The provisional dates of meetings of Council for 2002/03 are as follows:

Monday 14 October 2002 at 2.15 pm


Monday 28 April 2003 at 2.15 pm

Monday 20 January 2003 at 2.15 pm
Monday 30 June 2003 at 2.15 pm
ANY OTHER UNRESERVED BUSINESS
Risk Management Policy
The Chair drew attention to paper C/02/46 comprising the proposed Risk Management Policy for the University. Members were asked to let John Woodall, Finance Section, have any comments no later than 15 July 2002.
RETIRING MEMBERS
On behalf of Council, the Chair thanked Miss Erika Clarke, who had resigned from Council due to pressure of other work, and Mr Peter Glossop, Mrs Daphne Gould and Mr Brian Owen whose periods of appointment came to an end on 31 July 2002, for their support for the
University and the valuable contributions they had made to the work of Council and its
Committees.
The Chair also thanked Professor Geoff Crossick, who was leaving the University to take up appointment as the Chief Executive of the Arts and Humanities Research Board. Council congratulated Professor Crossick on his appointment and wished him well.
The Chair also thanked Professor Sajal Lahiri, Professor Jules Lubbock, Professor Stephen
Smith, Professor Edward Tsang and Professor Ray Turner whose appointments as elected representatives of Senate came to an end on 31 July 2002, for their contributions to the work of Council.
The Chair also thanked Ms Gozi Nwachukwu, President of the Students' Union, and Ms
Claire O’Sullivan, Vice-President (Finance and Services) of the Students' Union, for their helpful contributions to the work of Council during 2001/02 and wished them success in the future.
The Chair also thanked Miss Sarah Manning-Press and Mr Michael Sansom, whose appointments as non-academic staff observers at Council came to an end on 31 July 2002, for their contributions to the work of Council.
Finally, the Chair thanked Dr Susan Atkin, the Council and Court Officer, who would be taking early retirement from the University during the summer, for her contribution in support of the work of Council.
16