Summary notes of the Executive Committee held on 26 April 2005
- Public Inquiries for the Bath and Swindon Local Plans
The Vice-Chancellor reported that the University had submitted its evidence to the two Public Inquiries held last week. This had gone as well as could be expected, and no unexpected issues had emerged. The Swindon Inspector's report was expected before the end of the calendar year; there had been no indication of the timing of the Bath report.
The Vice-Chancellor recorded her gratitude to all those who had worked on preparing the evidence, particularly the Director of Estates and his staff
- Corporate Plan
The Executive Assistant reminded the Committee that Council had made provision for the annual review of the Corporate Plan. A number of suggestions had already been made at the Vice-Chancellor's retreat, held last October, and further discussion would take place at the Strategic Planning Meeting with Chairs of Council Committees (previously known as the Lay Retreat) on 9 May. Key issues were likely to be the implications of securing, or failing to secure, the DACMT contract; possibilities for the future development of the Claverton campus; and the general need for financial sustainability. References to supporting strategies would also need to be updated. Committee members were invited to make recommendations for amendments.
It was noted that Committee should receive the minutes of the Strategic Planning Committee.
- University Risk Register
The Executive Assistant reminded the Committee that it received reports on improvement actions at every meeting, normally in two areas identified in the Risk Register. The reports were then submitted to Council.
LT3 Risk: Failure of widening participation activities:
• Poor performance indicators leading to OFFA penalties
• Failure of progression routes leading to decline in relationship with partner FECs
• Loss of public funding
Two improvement actions had been identified to help manage this risk:
• Monitor the development of OFFA and the articulation of its requirements
• Continue to strengthen alliances with partner FECs
F1 Risk: Lack of Strategic Investment Funding:
• Inability to recruit/retain high quality staff
• Inability to provide pump-priming for new initiatives
• Loss of market position
Two improvement actions had been identified:
• Consider options for top-slicing operating budgets until a surplus position is reached
• Enhance fundraising/development activities
The next meeting of the Committee would receive a summary of 2004/05 improvement actions and a draft updated University Risk Register for 2005/06.
The Director of Finance confirmed that the Internal Auditor had an integral part to play in the University's ongoing review of risks, and that his work was informed by the University Risk Register, but made clear that the role he performed did not cover the executive management of risk. This was reflected in his separate and distinct reporting line.
Agreed: To note the improvement actions in respect of risks LT3 and F1.
Top
of page
- Draft Executive Policy Statement: Environmental Management
The Dean of Engineering and Design introduced a draft policy statement on environmental management within the University. This had been produced by the Sustainability and Low Carbon Advisory Group and was intended to commit the University to set and monitor targets for environmental performance in a range of operational areas. The Sustainability and Low Carbon Advisory Group would report on implementation of the policy to the Executive Committee.
Agreed: That the draft Policy Statement could be approved for promulgation throughout the University.
- Proposals for celebrating the 40th anniversary
The Director of Marketing and Communications proposed that the main event to mark the 40 th anniversary should be on Charter Day itself, on 25 October 2006, in the form of a thanksgiving service in Bath Abbey, followed a dinner in the evening. A number of other events were also proposed, some of which would be designed to enhance alumni and development fundraising activities. The overall approach was low-key, in anticipation of more extensive celebrations for the 50 th Golden Anniversary in 2016.
Committee members were invited to submit comments on the proposals to the Director of Marketing and Communications after the meeting. Subject to approval of the programme, an indicative budget would be produced very shortly.
Agreed: That the general approach and overall programme could be approved.
- Revision of the internal homepage
The Director of Marketing and Communications said a project to redesign the internal homepage had been set up in response to a general perception of the limitations of the current site. A proposed new version of the site had been circulated for comment to a focus group of 26 staff. The primary objectives of this new site were to extend coverage of campus news under separate subject areas, to be the first stage towards greater content management, and to improve the overall design and appearance of the pages. A large majority of the focus group favoured the new version. They had also put forward ideas for further improvement, many of which had been taken on board.
The new version of the homepage had a three-column layout, whose design was intended to improve functionality and site structure. A similar header design would be adopted for press releases and internal news items. Taken together, these changes would, it was hoped, provide a more coherent brand for the University.
Subject to approval, further feedback from the focus group would be sought six months or so after the new site had been put into service. Future developments could expand content formats to include PDF files and video. Review of the external homepage was also thought necessary.
Agreed: That the proposed new internal homepage could be approved.
- Review of campus security
The Deputy Vice-Chancellor reported that he and various other senior staff had recently attended a presentation made by the Security Manager of the North Bristol NHS Trust. As the presentation had raised a number of issues of common concern, which might bear further consideration by a wider audience, it had been decided to repeat the presentation at a special meeting of Heads of Department. This had been scheduled for Friday, 20 May.
