MINUTES of the First Meeting of the 2005/2006 Academic Year Held On

the COURT

MINUTES of the first meeting of the 2005/2006 academic year held on Monday, 24th October, 2005, in the Windsor Castle Room, Queen Anne Court, Maritime Greenwich Campus, commencing at 5.30 pm.

Present: Mrs A-M Nelson (in the Chair)

Mr R J Baglin Mrs M McKinlay Baroness Blackstone Dr T Meers Ms F Chandia Dr D Quarmby Mr S Etherington Mr M Sharp Dr L Garner Mr R Spinney (left at item 05/11) Mr J R H Loudon Lady Paulette Tomlinson Sir Callum McCarthy

In attendance:

Mrs T A Brighton (Minutes Secretary) Mr P Chambers (Director of Development & Communications)(for item 1) Mrs L Cording (Secretary and Registrar) Mr R V T Daly (Director of Finance) Prof J Humphreys (Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research & Enterprise)) Dr M Noble (Pro Vice-Chancellor (Learning & Quality) Prof D Wills (Pro Vice-Chancellor (Resources))

Apologies:

Mr S Atkinson Ms M Branch-Davis Mr J E Brathwaite Mr J C Gould Dr A S Pugh

05/1 PRESENTATION ON FUND-RAISING

1.1 The meeting was preceded by a presentation on fund-raising by Mr Phil Chambers, the Director of Development and Communications. Members of Court were encouraged to contact him direct with any comments/contributions to the fund- raising initiative.

1.2 The Chair announced that, in future, a presentation on topical issues would be held before each meeting of Court. In this way it was hoped that Members of Court would be better informed of current developments and issues affecting the University.

Court: 24 October 2005 page 1 05/2 ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN

It was unanimously resolved, following a proposal by Richard Baglin, seconded by Mary McKinlay, that Anne-Marie Nelson be appointed Chairman for the year 2005/2006.

05/3 ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRMAN

It was unanimously resolved, following a proposal by James Loudon, seconded by David Quarmby, that John Gould be appointed as Vice-Chairman for the year 2005/2006.

05/4 WELCOME TO NEW MEMBERS

The Chair welcomed Tricia Meers to her first meeting of Court, and also Maureen Branch- Davis in absentia.

05/5 DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

There were no declarations of conflicts of interest.

05/6 UPDATE ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

The Vice-Chancellor reported verbally on the following developments and activities with which University staff had been engaged since the July meeting of Court as follows:

6.1 A significant number of staff had been pre-occupied with the recruitment and admissions of students. The introduction of a new system of on-line registration for continuing students had proved very popular. The success of the scheme could be measured by the large increase in numbers of students registered before term.

6.2 It was generally acknowledged that students who came to the University late into the term were often likely to drop out. A cut-off date for registration had been introduced this session to prevent recruitment continuing too far into the term. Current indications suggested a slight increase in the recruitment of under-graduate students. A comprehensive report on recruitment would be made to the next meeting.

6.3 The University was continuing to develop national and international partnerships. Collaborations with Ravensbourne College when it relocated to the Greenwich Peninsula and with Canterbury Christ Church University to provide foundation degrees as part of regeneration plans for Folkestone were being pursued. Further developments would be reported to Court once the details were confirmed.

Court: 24 October 2005 page 2 05/7 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING (CRT 05/1)

The minutes of the meeting held on 4 July 2005 were agreed to be a true record and signed.

05/8 MATTERS ARISING FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS

8.1 Strategy Committee

It was noted that an additional meeting of the Strategy Committee to discuss the development of a new strategic plan would be held on 9th November 2005.

8.2 Collaboration at Medway

The Chair reported that she would be representing the University at the formal opening of the University of Kent’s building on the Medway campus on 14th November 2005. She further reported that Medway Council had recently granted planning permission to enable Mid-Kent College to relocate to land adjacent to the Medway campus. This was a decision welcomed by both universities.

05/9 AUDIT COMMITTEE (CRT 05/2)

The Chairman of the Audit Committee introduced the report to Court detailing principal items of significance arising from the meeting of the Committee held on 26th September 2005. The following issues were discussed:

9.1 Internal Audit

The Chairman reported that the concern flagged previously that the out-going internal auditors were unlikely to complete their scheduled programme of auditing work had proved unwarranted. With the exception of the computer audit, the entire programme had been completed on time. It was anticipated that the Internal Auditors Annual Statement for the session would report improvements in the levels of assurance of internal systems audited.

