Summary notes of the Executive Committee held on 7 July 2005
-
Annual Planning Cycle: Report on First Year of Implementation and Proposed Changes
The Deputy Vice-Chancellor reported that the first year of operation of the new annual planning cycle had delivered a number of positive outcomes, including two rounds of constructive meetings with the heads of departments. However, implementation had not kept to the original timetable and it was clear that several enhancements could be made to the cycle for 2005-6, including:
(i) the involvement of all three Pro-VCs in the planning meetings with heads of departments;
(ii) the submission of planning templates in November, once student registrations for the current session were known, rather than October;
(iii) the production of estimates in January rather than November to enable ‘testing' of projected student numbers against actual student intakes.
The Dean of Engineering & Design commented that it would be better to consider departmental plans and the associated ‘risks' within a single meeting. It was noted that there was some confusion about the relationship between the annual planning cycle and the strategic investment process. It was also suggested that the cycle would be enhanced by providing clearer feedback on: (1) what decisions had been made at the meetings; (2) over what timescales further proposals would be considered; and, (3) what activities departments should not be pursuing. The support services noted that it would be particularly helpful to them to have sight of the academic departments' priorities.
The Deputy Vice-Chancellor reported that there would always be some investment decisions that would have to be carried over to the following year as the funding would be dependent on student recruitment and other income targets. It was reported that the University was likely to have an ‘informal' view of its regional ASN allocation by the end of the month.
Agreed: A number of enhancements were agreed:
(a) the two (three) Pro-Vice-Chancellors should be involved in all stages of the annual planning cycle;
(b) planning templates should be submitted in November rather than October;
(c) planning meetings should be scheduled for November (academic departments) and December (support departments). Meetings should be scheduled for 90 minutes rather than 60 minutes to allow for risks to be discussed at the same time as departmental plans;
(d) the target for the production of initial estimates for the following year should be moved from November to January;
(e) reference to the production of an Institutional Action Plan should be deleted;
(f) the relationship between strategic investment and investment underpinned by departmental financial forecasts should be clarified;
(g) greater emphasis should be placed on providing departments with feedback on the decisions that had been taken during the annual planning process;
• the Deans' role in reviewing draft submissions in October should be included in the ‘Annual Planning Cycle' paper, as should the formal ‘wash-up' meetings.
It was also agreed that the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching) and the Executive Assistant to the Vice-Chancellor should draft a short briefing paper on student funding and make a presentation on the same topic at an appropriate Heads of Department meeting.
-
Policy on Admission and Support for Students under 18
The Academic Registrar reported that the Policy on Admission and Support for Students under 18 had been drafted in response to legal advice. The Policy articulates the support that the University will put in place for students under the age of 18 to meet its ‘enhanced' duty of care for minors under UK law. The Academic Registrar reminded Executive Committee that the University's Regulations allow students to be admitted at age 17 and informed members that every year around 50 17-year olds were admitted, most reaching age 18 before the end of December. She highlighted the need to obtain CRB clearance for all staff in positions of trust in relation to these students. The Policy was supported by guidance to be issued to the parents of the 17-year olds.
The Director of BUCS highlighted the fact that the University did not put any restriction on its students' access to chat rooms on the internet and noted that this should be pointed out to parents. It was also noted that in the event of a medical emergency the University would release information to parents even in the absence of the student's permission.
Agreed: That the Policy on Admission and Support for Students under 18 should be approved subject to:
(a) the addition of a clause in the parental guidance highlighting that there is no restrictive access to the internet at the University;
(b) a cross-reference to the fact that, in accordance with its student support policies, the University would override the data protection clause in the event of a medical emergency.
It was further agreed that the HR Department should be encouraged to progress the development of a complementary policy for staff under 18 as soon as possible.
Top of page
-
Central Print Unit
The Director of Marketing and Communications noted that there were three aspects to the papers presented to the Executive Committee: (1) proposals for the future organisation of the central Print Unit; (2) a discussion paper on alternative options for addressing departmental copying and printing needs; and, (3) a commentary on the progress made towards central procurement of paper, envelopes and labels. However, he highlighted that the main thrust of the agenda item was to secure some agreement on the future organisation of the central Print Unit.
The proposal was that the Print Unit, Design Unit and Imaging and Photographic Unit merge into a single business unit within the Department of Marketing and Communications. It was suggested that the new unit should be known as Marketing Support Services, which would be headed by a new Head of Marketing Support Services. The new service would be run on a ‘cost-recovery' basis, covering all its direct costs, including provision for investment, and making a full contribution to indirect costs.
There was strong support for the proposal from Executive Committee but it was felt that the new service would need a title that better reflected its role, possibly the ‘Design, Print and Imagining Unit'. There was also support for the proposal that the various elements of the service should be co-located at the earliest opportunity.
The Director of BUCS reported that he had been asked to provide a framework for a cost effective solution to departmental printing and copying needs. His suggestion was to supply departments with large, multi-functional networked machines. This was likely to reduce the recurrent costs of the numerous printers and photocopiers currently maintained by the departments themselves. [There are currently 400 networked printers across campus, excluding the Department of Computer Science and free-standing printers.] However, he noted that this approach would require some culture change. Security issues could be addressed by password controlled printing.