Following this meeting, it was envisaged that a small working group would be formed to develop specific proposals over a timeframe of two to three months.
- Briefing paper on the Bologna Process
The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching) said that this briefing paper had been prepared for the information of Committee members, and for them to use when dealing with queries from their own staff. The key point to note was that the Bologna Process was a matter for intergovernmental agreement; it was not subject to EU Treaty obligations, included countries outside the EU and was not the responsibility of the EU Commission (even if that body was taking an increasing interest). Proposals emerging from the Process would have legal force within the UK only if they had been agreed by the UK Government.
Universities UK were monitoring developments through its European Unit. The University itself would need to keep a watching brief, but no general proactive measures were thought necessary at this stage. The most likely area of impact concerned partnership agreements with HEIs in other Bologna Process countries, if these had agreed to a proposal which had not been supported by the UK Government. An example was the length of PGT programmes. Such cases would be dealt with on an individual basis.
It was intended to present the briefing paper to the next meeting of Heads of Department.
- Policy on the commissioning of University promotional films
The Vice-Chancellor reported that on two occasions in recent years, it appeared that individuals from outside the University have been asked to produce promotional films on an ad hoc basis, without a proper contract being agreed and authorised in advance. On both occasions, the lack of a contract has subsequently caused confusion and misunderstanding, ultimately requiring the attention of the University Legal Adviser.
In light of this, Committee members were reminded that the authority to commission University promotional films was vested in the Director of Marketing and Communications. This policy should be relayed to Heads of Department as necessary.
Top of page
- Quarterly update on capital projects
The Director of Estates highlighted two of the main capital projects currently on site.
3 West North: This project was now in its final phase, even if slightly behind schedule, and completion was now expected during mid-May. Commissioning of research space for Physics was underway and fitting out of the teaching zone was almost complete.
4 West deconstruction and replacement scheme: Asbestos removal had been completed in March and demolition of the core structure had progressed rapidly since then. About two weeks of work remained. The early design development of the replacement building had taken more time than anticipated. It was highly likely that the final design would need to be developed in phases, after taking account of construction and funding constraints. A first phase design would, it was hoped, be ready in two to three weeks.
Committee members were welcome to contact the Director of Estates after the meeting if they had any queries about these projects, or any of the others mentioned in the update.
- Report of the Oakfield Executive Group
The Director of the Oakfield Campus drew the Committee's attention to three decisions recently made by the Oakfield Executive Group.
Firstly, it had been decided, with much regret, that the cost of establishing a day nursery at the campus was prohibitive. As this decision would have implications for the range of activities that might be run at the campus, other options were still being pursued, notably a sessional day nursery. The Childcare Services Manager was providing invaluable help and assistance in resolving this issue.
Secondly, it was felt that the significant increase in activity planned from August 2005, with some 100 additional students enrolling for new degree programmes, necessitated a review of space allocation and car parking. The main conclusions of this review were that: (a) dedicated office space would be provided for staff only if they were based at Oakfield for a minimum of three days per week; general office space would be available for other staff; and (b), all Claverton car parking permits would be valid for use at Oakfield (and vice versa); all Oakfield staff and Swindon Innovation Centre members would be issued with a parking permit; and the front car park would be reserved for conference and other visitors.
The Committee noted and endorsed the decisions made by the Oakfield Executive Group.
- Discussion paper: The growth of mobile technology
The Director of Computing Services said that this paper followed on from a topic he had raised at the last Heads of Department meeting. BUCS Student Surveys had revealed an increase in laptop ownership amongst students from 29 percent in 2002 to 47 percent in 2003. This trend was expected to continue, with a corresponding decline in fixed PC ownership. If it did, the operational and strategic impact would be significant: the lack of coherence of technology and software would cause serious problems for the Help Desk service; and the balance in future University investment between 'fixed' and 'mobile' IT assets would need to shift in favour of the latter.
Agreed: That this paper should be carried forward for fuller discussion at the next meeting of the Committee.
- The following items were received without comment:
Notes of the School for Health Executive: 22 February and 22 March 2005
Notes of the Faculty of Science Executive: 22 February and 17 March 2005
Notes of the Faculty of Engineering and Design Executive Committee: 22 February 2005
Notes of the Oakfield Executive Group: 23 February 2005
Notes of the Space Management Committee: 10 March 2005
Notes of Transparent Approach to Costing Steering Group: 11 January, 7 February and 7 March 2005
Notes of the Transport Strategy Consultative Working Group: 7 December 2004 and 10 February 2005
Top
of page |
VC's
Office | University | Search
| News | A-Z
Index | Contact VC's Office 
