Court – Wednesday 18 April 2012

Principal’s Report

Items A: For Discussion

1. Restructuring Review – action plan At the last meeting, Court heard from Professor Nolan that the project team had started work on the seven main commitments arising from the review of restructuring.

The full report and action plan is at Annex 1. Professor Nolan will brief Court.

2. Scottish Funding Council Grant, 2012/13

On 30 March, the SFC issued the University's grant letter for 2012/13. Much of the information was already provided to us in December 2011 in the Indicative Grant Letter. However, a number of items have been changed and others clarified. There are a significant number of grant lines that will come under review over the next 1-3 years. The main points to note are: Teaching 1. SFC have re-confirmed the full restoration of the 2010/11 Teaching Units of Resource and Funded places and then added a 2.6% uplift to the Teaching Units of Resource. However, the additional allocation for strategically important high cost areas is now £3.6M compared to £4.1M in the Indicative Grant Letter. 2. Our overall Teaching Funding for 2012/13 is £83.6M compared to the December 2011 forecast of £83.7M (reduction of £118k). 3. Of the additional 300 funded places in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) allocated in 2012/13, Glasgow has received 50 of these places. By 2015/16 this will rise to 200 additional STEM places for Glasgow. 4. An additional 15 Funded places have been made available for the Dumfries Campus in 2012/13. 5. Confirmation of the new 6 Subject Price Bands being used instead of the 23 Funding Subject Groups. Validation of the new bands will be carried out during 2012/13. 6. All Teaching Funding is conditional upon an “Outcome Agreement” being agreed with the SFC covering the following metrics: retention, articulation from college, accelerated degrees, access to university for people from all backgrounds, international competitiveness in research, University/research collaboration and exploitation of research, the pattern of spread and provision, efficiency and the entrepreneurial and employability skills of graduates. Research 1. Our Research Excellence Grant (REG) for 2012/13 is £43.4M as had been forecast in December 2011; this is a 2.7% increase on last year. 2. Knowledge Transfer funding for Glasgow University is £2.9M compared to £2.4M in our forecast.

1 3. 2* research has been removed from the quality profile and the differential in quality weighting applied to 4* and 3* research increased, moving it in line with elsewhere in the UK. 4. The REG allocation method will be reviewed and the new method implemented in 2015/16. Until 2015/16 there will be no change in the algorithm for allocation. 5. REG is forecast to increase by 2.5% per annum in 2013/14 and 2014/15. 6. A review of the method of distribution of Research Postgraduate Grant (RPG), for which we will receive £6.3M in 2012/13 (a 12.3% increase on last year) will take place before 2014. SFC anticipate increasing RPG by 2.5% in both 2013/14 and 2014/15.

Strategic Funding (previously Horizons Funding and Invest to Save fund) The SFC Budget has been set at £124.5M (previously advised as £123M in Dec 2011). This total also includes the restoration of the £3m funding for Pooling. During 2012/13 a review of this funding will be undertaken with a view to targeting funding in future on initiatives that are larger scale projects which lead to sustainable structural changes in the sector and that demonstrably support economic growth in Scotland.

Items B: For Information

3. Key activities Below is a summary of some of the main activities I have been involved in since the last meeting of Court (15 February).

I have divided the report into 4 themes: Academic Development and Strategy; Internationalisation activities; Lobbying/Policy Influencing and Promoting the University; Internal activities and Communications.

3.1 Academic Development and Strategy Since my last report to Court, we have continued to pursue our strategy for investing in key academic appointments. These have included interviews for Professorship/Reader in the Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, the Leadership Professor in Applied Mathematics, the Regius Chair in Law, the Halcrow Chair in Engineering, Professor in Clinical Trials and Biostatistics, Professor of Medical Oncology, the Marshall Chair of French, the Gardiner Chair in Biochemistry, the Regius Chair in Surgery, and a Leadership Professor in Geography. We have, with Senate approval, also established a finding committee to take forward the selection and appointment of a new Clerk of Senate.

Since the last meeting of Court, I have chaired three meetings of the Higher and Further Education work stream, which is one of six workstreams under the Glasgow Economic Leadership (GEL) initiative. GEL was established in 2011 to provide independent leadership and direction to economic development activity in Glasgow and to champion the implementation of the recommendations made by the Glasgow Economic Commission.

On 21 February I attended the official launch of Irvine Royal Academy as a University of Glasgow ‘Partner School’. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Michael Russell MSP performed the opening which was also attended by North Ayrshire Councillor John Bell. This initiative builds on the highly successful and pioneering pilot scheme currently operating in Glasgow, and which Glasgow City Council have so helpfully supported and encouraged. The scheme enables student teachers and academics to be based full-time within a school and as well as studying and teaching, they take part in 'learning rounds', similar to the long-established practice of teaching hospitals. The programme aims to create an innovative, integrated and rounded approach to the theory and practice of teaching, breaking with the current tradition of classroom study within the university, followed by blocks of time on secondment at different schools. We are delighted that Irvine Royal Academy will now be a partner school and that we can develop this new model still further together and in liaison with its ‘cluster’ of primary schools.

2 We continue to have NHS/GU joint strategy Group meetings and held our latest on 21 March. Good progress is being made on the development of joint plans for the Learning and Teaching Base to support the clinical medical curriculum, and the Clinical Research Facility. Formal plans for these will come through the Court Committees in the next two months. On the 16 April there will be a meeting of the Business School Strategic Advisory Board. 3.2 International Activities The major international activity over the last two months has been the University’s flagship event in Singapore followed by a trip to Kuala Lumpur. I was accompanied in Singapore by Senior Vice Principal Professor Andrea Nolan, Vice Principals Frank Coton and John Chapman and ten senior academic and leading research colleagues from the College of Science & Engineering, the Director of RIO and representatives from Corporate Communications and Events.

On Monday 25 March, we visited Ngee Ann Polytechnic, which houses our University of Glasgow Singapore (UGS) base. UGS teaches its Mechatronics and Mechanical Design Engineering courses as part of the Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) collaboration on the Ngee Ann campus. We had the opportunity to meet senior staff from the institution before we hosted an event for current and prospective students for the existing courses, and the new courses which will be taught on the Singapore Polytechnic campus (see below). The same afternoon a group of us went on to the Ministry of Education and a meeting with Mr Lawrence Wong, Minister of State, Mr William Lim, Deputy Director (Higher Education) and were joined by Professor Tan Chin Tiong President of the Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) and Mr Jonathan Lim, Director Partnership & Corporate Planning SIT. This meeting allowed us to explore possible future developments in the UGS-SIT collaboration. This was followed by a visit to SIT to discuss future, medium and long term developments including the launch of undergraduate programmes other than engineering, the development of post-graduate programmes, and possible industrial research collaborations through the establishment of a Technology Innovation Centre in Singapore. Our partners and the Singapore government noted how impressed they had been with Glasgow University’s commitment, and the rapid growth of our transnational education in Singapore.

In the evening we hosted a reception at Raffles for a range of stakeholders, alumni, donors and supporters, and we were joined by the Deputy High Commissioner. I was able to give a presentation on Glasgow focusing on recent achievements and our strategy, particularly our international strategy, which was followed by a presentation from Professor John Chapman on the College of Science & Engineering, which underlined, in concrete terms, some of the innovative research the University undertakes, and the positive impact which our new academic structures have had in the College’s academic delivery.

The following day (Tuesday 27 March) our academic colleagues were involved in a range of activities focused on their respective academic partners in Singapore and included for example a workshop on Photonic Technology which involved a range of presentations from experts from local institutions as well as from Glasgow. Meanwhile a group of us attended an official signing ceremony with SIT and Singapore Polytechnic to launch two additional programmes, one in Aeronautical Engineering the other in Aerospace systems. The signing ceremony involved the Presidents of SIT and Singapore Polytechnic.

On the Tuesday evening we hosted a dinner with guests from the Singapore government, British Council representatives and leading Singapore researchers and again I was given the opportunity to say a few words on Glasgow’s ambition and vision for the future.

In the course of this trip other potential developments were explored by my colleagues such as collaboration with National University of Singapore on a graduate programme on Public Health, Arts and Education links with Nanyang Technological University, and a possible Summer School collaboration with Ngee Ann Polytechnic.

Finally I was able to meet with the Chairman of A*Star (Agency for Science, Technology and Research) Singapore's leading government agency dedicated to fostering world-class scientific research to discuss the potential for developing research links not only in Science and Engineering, but also in Biomedicine and the creative arts.

3 From Singapore I went on to Kuala Lumpur for what was essentially an Alumni event and dinner but which included representatives from partner Universities and prospective students. Again I was given the opportunity to say a few words on what is happening at Glasgow today.

Back home and on the day Court meets, I will be welcoming the Vice President of Malaga University to the University for a courtesy visit.

3.3 Lobbying/Policy Influencing and Promoting the University On the 13 February, the UK Minister for Science, Rt Hon David Willetts visited the University to launch the Space Research cluster in the College of Science and Engineering.

I attended the UUK residential meeting held in London from the 23 to 24 February. Key note addresses were given by Professor Margaret Wintermantel, President, German Rectors Conference, Sir Alan Langlands Chief Executive HEFCE, and Sir Nick Montagu, Chair, Committee of University Chairs.

On the 21 February I met with the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England at a lunch hosted by the Bank of England agency in Scotland.

I had the pleasure of attending the annual Snell dinner at Balliol College with colleagues and some University guests (donors and supporters of the University). The dinner celebrates the University’s relationship with Oxford, and Balliol College in particular, through the Snell Exhibitions. These were established by endowments from John Snell in the 17th century and were intended to assist former students of the University to pursue their studies at Balliol College. Adam Smith, the mathematician James Stirling and the moral philosopher Edward Caird are among the most famous Snell Exhibitioners.

On 29 February I attended with Professor Steve Beaumont (VP for Research & Enterprise) an Innovation Summit and dinner in London. The summit was chaired by Iain Gray, Chief Executive of the Technology Strategy Board, and attended by representatives of industry, HEFCE, SFC, RCUK and BIS, as well as my Vice-Chancellor colleagues from Kings College and Bristol who have joined us in adopting the Easyaccess IP approach.

It is our University’s turn to host the Trades House Lecture, an event that rotates round the three Universities based in the city of Glasgow. I met with the Deacon Convener to plan for the event and identify a speaker. I am pleased that Professor Muffy Calder, recently appointed to the position of Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA) for Scotland, has agreed to deliver the Trades House Lecture sometime in early summer.

In partnership with the School of Law, we welcomed Nicola Sturgeon MSP to the University (5 March) to give an early evening lecture entitled ‘Scotland’s Constitution – a means to an end’. The University is keen to encourage open debate from all sides of the political spectrum on the constitutional future of Scotland, and the excellent attendance at the Deputy First Minister’s lecture suggests that there is a real appetite for such events.

The University was privileged to host a meeting of the Scottish Science Advisory Council. The Council is made up of eminent scientists from Scotland and across the UK and several University colleagues have served on the Council down through the years including our Chancellor, and several of our leading academics. Appropriately, it was also Muffy Calder’s first meeting of the SSAC as CSA for Scotland. The Council’s role is to reflect and advise on some of the key concerns exercising the scientific world and its relationship with education, business and health and advise Government accordingly. The gathering involved a dinner on 6 March followed the next day by a business meeting but we were given the opportunity at the start of the day to introduce the University of Glasgow to the Council and to highlight some of our leading work and developments within the Colleges of Science & Engineering and MVLS. I was invited to give an overview of our strategy and this was followed by presentations from Professor John Chapman, Professor Lee Cronin and Dr John Christie and thereafter by poster displays and the chance for Council to meet members of the research communities within the two Colleges. It was a tremendous opportunity to promote the work of the University and it was clear that Council appreciated our efforts. Thanks are due to Professor Jim Hough and Professor Marian Scott, both members of the Council, for enabling Glasgow to host the meeting

4

I attended the Russell Group Board Away Day on 8-9 March. Amongst other matters, the Board resolved to increase the membership of the Russell Group to 24 members. This will be the last expansion of the group for the foreseeable future.

The annual Glasgow Cathedral University Service, was held on the 11 March.

On 13 April I will attend a dinner associated with the European Social Science History Conference, a major international conference of around 1,500 delegates. The University was delighted to secure the bid for this prestigious event. Although the dinner comes towards the end of the four day conference I will have the opportunity to welcome and thank the key organisers.

3.4. Internal activities and Communications I held two staff surgeries in February and March, attended the School Executive/Management group meeting of Critical Studies, College of Arts and held an evening reception for Heads of School, Directors of Research Institutes and Heads of Service in the Lodging on 12 March.

I agreed, as part of a trial run, to depart from a written report to Campus e-News and provide a Videocast in the form of an interview with Depute Director of Corporate Communications, Peter Aitchison. The first went out on Monday 2 April, focusing on the University’s current plans for investment and we intend to continue with this format if it proves to be popular.

On the 21 March I was invited to attend the Science & Engineering Crucible and say a few words. This has been a very interesting initiative led by the College to bring new and early career research talent together from across the College to meet, build relationships and explore future potential research activity. It is clearly a programme that has struck a chord with the participants and I am sure will reap rewards for all concerned going forward.

I continue to hold monthly meetings with the SRC and in March had the pleasure of meeting the new President of the GUU.

4.Senior Management Group business In addition to standing items, the following issues were discussed. SMG Meeting 16 February 2012 Code of Practice for Management of Research Staff Providing Support to REF2014 Panel members Guidance for Knowledge Transfer Grants Postgraduate Research Experience Survey Staff Survey Glasgow International College – Annual Report

SMG Meeting 12 March 2012 Report from the Carbon Management Committee Approval of New and Continuing Research Centres Half Yearly report on Major Gifts

5 ACTION PLAN: YEAR 1 REVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW UNIVERSITY STRUCTURE

The Year 1 action plan has been drafted in response to the recommendations from the Year 1 review of restructuring, with feedback from discussion at Senate and Court.

In summary, the year 1 review indicated that the academic structure is considered to be suitably aligned with the University’s strategic plan and is operational across the Colleges, Schools and Research Institutes. College, School and Research Institute management groups and Graduate Schools are working well as are the supporting academic committees. There is strong ownership of strategic development in Colleges and the devolved finances and HR functions are welcomed. Real challenges remain around communications and engagement of staff in decision making and some operational issues and processes. Lack of administrative support in some areas was also identified as a concern. The review also recognised the extent of change ongoing across the University and its impact on staff.

Based on feedback from staff, and as part of the review, SMG identified the following areas for action: • Improve internal communications, in particular face to face communication practice • Develop and deliver mechanisms/strategies to improve and strengthen staff engagement and transparency in decision making processes • Deliver an organisational development programme to support staff across the University • Develop a plan for delivering a reduction in ‘bureaucracy’ around core processes e.g. research grant/ award management, staff recruitment • Review administrative resource (staffing levels and skills) and its deployment in Colleges and ensure visibility and clarity of support structures and key roles and responsibilities of these units • Further develop the website, particularly in preparation for REF and ELIR • SMG will reflect on the impact of developments and initiatives on staff across the full range of our activities (seeking and listening to their views) with a view to delivering future projects and developments at a pace that is congruent with the key research and teaching aims of Colleges, Schools and Institutes

The plan (see below) describes a range of work to address the key challenges and commitments (see above) to continue to deliver the objectives of restructuring (Appendix 1). It is based on incremental improvements as we allow the new structure to embed while driving development, with particular emphasis on

• clarifying roles and remits of staff • improving staff engagement in decision making • improving our systems and processes • improving internal communications

The plan is based on the premise that the organisational structure will not change in the foreseeable future, and that we continue to work collectively to make it function optimally thus delivering the objectives of restructuring, articulated to support delivery of our strategy Glasgow 2020: a global vision.

AMN 10/04/12

1 ACTION PLAN ARISING FROM YEAR 1 REVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW UNIVERSITY STRUCTURE

Action Responsibility Lead Timescale Resource Measurable outcomes requirement 1. Improve internal communications, in particular face to face communication practice

1.1. develop a comprehensive internal Director of Corp Peter Aitchison July 2012 Additional • Deliver an audit of current practice. communications strategy drawing on best Comms /Jean Chandler consultancy • Provide a document that summarises best practice and the experience of other (c£8-10k) practice in comparable institutions/ and institutions/industries sectors as appropriate 1.2. develop a toolkit and provide training in Director of Corp Peter Aitchison April 2012 – June • Provide a flexible framework to be effective methods of communication Comms /Jean Chandler 2013 implemented throughout the University to affect an inclusive approach, engaging all employees in efforts to improve communication and internal communication networks, both formal and informal e.g. introduction of e-mail protocol policy • Deliver a toolkit for managers • Conduct focus group work following the implementation of the action plan to identify recent progress and trends in staff perceptions around decision-making and inclusiveness, publishing ‘best practice’ and progressive illustrations introduced within the University that have positively impacted on staff perceptions around inclusiveness and improved opportunities for staff to engage in decision making. 2. Develop and deliver mechanisms/strategies to improve and strengthen staff engagement and transparency in decision making processes

2.1. live and practise the University values of SMG SMG, CMGs and Ongoing Measure progress via 2014 Staff Attitude integrity, credibility, openness and success in USMG Survey conducting our work at all levels within the

University to improve levels of trust and collegiality, thus fostering a culture in which all members of staff are respected and display respect in working with others

2 Action Responsibility Lead Timescale Resource Measurable outcomes requirement 2.2. Identify and communicate which University Senior VP HoCs /Sec of October 2012 Identify key University priorities and KPIs procedures and practices are common to all Court over next 12 months and ensure consistent

Colleges and University Services, and are to be communication and understanding to applied consistently across the University (e.g. University community. P&DR)

2.3. Replicate HoS/DRI forum as meaningful way to Deputy Secretary Deputy Secretary Commence April Forum established and meeting regularly; engage with particular groups of postholders with College 2012 feedback from forum members (June 2013)

across the University e.g. Introduce such a Secretaries forum for HoSA/HoRIAs. 2.4. Increase the visibility of leaders and managers SVP HoC/Secretary of Immediate Measure progress via focus groups /survey (members of SMG, CMGs and USMG) through Court/HoS/DRIs/ with HoS/DRI/HoSA/HoRIA; initially in late systematic direct contact with staff and Deans / Heads of Autumn 2012. ‘walking the job’, focusing primarily on Services/ supporting and encouraging employees in their divisions daily activities.

2.5. Foster an inclusive, structured and transparent SMG HoC/Secretary of Review summer Measure progress via focus groups /survey approach to decision making through the Court/HoS/DRIs / 2013 with HoS/DRI/HoSA/HoRIA

adoption of a range of formal and informal Heads of mechanisms, maximizing the opportunity for Services/ (Clarity about i) locus of decision making and staff to engage in decision making wherever divisions ii) consultation process and staff involved in possible (see also 5.1) key areas to include strategy development,

research, programme / course development and approval, staffing finance,) 2.6. Ensure people are supported in performing SMG HoC/Secretary of Review July Measure progress via 2014 Staff Attitude roles in which they are employed, and are Court/HoS/DRI/ 2012 Survey encouraged to fulfil role expectations (within Deans/ College reason) Secretaries 3. Deliver and implement an organisational development programme to ensure staff and managers are fully developed, supported and equipped to undertake the challenges of new or evolving roles. (Includes a basic competency framework approach)

3.1 Support and build management and leadership Director of HR Christine Barr June 2012 SDS resource P&DR outcomes from 2013 onwards; Staff capacity/capability to ensure relevant skills /Jean Chandler (2fte) Attitude Surveys base to maximize and improve opportunities to informed by engage and involve all staff in delivering the HoCs, College Internal coaching to support staff including a University strategy. Secretaries & internal coaching pool • Heads of School/Director of RI HRMs re: • Heads of Service College specific Cross-campus mentoring support • College Deans needs mechanisms in place. • Heads of School admin/ RI admin and other Increased awareness and understanding of

3 Action Responsibility Lead Timescale Resource Measurable outcomes requirement admin leadership roles (eg College organisational benefits of actively providing HoASAs and School team leaders) opportunities for staff engagement among University managers and leaders

3.2 Ensure clarity and consistency of the role of Senior VP HoS (as June 2012 Agreed job description Head of Subject, where extant, and their appropriate)

responsibilities 3.3 Further build College based teams to achieve Heads of College HoCs supported Ongoing SDS OD P&DR outcomes from 2013 onwards, Staff effective and efficient team working and by HRM / SDS resource as Attitude Survey and measurable efficiency enhance cross functional working above gains

3.4 Further develop effective training support in Deputy HR Jean Chandler, May 2012 SDS OD P&DR outcomes from 2013 onwards, Staff relation to performance management Director supported by resource as Attitude Survey processes including opportunities for staff College HRMs above engagement in career management dialogue & skills development

4. Deliver a reduction in ‘bureaucracy’ around core processes

4.1 Develop and implement streamlined research Director of Joanne Hulley October 2012 Research Reduced lead time for project approval project approval process including fast track for Finance (system available Management

low risk applications and replacement for PAF for phased Review Reduced lead time from award receipt to and ensure more efficient research project set implementation) project project start-up up (including recruitment of staff – see below) Client satisfaction survey data 4.2 Review staff recruitment processes and Director of HR Christine Barr August 2012 Reduced recruitment time – minimum time implement simplified, speedier arrangements /Ann Hastings scales to be determined following trend

analysis and review conducted jointly with Colleges. 4.3 Automated calculation of progression status Christine Lowther Michael Arthur/ September 2012 Time and Removes the need for manual processes through use of plan rules built in Campus College Deans resources for currently carried out by staff; automatically Solutions L&T Colleges to assigns an academic standing status for test & validate failing students which can be reported out for plan rules progress committees 4.4 Implement new ways of working utilising Director of Michael Arthur September 2012 SLP resource Campus Solutions functionality to support Student Services /Colleges and time in award and management of scholarships and Colleges for Enhanced student satisfaction other financial aid awards training/any • improved visibility of the range of financial restructuring Reduced volume of transactions and aid; of roles/teams associated resource costs • improved management and reporting of 4 Action Responsibility Lead Timescale Resource Measurable outcomes requirement all financial aid funds; • automated awarding and disbursement of Reduced administrative burden on funds to student accounts Schools/RIs fund managers / administrators • deliver single source of data to improve the accuracy, consistency and completeness of information. • electronic communications to students

5. Review administrative resource (staffing levels & skills) and its deployment in Colleges and ensure visibility and clarity of support structures and key roles and responsibilities of these units

5.1 Clarify support staff reporting lines and improve College College September 2012 Staff feedback information on College/School/RI websites on Secretaries Secretaries with support structures and support teams to deliver HoSA/HoRIA

good understanding of roles & responsibilities, and contact points for decision outcomes. 5.2 Review the College College February 2013 Resource to Report for all colleges • profile (grade and number), balance and Secretaries Secretaries with assist with deployment of administrative support staff HoSA/HoRIA data

within Colleges collection • staff skill base to identify short-, medium- and long-term improvements to service delivery, meeting College staff needs. 5.3 Consider any cross-College or pan- Deputy College March 2013 University initiatives which might contribute Secretary Secretaries to more efficient / effective service provision. 6. Further develop the website, particularly in preparation for REF and ELIR

6.1 Develop the research profiles of research Director of Corp Depute Director March 2012- 5 FTE: 4 Availability of comprehensive information on units/groups, centres and institutes. Comms/ College Corp. Comms March 2013 college Colleges’ research offering. Deans (Digital Media, specific, 1 (Research) Campaigns & central Marketing) with support. College web publishers; Craig Easton

5 Action Responsibility Lead Timescale Resource Measurable outcomes requirement 6.2 Develop the means to Director of Corp Craig Easton July 2012 • list this information within the research Comms section of the website, within appropriate Availability of listing. academic units: such as schools and research institutes, as well as identifying disciplines December 2012 • search for research information Availability of search tool. 6.3 Ensure that website meets QAA and SFC Director of Corp College HoASAs By June 2013 Website consistent with QAA and SFC requirements in relation to the provision of Comms/ Heads with Senate requirements public information (accessible, accurate, up-to- of College Office; IT ‘Student Voice’ live and used (student date, etc) Services feedback) 6.4 Further enhancement of taught programme College HoASAs April 2012 Ability to sort degree programmes by listings. designation; group by themes. 7. Reflect on the impact of developments and initiatives on staff across the full range of our activities (seeking and listening to their views) with a view to delivering future projects and developments at a pace that is congruent with the key research and teaching aims of Colleges, Schools and Research Institutes

7.1. Develop and maintain ‘change map’ at SVP Direct reports to factored into As defined Conduct specific audits at implementation and headline level that captures key change functional heads annual planning by individual 6/12 months later at SMG/HoS/DRI/Deans/ projects across the full range of activity; and College round project plans Service Heads away days to review progress prioritise 2-3 areas of strategic significance leads and staff perceptions over next three years. Focus on priority areas.