9.2 Corporate Governance – Spin-Out Companies

It was reported that the Committee had overseen a number of improvements in the area of corporate goverance. An unresolved issue, highlighted during the Committee’s consideration of a draft Memorandum of Understanding between the University and UGMT Ltd, related to the need for a stated framework for shareholdings in spin-out companies. Legal advice was being sought and the Committee would be returning to this subject at its next meeting.

Court: 24 October 2005 page 3 9.3 Year-End Audit

The Court noted that the year end audit was proceeding smoothly and according to schedule.

9.4 External Audit Arrangements

The Chairman explained that HEFCE was proposing amendments to its Code of Practice to provide guidance on the independence, objectivity and ethical conduct of external auditors. In response to HEFCE’s concern at the trend for non-audit services to be an increasingly large part of the total external audit fee, the Committee had agreed an approval process for agreeing non-audit work with the External Auditors.

9.5 Fraud Policy

It was noted that initial experience of using the Fraud Policy had identified the need for amendments to include cross-reference to the University’s disciplinary procedures and to improve its implementation. In discussion, the Director of Finance reported that the incidence of fraud within the institution was negligible and confirmed that, as required, all cases were reported to Audit Committee and HEFCE.

The Court resolved to approve the revised institutional Fraud Policy for immediate implementation.

9.6 Value for Money

The Court noted that the Value for Money Steering Group had been established as a sub- committee of the Resources Sub-Committee in order to allow a wider pool of expertise and input for undertaking VFM studies.

05/10 FINANCE COMMITTEE (CRT 05/3)

The Chairman of the Finance Committee introduced the report to Court outlining principal items of significance arising from the meeting of the Committee held on 3rd October 2005. The following items were discussed:

10.1 London Pensions Fund Authority (LPFA)

The Chairman reported that the Committee remained concerned about the performance of the LPFA. The most recent actuarial valuation had revealed some improvement but a major deficit still remained. The LPFA had sought to assuage members’ concerns by holding open discussion forums and promising more regular actuarial valuations. The Chairman assured the Court that the Committee would continue its rigorous monitoring of the situation.

Court: 24 October 2005 page 4 The Chair of Court reported that she had spoken with Sir John Charter, Chairman of the CUC, at a recent event about the latest interactions with the LPFA. He would be sending through some additional information which she hoped would facilitate the University’s lobbying.

10.2 University Estates Matters 10.2.1 Avery Hill Campus : Building Works

The Court was pleased to note that planning permission had been granted for the new sports/teaching building and the academic building on the Avery Hill Campus scheduled for completion by November 2006.

The Court resolved to approve delegated authority to the Chair of Court/Vice- Chair of Court and the Vice-Chancellor/Secretary & Registrar to sign the contract for the above buildings for approximately £7.5m + VAT (as part of a total project budget of £13.7m).

10.2.2 Avery Hill Campus : Telecommunications

It was noted that, following a fire in cable ducts in the Avery Hill Park, the need to dig a second telecommunications and data cable across the Park to connect the Avery Hill Mansion and Southwood site was agreed to be important.

The Court resolved that the University enter into a new Wayleave Agreement with the London Borough of Greenwich for 60 years at a rent of £500 pa subject to review every five years.

10.3 Creation of Spin-out Company

The Court noted that the Committee had spent some time considering the proposal to create a spin-out company trading under the name of Toximet. There had been some concerns relating to the rationale for proposed equity shareholdings and the treatment of intellectual property rights. Professional advice was being sought and a suggested framework for the creation of spin-out companies would be submitted to the Committee’s next meeting.

10.4 Universities at Medway Project

It was reported that significant development work had been carried out at the Medway campus during the summer and the new Drill Hall Library had opened to students. Members of Court supported the proposal to hold a future meeting at the campus to enable a tour of the new facilities and buildings.

05/11 EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW (CRT 05/4)

The Court examined in detail the analyses of the responses to the questionnaires evaluating its effectiveness. Each of the six sections of the longer questionnaire was discussed at length and the following points were raised:

Court: 24 October 2005 page 5 1 The University’s Mission and Vision & Strategic Planning

There was a perceived lack of involvement of Court Members in strategic issues and a general wish for strategic matters to be discussed regularly at Court meetings, and not only during the development of new plans. Court was reminded that the University’s Mission Statement and Strategic Plan were currently under review. The Strategy Committee was actively involved in the formative stages of development and a preliminary document would be available for discussion at the Court’s next meeting.

In discussing the University’s strategic goals and the monitoring of performance, it was reported that a working group had been established to examine the University’s league table performance and consider how to improve the presentation of the University’s data.

