NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY
ACADEMIC BOARD
10 May 2006
Present:
The Vice-Chancellor (in the Chair) and 89 members of the Academic Board.
The Vice-Chancellor drew attention to the fact that there were insufficient members at the meeting
to constitute a quorum (100 members). The meeting could therefore not conduct formal business as
the Academic Board.
NOTES
1.
NOTES OF THE 11 MAY 2005 MEETING
Reported that the notes of the meeting of Academic Board held on 11 May 2005 had been
previously circulated and were available on the web at:
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/internal/academic
2.
NOMINATIONS FOR HONORARY AWARDS 2007
(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 Thursday, 31 August 2006.
(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 Thursday,
31 August 2006.
3.
REPORT BY THE VICE-CHANCELLOR
Received an oral report by the Vice-Chancellor on current business.
Noted that:
4.
1.
The Vice-Chancellor gave a powerpoint presentation, and a copy of the presentation
is available on the Academic Board website at
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/internal/academic/agmin.html.
2.
The Vice-Chancellor’s presentation focused on the development of the University’s
strategy and plans but concluded by providing some background information to the
current, very serious, industrial dispute.
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, 8 May 2006.
Noted that eight written questions had been received by the Vice-Chancellor, all relating to
the current industrial action and the steps the University had proposed to reduce the
potential impact on the degree assessment process. The Vice-Chancellor had grouped the
answers into three.
Group 1
Question 1 : Dr J Toomey
‘On 21 September 2004, the Newcastle University VC said that addressing the backlog in
academic pay was one of his two top priorities for spending the top-up fee income
http://education/guardian.co.uk/students/tuitionfees/story/0,12757,1306986.00.html. Is this
still his position, and can he provide details of the amount of extra income expected from
this source in the next academic year and how he intends to spend this money.’
Question 2 : Dr G Khattab
‘On the 21st of September 2004, you said that addressing the backlog in academic pay was
one of your two top priorities for spending the top-up fee income, but now you are saying
that the money has already been spent. Why were we promised this money only to be told
it is no loner available and what has it been spent on?’
Noted that the Vice-Chancellor answered the first two questions together, since they both
related to the September 2004 survey conducted by The Guardian on the way in which
2
additional money arising from higher undergraduate tuition fees would be used. In
September 2004, the Vice-Chancellor indicated that he had two priorities for the extra
income. The first was to improve teaching, social and sporting facilities and the second was
the backlog in academic pay. He also indicated to The Guardian in a subsequent question
from the same survey that the extra income raised would not be adequate. The ViceChancellor in his earlier presentation had provided information on the increase in the
University’s pay bill between the 2003-04 and 2004-05 financial years. This helped show
that the pay bill in the University was increasing at a much faster rate than the headline pay
settlement might suggest. The costs of implementing the Fair Measures scheme was
approximately 3% of the relevant pay bill and this, in itself, was higher than the additional
fee income that would be raised in 2006-07.
The Vice-Chancellor confirmed that improving academic pay remained one of his top
priorities but it had to be affordable.
Group 2
Question 3 : Dr K Brewster
‘The proposal passed by Senate on 2 May could result in some students graduating with a
partial set of marks. Doesn’t this decision threaten the integrity of a Newcastle degree?’
Question 4 : Dr N L Standen
‘The guidelines to the new clause added to the General Regulations on Tuesday 2 May state
that, where professional accreditation is involved, graduating students must complete all
their assessments at some point, even if they cannot do so at the normal time. However, the
same provision does not appear to apply to non-accredited degrees. Please could the ViceChancellor explain this difference in treatment?’
Question 5 : Dr L Racaut
‘Irrespective of the outcome of the current pay dispute, are you not concerned that the
emergency measures that were drafted in the University regulations last week run the risk of
damaging Newcastle’s national and international reputation and adversely impact on student
recruitment in the long run; and thus outweigh any prejudice caused by the industrial
action?’
Noted that:
1.
The Vice-Chancellor stated his view that it was the industrial action itself that was
producing the threat to academic standards and the University was trying to be fair
to its students. The steps proposed by the University, and recently approved by
Senate, were not unique. They were very similar to measures that had been
proposed by other leading universities faced with a very similar situation. The
University’s regulations already permitted a certain degree of flexibility where
circumstances beyond the student’s control had prevented a full assessment taking
place. Unfortunately, in the current dispute, it now seemed probable that there
would be substantial disruption to the assessment for some students.
3
2.
The Vice-Chancellor emphasised that he had taken a consistent line, which was to
take every step possible to try to avoid causing irreparable damage to students. He
had written to staff to advise that partial fulfilment of contract was not acceptable
and the University did have the right to withhold pay. The University was very
reluctant to take this step, since it had no wish to inflame the situation.
Nevertheless, the moment was approaching when irreparable damage would be
caused and the University would be forced to act. In recent communication with the
AUT, it had been suggested that a partial withholding of pay would be open to a
legal challenge. This again seemed to be pushing the University into an extremely
regrettable position of withholding all pay from those staff refusing to fulfil their
normal contractual duties. Some universities had already withheld the pay of some
staff.
3.