7.2 Communicate plans arising from ‘change map’ SVP Project leads Ongoing Conduct specific audits at implementation and on an annual basis at all university wide 6/12 months later to review progress and staff committees / forums; adopt inclusive perceptions approach to ‘new’ project implementation (e.g. lessons of SLP), including honest articulation of progress and effective early interventions when issues (+ve and -ve) affect project plans 7.3 Establish, maintain and communicate rolling 3- Chair, Director of IT June 2012 Updated 3 year plan published annually year plan for IT developments, explicitly Information Services indicating the impact of the project work on Planning & staff (including which staff groups are most Strategy likely to be affected) Committee 7.4 Communicate ‘headline’ rolling 5-year capital VP (Strategy and Director of Commence by Measure progress via focus groups /survey plan to staff. Resources) Estates June 2012 with HoS/DRI/HoSA/HoRIA Staff attitude survey (2014). Reports accessible.

6 Appendix 1

Objectives of Restructuring

A. Remove internal barriers to collaboration and multi-disciplinarity in both research and teaching B. Bring together academically coherent groupings to optimise the University’s ability to deliver its strategic objectives C. Provide the best opportunities to improve our research performance, developing our activities to better align with funding opportunities and thereby ‘future-proofing’ the University D. Improve communication of research activities and interests, enabling the development of successful research and teaching initiatives E. Provide the best possible environment and support for postgraduate researchers F. Facilitate approaches to improve student retention and progression G. Continue to build on the high quality student experience H. Improve administrative efficiency and support in conjunction with implementation of the new student information system (Campus Solutions).

Success Criteria - Medium term (3-5 years)

M1. Increased performance against KPIs related to strategic plan M2. Increased collaborative and multi-disciplinary applications for research funding M3. Increase in collaborative awards M4. PGT portfolio aligned with market demand (evidence base from programme application student numbers) M5. Increase in the number of PGT students enrolled/programme M6. Sustained or improved (as appropriate) performance at KPI for student satisfaction M7. Improved student satisfaction in the postgraduate student experience M8. Improved administrative support for staff at School level (assessed through a staff survey) M9. Improved co-ordination between services provided centrally or at College/School level (assessed through a staff survey). M10. Continued evolution of quality enhancement within the University M11. Increased external interest in vacant or new posts and the appointment of high quality ‘new blood’ M12. Retention of top staff M13. Improved quality of management information

Success Criteria - Long term (5 years)

Year on year improvement in each of the following:

L1. Improved success rates for research awards L2. Increased research income (including increased market share) L3. Greater number of staff securing research awards L4. International student recruitment targets met L5. Improved University performance in national and international league tables L6. Financial sustainability

7

Court - Wednesday 18 April 2012

Report from the Secretary of Court

SECTION A - ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION / DECISION

A.1 Review of Higher Education Governance As noted at the last meeting, the report of the Review of Higher Education Governance, chaired by Professor Ferdinand von Prondzynski, was published on 1 February. Court agreed to establish a working group to assist in formulating input to any subsequent consultation process, and the views of the working group were shared with Court members for comment. The version circulated to Court has since been edited, though with no major changes, and the current version, including tracked changes from that originally circulated, appears at Annex 1.

Court's approval is sought of Annex 1 as a fair reflection of its views on the von Prondzynski Report. At present it is not clear how Ministers will be taking forward the outcomes of the review.

A.2 Management of Organisational Change: Accounts Receivable function Annex 2 is a proposal to restructure the accounts receivable function within the University. This involves the transfer of activity from Registry to Finance Office, and the move should help ensure a better integrated approach to debt collection and accounting. The transfer will mean that 3 posts, currently based in the Registry, will no longer be required. The proposals have been considered and approved by the Senior Management Group. In terms of the University's Management of Organisational Change Policy, Court's approval is sought to establish a Structural Change Committee and a Redundancy Committee to oversee the management of this staff reduction.

SECTION B – ITEMS FOR INFORMATION / ROUTINE ITEMS FOR APPROVAL B.1 Business School – Change of Name The College of Social Sciences has approved a proposed change of name for the Business School, to The University of Glasgow Adam Smith Business School. Further details are at Annex 3. The SMG is supportive of the change. Senate will be considering the matter on 12 April and Court will receive details of the discussion at the meeting on 18 April. Court is asked to approve the change.

1

B.2 Student Lifecycle Project /MyCampus At the last meeting, Court was advised that it would receive an update in April on the Lessons Learned Group report for the Student Lifecycle Project, including progress on implementation of the recommendations of the report. Annex 4 is a progress report on the implementation of MyCampus, identifying in particular the steps being taken to help ensure that Registration and Enrolment will run more satisfactorily in 2012. Annex 5 records the 17 recommendations of the Lessons Learned Group and logs progress against each.

B.3 Stevenson Building Extension/Glasgow University Union At its October meeting, Court supported Estates Committee's approval in principle of the proposed Stevenson Building Extension, subject to satisfactory plans being developed to address Glasgow University Union's needs for a suitable social facility to replace the Hive extension. Since then, University officials have been in continuing dialogue with officials of the GUU, and outline proposals have been developed that seek to address Court's concerns. After consideration by Estates and Finance Committees, it is intended to bring the proposals to Court in June.

B.4 Scottish Enterprise: West of Scotland Science Park As agreed by Court at the last meeting, a group was established to consider and, if agreed, progress the possible disposal of, and/or leasehold arrangements for, a number of properties and sites at the Garscube estate. As advised since the last meeting, ownership of two properties (Number 1 Todd Campus and Block 7 Kelvin Campus) has been transferred to Scottish Enterprise, together with a pre-emptive right to acquire other property at market value.

B.5 Media Report The latest media report is at Annex 6.

B.6 Nominations Committee Court may recall that last year, an advertisement was placed in the press for 2 Co- opted Committee members, for the Finance Committee and Human Resources Committee. The Finance Committee appointment was approved in June 2011. The Nominations Committee is now recommending that Mr Stephen McCafferty be appointed to the Human Resources Committee position. Mr McCafferty is a HR professional with experience of higher education governance.

B.7 Endowments in School of Critical Studies (Theology & Religious Studies) I have approved a number of changes to the current use of endowment funds in Theology & Religious Studies. The changes are principally aimed at updating terminology and are in line with the spirit of the original bequests and gifts.

2 B.8 Grievance A Stage 2 Grievance Committee was set up to consider a grievance from a member of staff in University Services. The grievance, relating to the individual’s contractual status, was upheld.

B.9 Headship Appointments The following appointments have been made:

College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences Head of the Institute of Cancer Sciences Professor Jeff Evans from 1 April 2012 until 31 March 2016 Professor Evans had previously been acting Head from November 2011, in succession to Professor Karen Vousden.

College of Science and Engineering Head of the School of Physics & Astronomy Professor Martin Hendry from 1 August 2012 until 31 July 2016, in succession to Professor Andrew Long

B.10 Resolutions The following draft Resolution has been approved and is with the Senate and General Council for comment CHANGE OF NAME OF THE MCLEOD/ARTHRITIS & RHEUMATISM COUNCIL CHAIR OF RHEUMATOLOGY (AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION NO 331) The following Resolution has been approved

RESOLUTION OF THE UNIVERSITY COURT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW No. 653 - CHANGE OF NAME OF THE CHAIR OF GREEK

DN/DM

3 Annex 3

Extract from College of Social Sciences College Council 8 March 2012

CoSS/CC/2011/22 Celebrating the Adam Smith Legacy A proposal to rename the Business School as the Glasgow University [later correction: The University of Glasgow] Adam Smith Business School had been considered at the meeting of Senate on 16 January 2012. Following those discussions, the proposal had been referred back to the College Council for fuller discussion, before it returned to Senate. Professor Anderson highlighted that the discussions within CMG and at Senate had reflected the importance of Smith’s thinking and analysis to the broad context of much research and teaching within the College: • understanding individual, social, political and economic norms, • importance of both theory and practical applications, • the real world as a guide to develop and modify theories of social, political and economic behaviours, • Wide ranging topics: legal and ethical constraints on behaviour, promotion of public education, role of social and political institutions, importance of historical perspective, urbanisation, organisation of business, international relations, for example.

It was considered that there were several ways in which the Adam Smith legacy could be recognised more fully across the College. The debate over changing the Business School name had been valuable in highlighting the extent to which the College and University had underplayed its associations with Adam Smith to date. From the student perspective, there was considerable potential to highlight the work of Adam Smith as a distinctive aspect of study at Glasgow. The College could develop content on Smith that was more meaningful to current students through, for example, one off lectures near the start of semester; inclusion in the induction process; courses or workshops for students; and fuller online resources, so that his contributions to current scholarly work were better understood. More broadly, the College could develop a public lecture series and look to attract Visiting Professors and Scholars of Smith, enriching still further the work of the Adam Smith Research Foundation. It was noted that the College could consider additional investments, such as named prizes or scholarships and could consider investment in a new post in Adam Smith, which could be shared between the Business School and the School of Social and Political Sciences. College Council noted that the broader reflections around an Adam Smith legacy for Glasgow had substantively eased the concerns that had existed in other Schools about the proposal to rename the Business School. The proposal to rename the Business School as the Glasgow University Adam Smith Business School was fully supported by College Council and would now be taken forward through Senate and SMG.

The Adam Smith Chair in Political Economy would be asked to take forward the initiatives. It was further agreed that College Council should review the legacy activities every year to identify further opportunities to extend them and to this end, there would be a recurring item on College Council agendas.

4 Annex 4

MyCampus

Progress Report for Court, 18 April 2012

This progress report sets out the main matters discussed at the April meeting of the MyCampus Project Board.

1. System Developments Several system developments are being implemented in order to improve efficiency and to address recommendations from the Lessons Learned Group. The most significant changes are: .1 Students will not be required to complete financial registration before enrolling for classes. .2 They will not be able to enrol other than through 'My Requirements'. .3 An interface has been built between the (legacy) Direct Admissions system and the Student Record. This will avoid the need for data held on the admissions system to be re-entered into MyCampus. .4 The following enhancements are being developed in time for Registration/Enrolment 2012: - a new screen for staff users providing summaries of academic and financial information on students; - improvements to sequencing of information and messages to students during financial registration; - visual representation of curriculum clashes during student enrolment that will alert students clearly and promptly; and - improvements to Quick Enrol and Block Enrol which staff use to administratively enrol students on to classes individually and by batch.

UCAS admissions for 2012/13 is successfully running through MyCampus. More applications have been processed than last year and in a paperless environment for the first time. Preparations are underway to implement the new Direct Admissions system, which will be effective for 2013/14 entrants. User Acceptance Testing of Direct Admissions begins in early July.

2. System Performance The Project Board is monitoring system performance on an ongoing basis and is concerned to ensure it will be satisfactory this summer. An independent audit undertaken by Deloittes has given the Board strong assurance regarding the capacity of the University's IT network to handle MyCampus. The audit also examined the work of the SLP Development Team in introducing local software modifications and has concluded that their approach has been rigorous and that local changes to the software will not compromise system performance.

5

If staff and student users have ongoing difficulties with system performance, this may well relate to the specification of their local workstation and/or the software it is using. Guidance will be issued shortly on the recommended workstation hardware and software specifications, and it will encourage MyCampus users to have upgraded older PCs which do not meet the specifications.

3. Training and Support A training schedule for the period April to August has been prepared. It is vital that new users of MyCampus undertake training, and that existing users take refresher training and learn about the changes that are being made to the system before Registration and Enrolment. College Liaison Groups will ensure that all users are assigned to relevant training and that they participate in it. The SLP team has analysed the experience of summer 2011 and has come forward with proposals for a new central support team for the summer of 2012. At peak times, this will involve 20 additional MyCampus-trained staff, including secondees from Colleges and University Services, being available to assist students. Recruitment of team members is starting this month.

4. User Engagement Several steps have been taken in recent weeks to strengthen user engagement: - Specialist User Groups, including experts from each College and from University Services, have met and have agreed the system enhancements that should be made for registration and enrolment. - College Liaison Groups, chaired by the Deans (L&T) - and a US Liaison Group, chaired by the Deputy Secretary - have been established and are meeting monthly. The Groups allow issues to be raised at a high level with the SLP Team and Board members. They also have an oversight of actions required within the Colleges/Services. - The MyCampus Website has been refreshed. - Campus eNews and SRC news are providing regular updates. - Weekly support meetings continue with School Heads of Academic Administration and with relevant University Service managers. - A Sharepoint Site has been developed to assist members of the Specialist User Groups examine proposed systems developments. This site is also available to College Liaison Group members and Project Board members and it is planned to allow access to a wider group of staff to help raise awareness of the changes that are being made.

5. Current Issues

.1 Student Debt and responsibilities for financial administration As happens every year, a debt reminder email was issued in March to students who have a balance on their account, unless they have a direct debit or other

6 payment plan in place. This has generated a large number of queries which are being followed up by the Finance Office Credit Control Team, Registry, the SLP team and relevant staff within Colleges and Schools. In some cases, the apparent debt exists because there has been a lack of clarity among University staff as to who is responsible for applying discounts and fee waivers to the student account. This issue will be addressed through the University Services MyCampus Liaison Group (which includes College Heads of Academic and Student Administration) and in discussion with College Secretaries.

.2 Programme plan rules Each College is currently testing the academic rules in its programmes, to a deadline of mid-May. As well as improving the quality of information, this exercise is focusing on the robustness of progression rules, to ensure they will work effectively after the spring exam diet.

.3 Student ID number All new applicants to the University through MyCampus are assigned a unique 7- digit identifier, and they will keep that number throughout their engagement with the University. Concern has been expressed that the new numbering system will no longer allow staff to identify students' likely year of entry to the University. Guidance will soon be issued on how reports can be designed so that, where year of entry is required, it may be referenced alongside the student registration number.

.4 Ensuring attendance at relevant training School, College and Service managers are cooperating to ensure that staff take the relevant training that they require. The training programme will include instructor-led sessions and on-line training materials.

.5 Greater clarity on what will be handled by central team and what locally The SLP Team is reviewing the protocols for handling enquiries this summer to ensure they are correctly routed in the first instance. The new central support team will be well-staffed and the intention is that it should remove a large part of the burden from School- and College- based staff, who should be contacted only where the response genuinely requires a higher level of specialist knowledge.

DN/CL, 3.4.12

7 REPORT OF THE REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION GOVERNANCE IN SCOTLAND

CHAIRED BY PROFESSOR FERDINAND VON PRONDZYNSKI PART A

RECOMMENDATION Possible Reasons Major Issue (***) Response 2.2 THE ROLE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL The existing jurisdiction of the Privy Council in relation Probably OK- Does not appear to change to universities and higher education institutions should but depends on present process provided be transferred to a committee comprising the First the detail that we are not losing any *** Minister of Scotland, the Lord Advocate and the Lord appeal rights. However President of the Court of Session, subject to concerns have been parliamentary scrutiny expressed by other HEIs over the lack of detail about the process, what parliamentary scrutiny means and the possibility for greater external influence 2.3 A NEW STATUTE OF THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT The Scottish Parliament should enact a statute for Insufficient Only the Ancients suffer Scotland's higher education sector setting out the key benefit from complex legislation principles of governance and management and serving as identified to so the others would not the legal basis for the continued establishment of all justify the risks. benefit in that way from *** recognised higher education institutions Greater clarity new legislation. It would be would be important that any statute [The new statute should be drafted as a measure that will welcome, but did indeed “continue to rationalise and simplify the regulatory framework of higher not at the embrace diversity of education governance; it might provide for: expense of mission and of operation,” • the conditions applying to the establishment of new institutional of Scottish universities. On universities; autonomy or the other hand (i) there is a

Page 1

• the key structures of university governance and diversity. real risk that the terms of management; the governance of the • the role and composition of governing bodies and Ancients could become a academic boards; political football in the • the role and appointment of university principals; Parliament and that they • the drawing up of a code of good governance for Scottish end up adversely changed; higher education; and (ii) dealing with this • the status of student associations; process could become a • the principles of academic freedom and institutional very time and resource autonomy (see below). consuming process. However, the statute should continue to embrace diversity of mission and of operation, and should reinforce the principles of university autonomy and of academic freedom, to which we return below.] Under the new statute, the designation 'university' In principle OK- Could be dealt with in should be reserved to independent public bodies save to the much simpler legislation. accredited in Scotland under legislation for these extent that it There is a concern that at purposes makes present Universities are not Universities into public bodies and so that public bodies this is a way ofmay involve which they are changing their status. not currently. The proposed new statute should fully recognise the role of In principle OK Can be covered in the students’ association in the governance of Universities(from but can be dealt Scottish Code- as much of Paragraph 6.3) with without governance is presently new legislation. satisfactorily dealt with in the CUC Code. 2.4 ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND INSTITUTIONAL AUTONOMY A definition of academic freedom should be incorporated In principle The definition of academic in the statute governing higher education, based on the cClearly freedom in the Further & definition contained in Ireland's Universities Act 1997, academic Higher Education

Page 2 and applying to all 'relevant persons' as under the freedom is (Scotland) Act is clear and existing 2005 Act essential- so we is reflected in the need to University's HR understand the procedures. It would be concerns in important that any change greater detail. did not involve a dilution of the definition. Scottish universities and higher education institutions See above See aAbove. should adopt an approach to academic freedom to that followed by Trinity College, Dublin* and that each institution should adopt through appropriate internal processes, and present to the SFC, a statement on its implementation of the statutory protection of academic freedom

[* In implementing the Irish provision, Trinity College, Dublin, adopted a ‘Policy on Academic Freedom’ in December 2010, which was the result of an initiative of the college’s academic staff association (IFUT) and which was developed in a special working group established by the college.] 2. 5 THE ROLE OF GOVERNANCE Governing bodies** should be required to demonstrate In principle OK- How will this change how that their deliberations and decisions appropriately subject to a we operate? C-clarification observe four objectives the panel has set out for satisfactory is required. university governance,*** and they should regularly answers to the review their own performance against these. response

[**At various points including paragraphs 2.6 and 4 the Report notes that at universities such as Glasgow the Governing Body is called the Court.

***The Report noted the following. A practical definition of

Page 3 the purpose of the governing body is that set out in the Committee of University Chairs (CUC) Code which states that a governing body is ‘unambiguously and collectively responsible for overseeing the institution’s activities, determining its future direction and fostering an environment in which the institutional mission is achieved and the potential of all learners is maximised.’ It is tempting to consider university governance as a form of corporate governance, determining the strategic direction of the organisation and ensuring that its management is fully accountable. In fact universities, as part of the national framework of education, have broader responsibilities that need to be reflected in the principles of governance. The panel are of the view that the purposes of university governance are the following: • effective stewardship of the university to secure its sustainability over the medium and long term; • safeguarding the mission of the university and the services it provides for the public benefit; • securing the proper and effective use of public and other funds; and • ensuring stakeholder participation and accounting to the wider society for institutional performance. The significance of these principles is that they recognise the role of a governing body in guiding institutional strategy and performance, but in addition point to its role in protecting the interests of the academic community of staff and students, as well as the wider societal interest.]

The panel recommends that the fundamental principle of This is not listed Promoting collaboration a collaborative approach wherever appropriate**** as a has been central to the

Page 4 should be enshrined in the Scottish university system recommendation work of the Funding through making the fostering of collaboration between in Annex A but Council in recent years, universities a task for the Scottish Funding Council. from the way it with successful initiatives [**** The panel believes that the interest of Scottish is worded in the in areas such as Research universities – and thus their governing bodies – is main body of pooling and IT collectively best served by creating collaborative the Report it infrastructure. A partnership arrangements with other higher education clearly is a continuing commitment to institutions, and this should override any perceived recommendation promote collaboration of competitive advantage for an individual institution. ] to which we this sort is welcome – should respond. Provided that its implementation does not prevent us from competing both within and outwith the UK 2.8 ADVISORY FORUM A Scottish Higher Education Forum should be Seems OK – if Depends on whether it is established, convened by the Scottish Funding Council it is going to going to really serve a and chaired by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and serve a useful useful purpose, so Lifelong Learning, which would meet on fixed dates at purpose- but clarification required. It least once a year clarification seems to have various required. purposes e.g.: [The forum should be charged with charged with considering, reviewing and informing Scotland’s higher * with considering, education strategy. reviewing and informing Scotland’s higher The membership of this forum should include government, education strategy; university management, student and staff representative bodies and community representatives. It should include * maintaining an oversight representation from all Scottish higher education of the ongoing development institutions, in each category of membership. of university governance, as well as monitor the Such a forum could also maintain an oversight of the implementation of ongoing development of university governance, as well as governance reform; and

Page 5 monitor the implementation of governance reform *enhance and upgrade The role of the Forum will be to enhance and upgrade existing channels of existing channels of consultation and negotiation with consultation and stakeholders] negotiation with stakeholders. Note: the membership does not appear to include any Lay Members of Courts So some immediate issues are: What powers will it have and the stakeholders involved are only some of ours. 2.9 THE RELATIONSHIP WITH FURTHER EDUCATION All Scottish universities should not only include Seems OK What does this mean, what responsibilities to their region, alongside their national and subject to will compliance with this international objectives, in their mission statements, but also understanding recommendation entail and seek ways to engage proactively, for the benefit of students the detail. what will it cost? and the Scottish education system as a whole, with further education institutions and any new governance structures that may be put in place. 3.1 APPOINTMENT AND ROLE OF PRINCIPALS. The heads of Scottish higher education institutions should be OK- but see What happens to vice described as the 'chief officer', and that the job title should comment Chancellor- on the basis of continue to be 'Principal' being which Principal’s give degrees? There should be widened participation in the process for OK if reform is what is appointing Principals, and core to this approach should detailed in the following 3 *** be the reform of the way in which of appointment panels boxes on the left hand side are set up and operate – which is not clear from the Recommendation. The appointment panel should use transparent criteria and specifications for the post (which should encompass more than managerial skills and cover the institution’s need to interact with the community, the wider education sector,

Page 6 politics and business, as well as the Principal’s need to foster and reinforce collegiality and goodwill within the institution), and it should be required to advertise the post externally. The panel should also draw up a skills and values matrix to identify the characteristics of the ideal candidate. Students and staff should be involved at a formative stage in setting out the skills and values matrix required for the appointment.

Student and staff representatives, as well as external OK Last time we had Rector, advisers, should be involved in the interview process. Clerk of Senate and VP along with Lay members and benefit of extensive external adviser’s input The appraisal of Principals should involve external OK If appraisal At present appraisal is by governing body members, staff and students ison the Convener after discussion understanding with Committee Chairs and that the a 360-dgree review with a *** Formatted: Centered appraisal is selection of SMG. conducted by Convener and the Principal Chair/Convener agreed as part of this year’s review that the Convener will to seek views from Senate Assessors on relevant matters next time 3.2 REMUNERATION OF THE PRINCIPAL AND SENIOR MANAGEMENT Further percentage increases beyond those awarded to OK. For the immediate future, staff in general should not take place until existing ,i.e until the ”existing processes have been reviewed and, if appropriate, processes “ have been amended reviewed- see below, this is acceptable as it reflects

Page 7

what is currently happening at the University. Universities should ensure that any payments that may Need more detail? Is this be perceived as bonuses are either abolished or at least also to apply to the transparently awarded and brought into line with the Professoriat as they are not scale of 'contribution payments' available to on-scale on scale?? How will it staff affect recruitment from outside Scotland? Remuneration committees should include staff and Some We should distinguish student members participation by between(i) improving staff and transparency about the students factors taken into *** possible. consideration in fixing Senior Management Remuneration and (ii) how Rem Comm goes about applying these factors to individuals. Students and staff might usefully participate in discussing with Rem Comm. the method by which remuneration should be reviewed, and this could help give greater confidence about the process. However staff and students should not be present when the performance and the salary levels of individuals is discussed. See below.