2 Effective Fiscal Oversight & Sound Risk Management

In general it was believed that these areas were appropriately and effectively controlled and monitored. There was some uncertainty about whether the University’s insurance was periodically reviewed to ensure adequate and competitive pricing and Members were reminded that this exercise was carried out annually by the Finance Committee.

3 Responsible Employer

A large proportion of Court Members were unsure about the responsibilities of Court in relation to the University’s duties as a responsible employer. Most Members believed that adequate institutional human resource policies existed but were less certain about whether there was regular monitoring and evaluation to ensure that they were effective. Assurance that these controls were in place needed to be communicated to Court Members.

4 Select and Support the Vice-Chancellor

Although Court Members believed that the selection of the Vice-Chancellor had been conducted in a professional manner, there was less certainty about other matters. Court Members were reassured that a written job description existed for the Vice-Chancellor and that her remuneration was objectively reviewed by the Court Remuneration Committee taking into account comparative data provided by the CUC.

5 Selection and induction of new Court Members

As a significant percentage of Members indicated that they were unsure about the policies governing length of Court service, a note on current practices had been appended to the Court report. There was some discussion on induction training. It was felt that there needed to be a balance between visiting the campuses and seeing the University in action and receiving an instructive briefing on how the dynamics of the University worked.

6 Carry out Court business efficiently

Overall, Members indicated that they believed the Court was generally efficient, if not always effective. In this respect, it was agreed that the Secretary and Registrar should re-

Court: 24 October 2005 page 6 distribute to all Members the list of Functions and Tasks of Court compiled at the March 2003 Strategy Day. There was a general feeling also that Court Members could be detached from the day-to-day operations of the University and it was agreed that informal opportunities for Members to be involved in the University’s activities needed to be maximised.

Responses in the shorter questionnaire suggested that the majority of Members were content with their roles and responsibilities and contributions to Court and the University. However, a possible disjunct between lay members and staff members of Court was identified and further consideration would need to be given to improving the role of the staff member.

The Court resolved that:

i the responses relating to the section on Responsible Employer and the matter of the role of staff members of Court be referred to the Staffing Committee for consideration and report back in due course.

ii the longer questionnaire, unchanged save for a different phraseology for the questions in section 1, be re-circulated to Court Members at the end of the current academic session. It was thought necessary to gauge whether the perspectives of Court Members, especially the newly appointed ones, would alter during the year.

05/12 STRATEGY ON COLLABORATIVE PROVISION (CRT 05/5)

12.1 The PVC (Learning and Quality) introduced the University’s Strategy for Collaborative Provision which, together with the accompanying Policy and Practice guidelines, had received Academic Council approval at its meeting the previous week.

12.2 It was reported that the University’s collaborative provision had grown and evolved over a number of years and there were now more than 4000 students registered on partnership programmes in the UK and overseas. The new strategy sought to formalise previous corporate practice into a coherent framework by setting out the rationale and purpose for developing the collaborative provision, articulated the principal factors determining the establishment of new partnerships, looked at the targeted areas of growth and examined the direct and indirect benefits of collaboration.

12.3 It was noted that the extent of the current collaborative provision meant that the University was subject to a separate collaborative audit by the QAA. A Collaborative Provision Audit (CPA) was scheduled to take place between January and March 2006. The Court was mindful of the importance of maintaining standards and quality in its collaborative provision and was advised that a discontinuation protocol existed in the event of any dissatisfaction between parties.

Court: 24 October 2005 page 7 12.4 The Court thanked the Pro Vice-Chancellor for her interesting and informative report and asked for further briefing to be provided to the next meeting to clarify:

i the financial returns of such collaborative arrangements

ii the nature of the partnerships, an indication of the course provision and the numbers of students involved

iii the kinds of collaborative partnerships which the University had chosen not to pursue.

05/13 STRATEGY ON SUSTAINABLE RESEARCH (CRT 05/6)

13.1 The Court received:

i the University’s Strategy for Sustainable Research

ii a report by the PVC (Research and Enterprise) entitled “Strategy for Sustainable Research: Progress with Implementation”.

13.2 The Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research & Enterprise) reported that the University’s Strategy for Sustainable Research had been approved at Academic Council on 20th April 2005 and since that time work had focussed on its implementation. There was a greater investment ethos underlying the research strategy and, besides the usual funding allocations, an extra provision of £250,000 had been included in the current year’s budget to support the new strategy. Disbursement of this funding had concentrated on those activities which could best demonstrate a credible case in terms of returns on investment.

13.3 He further reported that the new Strategy placed increasing emphasis on the enhancement of the institution’s enterprise activities. The University Research Committee had now been replaced by a Research and Enterprise Committee. A complementary enterprise strategy was being formulated as it was crucial to the enterprise programme’s success that the balance of risks and rewards was correct.