Professor Ritchie was invited to answer the specific question concerning the
different approach to degrees where professional accreditation was involved. She
emphasised that the University was reluctant to use the special powers at all. The
University did not believe it would be possible to ask the students to return to
complete assessments after the normal end of term date. Professor Ritchie accepted
that there was a different approach to degrees accredited by professional bodies. In
these cases, the University was obtaining further information from the relevant
professional accreditation bodies to understand what flexibility, if any, would be
permitted during the current emergency situation. The University had complete
powers over decisions to award its own degrees, but it did not control decisions by
professional accrediting bodies over whether such degrees would meet the
professional accreditation bodies’ requirements.
4.
There was criticism made of this approach from some members present at the
meeting of Academic Board, arguing that the distinction between degrees that were
professionally accredited, and others, was confusing and suggested that academic
standards could be reduced in the case of degree programmes that were not subject
to professional accreditation. In response, Professor Ritchie emphasised that this
was not the intention, both in the cases of degrees that received professional
accreditation and other degrees, that appropriate standards should be maintained on
the evidence available, without disadvantaging our students.
5.
The Vice-Chancellor accepted that there had been criticism made of the notion of
placing emergency powers as part of the General Regulations and Senate had
specifically asked that further clarification should be provided on the basis of which
such emergency powers would be used, if at all, in the future. This proposal,
therefore, had not been approved by Senate at its recent meeting. It was recognised
that emergency situations could arise which were beyond the University’s direct
control, but the mechanism by which the use of emergency powers were sanctioned
would need some thought.
6.
The Vice-Chancellor again emphasised his commitment to avoid irreparable damage
to students and he asked whether any member of Academic Board would be willing
to see the interests of students irreparably damaged as part of this dispute. No one
present was prepared to support inflicting irreparable damage. However, in
response, some members of the Academic Board made the point that it required two
4
sides to have a dispute and UCEA’s actions had contributed to the national
problems.
7.
The Vice-Chancellor accepted that there had been problems on both sides
concerning the negotiation process, but his view remained that nobody should be
taking action that caused irreparable damage to the interests of students and he had
not actually met any members of academic staff who wanted to cause such damage.
The students in Newcastle had overwhelmingly, via the Union Society and in terms
of correspondence with him, expressed concern about the AUT’s action.
8.
A member of Academic Board asked whether there had been consultation with the
students concerning the emergency powers, because she believed that students were
concerned about maintenance of academic standards. In response, the ViceChancellor and Professor Ritchie noted that students were members of Senate and
had expressed their strong support for the proposals.
Group 3
Question 6 : Dr C G Brooks
‘Does the VC acknowledge that Academic staff are overworked and underpaid, and that
unless they receive payrises over the next few years similar to or greater than those which
he himself has received in recent years the effect on morale, productivity, and academic
standards is likely to be very damaging?’
Question 7 : Dr D R Paton
‘Does the Vice-Chancellor think that the current UCEA pay offer (6% over 2 years at the
time of writing) is appropriate? If not, what is he doing to persuade UCEA to improve its
offer?’
Question 8 : Professor N L Simmons
‘In 1984-1985, the bottom point of the senior lecturer scale was £14,135 p.a. Using the
Treasury GDP deflator to account for inflation, the salary that an individual at the bottom of
the senior lecturer scale should now earn is £52,158 (2005-2006). Could the ViceChancellor provide similar figures for executive (senior academic) staff? Will the ViceChancellor act to reverse this erosion in the salaries and status of University academic
staff?’
Noted that:
1.
The Vice-Chancellor acknowledged that academic staff were overworked and
underpaid in comparison to other professional groups. He emphasised that the
achievements of the University were a tribute to our academic staff.
2.
In response to the questions concerning the Vice-Chancellor’s personal pay, he
emphasised that this was determined by Remuneration Committee, a sub-Committee
of Council. The Vice-Chancellor’s pay had increased in line with the general pay
increase for all staff, with the exception of one year where the increase had been
5
mapped in line with the increase for clinical staff and this policy was determined by
Remuneration Committee. The Vice-Chancellor was one of the three highest paid
individuals in the University. The Vice-Chancellor had already made a personal
benefaction to the University of £20,000 and had written to a number of members of
the Alumni who had agreed to match this contribution. This contribution would be
used directly to support student activities.
5.
3.
The current UCEA offer was 12.6% over a three year period. The Vice-Chancellor
believed that this was only affordable if there was a reduction in the number of jobs
being planned.
4.
There appeared to be an error in the calculation concerning the comparative salary
for senior lecturers. A GDP deflator applied to a salary of £14,135 net in 1984-85
would yield a salary of £30,195 in 2005. Following the introduction of Fair
Measures, the bottom point of the senior lecturer grade is now £38,772. It is also
worth noting that in 1984-85, 39% of our academic staff had been promoted to the
grade of senior lecturer and above. Today, 57.8% of our academic staff had been
promoted to the grade of senior lecturer or above.
5.
The Vice-Chancellor noted that there was no comparable information available on
the senior executive academic salaries in the early 1980s.
6.
The Vice-Chancellor noted that this was a very difficult time for the University and
maintained that his position had to be to avoid any irreparable damage to students
and he trusted that, overwhelmingly, staff would support this view.
STATUTES
(Note 2, 19.5.2004)
Reported that the Privy Council had approved the amendments to the University Statutes.
6