Page 8

The work of the committee should be transparent, and in Probably OK I believe that transparency particular, the basis upon which pay is calculated should is is good by other be published University, and even public Sector standards.The Remuneration Committee is open in the manner it currently operates. In addition to publishing minutes- which I understand is not at all the norm- we publish, it makes known the broad basis of its calculation decisions: i.e. performance review outcomes and e.g. comparative figuresbenchmark salary levels. However we have to bear in mind that the Remuneration Committee is involved in reviewing the performance of the members of SMG and to a lesser extent Professorait. Is it appropriate to publish more detailed information about individuals and the reasons for a particular performance /salary grading?. There could be major problemsissues in terms of Data Protection, I assume? and iIntrusive

Page 9

publicity could well put individuals off seeking posts While the Framework Agreement, determining pay Not If this imposed rigid inter scales for university staff up to the grade of professor, is comnfortable. Scotland scales that were a UK matter, the Scottish Government should investigate internationally whether it might be extended north of the border to uncompetitive that would include all staff including Principals. not be in the best interests of GU. There should be a standard format for reporting senior OK officer pay, and the SFC should publish these figures annually.

The SFC should investigate how the principles of the OK Up to them? Hutton Report are being or should be applied to universities in Scotland. 4 ROLE, COMPOSITION AND APPOINTMENT OF GOVERNING BODIES Meetings of governing bodies should normally be held in No This will (i) drive decisions public unless the matters under consideration are into committees,(ii) deemed to be of a confidential or commercially sensitive discourage open and frank nature; these exceptional matters should be established discussion,(iii)make it less *** through clear guidelines rather than more easy to hold the executive to account and(iv)allow those individuals who are not on Court and do not carry the personal responsibilities of Court members to put Court members under undue pressure. Separately informed judgment by stakeholders and not just

Page 10

those who can take time to attend Court meetings- is more effectively facilitated by the level of publication of Agendas, minutes and Court papers that we have. Assuming transparency to be the driver of this recommendations our current practice of publishing Agenda’s before and minutes and most papers after Court meetings in fact provides greater and much wider transparency which all in the University can enjoy. 4.1 CHAIRING OF GOVERNING BODIES The chair of the governing body should be elected, thus No Practical reasons for this reflecting the democratic ideal of Scottish higher view – which are expanded education (recommended by a majority, one member on below - are: dissenting) *** • Creating conflicts of interest; • Difficulty in securing the confidence of Court; • The danger of not being able to choose the best candidate for the role of Chair; • Possibly damaging the relationship with the

Page 11

principal; • Discouraging suitable applicants from applying; • Danger of politicising the role; • Difficulty of dealing with the inadequate performance of duties by a Chair; • Lack of a robust mandate; and • Contrary to recognised good governance

A further concern is that an elected chair would effectively remove the role of the Rector. In recent years, much work has been done, here and at other universities, to clarify the purpose, meaning and relevance of the Rector's role. Students at Glasgow would most likely view the loss of the Rector as a bad step. The 3-year position of the Rector lends continuity to the student voice and enables better support of the other elected

Page 12

student representatives In order to ensure that the candidates for election possess the NoSee above The identification of appropriate experience and skills, their nomination should be suitable candidates in sought by public advertisement, followed by an interview of which a Court can have potentially appointable candidates leading to the drawing up confidence can best be of a final short list of appointable candidates, not in any achieved through a process order of preference. of identifying the requirements of the post, [These procedures are not intended to limit the field of advertising and candidates for election, but to make as certain as possible interviewing with a view to that those presenting themselves for election are able to an appointment by Court. fulfil the role responsibly.] This means that the ultimate choice is made by representatives of all the constituencies suggested by the report- who are informed by personal experience as to how Court works and what is required of a Chair.

In addition, The interviews should be carried out by a panel consisting of See above See above lay members of the governing body, together with staff and student representatives. The interviews should not be conducted so as to identify preferred candidates, but so as to ensure that those submitted for election have the necessary background and skills and are on that basis appointable. Candidates on the short list should then be submitted to an See above See above election by staff, students and, potentially, representatives of external stakeholders. Votes should be weighted so that staff and students are equally represented in the appointment decision.

Page 13

[The successful candidate, though elected by these constituencies, would not ‘represent’ them at court, that role being carried out by others more effectively. The chair would however ensure that all stakeholders are fully involved in governance, that constructive challenge is taking place, and that a clear strategy for the direction of the university is being set out.]

Eligibility for election should be reserved to persons who are See above not, and have not recently been, members of staff of the university, and who are not currently students of the university.

The term of office of the chair should be three years, and OK My view is that thisTWhile persons selected should be allowed to be candidates for the some HEIs may favour 4- role for a second term, but no more. year terms, three years allows a reasonable period without danger of the chair becoming “institutionalised.” It is fair to say however that while we agreed on that there should be a maximum of 2 terms. quite a number of those on the Working group thought that 4 not 3 years was correct! Elected chairs, in recognition of the unique historical role of No Unnecessary- but it might Rectors and of the Scottish educational tradition, should be sensible to suggest a continue, where the office already exists, to be called common nomenclature for ‘Rectors’ but might be otherwise designated elsewhere. the “working chair” as opposed to the Rector in

Page 14

the 4 Ancients where the Rector is entitled to chair the Court. Avoids confusion

Again, what are the student’s views on the loss of the Rector? The chair should receive some form of reasonable NO.Possibly. Inappropriate in view of remuneration (recommended by a majority, one member theThere is a strong culture dissenting)***** of unpaid public service that attaches to these [*****The panel considers that rather than a salary, a positions, all the moreso stipend or reasonable attendance allowance would be the and given that other lay most appropriate way to do this. In setting the amount, the members are not being appointments committee should of course be mindful of the paid. However, it is adverse perceptions that may be generated by what are possible that, particularly perceived to be ‘generous’ settlements. The idea of in the future, remuneration remuneration is to recognise commitment that has might be significant in previously gone unrewarded and open it up to those who some cases in determining previously were effectively precluded. The notion that a whether someone would be ‘competitive’ stipend should be offered in order to attract in a position to stand for ‘the best candidate’ is not consistent with the tradition of the office. It seems role. It would be helpful if a standard rate could be agreed reasonable, therefore, for sector-wide, perhaps as an extension to the Framework HEIs to accept the Agreement.] principle that payments may be offered. 4. 2 MEMBERSHIP OF GOVERNING BODIES Positions on governing bodies for lay or external Yes It is important that members should be advertised externally and all appointments to Court appointments should be handled by the nominations should be made with a committee of the governing body view to ensuring Court has

Page 15

a rich variety of relevant expertise and that it is broadly reflective if the community it serves.

Each governing body should be so constituted that the Yes lay or external members have a majority of the total membership There should be a minimum of two students on the Yes to two. No comment. governing body, nominated by the students' association/union, one of whom should be the President of the Students' Association and at least one of whom See above comment on should be a woman membership of Court. There should be at least two directly elected staff Yes members In addition, there should be one member nominated by No In practice the staff academic and related unions and one by administrative, representatives on Court technical or support staff unions are local trade union officials, but their role is not that of representing theto represent staff, not to represent a trade union. The existing system of academic board representatives Yes In principle but numbers to (called 'Senate assessors' in some universities) should be a matter for each also be continued university Governing bodies should also have up to two alumni Yes Our new Ordinance would representatives retain these The existing practice in some universities of having OK However he was counted ‘Chancellor’s assessors’ should be discontinued. as lay member, so if this happens we will need to add another co-opted member to Court by an adjustment to our New

Page 16

Ordinance The panel therefore recommends that each governing See first comment under body should be required to ensure (over a specified 4.2 above on the transition period) that at least 40 per cent of the membership of Court. membership is female. Each governing body should also ensure that the membership reflects the principles of equality and diversity more generally, reflecting the diversity of the wider society. Governing bodies should be required to draw up and OK make public a skills and values matrix for the membership of the governing body, which would inform the recruitment of independent members of the governing body The membership of the governing body should be OK regularly evaluated against this matrix Expenses available to those who sit on governing bodies should include any wages lost as a result of attending meetings The panel therefore recommends that senior managers NOSenior Makes no sense to allow other than the Principal should not be governing body managers any member of the public members and should not be in attendance at governing should attend as in except a limited number body meetings, except for specific agenda items at which required by of those who work at the their individual participation is considered necessary, Court. University. It should be up and for those agenda items only. to Court to decide who attends. Our S/O already allow us to hold meetings without attendees if the need arises. 4. 4 TRAINING All universities should be required to ensure that OK Do this alreadyThis is governors – including external governors, staff governors current practice. and student governors – are fully briefed and trained, and their knowledge should be refreshed regularly in

Page 17 appropriate programmes.

[Such training should include programmes on corporate governance generally, financial and business planning, human resources issues, equality and diversity, and developments within education.]

Each governing body should be required to report OK annually on the details of training made available to and availed of by governors 5.1 COMPOSITION OF THE ACADEMIC BOARD AND APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS In line with existing legislation applying to the ancient Not an issue for The phrase “final arbiter” universities, the academic board should be the final us. if the does not appear in the arbiter on academic matters intention is to current legislation which OK if the says that Senate is “To intention is to regulate and superintend change other the teaching and discipline HEIs' structure. of the University and to promote research”

Sounds curious that the Ancients structure is regarded as preferable/clearer to that of the other HEIs!

Apart from the Principal and the heads of School (or As in the past we have let equivalent) who should attend ex officio, all other Senate determine its own members should be elected by the constituency that they composition this is an area represent, and elected members should form a majority where we should look to *** of the total membership collect the views of Senators. What seems to be

Page 18

clear is that many members of Senate do not think that the current arrangements work. A smaller more representative body seems a sensible way forward. It may well be therefore that these recommendations are sufficiently broad and flexible to establish parameters within which the constitution of Senate can be rewritten- so we could accept them In establishing the membership of the academic board, See above due regard should be given to the principles of equality, and the need for the body to be representative This includes a requirement to ensure that there is See above but presumably significant (rather than token) student representation we would retain the existing representation? Overall, academic boards should not normally have more Seems sensible but see than 120 members above 6.2 GOVERNANCE AND STUDENT UNIONS/ASSOCIATIONS Universities should ensure that their students’ associations OK? Not certain what this is are adequately resourced and given sufficient time in order aimed at. JustAt GU the to consult with their members, in order to ensure that 'student association' is the students have sufficient opportunity to contribute to the SRC or all student bodies. decisions taken by management and by governing bodies.

7.1 WHISTLEBLOWING. All universities should maintain a whistleblowing policy, OK and this should be under the overall control of the

Page 19 governing body Such a policy must include a clear process a person, OK whether a member of the university or not, wishing to make a complaint can access, and it should be proactively publicised 7.2 EVIDENCE BASE The Government should instruct the Scottish Funding Will it be worthwhile or Council to establish in an appropriate academic setting a merely another body? Scottish Centre for Higher Education Research, which should be available as a resource for the entire higher education sector and for government.

[The centre would have the task of conducting research into issues of relevance to higher education policy, including issues that have been highlighted in this report. Carrying out this work, with an initial deadline for some meaningful results of perhaps 2014, will have the added advantage of putting in place a mechanism to monitor the implementation of policy outcomes from this review and the Government’s response to it.]

7.3 AVOIDING BUREAUCRATISATION The Scottish Funding Council should undertake a review Sounds good – but few of the bureaucratic and administrative demands attempts to reduce currently made of higher education institutions from all bureaucracy seem to do government and public agency sources, with a view to that? rationalising these and thereby promoting more transparent and efficient regulation and governance 7. 4 CODE OF GOOD GOVERNANCE The Scottish Funding Council should commission the OK subject to The CUC code is not only drafting of a Code of Good Governance for higher comprehensive but

Page 20 education institutions comments dynamic and so kept up-to- date. It also draws on much wider experience of good/bad governance that just within Scotland. It would be a serious waste of resources if we set out to replace it unnecessarily. It also helps to ensure that save where appropriate we remain broadly in the mainstream of Universities in the UK- major competitors. A rewrite should be resisted even if put forward as merely putting a kilt on the CUC one. A supplement dealing with specific Scottish variations and in particular focusing on how to spread best practice could serve a useful purpose.

PART B

The following sentiments were also expressed in the Report.

Page 21

4.3 COMMITTEE STRUCTURE Response Reason

There may be merit in the idea of a joint committee in each university to No This will only coordinate academic planning and resourcing issues, without compromising further confuse the core principle that academic boards are responsible for academic who does what. We governance. This committee would cover the remit of both a finance are already committee and a planning committee and would ensure that academic engaged on priorities are considered together with the human, financial and physical developing resources necessary to deliver them. processes for how Senate and Court work together where there remits overlap and that is the sensible way forward.

The importance of an ethics committee has been highlighted by the recent No. Where there are Formatted: Font: Times New Roman issues at the London School of Economics and the subsequent Woolf purely Report. Ethical questions and the reputational risk flowing from them need academically to be addressed as part of governance, and the ethics committee would ethical issues these normally report to the governing body. However, ethical questions can arise should be for in relation to academic activity and can potentially affect fields of academic Senate alone to study with implications for academic freedom. For this reason consideration consider as they do should be given to making the ethics committee a sub-committee of both the other academic governing body and the academic board. issues. In relation to wider ethical and reputational issues Court has ample academic representation in order to ensure that the academic

Page 22

interest is properly represented in the decision making process.

6.1 STAFF

We draw attention to the desirability of governing bodies regularly reporting OK?Yes. Formatted: Font: Times New Roman on how they monitor their institutions’ relations with all staff, and with trade unions.

6.2 GOVERNANCE AND STUDENT UNIONS/ASSOCIATIONS

We would support the introduction of partnership agreements, as suggested ? What does this in the Government’s recent pre-legislative paper, and would suggest that mean? they incorporate elements that relate to institutional governance. They could set out the relationships between institutions and students’ association/unions, as well as indicating to individual students the role they can expect to play in the institution.

6.3 WIDER COMMUNITY

We would like to see universities becoming more involved in community ? Ditto planning partnerships and to consider more effective ways of community engagement. Collaborative working could again have an impact through the sharing of best practice.

6.4 INDUSTRY

Where they do not already have such bodies, universities should consider ? Ditto establishing business and industry advisory committees to ensure appropriate levels of communication.

[They should wherever possible enhance their understanding of the skills

Page 23 employers seek, and are likely to seek, in graduate employees, not only today but in the foreseeable future. It should also be a role of such committees to impress on employers the importance of the broadened outlook, critical intellectual curiosity and general life skills that a university, even when it is focussed on entirely non-vocational subjects, can impart. It should also be within the remit of such committees to explore, and report to academic boards and governing bodies on, the development of partnerships with industry in appropriate research projects.]

Page 24

Annex 2

Management of Compulsory Redundancy Protocol

Potential Restructure of the Fees Team within Registry

FOR INFORMATION & DECISION

Background

As part of the Student Lifecycle Project the processes relating to the collection of all student payments were reviewed and changes to processes, roles and responsibilities agreed. A significant feature of MyCampus is that all student payments including tuition fees, accommodation fees and other payments can be managed in a single system with students having one single account for all their payments. This means that it is no longer necessary to maintain two separate Accounts Receivable functions within both Registry and the Accommodation Office and accordingly, the functionality of both units was combined in the summer of 2011, within Student Services.

The activities carried out by the new Accounts Receivable team are significant to the accuracy of the University’s reported financial position and they underpin the cash collection cycle. The initial period following the introduction of MyCampus has highlighted that the financial reconciliations to Agresso are complex and investigation of the differences and errors which have arisen have required skills in a high volume / high value transaction environment. In order to ensure that adequate financial control is maintained around this process, it is proposed that the team be transferred into the Finance Office and line managed by a qualified Accountant in line with the University’s overall financial control framework.

Implications

Following a review of the proposed structure of the Accounts Receivable Team (see Appendix 1), it is recommended that management of the overall team is transferred to the Finance Office. An Accountant will have direct day-to-day line management responsibility for the Student Finance Assistants (3.8 FTEs). This will necessitate a further review of the responsibilities and grading of the Student Financials Lead & Finance Manager role.

As a consequence of this proposal, the following posts will no longer necessary and it is proposed that 3 posts across MPA Grades 8 to 6 are dismissed as redundant from within the Registry Fees Team, as detailed:

1 x Assistant Registrar post Grade 8 1 x Head of Section post Grade 7 1 x Assistant Head of Section post Grade 6

1

Selection for Redundancy

The pool of staff for redundancy selection will be contained within and limited to the Registry Fees Team. All posts are considered to be unique with other roles across Registry being substantially different in nature, functionality and grading.

Mitigation of the Effects of Redundancy

The University will seek to explore any potential redeployment opportunities with staff, as appropriate. The staff affected will be encouraged to participate in the redeployment process in order to optimise their options should compulsory redundancy prove necessary. Every effort will be made through the Job Seekers’ Register process to seek redeployment opportunities that match the skills, experience and interests of each member of staff.

Consultation

The relevant trade union for the purposes of consultation is UCUG. Informal consultation with the union and the staff group affected will commence in the week beginning April 2nd 2012. Formal consultation will commence with effect from April 16th 2012 onwards.

Method of Selection

If it is decided that redundancies are ultimately required, the proposed method of carrying out the dismissals will be subject to consultation with the trade union.

Date of Dismissals

In the event that redundancies do occur, they would take effect from October 12th 2012.

Procedure

This proposal has been considered by the Senior Management Group, which recommends to Court that:

1. A Redundancy Committee is established in accordance with the provisions of the Management of Compulsory Redundancy Protocol.

2. A Structural Change Committee is established with the following members to advise the Redundancy Committee for the purposes of the Management of Compulsory Redundancy Protocol:

Mrs Christine Lowther, Director of Student Services Mr David Bennion, Director of Registry Mrs Lesley Cummings, Human Resources Manager

2

University of Glasgow Appendix 1

Review of Accounts Receivable Function

March 2012

Purpose

The purpose of this document is to review the activities carried out by the Accounts Receivable (AR) Team and to determine the most appropriate owner of the function within the current University Services structure.

Key factors to be considered in the decision are:

• Process efficiency; • Robustness of financial controls and maintenance of segregation of duties; • Impact on the financial processes within the University; and • Links between AR and the credit management function within the central finance office.

Background

The structure of the AR team, which currently operates within the Registry is as detailed:

Director of Registry

Assistant Registrar

Head of Section

(Fees)

Asst Head of Section (Fees)

Student Finance Assistant x 3.8FTE

As a result of the introduction of MyCampus, much of the accounts receivable function has been automated and, as a result, a reduction in the number of staff and a revised team structure was proposed for the new environment, as set out below:

3

Student Financials Lead & Student Finance Manager

AR Team Lead (currently vacant)

AR User AR User Back Office role1 role 2 Cashier

The structure reports to the Director of Student Services. The Campus Financials Manager is part of the Student Lifecycle Support and Development Team as well as having line management responsibility for the Accounts Receivable team. The transition to this new structure has not yet been completed and the team still currently reports to the Director of Registry, whilst working closely with the Campus Financials Manager to complete the transitioning of activities and support from the SLP team to the Accounts Receivable team.

The group of roles within the red dotted line is the collective AR function and this report considers whether the function should remain within the Student Services organisation structure or whether it should be incorporated within the Finance Office. It should be noted that the related functions of Financial Aid and Cashiering are integral to other roles within Student Services – in Registry, the Student Services Enquiry Team and the SLSD and therefore have not been considered in this review.

Key Functions of the AR Role

An analysis has been undertaken of the detailed tasks required by each of the roles within the AR team and detailed job descriptions approved for the team lead role and Student Finance Assistant roles (AR User and Back Office Cashier). In summary, the key duties and responsibilities are as follows:

• Ensure that all charges on student and sponsor accounts are accounted for correctly, are valid and accurate and are posted on a timely basis. In particular, this requires that: o All accounting adjustments are identified, calculated and posted; o Batch process for Fee calculation runs correctly; o Batch process for Miscellaneous charges runs correctly; o Batch process for Miscellaneous credits runs correctly; o All key reconciliations between MyCampus, Agresso and Kinetics are completed and issues resolved. o Third party contracts are managed and appropriate supporting documentation maintained; o SAAS and SLC processes are completed; o Billing processes are carried out; o Direct debit processing is carried out;

4

o Write off and write back processes are carried out; o Enrolment deposit processing is enacted. All of these activities must be carried out within a strong internal control environment and with the retention of adequate supporting documentation for all transactions and processes in order to satisfy the requirements of the annual statutory financial audit.

Review of Ownership

The key functions of the team are evaluated below against a number of decision criteria:

Decision Criteria Evaluation Process Efficiency The key functions have a significant feed into cash allocation, cash collection and transaction processing within Agresso. By incorporating the AR function into the finance office, efficiency savings can be delivered in addition to having the end to end process under one single management which will further improve the efficiency of the control environment. Robustness of Financial The key AR functions have a direct impact on the University Controls financial ledger – in particular debtors, deferred income, bank accounts and financial aid accounts within the balance sheet. It is critical to the financial controls of the University that the transactions impacting these accounts are complete, accurate and fully reconciled. On the basis of the materiality of the transactions involved, it is recommended that the activities carried out by the team should be under the line management of a qualified accountant to ensure robustness of the financial position Impact on Financial Processes The key processes are intended to handle approx £80m in value of transactions representing 23,000 students, including £44m from over 1300 sponsors and £34m from self financing students. The timely and accurate completion of the processes provide the basis for the University’s cash collection cycle and also approximately 20% of the University’s I&E income position. The correct processing of this income is vital to the decision making processes taking place within Schools and Colleges. Given the critical nature of the activities, it is again recommended that the team should be under the line management of a qualified accountant. This can be accommodated within the current finance office structure. Links to credit management The end to end process of raising charges on the student account function. through to the payment and correct allocation of payment also involves the credit management function, currently part of the finance office. It is considered that having the two functions working within one overall team and under a single management structure is more likely to create a seamless process with less possibility for errors and omissions. It would not be acceptable from a financial control perspective to move the credit control function from the finance office and as such, it is recommended that the AR function should be moved to the finance office.

5

Potential Team Structure Within Finance Office

Financial Accountant

Accountant

AR User

3.8FT

Conclusion

The activities carried out by the AR team are significant to the accuracy of the University’s reported financial position and they underpin the cash collection cycle. The initial period following the introduction of MyCampus has highlighted that the financial reconciliations to Agresso are complex and investigation of the differences and errors which have arisen have required skills in a high volume/ high value transaction environment. It is considered that in order to ensure adequate financial control is maintained around this process, the proposed team lead role should be filled by a qualified accountant and the team should be run from the finance office where such skills/ qualifications can be managed in line with the University’s overall financial control framework.

It is proposed that the team be transferred to the finance office and that the Student Finance Manager and the AR Team Lead role be consolidated into one post and filled by one of the existing qualified accountants within the department. The position will be reviewed after an initial 6 month integration period.

6

Annex 5

Lessons Learned Recommendations

Status and progress updates

Following the Project Board meeting in March 2012 the paper detailing the Lessons Learned Recommendations and progress against these has been published on the SLP website.

The recommendations document will be updated each month for presentation to the Project Board after which the new version will be published on the website.

Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (e.g. SMG) for action it will be shown ‘greyed out’ and no further updates will be recorded against this item.

Lessons Learned Review – Recommendations Update April 2012

Ref Recommendation Decision / Responsibility Current Position 1 The University should allow students (especially 6/2/12 – Project Board agreed with Review of the Registration and Enrolment is being international students) to enrol before completing recommendation. progressed through Student Finance and Student financial registration. Records Specialist User Groups. There should be a move away from the linear process and students should still be encouraged to Outputs from the SUGs documenting decisions and complete financial registration as soon as possible actions are published on the Sharepoint site. and would not be able to access facilities such as the library and other facilities until registration had been For more information on this please contact your completed. Specialist User Group representative, details of whom can be found under the Who’s Who section of the SLP website.

2 The University should review the relationship 6/2/12 This recommendation must be considered Specialist User Group for Advising created. between MyCampus and advising and the role of by the Chief Advisers Group. Matter also referred to Chief Advisers Sub advisers in MyCampus Committee for consideration. The interface between advising and MyCampus was

not optimised and the relationship between In consultation with Chief Advisers, University MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be Services and the SLP, Adviser of Studies Guidelines reviewed. The Board supports the concern set out have been produced to compliment the Adviser of in the report that advisers of Study should meet Studies Remit and Role and clarify Adviser with students before the point at which their responsibilities in relation to MyCampus. curriculum could no longer be changed. David Additionally, the Clerk of Senate has met with each Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting Head of College and Dean of Learning and Teaching the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the to encourage appropriate administrative support for Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the Advising to simplify the processes Advisers of same direction. Studies will undertake in MyCampus.