The Court re-affirmed its support for the new strategy and looked forward to further updates in due course.

05/14 RISK MANAGEMENT (CRT 05/7)

In relation to its consideration of Risk 17 on the Institutional Risk Register - “Difficulty in maintaining accurate, complete, secure corporate and student records”, the Court received:

i a report on corporate records by the University Records Manager ii a report on student records by the Deputy Director of Student Affairs.

Court: 24 October 2005 page 8 The Court welcomed the recent improvements in recordkeeping outlined in the reports and noted that the risk’s current residual risk score of 9 would be kept under review by senior management.

05/15 HONORARY DEGREES (CRT 05/8)

The Court

i approved the recommendations for Honorary Awards to be made at the Awards Ceremonies being held in July and October 2006

ii requested that future recommendations attach the criteria for selection.

FORMAL AGENDA

05/16 AGENDA ITEMS 2005-2006 (CRT 05/9)

The Court approved the list of agenda items for the 2005/2006 session.

05/17 COURT COMMITTEE MINUTES

The minutes of the following Court Committees were received:

i Audit Committee meeting held on 26 September 2005 (CRT 05/10) ii Finance Committee meeting held on 3 October 2005 (CRT 05/11).

05/18 EXECUTION OF DEEDS (CRT 05/12)

The Court noted:

i the signing as a Deed of the following “Group B” documents:

LEASES FOR OLD ROYAL NAVAL COLLEGE, GREENWICH between The Greenwich Foundation for the Old Royal Naval College and University of Greenwich:

(a) Underlease of Queen Anne Court, ORNC Greenwich (b) Underlease of Queen Mary Court, ORNC Greenwich (c) Underlease of King William Court, ORNC Greenwich (d) Underlease of The North East Lodge, ORNC Greenwich

Court: 24 October 2005 page 9 RIVERSIDE HOUSE EAST, WOOLWICH between the Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Greenwich and UoG:

(e) DEED OF SURRENDER of existing lease (f) LEASE re 1st, Mezzanine and part ground floors, Riverside House East, Woolwich High Street, London SE18 (g) LEASE re 2nd Floor, Riverside House East, Woolwich High Street, London SE18 (h) LEASE re 3rd, 4th and part ground floors, Riverside House East, Woolwich High Street, London SE18 (i) LEASE re Premises at Mulgrave School, Macbean Street, London SE18 (storage space for RHE book store) (j) CONTRACT re Agreement for Surrender of Lease and Grant of New Lease re Riverside House East, Woolwich High Street, London SE18 (one signatory only required)

(k) LEASE re (Phase 2 Rachel McMillan Hall of Residence) – 40 year lease from 18.9.2004 - Greenwich Court, Creek Road, Greenwich between UPP (Rachel McMillan) Limited and UoG

ii the signing as a Deed of the following “Group A” documents:

(a) BUILDING CONTRACTS re new Wolfson Laboratory and conversion of engine laboratory into offices at Medway Campus between Multiservice Design & Build Ltd and UoG.

(b) IP ASSIGNMENT between Synnovation Ltd and UoG

(c) DEED OF VARIATION of a Management Agreement dated 1 August 2004 in relation to the South East Proof of Concept Fund (SEPOC) between UoG, Finance South East Limited, University of Brighton, Oxford Brookes University, the University of Kent, University of Portsmouth and the University of Reading.

(d) DEED OF ASSIGNMENT ( re Intellectual Property) between Dr Paul Barraclough and UoG dated 13 June 2005.

GROUND FLOOR, THOMAS SPENCER HALL, Grand Depot Road, Woolwich, London SE18 for storage space:

(e) - LICENCE TO UNDERLET between The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Greenwich, St James’s Investments Limited and (f) UoG - UNDERLEASE between St James’s Investments Limited and UoG

Court: 24 October 2005 page 10 (g) LEASE re Block G, Rachel McMillan Court, Creek Road, Greenwich for 40 years from 18.9.2004 between UPP (Rachel McMillan) Limited and UoG

(h) SIDE LETTER to Consortium Agreement dated 15th August 2005 re FIRE EXIT software between (1) British Maritime Technology Ltd (“) BMT Fleet Technology Ltd (3) Memorial University of Newfoundland (4) METTLE SARL (5) National Research Council of Canada, IOT (6) AVEVA AB (7) UoG (8) Det Norske Veritas (9) Grimaldi Compagnia Di Navigazione.

The meeting finished at 8 pm.

T.A.Brighton 2.11.05 LC/Court\minutes\2005 October 24 Court minutes

Court: 24 October 2005 page 11