It was noted that large, multi-functional machines should be the solution for all new buildings, where the necessary open space could be planned to accommodate them. However, in some of the University's existing departments there was probably not sufficient open space to provide ventilation for a large machine. It was also noted that the University would need good service agreements to support such an approach as a whole department could be impacted by a breakdown.
With respect to the central procurement of paper, envelopes and labels, the Director of Marketing and Communications reported that Ms J Andrews was still negotiating with two potential suppliers.
Agreed:
(a) That the Print Unit, Design Unit and Imaging and Photographic Unit should be merged to create a new central service with a title that reflected the range of services offered to the academic, and broader, community. This agreement was given on the explicit understanding that all HR consultations had taken place appropriately.
(b) That further consideration be given to the impact of large multi-functional machines on pilot sites, including Oakfield and the Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, and that the introduction of such machines should be regarded as the ‘norm' for new buildings such as 3WN and 4West.
- Equalities and Diversity
The Deputy Vice-Chancellor explained that the Equal Opportunities Advisory Committee had responded to the proliferation of groups with an interest in equalities and diversity by undertaking a review of its own future function and constitution and its relationship to related University committees and groups. The review had been conducted by the Registrar who had consulted the various University committees and groups, heads of department and self-help groups. The review had concluded that the various groups had all made a contribution to the cause of equalities and diversity but there was significant confusion about their precise roles. The Equal Opportunities Advisory Committee was not felt to be sufficiently strategic and there did not seem to be sufficient capacity in the system for seeking feedback and interaction with the community as a whole. In response to these conclusions, it was proposed that the current structure, consisting of the Equal Opportunities Advisory Committee, the Advisory Committee on Disability, the SENDA Steering Group and the Race Equality Policy Working Party be replaced with an Equalities and Diversity Committee supported by a single sub-committee, the Equalities and Diversity Network.
The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research) requested that the new Equalities and Diversity Committee should have research staff representation. The Director of BUCS reported that the University was leading the sector in addressing the special IT needs of its students but had not yet tackled related staff issues. His assumption would be that any such proposals would be put to the Executive Committee.
The Deputy Vice-Chancellor then reported on the successful outcome of the recent ‘respect for people' pilot. The Equal Opportunities Advisory Committee wished to encourage the University community to engage with the ‘respect for people' project as a means of promoting greater understanding of equalities and diversity legislation. Any member of Executive Committee interested in completing the workbook should contact Marlene Bertrand.
Agreed: That the new Equalities and Diversity Committee, and its sub-committee, the Equalities and Diversity Network, should be established subject to:
(a) the inclusion of research staff representation;
(b) clarification by the Registrar as to whether or not the intention would be for Council to appoint a lay member.
It was further agreed that the Secretary should circulate the URL for the ‘respect for people' website.
Update on the SUMS business process review of student record-keeping
The Registrar noted that the Academic Registrar had circulated a note on 29 April to all relevant departments within the University outlining the formal terms of reference for this review. It was expected that the SUMS consultant would conclude her discussions with interested parties towards the end of May, and that the final report would be ready in August or September. Some 'quick wins' were expected, perhaps modest in scale, but certain major policy issues were also likely to be highlighted, most probably the wide variation in assessment practices across the University.
-
University Risk Management – Progress Report
The Executive Assistant to the VC reported that significant progress had been made on two major risks as the result of the criteria that had been applied to the selection of projects in the 2006-08 round of HEFCE capital infrastructure funding:
EI3 – the increasing financial burden of the ageing physical infrastructure around Parade; and,
EI4 – capital expenditure arising from legislative demands rather than institutional priorities.
It was noted that whilst the 4 West, University Hall and 3 West projects would go some way to tackling the ageing infrastructure around Parade, there remained a considerable amount of work to do.
Agreed: That future progress reports should also include an examination of one of the major risk elements where the net risk had increased during the 2004/05 session.
-
Department of Estates: Quaterly Report on Capital Projects
The Director of Estates reported that the deconstruction phase of the 4West project was almost complete and the University was currently working through design issues for the new building, including construction materials and the brief on occupancy. The 4 South Annexe project was working towards a planning application submission at the end of August 2005, with a view to starting the project on site early in 2006. Various DDA project packages had been let with a view to undertaking a lot of the work over the summer. The summer refurbishment project, including the Westwood residences, was progressing and the University Hall was moving into the design phase. Both the 3WN and the STV café projects had been completed.
Agreed: That:
(a) The Director of Estates would clarify the contingency position with respect to the 4 South Annexe project.
(b) The University continue to explore the feasibility of building 200-250 new student residences on the eastern side of campus for a 2007 opening.
The following items were received without comment:
Oakfield Campus: Progress Report – June 2005
Higher Education Active Community Fund: Report on BUSU activity for 2005
Notes of the Faculty of Engineering and Design Executive Committee: 10 May 2005
Notes of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Heads of Department Committee: 13 June 2005
Notes of the Student Experience and Strategy Committee: 16 May 2005
Notes of the Oakfield Executive Group: 26 May 2005
Notes of the Equal Opportunities Advisory Committee: 16 June 2005
Notes of the Space Management Committee: 9 June 2005
Notes of the Strategic Planning Committee: 17 May 2005 and 14 June 2005
Date of next meeting: Wednesday, 3 August 2005, 09.00 to 12.00 hours.
Top
of page |
VC's
Office | University | Search
| News | A-Z
Index | Contact VC's Office 