Chairman's Note: This matter was discussed at SMG on 16 February, where Graham Caie noted that all Colleges were already committed to the practice of advisers meeting students before their curriculum

Ref Recommendation Decision / Responsibility Current Position was finalised.

3 The option for students to choose courses directly 6/2/12 – Project Board agreed with Review of the Registration and Enrolment is being from the course catalogue should be removed, so recommendation. progressed through Student Finance and Student that they have to use MyRequirements. Records Specialist User Groups. Students must go through MyRequirements, a measure which should reduce the incidence of Outputs from the SUGs documenting decisions and course clashes and of poor curricular choices actions are published on the Sharepoint site.

4 The revised SLP project plan, as well as regular 6/2/12 – Project Board agreed with High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be reports on progress, should be shared with the recommendation. refreshed monthly. University community. Regular updates will be communicated to staff via Publication of project plan and progress updates to Campus e-news each month and via the SRC be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter newsletter for students following Project Board Aitchison. meetings.

Recommendation Implemented

5 Information about contacts within the user 6/2/12 – Project Board agreed with Who’s Who section published on SLP website to community and the SLP team should be published recommendation. provide additional contact information. widely. The SLP team would address this in conjunction with Recommendation Implemented the other areas clarifying College, University Services and SLP contacts.

6 Usability and the user experience of staff and 6/2/12 – Project Board accepted the The User Interface is being enhanced with the students should be given the very highest priority. recommendation. introduction of Work Centers which will improve navigation and may reduce the number of clicks required for certain transactions. This is an ongoing activity with the first Work Center due for release Spring 2012.

Ref Recommendation Decision / Responsibility Current Position 7 MyCampus handbooks should be produced for 6/2/12 – Project Board determined that SLP team Training Materials are currently being reviewed and Advisers, administrative staff and appropriate will take forward. updated. As part of this consideration is being given academic staff. to how these might be logically grouped into role- based User Guides.

8 Two new members should be added to the Project 6/2/12 – Project Board agreed with Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined Board to represent the user community, including recommendation. the Board. one representing administrative users and one More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias academic users. Each individual should convene a Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now Robinson agreed. user group, which should receive administrative members of the Board and therefore were not support. required to convene separate groups or be Recommendation Implemented. members of the SUGS. Christine Lowther, Janice McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others.

9 The user groups should be involved in 6/2/12 – Project Board agreed with Specialist User Groups and student representatives comprehensive system testing. recommendation. (through SRC) will be directly involved in User Acceptance Testing. Project Board will come back to this at a later date.

10 Comprehensive user training should be provided in a 6/2/12 – Project Board accepted the Training activity is ongoing and new training in timely manner ahead of roll-out. recommendation. support of the roll-out of new functionality is being built into the project plan in line with developments. Project Board will come back to this at a later date. Training update presented to Project Board on 2nd April. 11 Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in 6/2/12 – Project Board accepted the A Support & Engagement Strategy for the Student place to support users during the roll-out phase. recommendation. Lifecycle Support and Development Team has been agreed. A paper on the proposed support model Project Board will come back to this at a later date. and arrangements for 1st Line support for

Ref Recommendation Decision / Responsibility Current Position Registration and Enrolment 2012/13 presented to Project Board 2nd April. 12 Project implementation protocols should be 6/2/12 – Project Board accepted the Specialist User Groups have been established for 10 reviewed and made more robust. recommendation. functional areas. As part of their remit they will ensure more robust implementation protocols are Project Board will come back to this at a later date. adopted.

13 If possible, a replica of the live database should be 6/2/12 – Project Board accepted the A replication of the live database has been created. provided to facilitate user testing. recommendation. A strategy for making this available to all users is under consideration. Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica of live database will be available.

14 The services of an individual or groups of individuals 6/2/12 Deans of Learning & Teaching to put together plans should be secured to review academic plans in a for completion of this task in their individual holistic way. Review of academic plans (including resources Colleges and report on progress to the Project implications and consistency of plans) to be Board. discussed with Deans of L&T.

15 Issues concerning queries, permissions and lines of 6/2/12 Formal procedures established to: communication should be addressed immediately. • Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and SLP Team progressing. BI-Query models. • Request development of additional reports and queries. These are available through the SLP website.

Who’s Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information.

Recommendation Implemented 16 A properly trained, adequately-staffed and 6/2/12 – Project Board accepted the A paper on the support model and arrangements for appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set recommendation. 1st Line support, for Registration & Enrolment

Ref Recommendation Decision / Responsibility Current Position up to assist students with registration and 2012/13, presented to Project Board on 2nd April. enrolment. Project Board will come back to this at a later date. 17 In undertaking any substantial project in the future, 6/2/12 Recommendation to be progressed by University the University should learn the wider lessons from Management. the MyCampus implementation captured in this Noted as a University issue. report. Specifically, robust project governance and best practice in project management disciplines must be employed, allowing adequate time and appropriate user engagement at each stage. Benefits management should be fully embedded from the outset such that success criteria are clearly identified and understood by the user community as a whole.

Media Activity Report

The University of Glasgow Corporate Communications

1st January to 31st March 2012

Summary

This report summarises the University of Glasgow media coverage during the first three months of 2012. In addition to a summary of media activity, the report also includes detail of our growing social media presence and of traffic using the University of Glasgow website.

Monthly summaries of press coverage have also been written up for Campus E-News since January 2012, providing a regular digest of the University of Glasgow in the media for the wider university community.

Although there is detail on quantity and output within the report, it needs to be stated that the team is also working hard to identify and exploit media opportunities – particularly in broadcast and online - that deliver quality audiences that may not register as easily as the number of cuttings. This reflects an appreciation that securing prominent exposure on websites such as BBC Online leads to substantial diverse international pick-up for the University of Glasgow.

Most of the prominent stories in the media over the last quarter have been research focussed, and have been well spread out across the colleges. These have included a study into the impact of the smoking ban on the health of pregnant women and their babies; research into the length of specialised pieces of DNA which can be an indicator of longevity; a separate report into DNA and deprivation; a project examining the changing accent of Glaswegians; and a study into how the brain interprets and “talks over” boring speech patterns.

There was substantial media interest generated in lectures arranged by the School of Law from Lord Wallace of Tankerness and the Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon MSP on Scotland’s constitutional future. Following on from this, the team at corporate communications circulated lists of key academics that might be interested in commenting on aspects of the constitutional debate to selected editors and correspondents.

We have also sought to extend our good relationships with influential reporters, such as the BBC Science correspondent Ken Macdonald. The worth of this was shown in an excellent television package produced for Newsnight Scotland on research from Lee Cronin and Richard Cogdell into solar fuels. The piece was also posted for 48 hours on the BBC UK site, where it was the third most watched video by users from around the world. We have now been given permission to feature the film this on the university website – something which the BBC only rarely grants.

Beyond the obvious high measure media successes, there was also significant reporting of other stories such as the announcement of a group to champion Scottish studies; the launch of our Partner Schools initiative in Irvine; the revival of a chair in Greek; coverage around Burns

Night with colleagues from the Centre for the Study of Robert Burns; a TV, radio and online report on research from a PHD student in Dumfries on a new way of delivering clean water in Africa; and continued reporting of our Young Alumnus, the singer-songwriter Emeli Sande.

In addition to a strong showing in the UK media, the January report from the World 100 Network showed that the University of Glasgow had the highest reputational score of media output of any participating institution and the highest worldwide impact of media coverage with a research focus.

Corporate communications staff have also held “meet-the-media-relations-team” sessions with all four colleges. The media relations team can only work effectively if provided with timely information, and would encourage colleagues to get in touch for advice on any story or piece of research that might be of interest to the press.

Media Activity Report – United Kingdom

From 1 January 2012 to 31 March 2012 a total of 907 media clips were generated across the UK media. These had an advertising value {AVE} of £4,806,434 and a total potential circulation of 932,568,427

This compares to 823 clips which were generated during the previous quarter – October to December 2011- with an AVE of £3,843,731 and a total potential circulation of 676,765,684.

All press releases are available on the web at http://www.gla.ac.uk/news

The quantitative output for the University of Glasgow therefore continues to be strong, with significant successes recorded across mainstream print, online, social and broadcast media. Beyond maximising the number of media appearances, corporate communications has sought to target quality and influential output. Over the past three months this has seen broadcast appearances on programmes such as Horizon, PM, Today, Breakfast News and Newsnight and print exposure in all main UK, as well as Scottish titles.

This graph illustrates the number of media clips received while subsequent table and pie chart illustrate how this figure translates across the separate sections of the University.

Monthly UK Media Clips 400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0 January - 358 February - 265 March - 284

Monthly Media Clips

Figure 1

Media Clips by University Section

Arts - 13% MVLS - 42% Science and Engineering - 16% Social Sciences - 24% Corporate - 5%

Figure 2

* Corporate University includes all corporate services and other general university stories

The following pie chart breaks down media coverage by media category

Total number of clips by media category

Broadcast - 148 National press - 125 Regional press* - 485 Web/Wires - 147

Figure 3

* Regional press includes Scottish newspapers such as the Daily Record, the Herald and the Scotsman. National refers, in the main, to London based UK-wide print media.

Most media hits across Colleges

Colleges generating the most media clips are detailed below.

Academic College Subject Clips Impact of the smoking ban on 1 Prof Jill Pell MVLS pregnancy 46 DNA Telomere 2 Prof Pat Monaghan MVLS research 36 Corporate 3 Young Alumnus University Emeli Sande 33 Lecture by Lord Wallace of Lecture on Scotland’s 4 Tankerness Social Sciences constitution 30 5 Prof James Conroy Social Sciences RE in Schools 23 Science and 6 Bo Yao Engineering Brain Voice Study 18 Announcement of 7 Macdowall Bequest Arts new chair in Greek 14 Prof Lee Cronin and Science & Solar Fuels 11 8 Prof Richard Cogdell Engineering/MVLS Lecture by Nicola Lecture on Scotland’s 8= Sturgeon MSP Social Sciences constitution 11 Centre for Robert 10= Burns Studies Arts Robert Burns 10 Study into Glasgow 10= Dr Jane Stuart-Smith Arts accent 10

Table 1

International Coverage

Over the period, a total of 1891 international media clips were generated by news from the University. This compares to 1,749 in the previous quarter. As usual, the bulk of overseas coverage is in the USA (67%), but India is also strongly represented (11%), reflecting the increased focus and activity in that region. China remains low at (1.5%) but is a tough market and difficult to monitor effectively. Canada (7%) and Mexico (2%) are notable this quarter too.

The chart below shows the geographical spread of international (non-European) coverage

Figure 4

In European countries there were 217 articles generated over the period (compared to 242 in the previous quarter), the bulk of them in Sweden (18%), Germany (12%), Ireland (12%), France (8%) and Romania (6%).

Figure 5

In addition, there was a major event in Singapore (New partner programmes launched, alumni dinners, and academic events) in March. Stuart Forsyth from the Media Relations Office travelled to Singapore to assist with generating coverage of the event. Several journalists were invited to attend the networking receptions though none were able to make it, although two journalists: Lin Zhaowei of the Straits Times and Soon Weilun of Lianhe Zaobao attended the course launch event and interviewed the Principal. Coverage from this event has not yet been published/obtained.

The February instalment of the World 100 Reputation Network’s Aggregated University Online Reputational Assessor report recorded 10 international articles for Glasgow (compared to 24 last month). The report states that Glasgow achieved comparatively high impact scores for the quality of coverage received in relation to volume.

Glasgow’s research stories accounted for 98.8% of its total impact score. For February, Glasgow’s overall reputational score dropped considerably from 53,918 to 10,123 due to a lack of high-profile stories this month. In January Glasgow was amongst the top 40 in terms of amount of coverage and achieved the highest-average impact score on its stories.

Social Media Monitoring

The Media Relations Office participates in and monitors various social media websites. Higher education institutions are increasingly using social media platforms as a way to supplement traditional news releases. Media Relations officers regularly update key news stories and events on Twitter and Facebook. We also respond to questions and comments and have created a “social media voice” that appears to resonate with the wider university community.

The success of our social media strategy can be seen in the tables below. We calculate that if all of our Facebook and twitter followers re-posted information, we would reach in excess of six million people. Using social media can also be important at times when we need to inform the community quickly. This was shown during last December’s storms, when corporate communications staff were able to advise of the closure of the university and then offer advice on issues such as the rescheduling of exams.

Twitter

The University of Glasgow currently ranks as 3rd in the UK (behind Oxford and Cambridge in number of followers and closely followed by Birmingham, Sheffield and Cardiff) and 1st in Scotland.

Over the past three months, the University of Glasgow has seen a dramatic increase of almost 3,400 Twitter followers. During this period we have maintained a narrow lead on Birmingham who have also added significant numbers of followers.

Twitter Followers December 2011 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0

Table 2

Twitter Followers Scotland - April 2011 16000

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0 Glasgow - 15038 Edinburgh - 12372 Aberdeen - 8698 Dundee - 7803 St Andrews - 6861

Table 3

Facebook

As of 31 March 2012 the University had 25,825 people (45%/54% male/female) who ‘like’ the page/institution, up by an impressive 3654 in the past quarter. The majority are in Scotland and Glasgow – which is to be expected. Indonesia still has the second highest number of people engaging with us through Facebook (2248), ahead of the US who have our third highest number of followers (1,461). The locations in the world with the highest-group of fans are: Glasgow, London, Edinburgh, Jakarta, Lahore, Karachi and Singapore.

Over the past 3 months 1,206,111 have viewed out posts on Facebook. We received the most views on our Facebook page on 9 January, which was the first day of semester 2.

Facebook Page 'likes' - 31 Dec 2011 - 31 Mar 2012

12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0

Table 4

Website

External visitors to the University of Glasgow site showed a 25 % increase in the first three months of 2012 compared to the same quarter in 2011. There were 1,392,090 unique visitors to the website, compared to 1,116,679 in the same January – March period.

Over the same time frames, the following also happened:

• the total number of page views decreased by 8% • the average visit duration increased by 4% • our bounce rate decreased by 1% (a bounce rate measures visitors that exit our site without clicking on anything – a low bounce rate is good)

These numbers show that we have more we have more visitors, looking at fewer pages (but for a longer time per page for each visit). It seems fair to conclude that visitors are reaping the benefits of the increasing usability of our website and are finding the information that they require faster than at the same time last year.

Court – Wednesday 18 April 2012

Report from the Meeting of the Finance Committee held on 28 March 2012 Cover Sheet

Brief description of the paper This report sets out those items considered at the Finance Committee's last ordinary meeting which require Court approval or which it was considered should be brought to Court's attention. The Finance KPI report was provided to Court at its February meeting but carried forward in the absence of the chair of the Finance Committee. The chair does not propose to add any further comments at the April meeting and the KPIs have therefore not been included again. Court members are welcome to raise any question on KPIs with the chair.

Action Requested

A Items – for action There are no items for action.

B Items – for noting CA/2011/58.1 Stevenson Building Expansion Finance Committee noted that the University was still in discussion with the Glasgow University Union (GUU) with regards to the proposed extension of the Stevenson Building. The options included building a new extension for sole use by the GUU, adapting an area within the main GUU building to house a nightclub venue or to progress with the Stevenson Building extension with the inclusion of a floor for use by the GUU. It was reported that the third option was favoured as it permitted the GUU to maintain a revenue stream and was not prohibitively expensive to provide.

CA/2011/60. Boyd Orr Level 10 Refurbishment and Boyd Orr Roof Finance Committee received two capex applications for developments to the Boyd Orr Building; to refurbish laboratory and teaching space on level 10 for £1.042m and to renew the roof for £800k. Finance Committee approved both capex applications.

gla.ca/crt/Report/2012-04-18 Finance Committee: Report to Court Wednesday 18 April 2012

CA/2011/61. PG Social Space The Committee considered an application for £900k to develop social and learning space for postgraduate students in the former telephone and catering changing accommodation in the Gilbert Scott Building. The Committee noted that the development provided high quality learning spaces for individuals and for group study, social space and catering facilities providing food and drink including alcoholic beverages. Finance Committee approved the application.

CA/2011/62. Glasgow Environmental Mass Spectrometry Facility The Committee received an application from the College of Science and Engineering to incur capital expenditure of £0.55m on an elemental analytical instrument (£0.39m) and an isotope analytical facility (£0.16m) for the Glasgow Environmental Spectrometry Facility. The Committee approved the application on the condition that the ERC grant for £0.39m was approved.

CA/2011/65. Pensions Liability Attached is an overview of the current University pension liabilities. The University of Glasgow Pension Scheme and Strathclyde Pension Fund contain assets valued at £223.3m and have liabilities of £279.9m contributing to a net deficit of £56.6m as at 30 July 2011. The Committee noted that a fall in the gilt yield will involve liabilities being discounted at a lower rate, and therefore will increase the size of the pension fund deficit. The increased deficit is expected to have a material impact on the University's balance sheet for 2011/12 and on its I&E statement for 2012/13.

CA/2011/66. Overview of Performance as at February 2012 and Update on Capex Applications Attached is Period 7 2011/12 Overview of Performance. The University project an operating surplus for the full year of £8.5m. The projected surplus at Period 7 represented a positive variance of £0.7m against budget. The projected surplus includes accelerated spending in 2011/12 of £2.6m on Estates and Buildings maintenance which had been planned for 2012/13.

2 gla.ca/crt/Report/2012-04-18 DRAFT University of Glasgow Finance Committee Minute of Meeting held on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 in Melville Room

Present: Mr Ken Brown (Convener), Mr Robert Fraser, Ms Amy Johnson, Prof Miles Padgett, Mr David Ross, Prof Adrienne Scullion, Mr Iain Stewart In attendance: Mr Andrew Charters, Prof Neil Juster, Mr Gavin Lee, Mr David Newall, Mr Steve Sutton, Ms Carolyn Timar Apologies: Mr Peter Daniels, Prof Anton Muscatelli, Mr Kevin Sweeney

CA/2011/56. Minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 18 January 2012

The minutes of meeting held on Wednesday 18 January 2012 were approved.

CA/2011/57. Note of the Ad Hoc meeting held on Wednesday 15 February 2012

The note of the ad hoc meeting of Finance Committee held on Wednesday 15 February 2012 was approved.

CA/2011/58. Matters Arising

CA/2011/58.1 Stevenson Building Expansion (CA/2011/25)

Finance Committee noted that the University was still in discussion with the Glasgow University Union (GUU) with regards to the proposed extension of the Stevenson Building. The Committee noted that three options had been considered to ensure that the expansion to Sport and Recreation Service (SRS) met user demand and sufficient space was provided to permit the GUU to remain financially viable. The options included building a new extension for sole use by the GUU, adapting an area within the main GUU building to house a nightclub venue or to progress with the Stevenson Building extension with the inclusion of a floor for use by the GUU. It was reported that the third option was favoured as it permitted the GUU to maintain a revenue stream and was not prohibitively expensive to provide. It was noted that the GUU had received additional University funding to alleviate financial difficulty in recent years and that due to the location of the GUU their financial issues may be exacerbated by the intention to focus the University footprint on the Western Infirmary site and away from the GUU, and the Director of Finance expressed his view that we may be in danger of over- provisioning space for GUU at an uneconomic level. It was suggested that a review of the financial case for investment in the GUU extension is undertaken when all data is ready.

CA/2011/58.2 Review of Approved Capex Reports

The Committee noted that Finance Committee approve capital expenditure based on information delivered through Capex applications. The Committee requested a written report which reviewed the approved Capex Reports and considered the stated intended outcomes of the funding and the extent to which the project had met the expected outcomes. Finance Committee Wednesday, 28 March 2012

CA/2011/58.3 Efficiency in Higher Education (CA/2011/30)

The Committee noted that a written report from the Procurement Office would be provided to the next meeting of Finance Committee.

CA/2011/58.4 Centre for Virus Research (CA/2011/41)

The Convener requested an update on the proposal to develop a Centre for Virus Research at Garscube Campus. It was agreed that an update would be provided to Finance Committee in May 2012.

CA/2011/59. Conflicts of Interest

No conflicts of interest were noted.

CA/2011/60. Boyd Orr Level 10 Refurbishment and Boyd Orr Roof (papers 6.1 and 6.2)

Finance Committee received two capex applications for developments to the Boyd Orr Building; to refurbish laboratory and teaching space on level 10 and to renew the roof. The Boyd Orr Building has been undergoing a programme of improvement through the refurbishment of the two main lecture theatres and the teaching and laboratory space on Levels 8 and 9. The Capex application for £1.042m was intended to ensure level 10 teaching spaces meet legislative requirements for disabled access, address deficiencies in AV and improve the rudimentary hand washing facilities and benching in a teaching space heavily used by the College of MVLS.

The Committee noted that the Boyd Orr roof had reached the end of its economic lifecycle and had, for a number of years, permitted water ingress into Level 10 teaching spaces. The Capex application proposed £800k to improve roof insulation, install new safety barriers and emergency lighting to meet legislative requirements and to repair the existing roof covering and overlay with a new roofing membrane. The proposed roofing system would have a lifecycle of 25 years.

Finance Committee approved both capex applications.

CA/2011/61. PG Social Space (paper 6.3)

The Committee considered an application for £900k to develop social and learning space for postgraduate students in the former telephone and catering changing accommodation in the Gilbert Scott Building. The Committee noted that the development provided high quality learning spaces for individuals and for group study, social space and catering facilities providing food and drink including alcoholic beverages. The proposed development allowed flexibility for easy alteration of use to accommodate postgraduate students’ needs. It was noted that the University intends to continue to grow the postgraduate taught community and intends to supply appropriate designated social and learning space to enhance their student experience. The Committee noted that the development of a new Hospitality Services facility would reduce income to existing Hospitality Services facilities by an expected £40k per annum.

Finance Committee approved the application.

CA/2011/62. Glasgow Environmental Mass Spectrometry Facility (GEMS) (paper 6.4)

The Committee received an application from the College of Science and Engineering to incur capital expenditure of £0.55m on an elemental analytical instrument (£0.39m) and an isotope analytical facility (£0.16m) for the Glasgow Environmental Spectrometry Facility. The application noted that a Europe Research Council (ERC) grant for £0.39m would fund the purchase of the elemental analytical instrument. The Committee noted that the capital

gla.fc.minute/2012-03-28

Finance Committee Wednesday, 28 March 2012

expenditure was required to secure a £1.6m ERC grant and returns a net present value of £1.0m. The Committee approved the application on the condition that the ERC grant for £0.39m was approved.

CA/2011/63. HSBC Account Approval (paper 6.5)

Finance Committee approved an application to open a new bank account at HSBC to secure an improved interest rate on cash balances, increasing the interest rate from 0.35% to 0.55%. It was agreed that in future Finance Office were permitted to open new bank accounts within Banks that Finance Committee had already approved in order to prevent delays and to allow Finance Office to manage accounts as appropriate. Finance Committee retained the responsibility for approving new bank accounts with banks that the Committee had not approved.

CA/2011/65. Pensions Liability (paper 7.2) Finance Committee received an overview from the Group Financial Controller of the current University pension liabilities. The University participates in a number of defined benefit pension schemes. FRS 17 regulations require the University to account for the University of Glasgow Pension Scheme (UGPS) and Strathclyde Pension Fund (SPF) by including the valuation of assets and liabilities on the balance sheet. Liabilities are determined by actuarial valuation which is sensitive to gilt yields. The Committee noted that the 12 month trend on gilt yield had been affected by the policy of quantitative easing and yield values had reduced from 4.21% in January 2011 to 2.43% in January 2012. Collectively the schemes contain assets valued at £223.3m and have liabilities of £279.9m contributing to a net deficit of £56.6m as at 30 July 2011. The Committee noted that a fall in the gilt yield will involve liabilities being discounted at a lower rate, and therefore will increase the size of the pension fund deficit. The increased deficit is expected to have a material impact on the University's balance sheet for 2011/12 and on its I&E statement for 2012/13 onwards, if this scenario emerged. The Committee noted that the increase in deficit does not trigger an automatic increase in financial contribution from the University but will increase FRS 17 charges, reduce net assets and impact the financial return to the Scottish Funding Council. The Director of Finance also informed the Committee that the Pensions Regulator had recently contacted the Trustees of the University of Glasgow Pension Fund, and asked that they seek to reduce the pension fund deficit over a shorter period than the Trustees had proposed. This could lead to a substantial additional cost to the University. The Regulator had written in similar terms to Trustees of other University pension schemes. . His desire to reduce University pension fund deficits more swiftly reflected a concern regarding the uncertain financial future of several UK universities, given that, should one or more universities close, the liabilities of the Universities Superannuation Scheme would require to be funded in full by the remaining institutions. Finance Committee were informed that pension funds cannot span across two countries and in the circumstances of Scottish Independence the pension deficit within the University Superannuation Scheme (USS) would be crystallised and liability would fall to the members in each country. The University of Glasgow would be disproportionately affected by this additional liability due to number of University employees within the USS.

CA/2011/66. Overview of Performance as at February 2012 and Update on Capex Applications (papers 7.3 and 8.1) The Committee received an overview of performance as at 29 February 2012. The Committee noted that, as at Period 7, the University projected an operating surplus for the full year of £8.5m. The projected surplus at Period 7 represented a positive variance of £0.7m against budget. The projected surplus includes accelerated spending in 2011/12 of £2.6m on Estates and Buildings maintenance which had been planned for 2012/13. The Group Financial gla.fc.minute/2012-03-28

Finance Committee Wednesday, 28 March 2012

Controller informed the Committee that due to the timing of vacancies spending on salaries was £3.0m lower than year to date budget and research and commercial contributions were both £0.5m below year to date budget. The full year outlook indicates an underspend of £2.5m on salaries, reflecting similar circumstances as the year to date impact and a lower than budgeted pay award. The consumables budget forecasts £5.4m higher than budget spend including the estates and buildings costs, additional spending in RIO to support recruitment, in the SLP to support the continuation of the project and £1.0m spending on a review of Research Systems in University Services. The Colleges of Social Sciences and Arts project a positive variance at full year for tuition fee income, £3.6m and £0.7m higher than budget respectively, while Colleges of MVLS and Science and Engineering both project lower than budget tuition income. Science and Engineering project a £0.2m below budget income while MVLS project tuition fee income of £2.4m under budget due to a reduction in PGT international students, particularly from the Indian subcontinent. The Committee noted that net funds at Period 7 are £120.5m with projected closing cash forecast of £121.8m. The closing cash forecast represents a cash inflow of £13.4m against a budgeted £6.9m outflow. The key drivers for the variances are forecast capital expenditure and timing of working capital. The Committee noted the overview of Capex Applications, as approved by Finance Committee. The Committee requested that the projects are also distinguished by College and a summary of spending per College is provided.

CA/2011/67. Debtors Report as at February 2012 (paper 8.2)

The Committee received an overview of debtors as at 29 February 2012. The Committee noted that the overall debt levels were slightly higher in February 2012 (£40.53m) in comparison with February 2011 (£38.75m). Student and Sponsor tuition fee debt at February 2012 was £21.60m in comparison with £19.81m in February 2011. Commercial debt also was also higher than the previous year at £16.90m. Vet School debt from the Small Animal Hospital stood at £1.01m though it was noted that £0.84m of this was debt from insurers which would be recovered. The Committee noted no significant issues with debt levels from the EU at £0.99m, down from £3.00m in February 2011 and Residential Services debt levels dropped from £0.64m in February 2011 to £0.04m in February 2012.

The Group Financial Controller reported that the overall levels of student and sponsor debt were £1.8m higher than prior year with a significant year on year variance in the split between sponsor and student debt, partly due to a delay in collecting debts following the implementation of MyCampus and partly due to the timing of, and uncertainty as to whose responsibility was, the conversion of sponsorship details into MyCampus. It was confirmed that a dedicated debt management team were chasing up students with outstanding debts amounting to £11.7m. It was noted that a percentage of this debt would become sponsor debt once sponsor details were accurately collected and processed in MyCampus. All students with an outstanding debt received an email on 13 March to inform them and encourage them to take the necessary action. This caused an increase in the number of students seeking clarification through the SRC Advice Centre and the Finance Office. The Director of Finance noted the negative impact that inaccurate financial information could have on the student experience and apologised if students had received a letter in error. The Convener of the Committee encourage the Finance Office to seek additional resources if required to staff the debt management office to ensure student debtor were resolved swiftly and before the year end.

CA/2011/68. Date of next meeting

Wednesday 30 May 2012 at 2pm, Melville Room

Prepared by: Gavin Lee, Clerk to Committee, [email protected] Last modified on: Thursday, 5 April 2012

gla.fc.minute/2012-03-28

Finance Committee – March 2012 Pension Scheme Deficit

Background

The University participates in a number of defined benefit pension schemes. Under FRS 17, the University must account for certain of these schemes by including the valuation of assets and liabilities on its balance sheet. The calculation of scheme liabilities is determined by actuarial valuation.

The actuarial valuation of scheme liabilities is sensitive to gilt yield rates, used by the actuary to discount estimated future liabilities to present day values.

Largely as a result of the current economic environment and the UK government programme of quantitative easing, gilt yields have fallen significantly since July 2011.

The following pages set out the issue in more detail and highlight the potential impact of the movement in gilt yields on the University’s pension scheme deficit position.

The extent of the issue is significant and is likely to have a material effect on the University’s reported financial position in the 2011/12 Financial Statements.

The Committee is asked to note the issue.

1 Emerging Issue – Pension Scheme Liabilities

 The University participates in 6 Defined Benefit pension schemes

 Contributions to the schemes totalled £38.4m in 2010/11  Only 2 of the schemes are accounted for as Defined Benefit schemes and as such have their net asset/ liability position recognised in the University Balance Sheet (University of Glasgow Pension Scheme and Strathclyde Pension Fund).  Chart below shows the impact of the schemes on the University’s financial position:

UGPS SPF Total

£M

300 210.9 223.3 200

100 12.4 0.6 0 Assets Liabilites Net Surplus/ Assets Liabilities Net Surplus/ Assets Liabilities Net Surplus/ -100 (Deficit) (Deficit) (Deficit) -11.8 -56.6 -200 -57.2

-300 -268.1 -279.9 -400

2 Emerging Issue – Pension Scheme Liabilities

 Current economic environment and government programme of quantitative easing has led to falling yields on government bonds. The chart below shows the 12 month trend in the 15 year gilt yield (commonly used by pension schemes as a benchmark):

15 Year Gilt Yield- 12 Month Trend 4.50% 4.21% 4.15% 4.15% 3.98% 3.98% 4.00% 3.85% 3.56% 3.50% 3.34%

2.91% 2.90% 3.00% 2.70% 2.46% 2.43% 2.50%

2.00% Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan12

 Falling gilt yields increase the present value of scheme liabilities as measured by Actuaries. The following page shows the potential impact of movement in gilt yields on the University’s 2010/11 pension scheme deficit.

3 Emerging Issue – Pension Scheme Liabilities

 The chart below shows the University’s net deficit pension position of £56.6m as at 31 July 2011 and the potential impact of up to +/- 2% movement in gilt yields.  As at Jan 2012 the 15 year gilt yield is 2.43%, a reduction of 1.13% from July 2011. The estimated impact of this actual movement is highlighted on the chart.

Impact of gilt yields on pension scheme surplus/ (deficit) £M 2010/11 baseline - £56.6m 100.0 deficit 50.0

- -2% -1% 0% 1% 2% -50.0

-100.0 1.13% fall in gilt yield as at Jan 2012 moves deficit to £135m. -150.0

-200.0 2% fall in gilt yield moves deficit to £215m -250.0

 Risk to the University – Pension Regulator will seek reduction of deficits via increased funding contributions. This needs to be balanced by the potential for the situation to ease with future economic recovery.

 The increased deficit is expected to have a material impact on the University I&E statement. I&E charges in 12/13 are estimated to be £4.1m higher than the position in the 2010/11 financial statements.

4 Period 7 Management Pack 2011/12 Operating Summary – Commentary

The P7 results are £3.6m higher than year to date budget. The projected operating surplus for the full year is £8.5m, £0.7m higher than budget. This is a reduction of £2.2m from P6, mainly due to E&B costs brought forward from 2011/12.

The main year to date variances against budget are as follows:

Salaries are £3.0m lower than budget relating to the timing of vacancies being filled across the Colleges and University Services. Research contribution is £0.5m below budget driven by vacancies in professorial posts. Commercial contribution is £0.5m below budget mainly in MVLS

The main full year outlook variances against budget are as follows:

Salaries are £2.5m lower than budget reflecting the impact of year to date savings, a lower than budgeted pay award and delays in recruitment to vacancies (Arts £0.6m, MVLS £0.5m, S&E £1.4m, US £0.4m, SS -£0.3m) Consumables forecast is £5.4m higher than budget - S&E £0.1m, US £5.9m including £1m Research System review, £0.8m SLP system, £3.0m Estates & Buildings (£2.6m brought forward from 2012/13), £0.5m additional in year investment and £0.2m RIO. MVLS -£0.7m including reduced dowry spend caused by delays in appointing senior staff and reduced spend caused by downturn in student numbers Tuition fees outlook is £0.3m higher than budget based on current expectations on student numbers. Arts - £0.7m, MVLS -£2.4m (predominantly overseas PGT), S&E -£0.2m, SS +£3.6m (predominantly overseas PGT). Research contribution is £1.0m below budget (Arts -£0.1m, S&E -£0.7m, SS -£0.1m)

1

Operating Summary - Income & Expenditure Account

Balance of Balance of YTD YTD Var Year to YTD Year Year Actual vs Prior Full Year Full Year £000 Date Budget Variance Forecast Budget Variance 2010/11 Year Outlook Budget Variance

General Funds SFC Income 77,007 76,838 169 55,027 54,847 180 83,154 (6,147) 132,034 131,685 349 Tuition Fees net of Discounts 47,356 47,356 34,075 33,803 272 44,324 3,033 81,431 81,159 272 Gross Salaries (93,977) (97,731) 3,754 (70,690) (70,213) (477) (97,745) 3,768 (164,667) (167,944) 3,277 Salary Recoups 7,209 7,914 (706) 5,599 5,649 (50) 7,611 (402) 12,808 13,564 (756) Consumables (48,011) (47,645) (366) (39,565) (34,564) (5,001) (42,016) (5,995) (87,576) (82,209) (5,367) Depreciation / DCG (3,681) (4,416) 735 (3,024) (3,442) 418 (3,930) 250 (6,705) (7,858) 1,153 Endowments 5 (5) (1) 9 (10) (1) 14 (15) RTSG (6) (9) 2 (26) (11) (16) 73 (80) (33) (19) (13) Other Income 22,745 21,942 803 4,768 6,121 (1,353) 23,154 (408) 27,514 28,063 (549) Interest 411 169 242 64 120 (56) 368 42 475 289 186 Total General Funds 9,053 4,424 4,629 (13,773) (7,680) (6,093) 14,992 (5,940) (4,721) (3,256) (1,464)

Research Income 46,135 50,914 (4,780) 35,424 36,461 (1,037) 48,646 (2,512) 81,559 87,375 (5,816) Salaries (20,267) (22,039) 1,772 (14,928) (15,937) 1,009 (21,541) 1,274 (35,195) (37,976) 2,781 Salary Recoups (5,967) (6,687) 719 (4,734) (4,865) 131 (6,075) 108 (10,701) (11,552) 850 Consumables / Depreciation (14,435) (16,955) 2,520 (12,087) (11,606) (482) (14,663) 227 (26,523) (28,561) 2,038 Contribution after recoups 5,465 5,234 231 3,675 4,053 (378) 6,368 (903) 9,140 9,287 (147) % Contribution 11.8% 10.3% 1.6% 10.4% 11.1% -0.7% 13.1% -1.2% 11.2% 10.6% 0.6%

Contribution before recoups 11,433 11,920 (488) 8,408 8,918 (509) 12,443 (1,010) 19,841 20,838 (997) % Contribution 24.8% 23.4% 1.4% 23.7% 24.5% -0.7% 25.6% -0.8% 24.3% 23.8% 0.5%

Commercial Income 24,736 23,489 1,246 16,440 16,788 (349) 26,216 (1,480) 41,175 40,278 898 Salaries (13,341) (12,732) (609) (9,342) (9,086) (256) (13,398) 57 (22,683) (21,818) (865) Salary Recoups (895) (848) (48) (482) (605) 123 (887) (8) (1,378) (1,453) 75 Consumables / Depreciation (8,069) (6,918) (1,151) (4,022) (4,948) 926 (7,536) (533) (12,091) (11,866) (225) Contribution after recoups 2,430 2,991 (561) 2,594 2,149 444 4,394 (1,964) 5,023 5,140 (117) % Contribution 9.8% 12.7% -2.9% 15.8% 12.8% 3.0% 16.8% -6.9% 12.2% 12.8% -0.6%

Contribution before recoups 3,325 3,839 (514) 3,076 2,755 321 5,281 (1,956) 6,401 6,593 (192) % Contribution 13.4% 16.3% -2.9% 18.7% 16.4% 2.3% 20.1% -6.7% 15.5% 16.4% -0.8%

Other Funds Income 797 895 (97) 519 639 (119) 671 127 1,317 1,533 (217) Expenditure (870) (1,092) 221 (565) (779) 214 (860) (11) (1,436) (1,871) 435 Total Other Funds (73) (197) 124 (46) (141) 95 (189) 116 (119) (337) 219

Operating Surplus Before Overlays 16,875 12,452 4,423 (7,551) (1,619) (5,932) 25,565 (8,691) 9,324 10,833 (1,510)

Singapore Institute of Technology 400 400 400 400 Strategic Investment (817) (817) (383) (3,400) 3,017 (817) (1,200) (3,400) 2,200

Operating Surplus 16,058 12,452 3,605 (7,534) (4,619) (2,915) 25,565 (9,508) 8,524 7,833 690 2 Operating Summary By College

YTD YTD YTD Variance Full Year Actual Budget YTD Actual vs Prior Outlook Original Full Year £000 Feb 2012 Feb 2012 Variance Feb 2011 Year (FY) Budget (FY) Variance

Arts 7,305 6,978 327 7,325 (20) 11,536 11,536 (0) Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences 26,641 25,517 1,124 28,789 (2,148) 40,151 40,461 (311) Science and Engineering 15,948 15,098 850 17,280 (1,333) 24,348 24,102 246 Social Sciences 13,713 13,707 7 14,231 (517) 25,499 22,073 3,426 Total Colleges 63,606 61,299 2,307 67,625 (4,019) 101,533 98,173 3,360

University Services (29,352) (27,586) (1,766) (27,629) (1,723) (45,825) (43,629) (2,197) Premises (23,806) (24,890) 1,084 (23,859) 53 (46,964) (44,177) (2,787) Catering 136 128 9 89 47 120 225 (105) Residences 6,872 6,347 525 6,953 (81) 2,116 2,777 (661) Central (582) (2,846) 2,264 2,386 (2,968) (1,656) (2,535) 879 Total Central Costs (46,731) (48,847) 2,115 (42,059) (4,672) (92,210) (87,340) (4,870)

Operating Surplus Before Overlays 16,875 12,452 4,423 25,565 (8,691) 9,324 10,833 (1,510)

Singapore Institute of Technology 400 400 0 Strategic Investment (817) (817) (1,200) (3,400) 2,200

Operating Surplus 16,058 12,452 3,605 25,565 (9,508) 8,524 7,833 690

3 Operating Summary – Analysis

P7 11/12 vs Budget – By College Full Year Outlook vs Full Year Budget – By College

£000 Corporate £000 Social Services Sciences +2,115k YTD +3,426k Science Actual & Social £16,058k Full YTD Engineering Full Strategic Year Sciences Science Budget +850k Strategic Year Investments Outlook MVLS +7k & £12,452k Investments Budget +£2,200k £8,524k +1,124k MVLS Engineering (817)k £7,833k (311)k +246k Arts +327k Arts +0k

Corporate Services (4,870)k

+£3.6m £0.7m

P7 11/12 vs Budget – By Activity Full Year Outlook vs Full Year Budget – By Activity £000 £000

Full Year Full SFC Other Outlook Year Income +3,713k £8,524k YTD Budget +349k Research Commercial £7,833k Before Other Actual Consumables Before Salaries Recoups Income £16,058k (366)k Recoups Tuition +3,277k (997)k SFC (514)k +803k Fees Other YTD Income +272k Interest Income Budget +£169k Research Other Consumables +186k (549)k £12,452k Tuition Before (5,367)k Interest +823k Fees Recoups Salaries +242k Commercial +0k +£2,937k (488)k Before Recoups +£3.6m (192)k £0.7m

4 Operating Summary – Full Year Main Movements vs Budget

Medical, Veterinary and Life Science and Social Corporate Total Before Strategic £000 Arts Sciences Engineering Sciences Services Overlays Investments TOTAL

Full Year Budget 11,536 40,461 24,102 22,073 (87,340) 10,833 (3,000) 7,833

SFC Income (0) 101 (25) 273 (0) 349 349

Tuition Fees (598) (2,426) (241) 3,537 (0) 272 272

Gross Salaries 550 1,054 1,539 (365) 499 3,277 3,277

Consumables (0) 673 (106) (34) (5,900) (5,367) (5,367)

Research Contribution before Recoups (88) (26) (659) (186) (38) (997) (997)

Commercial Contribution before Recoups 130 (187) (319) 97 86 (192) (192)

Interest Receipts 186 186 186

Other General Income (70) (53) (6) (420) (549) (549)

Other Movements 75 500 111 109 718 1,513 2,200 3,713

Total Movements (0) (311) 246 3,426 (4,870) (1,510) 2,200 690

Full Year Outlook 11,536 40,151 24,348 25,499 (92,210) 9,324 (800) 8,524

5 Operating Summary – Research & Tuition Fee Analysis

RESEARCH

% of Year Elapsed = 58%

INCOME CONTRIBUTION BEFORE RECOUPS % MARGIN

% of Full Year to Year to % of Full Year Year to Year date vs Full Year to date vs Full Year Outlook Year to date vs Full Year Outlook Year to Year £000 Date Budget Outlook Achieved Date Budget Outlook Achieved Date Outlook

Arts 1,418 (506) 2,362 60.1% 473 (11) 741 63.8% 33.3% 2.0%

Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences 29,169 (1,710) 50,997 57.2% 5,792 (51) 9,987 58.0% 19.9% 0.3%

Science and Engineering 13,324 (1,958) 24,035 55.4% 4,343 (237) 7,599 57.1% 32.6% 1.0%

Social Sciences 2,005 (304) 3,540 56.6% 778 (63) 1,256 62.0% 38.8% 3.3%

Corporate 219 (301) 624 35.0% 47 (126) 258 18.2% 21.5% -19.9%

TOTAL 46,135 (4,780) 81,559 56.6% 11,433 (488) 19,841 57.6% 24.8% 0.5%

TUITION FEES

Home & EU Students Overseas Students Discounts Net Fees £000 Outlook Budget Variance Outlook Budget Variance Outlook Budget Variance Outlook Budget Variance

Arts 8,537 8,537 2,643 3,241 (598) (432) (432) 10,748 11,346 (598)

Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences 11,637 11,987 (350) 11,973 14,049 (2,076) (843) (843) 22,767 25,193 (2,426)

Science and Engineering 9,382 9,382 6,026 6,267 (241) (1,192) (1,192) 14,216 14,457 (241)

Social Sciences 12,414 12,702 (288) 22,481 18,656 3,825 (1,319) (1,319) 33,577 30,040 3,537

Corporate 65 65 (0) 58 58 123 123 (0)

TOTAL UNIVERSITY 42,035 42,673 (638) 43,181 42,272 910 (3,785) (3,785) 81,431 81,159 272 6 Balance Sheet & Cashflow

YEAR END Commentary OUTLOOK AS ORIGINAL £000 PERIOD 7 AT P7 BUDGET Net Funds as at P7 are £120.5m, which is a cash 11/12 11/12 11/12 BALANCE SHEET inflow of £12.1m for the year to date.

FIXED ASSETS 466,502 465,649 478,485

ENDOWMENT ASSETS 123,635 114,000 120,000 The main year to date cash movements are: WORKING CAPITAL & PROVISIONS (86,676) (90,517) (72,372) Operating cashflow of £19.0m underpinned CASH, OVERDRAFT & DEPOSITS 120,501 121,824 88,512 by the operating surplus as outlined in the I&E PENSION LIABILITY (56,582) (65,885) (65,885) commentary; NET ASSETS 567,381 545,072 548,740 An decrease in working capital of £3.8m due DEFERRED GRANTS (216,244) (220,157) (215,052) to the timing of creditor payments; ENDOWMENT RESERVE (123,385) (114,000) (120,000) Capital expenditure of £7.8m offset by grant REVALUATION RESERVE (160,889) (159,195) (159,594) income of £4.7m GENERAL RESERVE (66,862) (51,719) (54,094) TOTAL RESERVES (567,381) (545,072) (548,740) The closing cash forecast is £121.8m. A cash

YEAR END ORIGINAL inflow of £13.4m is forecast for the year versus a PERIOD 7 OUTLOOK BUDGET 11/12 11/12 11/12 budgeted cash outflow of £6.9m. The key drivers of CASHFLOW the variance are forecast capital expenditure and CASH FROM OPERATIONS 19,002 16,622 15,850 timing of working capital. CAPITAL EXPENDITURE (7,817) (17,785) (29,500) GRANT INCOME 4,771 14,600 17,100 MOVEMENTS IN WORKING CAPITAL / (3,841) 0 (10,350) PROVISIONS NET CASHFLOW 12,114 13,437 (6,900)

OPENING NET FUNDS 108,387 108,387 95,412

NET IN / OUT FLOW 12,114 13,437 (6,900)

CLOSING NET FUNDS 120,501 121,824 88,512

7

Detail By College / Service Area

8 College of Arts

Balance Balance of YTD YTD Var Year to YTD Of Year Year Actual vs Prior Full Year Full Year £000 Date Budget Variance Forecast Budget Variance 2010/11 Year Outlook Budget Variance

General Funds SFC Income 9,301 9,301 (0) 6,639 6,639 10,201 (900) 15,940 15,940 (0) Tuition Fees net of Discounts 6,620 6,620 4,127 4,725 (598) 6,089 532 10,748 11,346 (598) Gross Salaries (8,866) (9,129) 263 (6,271) (6,558) 287 (9,122) 257 (15,137) (15,687) 550 Salary Recoups 299 222 77 158 158 329 (30) 457 380 77 Consumables (516) (437) (78) (615) (693) 78 (495) (20) (1,131) (1,131) (0) Depreciation / DCG Endowments RTSG (13) (13) (9) (5) (13) (13) Other Income 118 131 (14) 38 94 (56) 125 (8) 155 225 (70) Interest Total General Funds 6,943 6,708 235 4,077 4,366 (289) 7,118 (175) 11,020 11,074 (54)

Research Income 1,418 1,924 (506) 943 1,373 (430) 1,494 (76) 2,362 3,297 (936) Salaries (720) (1,043) 323 (514) (744) 230 (651) (69) (1,234) (1,787) 553 Salary Recoups (210) (222) 12 (150) (158) 8 (220) 10 (360) (380) 20 Consumables / Depreciation (225) (398) 172 (161) (284) 123 (272) 47 (386) (681) 295 Contribution after recoups 263 262 1 118 187 (69) 351 (88) 381 448 (68) % Contribution 18.5% 13.6% 4.9% 12.5% 13.6% -1.1% 23.5% -5.0% 16.1% 13.6% 2.5%

Contribution before recoups 473 484 (11) 268 345 (77) 571 (98) 741 829 (88) % Contribution 33.3% 25.1% 8.2% 28.4% 25.1% 3.3% 38.2% -4.9% 31.4% 25.1% 6.2%

Commercial Income 738 111 627 479 79 400 684 54 1,217 190 1,027 Salaries (343) (83) (260) (233) (60) (173) (624) 281 (575) (143) (433) Salary Recoups (6) 0 (6) 0 0 (0) 5 (11) (6) 0 (6) Consumables / Depreciation (283) (14) (268) (206) (10) (196) (207) (76) (489) (24) (464) Contribution after recoups 106 13 93 40 9 31 (142) 248 147 23 124 % Contribution 14.4% 11.9% 2.5% 8.4% 11.9% -3.5% -20.8% 35.2% 12.1% 11.9% 0.1%

Contribution before recoups 112 13 99 40 9 31 (147) 259 153 23 130 % Contribution 15.2% 11.9% 3.3% 8.4% 11.9% -3.5% -21.5% 36.8% 12.6% 11.9% 0.6%

Other Funds Income 40 23 16 17 17 58 (18) 56 40 16 Expenditure (47) (28) (19) (20) (20) (61) 13 (68) (49) (19) Total Other Funds (8) (5) (3) (4) (4) 0 (3) (5) (11) (9) (3)

TOTAL 7,305 6,978 327 4,231 4,558 (327) 7,325 (20) 11,536 11,536 (0) 9 College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences

Balance Balance of YTD YTD Var Year to YTD Of Year Year Actual vs Prior Full Year Full Year £000 Date Budget Variance Forecast Budget Variance 2010/11 Year Outlook Budget Variance

General Funds SFC Income 33,733 33,733 (0) 24,180 24,079 101 36,473 (2,740) 57,913 57,812 101 Tuition Fees net of Discounts 14,700 14,700 8,067 10,493 (2,426) 13,995 705 22,767 25,193 (2,426) Gross Salaries (26,431) (27,371) 940 (19,692) (19,806) 114 (27,639) 1,208 (46,123) (47,177) 1,054 Salary Recoups 3,783 4,332 (549) 3,046 3,092 (46) 3,791 (8) 6,829 7,424 (595) Consumables (2,572) (3,483) 911 (5,505) (5,267) (238) (2,531) (41) (8,077) (8,750) 673 Depreciation / DCG (391) (410) 19 (286) (581) 295 (366) (25) (677) (991) 314 Endowments RTSG 3 6 (3) 8 5 3 35 (32) 11 11 Other Income 369 494 (125) 478 353 125 480 (111) 846 846 Interest Total General Funds 23,193 22,001 1,192 10,295 12,367 (2,072) 24,237 (1,044) 33,488 34,368 (879)

Research Income 29,169 30,878 (1,710) 21,829 22,041 (212) 29,298 (130) 50,997 52,919 (1,922) Salaries (13,368) (13,800) 431 (9,375) (9,850) 475 (14,060) 692 (22,743) (23,650) 906 Salary Recoups (3,382) (3,734) 352 (2,423) (2,666) 243 (3,285) (97) (5,805) (6,400) 595 Consumables / Depreciation (10,009) (11,236) 1,228 (8,259) (8,021) (238) (9,303) (706) (18,268) (19,257) 990 Contribution after recoups 2,410 2,108 302 1,772 1,504 268 2,650 (241) 4,182 3,612 570 % Contribution 8.3% 6.8% 1.4% 8.1% 6.8% 1.3% 9.0% -0.8% 8.2% 6.8% 1.4%

Contribution before recoups 5,792 5,842 (51) 4,195 4,170 25 5,935 (143) 9,987 10,012 (26) % Contribution 19.9% 18.9% 0.9% 19.2% 18.9% 0.3% 20.3% -0.4% 19.6% 18.9% 0.7%

Commercial Income 13,403 14,214 (811) 10,235 10,215 20 14,110 (708) 23,638 24,429 (791) Salaries (8,396) (8,762) 366 (6,513) (6,254) (259) (8,483) 87 (14,909) (15,016) 107 Salary Recoups (290) (343) 53 (297) (244) (53) (340) 50 (587) (587) (0) Consumables / Depreciation (3,655) (3,564) (91) (1,956) (2,544) 588 (3,280) (376) (5,611) (6,108) 497 Contribution after recoups 1,062 1,546 (484) 1,468 1,172 296 2,008 (946) 2,531 2,718 (187) % Contribution 7.9% 10.9% -2.9% 14.3% 11.5% 2.9% 14.2% -6.3% 10.7% 11.1% -0.4%

Contribution before recoups 1,352 1,888 (536) 1,766 1,417 349 2,348 (996) 3,118 3,305 (187) % Contribution 10.1% 13.3% -3.2% 17.3% 13.9% 3.4% 16.6% -6.6% 13.2% 13.5% -0.3%

Other Funds Income 352 639 (287) 348 456 (108) 331 21 700 1,094 (395) Expenditure (376) (777) 400 (374) (554) 181 (438) 61 (750) (1,331) 581 Total Other Funds (24) (138) 114 (26) (99) 73 (107) 82 (50) (237) 186

TOTAL 26,641 25,517 1,124 13,510 14,945 (1,435) 28,789 (2,148) 40,151 40,461 (311)

10 College of Science & Engineering

Balance Balance of YTD YTD Var Year to YTD Of Year Year Actual vs Prior Full Year Full Year £000 Date Budget Variance Forecast Budget Variance 2010/11 Year Outlook Budget Variance

General Funds SFC Income 20,039 20,039 (0) 14,279 14,304 (25) 21,521 (1,482) 34,317 34,342 (25) Tuition Fees net of Discounts 8,436 8,436 5,780 6,021 (241) 8,204 232 14,216 14,457 (241) Gross Salaries (14,582) (15,791) 1,209 (11,301) (11,631) 330 (15,763) 1,181 (25,884) (27,422) 1,539 Salary Recoups 2,085 2,240 (155) 1,641 1,599 42 2,123 (38) 3,727 3,840 (113) Consumables (2,104) (2,020) (84) (3,111) (3,089) (22) (2,260) 156 (5,215) (5,109) (106) Depreciation / DCG (394) (525) 131 (387) (374) (13) (387) (6) (781) (899) 118 Endowments (2) 2 (1) (1) (1) (3) 2 RTSG 13 (15) 28 (43) (15) (28) 47 (34) (30) (30) (0) Other Income 224 200 24 66 143 (77) 177 47 290 343 (53) Interest Total General Funds 13,716 12,563 1,153 6,923 6,957 (34) 13,661 55 20,639 19,519 1,119

Research Income 13,324 15,282 (1,958) 10,712 11,027 (315) 15,187 (1,863) 24,035 26,309 (2,273) Salaries (5,228) (6,193) 966 (4,412) (4,627) 215 (5,560) 332 (9,640) (10,820) 1,181 Salary Recoups (1,823) (1,958) 135 (1,569) (1,490) (79) (1,854) 30 (3,392) (3,447) 56 Consumables / Depreciation (3,753) (4,509) 756 (3,043) (2,721) (322) (4,800) 1,047 (6,796) (7,230) 434 Contribution after recoups 2,519 2,622 (103) 1,688 2,189 (501) 2,973 (454) 4,207 4,811 (604) % Contribution 18.9% 17.2% 1.8% 15.8% 19.9% -4.1% 19.6% -0.7% 17.5% 18.3% -0.8%

Contribution before recoups 4,343 4,580 (237) 3,256 3,678 (422) 4,827 (484) 7,599 8,258 (659) % Contribution 32.6% 30.0% 2.6% 30.4% 33.4% -3.0% 31.8% 0.8% 31.6% 31.4% 0.2%

Commercial Income 3,247 2,496 751 1,606 1,732 (126) 3,039 208 4,853 4,228 625 Salaries (1,434) (1,538) 104 (1,135) (1,099) (36) (1,336) (98) (2,569) (2,637) 68 Salary Recoups (184) (158) (27) (42) (113) 71 (200) 16 (226) (270) 44 Consumables / Depreciation (1,903) (870) (1,033) (627) (649) 22 (840) (1,064) (2,531) (1,520) (1,011) Contribution after recoups (275) (70) (205) (198) (129) (69) 663 (938) (473) (198) (274) % Contribution -8.5% -2.8% -5.7% -12.3% -7.4% -4.9% 21.8% -30.3% -9.7% -4.7% -5.0%

Contribution before recoups (91) 88 (179) (156) (16) (140) 863 (954) (247) 72 (319) % Contribution -2.8% 3.5% -6.3% -9.7% -0.9% -8.8% 28.4% -31.2% -5.1% 1.7% -6.8%

Other Funds Income 157 35 122 25 25 35 122 182 60 122 Expenditure (170) (53) (117) (37) (37) (52) (117) (207) (90) (117) Total Other Funds (13) (18) 5 (12) (12) (17) 4 (25) (30) 5

TOTAL 15,948 15,098 850 8,400 9,004 (604) 17,280 (1,333) 24,348 24,102 246

11 College of Social Sciences

Balance Balance of YTD YTD Var Year to YTD Of Year Year Actual vs Prior Full Year Full Year £000 Date Budget Variance Forecast Budget Variance 2010/11 Year Outlook Budget Variance

General Funds SFC Income 11,932 11,763 169 8,500 8,396 104 12,749 (817) 20,432 20,159 273 Tuition Fees net of Discounts 17,528 17,528 16,049 12,512 3,537 15,945 1,584 33,577 30,040 3,537 Gross Salaries (15,176) (15,512) 336 (11,910) (11,209) (701) (14,803) (373) (27,086) (26,721) (365) Salary Recoups 857 890 (33) 611 635 (24) 1,004 (147) 1,469 1,526 (57) Consumables (2,087) (1,590) (497) (1,952) (2,415) 463 (1,635) (451) (4,039) (4,005) (34) Depreciation / DCG Endowments RTSG (9) 0 (9) 9 0 9 1 (10) 0 0 0 Other Income 220 180 40 82 128 (46) 259 (40) 302 308 (6) Interest Total General Funds 13,266 13,259 7 11,389 8,047 3,342 13,519 (254) 24,655 21,306 3,349

Research Income 2,005 2,310 (304) 1,535 1,649 (114) 2,310 (305) 3,540 3,958 (418) Salaries (799) (810) 11 (554) (578) 24 (1,048) 248 (1,354) (1,389) 35 Salary Recoups (493) (638) 145 (457) (455) (2) (521) 28 (950) (1,093) 143 Consumables / Depreciation (428) (658) 230 (503) (470) (33) (331) (96) (930) (1,127) 197 Contribution after recoups 286 204 82 21 146 (125) 410 (125) 306 350 (43) % Contribution 14.2% 8.8% 5.4% 1.3% 8.8% -7.5% 17.8% -3.5% 8.6% 8.8% -0.2%

Contribution before recoups 778 842 (63) 478 601 (123) 931 (153) 1,256 1,442 (186) % Contribution 38.8% 36.4% 2.4% 31.1% 36.4% -5.3% 40.3% -1.5% 35.5% 36.4% -1.0%

Commercial Income 2,153 1,770 383 1,450 1,264 186 2,350 (197) 3,603 3,034 569 Salaries (1,222) (805) (417) (666) (575) (91) (1,256) 34 (1,888) (1,380) (508) Salary Recoups (273) (253) (20) (136) (180) 44 (182) (90) (409) (433) 24 Consumables / Depreciation (492) (465) (27) (269) (332) 63 (607) 115 (761) (797) 36 Contribution after recoups 166 247 (81) 379 177 202 305 (138) 545 424 121 % Contribution 7.7% 14.0% -6.3% 26.1% 14.0% 12.1% 13.0% -5.2% 15.1% 14.0% 1.1%

Contribution before recoups 439 500 (61) 515 357 158 487 (48) 954 857 97 % Contribution 20.4% 28.2% -7.9% 35.5% 28.2% 7.3% 20.7% -0.3% 26.5% 28.2% -1.8%

Other Funds Income 35 11 24 3 8 (5) 14 21 38 19 19 Expenditure (39) (15) (24) (6) (11) 5 (18) (22) (45) (26) (19) Total Other Funds (5) (4) (1) (3) (3) (0) (4) (1) (8) (7) (1)

TOTAL 13,713 13,707 7 11,786 8,367 3,419 14,231 (517) 25,499 22,073 3,426 12 Corporate Services Summary

Balance Balance of YTD YTD Var Year to YTD Of Year Year Actual vs Prior Full Year Full Year £000 Date Budget Variance Forecast Budget Variance 2010/11 Year Outlook Budget Variance

University Services Gross Salaries (19,572) (20,049) 477 (14,216) (13,977) (239) (20,733) 1,162 (33,787) (34,026) 239 Consumables (13,475) (11,046) (2,429) (5,237) (4,591) (646) (9,506) (3,969) (18,711) (15,636) (3,075) Other General Funds 2,614 2,401 213 2,007 1,710 297 1,387 1,227 4,621 4,111 510 Research Contribution (12) 38 (51) 76 27 49 (18) 6 64 65 (2) Commercial Contribution 1,122 1,102 20 891 811 80 1,308 (186) 2,012 1,913 99 Other Funds (29) (32) 3 5 (23) 28 (67) 37 (24) (55) 31 Total University Services (29,352) (27,586) (1,766) (16,473) (16,043) (431) (27,629) (1,723) (45,825) (43,629) (2,197)

Catering Income 2,040 2,062 (22) 1,144 1,356 (212) 1,934 107 3,184 3,418 (234) Salaries (961) (974) 13 (641) (699) 58 (933) (28) (1,602) (1,673) 71 Consumables / Depreciation (943) (961) 18 (520) (560) 39 (911) (31) (1,463) (1,520) 57 Contribution after recoups 136 128 9 (17) 97 (114) 89 47 120 225 (105) % Contribution 6.7% 6.2% 0.5% -1.5% 7.2% -8.6% 4.6% 2.1% 3.8% 6.6% -2.8%

Residences Income 17,775 17,220 555 1,333 2,405 (1,072) 17,385 391 19,109 19,626 (517) Expenditure (10,903) (10,873) (30) (6,090) (5,976) (114) (10,431) (472) (16,993) (16,849) (144) Contribution after recoups 6,872 6,347 525 (4,756) (3,571) (1,186) 6,953 (81) 2,116 2,777 (661)

Premises Income 881 1,169 (288) 985 835 150 1,043 (162) 1,866 2,004 (138) Expenditure (21,226) (22,363) 1,136 (21,401) (17,481) (3,919) (20,985) (241) (42,627) (39,844) (2,783) Depreciation / DCG (3,460) (3,697) 237 (2,743) (2,641) (102) (3,917) 456 (6,203) (6,337) 134 Contribution after recoups (23,806) (24,890) 1,084 (23,158) (19,287) (3,871) (23,859) 53 (46,964) (44,177) (2,787)

Central Income 447 290 157 518 676 (157) (259) 706 965 965 Interest 368 (368) Expenditure (180) (1,057) 876 (841) (230) (611) (105) (75) (1,022) (1,287) 265 Total Other Funds 267 (767) 1,034 (323) 445 (769) 4 263 (56) (322) 265

TOTAL (45,883) (46,768) 886 (44,727) (38,358) (6,370) (44,441) (1,441) (90,610) (85,126) (5,484)

Corporate Overheads Income 1,294 505 788 0 361 (360) 4,441 (3,148) 1,294 866 428 Interest 411 169 242 64 120 (56) 411 475 289 186 Expenditure (2,553) (2,752) 200 (816) (616) (200) (2,060) (493) (3,369) (3,369) Total Corporate Overheads (849) (2,079) 1,230 (751) (135) (616) 2,382 (3,231) (1,600) (2,214) 614

13

Court – Wednesday 18 April 2012

Report from Meeting of the Audit Committee held on 22 February 2012

Cover Sheet

Brief description of the paper The paper contains Audit Committee minutes from a meeting held on 22 February 2012, for information.

Prepared by Deborah Maddern 10.4.12

UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW

Audit Committee Minute of Meeting held on Wednesday 22 February 2012 in the Melville Room

Present: Dr Paul Brady, Mr Jo Elliott, Mr Hamish Guthrie, Mr Neil Menzies, Ms Elizabeth Simpson (Vice-Convener), Mr Kevin Sweeney (Convener)

In attendance: Mr Jim Bishop (Ernst & Young), Mr Andrew Charters (Group Financial Controller), Ms Gillian Connal (Deloitte LLP), Mr Robert Fraser (Director of Finance), Mr Colin Gibson (Deloitte LLP), Mr Paul McGinty (Deloitte LLP), Professor Anton Muscatelli (Principal), Mr David Newall (Secretary of Court), Ms Deborah Maddern (Clerk), Mrs Carolyn Timar (Financial Accountant)

Apologies: Mr Ken Baldwin (Ernst & Young)

AUDIT/2011/24. IT system Passwords (Agresso) A paper had been circulated from a member of staff who disagreed with the University’s recent communication to Agresso users about changing of passwords. It had been agreed that the individual should not attend the meeting, as had originally been arranged, since the matters contained in his paper were not within the remit of the Audit Committee. The Committee was not a ‘court of appeal’ from staff. For it to deal with such matters could also compromise its relationship with Internal Audit. It was agreed that the matters were the responsibility of the University management to address. Mr Fraser commented that the case highlighted cultural problems about responses to management requirements. The Committee agreed that the tone of the communication, and any attempts to undermine financial controls in general, were not acceptable and that the line manager in this case should be advised about the matter. Mr Sweeney added that he had raised the subject of compliance culture in his presentation of the Committee’s annual report to the February meeting of Court.

AUDIT/2011/25. Minutes of the meeting held on 9 November 2011 The Minutes were approved as a correct record.

AUDIT/2011/26. Matters Arising .1 Research Management System (Audit/2010/28 and 39, Audit 2011/16) Mr Fraser advised that work on business process re-engineering had been undertaken by Deloittes and had been completed in January. Separately, there was a project board with authority from the SMG to take the Research Management System project forward. The detailed process design and levels of control would be examined to ensure that the system provided better research administration. The process was at an early stage, with much detail still to be finalised, and there would be challenges associated with migrating current research administration structures and systems within some Colleges. It was anticipated that the system would be built by the end of August 2012, following which it would be rolled out in a measured way. A prudent approach was required given in particular that the REF was ongoing.

1

Audit Committee 22 February 2012

.2 Travel and Expenses and Entertainment (Audit/2011/4 and Audit 2011/16) Mr Newall reminded the Committee that following the audit relating to travel and expenses and entertainment, and a number of misconduct cases, the Committee had requested that the matter of compliance culture be raised at SMG. This had occurred. The Committee heard that the University was moving to a new system of electronic sign-off of expense claims, which would be rolled out in University Services initially. The SMG had agreed that some administrative support could be retained for managers within the new system, the details of which remained to be finalised, but the responsibility for signing off claims would lie with the manager. The Committee noted a paper provided for item Audit/2011/26.6 showing how reports might be generated to provide details of exceptional expense claims or patterns, for further investigation. It agreed that the generation of such reports should be implemented as soon as possible. It was also agreed that all staff should be made aware of the introduction of this system and the fact that it would be in operation on a regular basis. It would also be important for local managers to be provided with the reports, for further investigation. However, the Committee agreed that this should not be a substitute for the proper checking of individual claims. The Committee agreed that the matter should continue to be progressed and that an update report should be provided in February 2013.

.3 Public Interest Disclosure (Audit 2011/4 and Audit 2011/16) The matter was ongoing. Mr Newall would update the Committee further at its next meeting.

.4 Misconduct Cases – update (Audit/2011/4 and Audit 2011/16) Since the last meeting, a member of staff dismissed under the University’s disciplinary procedures had appealed against the decision to dismiss; the appeal had not been upheld and the individual had submitted an Employment Tribunal claim. Separate investigations, relating to 2 other members of staff, were in progress.

.5 Estates Maintenance (Audit 2011/16)

The Estates Committee was overseeing the implementation of Internal Audit recommendations in this area. A new Director of Estates would be in post on 1 May. An updated report on planned maintenance would be made to the Committee in September 2012.

.6 Accounts Payable - Generation of Reports to check Possible Misuse (Audit 2011/17) The item had been discussed under Audit/2011/26.2

.7 Review of Appointments of Non-executive Directors (Audit 2011/19)

It was confirmed that details of directorships had been provided to Court.

AUDIT/2011/27. Implementation of Outstanding Priority 1 and 2 Recommendations The Committee was updated on the degree of implementation of the audit recommendations.

2

Audit Committee 22 February 2012

Finance Office Mr Charters informed the Committee that 2 recommendations from a total of 114 between 2006 and 2009 remained outstanding. Implementation of the estates element of the centralisation of invoice processing and matching would require a full review of the underlying processes and systems. The review was under discussion and would involve the new Director of Estates. The recommendation relating to general ledger adjustments had necessitated a review which was being progressed, although the restructure had affected the timescale. A further report would be made at the next meeting. Sixteen actions relating to audits performed in 2009/10 had been outstanding at the November meeting. With regard to endowments, work had commenced on the redesign and documentation (to incorporate basic controls) of the endowment spreadsheets. The Committee noted updates relating to the other areas: sales order processing and research management. There were 22 actions outstanding relating to audits performed from the 2010/11 plan. None were priority one. An update on progress was noted, relating to budgetary controls, financial controls and travel and expenses.

Departments other than the Finance Office Mr Newall updated the Committee on the key points to note from audit reports, as follows:

Audit Reports 2005-10: • Business Continuity Management Five outstanding recommendations were in this area, and were all linked to the establishment of business continuity plans (BCP), within a standard framework, throughout Schools, Institutes and University Services. A standard template had been agreed for completion by end April 2012, and completion would be followed by a regular testing of BCPs coordinated through the University's Emergencies Planning Group. • Staff Development Recommendations relating to the staff training record would be addressed using the functionality offered by the new HR/Payroll system. • Other Two recommendations on Data Handling remained to be fully implemented, with the steady rollout of a programme to introduce data handling training and a specific data handling policy for each University Service department. One recommendation from the Health & Safety Governance audit had been only partially addressed. This was on HR reporting and would be fully addressed with the development of functionality through the new HR/Payroll system.

Audit Reports 2010/11 There were no outstanding Priority One recommendations. Of the 19 recommendations still to be fully implemented, four from the Student Feedback Audit would be addressed, assisted by the development of a new 'Student Voice' website, by May 2012. All others would be addressed within 2012 with the exception of one within the Student Retention audit which would be addressed by June 2013. Mr Newall advised the Committee that the UK Border Agency had visited the University on 21 February and had already provided verbal reassurance that staff

3

Audit Committee 22 February 2012

recruitment mechanisms were appropriate and effective, and that student processes and follow-up were compliant, in relation to the requirements of the UKBA. Audit Report 2011/12 With regard to the recent audit of College Management (MVLS), officers responsible for addressing the recommendations were the College Secretary, the College Head of Finance and the Head of the Research Support Office. All but one recommendation was scheduled to be addressed by July 2012, the remaining one by December 2012.

AUDIT/2011/28. Internal Audit Update

Since the last meeting, all fieldwork for the 2010/11 Internal Audit Plan had been completed and progress made with the 2011/12 plan. Fieldwork had been completed for reviews including Value for Money, Library Cost Management and College Management (Science & Engineering). The Strategic Risk Workshop had also taken place. A review of spinout and IP management was also under way and the auditors were progressing the College Risk Workshops. The key points from the reviews were as follows. There were no Priority One recommendations. Budgetary Control The overall conclusion was that the controls regarding the setting and monitoring of budgets across the University were adequate. However, there was significant scope for improvement within the current expenditure approval structure and reporting procedures in place for general and research budgets. In a number of areas, there was scope for improvement in relation to discretionary funds, monitoring of research projects and guidance for budget holders to ensure adequate budgetary controls were in place across the Colleges and University Services. Mr Fraser explained that the accumulation of ‘discretionary’ funds continued to be a difficulty and levels of such funds remained high. The funds were actually an analysis of reserves, and any expenditure required to be covered by income. New regulations had been put in place so that creation of these notional surpluses was only permitted if funds were generated on a FEC basis, via the Income and Expenditure account and with proper authority. Head of College approval was required for expenditure of amounts over £5k. REF Planning The overall conclusion was that the University had undertaken a significant amount of planning and preparatory work for the REF. A number of areas had been identified which required improvement: the Enlighten database (the University’s main repository for research publications), the accuracy of student and income data, and feeding back the results of the mini REF exercise to staff. College Management: MVLS Considerable progress had been made given the significant workload involved in setting up the College, and the size of the operation, but there were still a number of challenges in developing a unified College. A number of process and structural efficiency opportunities had been identified within the College support resources (e.g. financial transaction processing), which would require a cohesive College structure and change in culture. The Committee asked that reasons be supplied in the paperwork, if recommendations were not fully accepted by management. It was agreed that the Head of College, College Secretary and College Head of Finance would be invited to a future meeting to provide some further commentary and engage in dialogue with the Committee. ACTION DM

4

Audit Committee 22 February 2012

School of Mathematics and Statistics Although the University had policies and procedures in place to enable effective financial management and control, these had not been operating within the School with specific regard to purchasing, cash and expenses procedures. There were areas of control (rather than process) weakness which needed immediate corrective action in relation to accounts payable, the use of purchasing cards, expenses and the ordering and use of foreign currency. The Committee agreed that these issues must be addressed by University management as a matter of priority, and that given ongoing concerns about compliance culture, that existing spare capacity within the Audit Plan be used to look at the management and control issues that had been identified in the School, across a sample of Schools in other Colleges. It was agreed that Mr Fraser would liaise with Deloittes to agree a schedule and that some audits would begin as soon as possible, with a full proposal for the schedule of audits being brought to the next meeting. ACTION RF/CG/GC It was agreed that details of Priority 3 recommendations did not need to be included in future reports to the Committee.

Strategic Risk Workshop It was noted that a Strategic Risk Workshop had been held on 7 February and attended by representatives from the SMG and Court. It had been useful for discussing issues and to provide a focus. The University risk profile had not changed considerably since 2011. There was some divergence between risks highlighted, respectively, at senior management and College level, with the former focussing more on long term risks and the latter with more immediate concerns e.g. IT systems including the Student Lifecycle Project. The Committee noted that the SLP Lessons Learned group had made a number of recommendations relating to the difficulties with the SLP and that these were being taken forward.

AUDIT/2011/29. Progress Report on Estates & Buildings Procurement

The Committee noted the report and agreed that benefits were clearly emerging from the work undertaken during the secondment of a Purchasing Office member of staff to Estates.

AUDIT/2011/30. US GAAP - Restated Financial Statements The Committee noted the statements, which had been submitted to the US authorities in January. Submission for upcoming years would be more straightforward, given the useful experience gained in the past year when the financial statements were being restated to be US GAAP-compliant for the first time.

AUDIT/2011/31. Risk Management - Risk Register for 2011/12 The register for 2012, which included details of the senior staff who would take individual matters forward, and progress on these matters, was noted. The register for 2012/13 would be provided at the next meeting. The Committee noted that the register was a useful tool for driving activity and for ensuring ownership of areas for action. It was requested that SMG discuss possible improvements to the register and that the outcome be reported to the next meeting of the Committee. ACTION AM

5

Audit Committee 22 February 2012

AUDIT/2011/32. Review of Higher Education Governance

The report of the review had been circulated for information.

NM expressed concern about the lack of reference in the report to the charitable status of Universities. There were potential conflicts between this and what was being proposed, and it was also important that any new regulations did not duplicate existing requirements applying to charities.

Mr Newall would keep the Committee updated on the University’s response to the review report and on any developments relating to HE governance that emerged from the review. ACTION DN

AUDIT/2011/33. Restructuring - Year 1 Review Summary

The report was noted. [Following the meeting, it was agreed that Professor Nolan would be invited to the next pre-meeting to brief the Committee on Restructuring and on Internationalisation, both of which topics were of interest to it.]

AUDIT/2011/34. Any Other Business There was no other business.

AUDIT/2011/35. Date of Next Meeting Pre-meeting Wednesday 23 May 2012 at 9.30am in the Melville Room; main meeting 10.30am in the Melville Room.

Prepared by: Deborah Maddern, Clerk to Committee, [email protected]

6

Court – Wednesday 18 April 2012

Report from the Meeting of the Estates Committee held on 19 March 2012

Cover Sheet

Brief Description of Paper

Minute of the Estates Committee meeting of 19 March 2012.

Action Requested

Court is asked to:

Endorse Estates Committee’s approval of CapEx applications in respect of:

• Boyd Orr Building Roof in the sum of £800k (EC/2011/30.2.1 refers); • Boyd Orr Building (Level 10 Laboratories) in the sum of £1.042m (EC/2011/30.2.2 refers); and • Post Graduate Social Space in the sum of £900k (EC/2011/30.2.3 refers).

Note the remainder of the minute of 19 March 2012.

Originator of the Paper

Lynn Duncan Clerk to Estates Committee 5 April 2012

Page 1 of 5 "The information in this document, and accompanying papers, is confidential information of the University of Glasgow. The information must not be released in response to any request without first seeking advice from the DP/FoI Office."

UNIVERSITY of GLASGOW

Estates Committee

Minute of the meeting held in the Turnbull Room on Monday 19 March 2012

Present:

Mr P Daniels (Convener), Mr R Fraser, Ms A Johnson, Professor N Juster, Professor W Martin, Ms M Morton, Mr M Murray, Professor A Muscatelli (Principal), Mr D Newall, Mr D Spaeth

In Attendance:

Mrs L Duncan, Mr R Kilpatrick, Mr S Sutton

Apologies:

There were no apologies

EC/2011/26 Minutes of the meeting held on Monday 9 January 2012

The minutes were approved.

EC/2011/27 Matters Arising

EC/2011/27.1 John McIntyre Building (University Reception/Welcome Centre) (EC/2011/21.1.1 refers)

At its meeting on 10 January 2012 Estates Committee had requested an update on proposals to develop a University Welcome Centre within the John McIntyre Building.

In September 2011 CapEx Committee had approved a proposal to form a University Welcome Centre and joint reception in the John McIntyre Building, adjacent to the Main Gate as a first point of contact for visitors and students. Over the last six months SRC and Estates had developed a design proposal to satisfy SRC administration requirements and a Welcome Exhibition space to showcase the University to visitors. The building had a 'Listed' status regulated by Historic Scotland and City Planning Services. Design development had been undertaken in full consultation with Historic Scotland and City Planning.

A Listed planning application and planning application were submitted in February 2012 and it was likely that notification would be received from Historic Scotland and City Planning by June 2012.

Subject to statutory planning approval it was proposed to commence works as soon as practically possible after summer examinations with a view to completion of the majority of building works during the summer period. The final finished fit out of the Welcome Centre would be dependent on the agreed interior design scope.

Initial design development had been progressed to align with the budget approved by CapEx Committee. To date the budget remained consistent with forecast although the Committee noted that should a technology intensive proposal be recommended the budget may become strained.

EC/2011/27.2 GUU Options Appraisal (CapEx Application Stevenson Building Extension (EC/2011/18.1 refers) The Committee noted that three options had been considered by the University and officers of GUU, both parties having agreed on Option C which involved a five storey extension with a nightclub being incorporated at ground level in lieu of the loss of The Hive. The scale of the building was expected to present planning challenges although the street frontage to the building had been developed to align with the active frontage requirement as specified by City Council Planning Officers.

EC/2011/27.3 Gilmorehill Halls (EC/2011/23.1 refers)

Page 2 of 5 "The information in this document, and accompanying papers, is confidential information of the University of Glasgow. The information must not be released in response to any request without first seeking advice from the DP/FoI Office."

The Committee noted that the Structural Engineer had advised of flaws in the building’s original design and that University development works in the 1990s had accelerated deterioration of the building condition. Estates and Buildings would continue to examine its archives with a view to indentifying any opportunity to claim against collateral warranties granted by the contractor engaged I the 1990s redevelopment work and a written report would be provided for the next meeting scheduled to take place on 21 May 2012.

EC/2011/28 Declarations of Interest

There were no declarations.

EC/2011/29 Carbon Management Committee (CMC)

EC/2011/29.1 Communications Campaign

The campaign had been launched on 12 March 2012 with the ‘Save It’ logo also displayed on the University’s website.

EC/2011/29.2 Update on Oce Pilot Study

SMG had approved the launch of a pilot study, to be carried out in the College of Arts with a view to analysing methods of reduce paper and electricity consumption. The pilot study was due to conclude in April 2012, after which the Secretary of Court seek a report for consideration by SMG and the CMC. It was noted that feedback to date had been positive.

EC/2011/29.3 Glasgow University Environmental Sustainability Team (GUEST) Progress Report

Estates Committee noted that GUEST was a group of ten students, funded for 10 weeks from the Chancellor’s Fund, working towards an improved green ranking of the University.

EC/2011/30 Expenditure

EC/2011/30.1 Approved Projects Status (RAG)

The Committee noted the current status of approved projects.

EC/2011/30.2 CapEx Applications

EC/2011/30.2.1 Boyd Orr Building Roof

The Committee noted the previous three years’ investment of £2m in refurbishment of undergraduate science laboratories within the Boyd Orr Building (Levels 8 and 9) and the further CapEx application, (EC/2011/30.2.2) seeking investment to refurbish laboratories on Level 10 in the sum of £1.04m during summer 2012. It noted that the building’s existing roof covering had reached the end of its economic life cycle, evidenced over a number of years by continual water ingress.

The project would encompass roof insulation, repair of roof covering, waterproofing roof enclosing parapet walls, installation of safety barriers, renewing emergency lighting and lighting protection, renewing water storage tank and provision of temporary building safety and access systems during the works programme.

The Committee noted and, subject to clarification of a minor financial anomaly within the Discounted Cash Flow, approved the CapEx Application as detailed in the sum of £800k.

EC/2011/30.2.2 Boyd Orr Building (Level 10 Laboratories)

The Committee noted the proposal for upgrading works to teaching space, intensively used by MVLS, at Level 10, Boyd Orr Building.

Page 3 of 5 "The information in this document, and accompanying papers, is confidential information of the University of Glasgow. The information must not be released in response to any request without first seeking advice from the DP/FoI Office."

The Committee noted that existing facilities failed to comply with current access legislation, hand- washing facilities were rudimentary and the benching was seriously out of date. The space was no longer fit for purpose and fell significantly short of learning spaces in peer and competitor institutions. The overall aim of the project was to transform the facilities to match the global standards of excellence to which the University of Glasgow aspired. This would improve the MVLS competitive position with respect to the recruitment of well-qualified UK, European and international students, and enable the College to offer a student experience aligned with the University’s strategic plan.

The Committee approved the application in the sum of £1.042m.

EC/2011/30.2.3 Post Graduate Social Space

The Committee heard there were space capacity pressures due to the growth in Post Graduate student numbers and that this trend was expected to continue over the next 1-5 years as the PG community numbers grow in line with the University’s vision.

In line with this growth an opportunity had been explored to develop space for Post Graduate social and learning activities. The existing telephone room and catering changing facilities were identified as a space suitable development potential during academic year 2011/12.

The Committee approved the CapEx application in the sum of £900k.

EC/2011/30.2.4 Campus Masterplan

The Committee noted that the University had successfully acquired 10 acres of the Western Infirmary (WI) site on 31 March 2011 and that it was currently negotiating to secure the remaining 4 acres. The acquisition provided the University with a unique opportunity to consolidate the Gilmorehill Campus and strategically restructure to continue delivery of world class learning/teaching and research into the next century.

City Planning officers had advised development of a formal Gilmorehill Campus Plan to include the 10 acre WI site, and that it should: identify development and re-development opportunities and potential disposals; recognise historic and cultural significance, identify amenity and landscaping character; and include wide-ranging engagement and consultation.

The Plan would be underpinned by an expanded Conservation Strategy which would detail the status and character of all buildings and spaces between buildings on the Gilmorehill Campus and Western Infirmary site. When complete the Strategy would be submitted to Glasgow City Council for approval.

Over the last 15 months Estates officers working in partnership with Historic Scotland and City Planning, had successfully completed the Gilmorehill Campus Conservation Strategy which would be incorporated within the wider document.

In conjunction with the Secretary of Court and VP (Strategy and Resources) Estates officers had prepared tender documentation to invite consultant teams to submit offers to develop a consolidated Gilmorehill campus plan. Procurement, evaluation and appointment were likely to take 4-6 months.

The remit and membership of the WI Project Board would be reviewed and consideration given to extending its scope to include direction and governance of the Campus Plan’s development.

EC/2011/30.2.5 SGH Academic Centre Update

The Committee noted that a meeting was scheduled to take place this week between officers of the University and the NHS. The University has identified its detailed requirements for an academic building although to date the NHS had only provided a high level overview of its requirement.

Page 4 of 5 "The information in this document, and accompanying papers, is confidential information of the University of Glasgow. The information must not be released in response to any request without first seeking advice from the DP/FoI Office."

EC/2011/30.2.6 Western Infirmary (Site B) Update The Committee noted that discussions were on-going between parties in respect of the acquisition of the additional 4 acre site.

EC/2011/30.2.7 GLaSS Building Update

The Committee noted that the design proposal had been updated and been approved by the Project Board. It noted that the revised design had been shared with external stakeholders at a community engagement event and feedback had been extremely positive. This was noted.

EC/2011/31 Any Other Business

EC/2011/31.1 Car Parking Charges

The Committee noted that the cost of a parking permit has remained constant for around 2 years. It noted the revised charge structure and approved it for implementation with effect from 2012/13. The increased charges were noted as:

Gilmorehill Campus - Staff Car £200, Student Car £170, Staff Motorcycle £50, Student Motorcycle £40 Garscube Campus - Staff Car £140, Student Car £120, Staff Motorcycle £50, Student Motorcycle £40

EC/2011/31.3 Kelvin Hall Update

Estates Committee noted that work was progressing to prepare a long-term operational agreement for the building.

EC/2011/32 Schedule of Meetings for 2011/2012

21 May 2012

Page 5 of 5 "The information in this document, and accompanying papers, is confidential information of the University of Glasgow. The information must not be released in response to any request without first seeking advice from the DP/FoI Office."

Court – Wednesday 18 April 2012

Report from the Meeting of the Human Resources Committee held on 28 March 2012

Cover Sheet

Brief description of the paper

The paper comprises the Human Resources Committee Minute from its meeting on 28 March 2012

Annex 1 is the draft Code of Practice for the Selection of Staff for REF2014, together with an explanatory note. The Code has been approved by the HR Committee.

Annex 2 is the document referred to in minute HR/11/34 KPIs – Coverage of Performance and Development Review, for Court’s information.

Action required

Court is asked to approve the Code of Practice for the Selection of Staff for REF2014

Court is asked to note the HR Committee Minute 28 March 2012

Ann Hastings HR Operations Manager & Clerk to HR Committee 3 April 2012

UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW

Human Resources Committee

Minute of Meeting held in the Turnbull Room on 28 March 2012

Present: Mr D Anderson (Convener) (DA), Mr A Macfarlane (AM), Professor A Anderson (AA), Mr D Newall (DN), Mr I Black (IHB), Professor E Gordon (EG), Mrs H Durndell (HD), Dr A Owen (AO), Mr G Scott (GS)

In attendance: Mrs A Hastings (AH) (Clerk), Professor N Juster (NJ), Mrs F McLachlan (FM)

Apologies: Professor A Muscatelli (AM), Professor E Cameron (EC), Dr D Spaeth (DS)

DA advised the Committee that a new Lay Member of Court, Mr. Stephen McCafferty had been appointed to the HR Committee but, unfortunately, was not available for this meeting. Mr McCafferty is an HR professional, and had, until recently also been a member of the Governing body and Staff Development Committee of Glasgow Caledonian University.

HR/11/27 Minute of Last Meeting

27.1 The minute of the meeting on 25 January 2012 was approved.

HR/11/28 Matters arising

28.1 DA asked for an update on the status of the staff opinion survey and IHB reported that it had been launched at the beginning of this week. There had been over 400 responses within 2 days. IHB will bring the results to the June meeting. ACTION: IHB

HR/11/29 HR Director’s Report

29.1 National Pay situation IHB informed the Committee that consultation with UCEA and HEIs had begun but there had not yet been any formal meetings with the TUs: there was suspicion that this year’s negotiations were not expected to be straightforward. Universities were not formally bound by the UK Government’s public sector pay policy but it would be difficult to see how Scottish universities could go for a pay settlement significantly different from the public sector approach.

29.2 HR/Payroll System The HR/Payroll system has been paying staff since January 2012 and no major problems have been reported. From April, all payslips will be on line, and March will be the last month of hard copy pay slips. P60s will be hard copy for 2012 but probably on line in subsequent years. IHB reported that the University was still waiting for a number of developments from the supplier and these need to be delivered and tested before we start phase 2, which includes training, performance and development review and (probably) E- recruitment. The development for the proxy users for expenses was still in draft format but there was going to be a pilot with some areas of University Services with Core’s standard functionality.

The Committee members who were also staff members were asked their view on the working of the new system and AA expressed the opinion that on the whole, the view was

positive but it was necessary to ensure that pressure was kept on our suppliers to deliver some very important pieces of development. The committee asked that this be fed back to the suppliers. ACTION: AH

29.3 Professorial Zoning IHB reported that the Principal’s Board of Review had met in late March to assess and decide upon the Professorial zoning results. There were 4 external assessors on the review board: they had reported that they thought the process had been robust and fair and believed many other Universities would be moving in this direction. The results will be sent to individual professorial staff by the end of April. There was a general discussion about the challenges resulting from levels of pay where staff were promoted versus external appointments: this had been a key feature for the project. Members of the committee noted that it would be a difficult communication exercise to advise for staff who had been red circled. IHB acknowledged this and said that work was being done to make sure such communications were carried out in a sensitive way

29.5 REF IHB updated the Committee that the code of practice for selection for REF was nearly complete. It would be discussed later in this meeting. The broad policy had been agreed at a number of fora in the University: arrangements were in place to allow the university to capture data for particular circumstances. The SMG was clear that the exclusion of a person from the REF submission would not have any other consequences: this point had been an area of major concern to some staff.

HR/11/30 Policy Update – Gordon Scott

GS advised the committee that the Grievance and Discipline policies had been formally approved by Court and were now live on the HR website. GS gave a presentation on the proposed new process for potential redundancy situations which was still at an early stage it was proposed to have 5 tiers of authorisation, using the College Management Groups and SMG instead of Redundancy Committees in the new structure. Consultation with the Trade Unions was continuing. DA expressed the view that the definitions of each tier need to be very well defined and the Committee agreed. The potential role of Senate was also discussed. Updated proposals will be presented to the next HR Committee ACTION: GS

HR/11/31 REF – Code of Practice

IHB updated the Committee on the progress of the code of practice for REF. He explained that there needed to be a formal process where a member of staff would expect to submit less than 4 articles because of circumstances such as extended illness; maternity periods etc.: Hefce had outlined the major areas for consideration. This information on complex circumstances would then be assessed by a University central committee, which will be an ongoing process from May 2012 until October 2013. It was underpinned by a process to collect appropriate information from staff on a web based form. The Committee approved the policy, and welcomed the clarity about the effects of exclusion from the REF.

HR/11/32 Update on the University Strategy – Neal Juster

Professor Neal Juster attended the meeting to give an update on the University strategy which had been presented last year. He explained that the University had done well in the league tables and although some objectives had not been met, there were a significant number of objectives which had been successfully addressed within a 12 month timescale.

Our research income has dropped slightly but the staff fte had also dropped which evens this out. The quality of our Estate had improved and our financial situation has improved.

AO asked about the implications of our ranking in the Russell Group with the addition of 4 Universities to that group: NJ replied that overall he believed that would not affect our rating immediately as the new additions were not expected to be as highly rated as Glasgow

DA asked why there were only 2 HR objectives and NJ explained that HR was implicit in other top level objectives. DA thanked NJ for his update and for attendance at the meeting.

HR/11/33 Overview of College of MVLS HR

Fiona McLachlan attended the meeting to give an overview of the HR function in MVLS. She discussed the scale of the operation in terms of numbers, the structures of the College, the breakdown of the staff categories, the structure of the HR function and the initiatives ongoing within the College. She also talked about the complexity of the clinical and other aspects and how this impacted the HR roles. DA thanked her for the presentation and her attendance at the meeting.

HR/11/34 KPIs – Coverage of Performance and Development Review

IHB updated the committee that there had been significantly more activity in P&DR and hence more information than for last year. This had involved both College and Corporate staff. IHB explained that there had been moderation of results at grade 9 (for 25% of the ratings) and 10 last year (all grade 10s were moderated). Some staff had felt the use of ratings was inappropriate and possibly unfair and this is part of the collective grievance referred to earlier in the meeting. The proposal for this year was for moderation at grade 10 but no moderation for any grades below, although the distribution of grades for level 9 and below would be reviewed. There was discussion on a number of other areas and it was recognised by the Committee that this was a significant issue for the University. In view of this DA asked if a one page document could be sent to Court to update them on progress to date and proposed changes for the future Both DA and AMcF both expressed disappointment at the particular proposal to move to a 3 ratings approach for this year, highlighting experience which showed that this tended to produce a skewed outcome ACTION: IHB

HR/11/35 Any other Competent Business

DA asked if members of the Committee would think about the effectiveness of the Committee for the next meeting and also if they had anything to add to the action plan for next year. ACTION: All

Ann Hastings 2/4/2012

Court – Wednesday 18 April 2012

University of Glasgow: Draft Code of Practice for the Selection of Staff for REF2014

Brief description of the paper Each institution making a submission to the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 is required to develop, document and apply a code of practice on selecting staff to include in their submissions. The intention is that the code will assist institutions to embed the principles of equality and diversity legislation and any other relevant legislation in their decision making process on submissions.

For REF2014, Codes of Practice for Selection of Staff must be submitted to HEFCE for approval. Institutions are able to submit the codes for approval either by 27th April 2012 or 31st July 2012 with HEFCE stating that formal approval may take up to 3 months from submission.

In order to allow for dissemination of the Code; training of staff; formal selection decision making and a robust appeals process, the University has confirmed to HEFCE that we will aim to submit our Code of Practice by the April deadline.

Development and approval of the Code The requirements for the Code of Practice are outlined in the REF2014 Assessment Framework and Guidance on Submissions1 (paras 287-231) with supporting information being provided by the Equality Challenge Unit (ECU)2 (the organisation appointed by REF2014 to oversee equality issues for the REF).

The University’s draft has been developed: • Using the RAE2008 Code of Practice as a starting point but referencing guidance provided by HEFCE and the ECU; • Taking account of workshops held by the ECU and guidance from other Russell Group institutions and HEFCE.

The Code of Practice has presented to the following committees and meetings ahead of the 27th April deadline for discussion and has been amended and resubmitted where required.

• UCU: 24th January with an amended version being provided on with an amended draft being sent to UCU for information in March. • Senate: Formal approval on 2nd February • EDSC: Formal approval on 20th February • HR Committee: Formal approval on 28th March • SMG: 18th January with formal approval on 19th March • RPSC: 19th January with formal approval on 15th March • REFWG: Formal approval on 2nd April

Action requested of Court Court is requested to approve the Code of Practice

Prepared by Dr Jane Townson (04/04/12)

1 http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/pubs/2011/02_11/ 2 http://www.ecu.ac.uk/our-projects/REF

The University of Glasgow: Draft Code of Selection for REF2014

1.0 Summary This Code of Practice describes the principles and procedures that we will follow when selecting staff for submission to the Research Excellence Framework 2014 (REF2014).

The Code addresses all aspects of selection including the assessment of academic quality and the fair consideration of circumstances where an individual’s research output may have been reduced by factors covered by the Equality Act 2010 or other personal circumstances such as part-time working for early career status. The Code also describes the procedures that the University will follow in making selection decisions, including the individuals and committees involved in the decision-making process.

This Code was developed by the Office of the Vice Principal (Research and Enterprise) and the Equality and Diversity Unit within Human Resources in consultation with colleagues from across the University community. Those who contributed to its development include the REF Working Group, the Research Planning and Strategy Committee, the Equality & Diversity Strategy Committee, the HR Committee and the Glasgow branch of UCU. The Code was considered by Senate on 2nd February and approved by the University’s Senior Management Group and Court on 19th March and 18th April respectively.

The Code of Practice will also be reviewed and approved externally by the HEFCE REF2014’s Equality and Diversity Advisory Panel (EDAP).

2.0 Context The Research Excellence Framework 2014 (REF2014) is the fifth in a series of exercises undertaken since 1992 at a UK national level to assess the quality of research in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). The exercise is important because its outcomes will: • Inform the selective distribution of public funds for research by the four UK higher education funding bodies, with effect from 2015/16; • Provide benchmarking information and establish reputational yardsticks for: use within the higher education sector, for public information and to inform student decisions about choice of institution; and • Provide accountability for public investment in research and produce evidence of the benefits of this investment.

Any HEI in the UK that is eligible to receive research funding from one of four funding bodies can participate in the exercise. REF2014 defines four Main Panels consisting of the chairs of 36 Sub-Panels, one for each “Unit of Assessment” (UoA)1. Participation involves the submission of research to discipline- based UoAs as defined by REF2014. The assessment process is based on discipline-relevant expert review which, in some UoAs, will be augmented with appropriate quantitative indicators as determined by the experts on the each Sub-Panel. Ultimately, REF2014 will produce a quality profile for each UoA submission made by an institution: it is these quality profiles that will inform funding.

As the assessment is based on a peer review process, the judgement on all aspects of the submission, including the treatment of parts of submissions affected by circumstances covered by equal opportunities considerations rests with each Panel or Sub-Panel based on the information submitted and the generic and panel-specific criteria and working methods published for the exercise2.

3.0 Principles This Code of Practice is underpinned by the four key principles of transparency, consistency, accountability and inclusivity as outlined below3.

Transparency: The University will work to ensure that all processes for selection of staff for inclusion in REF submissions are transparent.

1 Reference paragraph 20 in the Guidance on Submissions at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/pubs/2011/02_11/02_11.pdf 2 The final Panel Criteria and Working Methods can be found at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/pubs/2012/01_12/01_12.pdf 3 Reference paragraph 204 in the Guidance on Submissions at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/pubs/2011/02_11/02_11.pdf

Page 1 of 14

Please see Section 11.0 for details of how the University will ensure all eligible staff have access to this Code.

Consistency: The University will ensure that that the processes used to select staff are consistent across the institution and that this code is implemented uniformly.

All staff with an involvement in the REF decision-making process are responsible for adhering to this Code of Practice and will be expected to apply its principles in all stages of the REF. All eligible staff are responsible for familiarising themselves with this Code and will be expected to act in accordance with the principles of the Code. The Vice Principal (Research & Enterprise), with the authority of the Principal, has ultimate responsibility for ensuring the University effectively implements this Code and in accordance with the Equality Act 2010, it monitors and evaluates the impact upon people from protected characteristic groups.

Accountability: The University will take steps to ensure that the responsibilities of those involved in making selection decisions are clearly defined and readily available to all individuals and groups concerned.

The roles of the individual staff and committees involved in making selection decisions are outlined in Section 6.0 alongside details of where terms of reference can be sourced. The training provided to these individuals is described in Section 10.0.

Inclusivity: The University is committed to promoting an inclusive environment, enabling all eligible staff that have produced work of the required standard to be considered for submission.

The University’s processes for considering staff with clearly defined or complex personal circumstances are outlined in Section 7.0.

4.0 Legal Framework The Equality Act 2010 harmonised and streamlined previous equality legislation (a summary of the legislation is provided in the REF Guidance on Submissions4). The Act covers nine protected characteristics, namely: • Age • Disability • Gender Reassignment • Marriage and Civil partnership • Pregnancy and maternity • Race • Religion or belief • Sex • Sexual orientation

Public authorities, such as the University of Glasgow must adhere to the Public Sector Equality Duty when carrying out their functions. This requires due regard to the following: • The elimination of discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Act. • The advancement of equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. • The fostering of good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

The University of Glasgow has outlined its commitment to inclusion and equality in its strategy Glasgow 2020: A Global Vision, which states one of the values of the organisation as:

Openness: Our inclusiveness embraces diversity by valuing and respecting the perspectives and contributions of all our colleagues and students.

4 Reference paragraph 187 in the Guidance on Submissions at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/pubs/2011/02_11/02_11.pdf

Page 2 of 14

All eligible academic staff who have produced research outputs of the required quality will have an equal opportunity to be submitted to the REF. The processes for selecting staff for inclusion will be free from bias or discrimination relating to the nine protected characteristics. This Code of Practice outlines how the University of Glasgow will ensure the selection procedures are transparent and fair, and adhere to the four principals of transparency, consistency, accountability and inclusivity.

5.0 Eligibility Institutions compile their submissions by considering the research activities of eligible staff. Staff are eligible for inclusion if their primary employment function is either “research only” or “research & teaching”; they have a contract of employment of 0.2FTE or greater; and are on the payroll of the submitting HEI on the census date (31st October 2013).

Whilst staff on “research only” contracts are eligible, the exercise explicitly excludes Research Assistants and other staff that are employed to carry out another individual’s research programme, unless, exceptionally, they are named as Principal Investigator on a research grant or significant piece of research work on the census date (REF2014 Assessment Framework and Guidance on Submissions, paragraphs 80 and 81) and the University can evidence this for audit purposes.

6.0 Roles: Staff and Committees In reaching decisions, the University draws on its existing committee structures for the management of research, together with REF-specific committees and individuals appointed to have certain responsibilities for REF matters.

All committees are constituted in line with the University’s Equal Opportunities policies5, which includes an aim to achieve a 70:30 (m:f) or better gender balance. Committees may use their professional judgment in choosing to seek advice from others, both internal and external to the university. Individuals taking REF-specific responsibilities are appointed by University management on the basis of relevant knowledge and experience.

Committees and staff involved are summarised in the table below and further details, including remits and memberships, are available through the University’s REF web pages (http://www.gla.ac.uk/staff/ref/refcommittees/).

Existing or Committee Role in REF2014 REF Responsibility for the overall co-ordination and management of UoA Champions REF the submission for a UoA. Responsibility for the College’s REF preparations with oversight of the individual UoA plans including considering proposals to set alternative quality thresholds for some UoAs before making recommendations to RPSC.

Provision of advice to REF Champions and reporting to College College Assessment R&KT Committee and CMG as required. REF Panels (CAPs) Preparation, implementation and monitoring of action plans leading up to submission.

Responsibility for selection decisions (attended by a representative from the E&D Unit and / or HR Manager for these discussions). Receiving regular reports from CAPs and reporting regularly to CMG. College Research & Knowledge Transfer Existing Advising CAPs and UoA Champions on REF matters. (R&KT) Committees Reviewing and providing formal approval for the College’s REF submission.

5 The University’s Equality and Diversity Policy can be found at http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/equalitydiversity/equalitydiversitypolicy/

Page 3 of 14

To consider individual complex personal circumstances in University Equality & accordance with published guidance and to provide CAPs with REF Diversity Committee an assessment of any reduction in volume that should be applied. Advice and regular reporting to RPSC.

Advising RPSC about the overall principles and structure of the REF Working Group REF process.

Responsibility for the selection decisions appeals process. Oversight of RAE preparations as part of its wider responsibilities for institutional research strategy and planning

Its key responsibilities are: Research Planning • Recommending policy and strategy to SMG including and Strategy Existing where alternate quality thresholds are proposed for some Committee (RPSC) UoAs • Approving the constitution and membership for College Assessment Panels • Overseeing the administration of the exercise • Monitoring progress Overall responsibility for strategic decisions relating to the Senior Management Existing progression and shape of the submission, for example, the Group (SMG) institutional approach to selection.

7.0 Selection Criteria and Process REF2014 guidance states clearly that the primary selection criterion for inclusion in the exercise is the excellence of the research being undertaken by an individual. However, the University can choose to structure its submission in whatever way it thinks most appropriate and potentially beneficial to the institution. This includes: setting a research excellence quality threshold for the submission at institutional level; deciding if a UoA can set a different threshold; deciding in which UoAs to make submissions; and determining the UoAs in which individual university staff are returned. Overall responsibility for decisions about the shape of the University’s submission will rest with the University’s Senior Management Group and the Vice-Principal (Research and Enterprise), advised by the individuals and committees described in Section 6.0.

In order to ensure all eligible staff are considered equally, the University will implement a two-stage selection process:

Stage 1: Determining the University’s quality threshold(s) for REF2014 The University’s Global Vision for 20206 sets the aim for the institution in research for the period up to 2020 and beyond:

“To enhance our standing as a community of world-leading researchers by promoting excellence within disciplines and inter-disciplinary teams tackling global challenges – providing cultural enrichment and benefiting society”.

The University’s performance in REF2014 will be a key measure of the progress towards achieving its stated ambitions for research. Equally, our strategic ambition will be a factor in determining the optimum shape of submission at institutional and UoA levels. Consistent with this aim, the University will determine a minimum quality threshold to be applied to the selection of staff for submission to REF2014.

This threshold will be determined by the University’s Senior Management Group following advice from the Committees outlined in Section 6.0.

Whilst there will be an institutional quality threshold, some UoAs may determine that a different selection strategy is more appropriate. For example: • Where there is particular strength and the UoA wishes to demonstrate the world leading nature of its research.

6 Glasgow 2020 – A Global Vision at http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_180610_en.pdf

Page 4 of 14

• Where there are discipline-specific considerations either sector-wide or specific to the University • Where it has been agreed to make a submission jointly with one or more other institutions. The University will normally not agree to such a submission if the proposed quality threshold is lower than the University’s minimum threshold.

Any proposal to vary the quality threshold selection criteria will be reviewed and approved by the University’s Senior Management Group as outlined. Where the selection criteria vary for a UoA, this will be communicated to all relevant eligible staff and will be applied in a consistent manner at the UoA level.

The University aims to provide Court with details of all quality thresholds for formal ratification by 20th June 2012 and will communicate these thresholds to all eligible staff from 1st July 2012 via an email notification with details appearing on the University’s internal web-pages.

Stage 2: Selection of staff, including consideration of equal opportunity issues which may have affected volume of research in the assessment period It is a fundamental aspect of these processes that no single person will make decisions about the selection of individuals for submission. For each UoA, the development of the submission is co-ordinated by the UoA Champion, with inputs from College Assessment Panel, as appropriate, and the College Research & Knowledge Transfer Committee.

The overall responsibility for decisions about selection rests with the appropriate College Assessment Panel subject to the appeals process described in Section 9.0 below. To ensure consistency in approach across the University and to provide advice and guidance to the CAPs, a representative from the Equality and Diversity Unit and or HR will attend the CAP meetings at which selection decisions are discussed.

Formal selection decisions will begin on 1st August 2012 with the intention that all staff will have been contacted about their submission status by 31st December 2012.

Our expectation is that four items of research output will be submitted for each individual selected for inclusion in the REF submission. Individuals with fewer than four outputs of the required quality will be considered for selection where their circumstances have significantly constrained their ability to produce four appropriate outputs. For REF2014, these circumstances have been categorised as follows (further details are provided in Appendix 1): • Clearly defined circumstances: in these circumstances the Panel criteria provide details of the reduction in outputs submitted that is permissible without penalty. • Complex circumstances: the University will need to make a judgement about the appropriate number of outputs that should be submitted.

Where fewer than four outputs are returned for an individual, the institution must provide supporting information as outlined in Appendix 2. This information will be kept confidential to the HEFCE REF Team and the Sub-Panel members (for clearly defined circumstances) and to the HEFCE Equality & Diversity Advisory Panel (EDAP) and Main Panel Chairs (for complex circumstances).

It should be noted that acceptance by a REF2014 Panel of a case for reduced outputs based on complex circumstances is not automatic. The EDAP and the Panel Chair will exercise their discretion in judging whether a valid case has been made and have the right to reject an individual’s circumstances as a reason for reduced outputs if they feel that they do not merit consideration as outlined in the criteria. This could result in the missing outputs being classed as unclassified and would adversely affect the University’s submission.

The University will therefore also review and approve cases on an individual basis prior to making a final selection decision. The process for this is outlined below.

In order to allow for an informed decision about inclusion to be made, all eligible staff will be contacted and requested to provide details of any special circumstances (as defined by REF) which have impacted on their ability to produce four outputs of the required quality. This information will be requested electronically from 1st May 2012 and will be required in advance of the formal decision making round (see Appendix 2 for details including details about who will have access to this information and for how long it will be stored).

Page 5 of 14

Staff who are absent from work will be contacted at their home address with details of how to provide the required data.

A null return will be taken to indicate that no special circumstances need be considered. Should circumstances change following submission of the information staff members will be able to access a version of the form to provide additional details.

Consideration of circumstances will be carried out as follows: 1. Clearly defined circumstances: the College HR Manager, in discussion with the UoA Champion, will identify if there are any clearly defined circumstances which may have impacted on the individual’s ability to produce four appropriate outputs. In these circumstances, standard tariffs have been determined for REF2014 and the number of required outputs will be reduced as outlined in the REF2014 Guidance7. For these cases, the CAP will receive short details of the circumstance in line with those required by the REF2014 Panels (details in Appendix 2). 2. Complex circumstances: In these cases, the HEFCE EDAP will make an assessment of the circumstances to determine if they merit a reduction in output. Therefore, in order to inform the University’s selection decision, a University Equality & Diversity Committee (UEDC) will receive more detailed information about the circumstances in line with REF requirements and will consider what, if any, reduction in outputs should be allowed. Decisions of this Committee will be reported to the relevant CAP to inform selection decisions. All information will be treated as confidential. See Appendix 2 for details including a flowchart of the decision making process.

In reaching decisions on the submission according to the principles and the procedures outlined in this document, the University will be mindful of the REF2014 Panels’ roles as ultimate judges of the eligibility of a submission. Overall, our objective in this complex decision-making process will be to achieve an appropriate balance of the needs and priorities of the institution and the rights of the individual.

Feedback of decisions to staff: The Dean of Research, or their representative, will feedback decisions about selection promptly to staff with all staff being informed of their selection status by 31st December 2012. Feedback will be given to staff individually.

Selection of staff after 31st December 2012: The selection status for staff that join the University after the formal decision making round; those for whom a decision is “pending” based on the publication of additional outputs and individuals whose personal circumstances have changed will be determined on a case-by-case basis by the process outlined above.

8.0 Statement about Impact of REF selection The REF exercise will have a major, strategic effect on all Universities in the UK. As a consequence, our criteria for the inclusion of individuals within the REF will be developed with a view to maximising the strategic benefit to the University and enhancing our research reputation both as a University, and within the different Disciplines/Units of Assessment to which we will be submitting. Inclusion or otherwise in the REF exercise will, therefore, not prejudice the future role or progression of an individual within the University.

9.0 Appeals It is the intention of the University that all staff will have been notified of their submission status by 31st December 2012. Three outcomes are possible at this stage: 1. Selected for inclusion 2. Not selected for inclusion 3. A pending decision i.e. will not be selected for inclusion unless circumstances change significantly between now and the submission date. An example of such a change of circumstances might be if specified research outputs are published during the remainder of the census period and are of suitable quality for inclusion in the submission.

A formal appeals process is available to eligible staff for whom the selection decision is either “not selected” or “pending” should they feel they have been unfairly treated at any stage of the selection process, specifically, the consideration of any special circumstances or the decision-making process as

7 Reference from paragraph 67 in the Addendum: Guidance on Submissions at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/pubs/2011/02_11/02_11add.pdf

Page 6 of 14

described in this document. Any complaint that involves wider issues than the REF selection process must be addressed using the University’s Grievance Procedures published on the HR web pages.

We aim to resolve any such issues informally and the first course of action for the staff member should be to contact the appropriate UoA Champion and Dean of Research to request information about how the decision was made and to ask for a review of the selection decision. Should this not lead to an agreed resolution, a staff member wishing to make a formal appeal should raise the issue in writing to the Convener of the REF Working Group, Professor Steve Beaumont, Vice Principal for Research and Enterprise setting out his/her grounds of appeal.

An Appeals Committee, comprising the Convener and those members of the REF Working Group who have not previously been involved in the selection of the appellant will consider the complaint. If additional discipline-related expertise is required, the Convenor will invite up to two members of staff with relevant expertise but who have not been involved in the selection process to date to join the Appeals Committee.

It is the intention of the University that the appeal will be resolved as quickly as possible and to everyone’s satisfaction. However, the decision of the Appeals Committee will be final.

Appeals Process and Deadlines 1. Prior to making an appeal, the individual must have received written notification of his/her selection status. It is the aim of the University for all individuals to have been contacted before 31st December 2012. 2. Those wishing to appeal the decision should first contact the appropriate UoA Champion and Dean of Research to request information about how the decision was made and ask for a review of the selection decision. This should be done as soon as possible after receipt of the letter and no later than 25th January 2013. 3. Should this not lead to an agreed resolution, the staff member wishing to make a formal appeal should notify the Vice Principal (Research and Enterprise) of the intention to make an appeal. This must be in writing (email is acceptable) and made by 22nd March. 4. Appellants should then complete the appended form and provide supporting information identified on the form (Appendix 3). The grounds for the appeal, namely special circumstances or process, must be clearly identified and explained in the supporting case. The completed form and supporting information must be returned to the Vice Principal (Research and Enterprise) by 12th April 2013. 5. The Appeals Committee will meet to consider the appeal. The individual, and a representative if requested, will be invited to attend the Appeals Committee meeting. 6. It is the aim of the Institution to have resolved all appeals by 28th June 2013. 7. The decision will be communicated to the appellant, CAP and UoA Champion.

Appeals process for staff whose selection status was determined after 31st December 2012: Staff should attempt to resolve concerns informally with the UoA Champion and Dean of Research before making a formal appeal. Wherever possible, staff must submit their appeal documentation in advance of the closure of the formal appeals process (the date for submission to the last Appeals Committee will be available from the Office of the Vice Principal (Research & Enterprise)). Staff who wish to appeal after the final Appeals Committee has met will have the opportunity to request a review of the decision and should contact the Convener of the REFWG providing the information outlined above. The Convener will seek advice from members of the REFWG and / or discipline experts. The Convener’s decision will be final and will be communicated to the appellant, the UoA Champion and CAP.

10.0 Training To implement this Code effectively, all staff with involvement in making selection decisions for the REF will receive an appropriate level of training on how to apply equal opportunities in the selection of staff. This will include a wide range of staff including Vice Principals, Heads of College, Deans for Research, Research Conveners, UoA Champions, and members of: College Assessment Panels; Research & Knowledge Transfer Committees; REF Working Group and University Equality & Diversity Committee.

The learning objectives are to: • Explore the role of those involved in REF selection with regard to equality and diversity • Identify the key provisions of equal opportunities legislation and how it applies the REF selection process

Page 7 of 14

• Explore the different types of individual staff circumstances to be considered by REF • Identify the different processes for handling both clearly defined and complex staff circumstances

11.0 Communication of the Code The Office of the VP(R&E) will make this Code easily accessible to all academic staff. It will be published on the University’s web-pages. All staff eligible for selection will be sent an electronic copy and steps will be taken to ensure it is drawn to the attention of staff who are absent from work.

This Code of Practice will be communicated to staff as follows: 1. The draft code and its principles will be discussed at Senate on 2 February 2012. 2. The REF web-pages8 will be updated to include the Code and also some FAQs to aid its interpretation 3. All eligible staff will receive a copy of the Code of Practice via email alongside details of the timeframes for making selection decisions. 4. Staff who are absent from work will receive a hard-copy of the Code at their home address.

12.0 EIA/Evaluation An Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) of the impact of the REF selection process will be conducted, in line with the University’s Policy and Guidance9. This is a live document which will be revised at key stages of the REF process, as outlined below: • An initial EIA will be conducted of all academic staff eligible for selection; • A second EIA will be conducted when academic staff have been selected for inclusion in the REF. • A third EIA will be conducted of the staff who request an appeal for non selection within the REF. • A final EIA will be conducted once the submission has been made.

This EIA will be available on the Equality and Diversity webpages10.

13.0 Useful Links External REF2014 website www.ref.ac.uk REF2014 Guidance on Submissions http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/subs/ REF2014 Panels Criteria and http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/pubs/2011/03_11/ Working Methods (DRAFT) REF2014 Equality Briefing for Panels http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/pubs/other/equality/ Equality Challenge Unit http://www.ecu.ac.uk/our-projects/REF

Internal University REF webpages http://www.gla.ac.uk/staff/ref/ University Equality & Diversity Policy http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/equalitydiversity/equalitydiversitypo licy/ Fixed Term Staff Policy http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/humanresources/policies/a- g/openend/ftoepolicy/#d.en.33516 Part Time Working Policy http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/humanresources/policies/h- o/flexibleworking/

8 http://www.gla.ac.uk/staff/ref/ 9 Full EIA Policy and Guidance available - http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/equalitydiversity/equalityimpactassessment/eiapolicyandguidance/ 10 http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/equalitydiversity/

Page 8 of 14

APPENDIX 1: Special Circumstances as defined by REF2014

Clearly defined circumstances: • Qualifying as an early career researcher (as defined by the REF2014 Guidance11). • Part-time working. • Maternity, paternity or adoption leave. • Secondments or career breaks outside of the higher education sector, and in which the individual did not undertake academic research. • Those who are still completing their clinical training and are defined as “Junior Clinical Academics” as per the Panel Criteria and Working Methods (UoA 1-6 only)12.

In these circumstances, the Panel Criteria and Working Methods13 provide tariffs to determine the number of outputs that may be reduced without penalty in the assessment, depending on the duration of the circumstance (or combination thereof). Staff are advised to review Part 1, paragraphs 64-91 for full details14. In summary:

Early Career Researchers:

Date at which the individual first met the REF definition of an No of outputs may be reduced up ECR to: On or before 31 July 2009 0 1 August 2009 – 31 July 2010 inclusive 1 1 August 2010 – 31 July 2011 inclusive 2 On or after 1 August 2011 3

Absence from work due to part-time working, secondments or career breaks: The amounts in the table below are based on an individual’s absence or time away from work due to part-time working, secondments or career breaks outside academia in months (details of how this should be calculated are in Part 1, paragraphs 73-74 in the Panel Criteria and Working Methods15).

Total months absent between 1 January 2008 and 31 October No of outputs may be reduced up 2013 to: 0-11.99 0 12-27.99 1 28-45.99 2 46 or more 3

Periods of maternity, paternity or adoption leave: Individuals may reduce outputs by one, for each discrete period of: • Statutory maternity leave or statutory adoption leave taken substantially during the period 1 January 2008 to 31 October 2013, regardless of the length of the leave. • Additional paternity leave or adoption leave lasting for four months or more, taken substantially during the period 1 January 2008 to 31 October 2013.

Complex circumstances: more complex and require a judgement about the appropriate number of outputs that can be reduced without penalty. These circumstances are: • Disability. This is defined in the Guidance on Submissions in Part 4, Table 2 under ‘Disability’16. • Ill health or injury.

11 Reference paragraph 85 in the Guidance on Submissions at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/pubs/2011/02_11/02_11.pdf 12 Reference paragraph 86a in the Panel Criteria and Working Methods at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/pubs/2012/01_12/01_12.pdf 13 The final Panel Criteria and Working Methods can be found at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/pubs/2012/01_12/01_12.pdf 14 Reference Part 1, paragraphs 64-91 in the Panel Criteria and Working Methods at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/pubs/2012/01_12/01_12.pdf 15 Reference Part 1, paragraphs 73-74 in the Panel Criteria and Working Methods at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/pubs/2012/01_12/01_12.pdf 16 Reference Part 4, Table 2 in the Guidance on Submissions at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/pubs/2011/02_11/02_11.pdf

Page 9 of 14

• Mental health conditions. • Constraints relating to pregnancy, maternity, paternity, adoption or childcare that fall outside of – or justify the reduction of further outputs in addition to – the allowances outlined in the Panel Criteria and Working Methods17. • Other caring responsibilities (such as caring for an elderly or disabled family member). • Gender reassignment. • Other circumstances relating to the protected characteristics listed at paragraph 190 of the Guidance on Submissions18 or relating to activities protected by employment legislation.

For more complex circumstances, the University will need make a judgement on the appropriate reduction in the number of outputs submitted, and the REF EDAP will consider these cases on a consistent basis across all UOAs.

17 Reference paragraph 75 in the Panel Criteria and Working Methods at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/pubs/2012/01_12/01_12.pdf 18 Reference paragraph 190 in the Guidance on Submissions at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/pubs/2011/02_11/02_11.pdf

Page 10 of 14

APPENDIX 2: Individual staff circumstances data requirements, collection and review

Data Requirements For each member of staff returned with fewer than four outputs, submissions must include the following information:

Staff with clearly defined circumstances (maximum 200 words): • For ECRs: institutions must state the date at which the individual became an early career researcher (meeting the definition at paragraph 85); provide brief details of their research career history, specifically identifying the point at which they became an independent researcher, and the number of outputs returned. • For other clearly defined circumstances: institutions must provide brief details about the nature of the circumstance(s), their timing and duration, a calculation of the total absence over the period 1 Jan 2008 to 31 Oct 2013, and the number of outputs returned.

Staff with complex circumstances (maximum 300 words): Institutions must: • describe the nature and timing of the circumstances • explain the effects on the individual’s contracted working hours or ability to fulfil their contracted working hours • explain any other effects on the individual’s ability to work productively • provide a calculation for the reduction in outputs and the number of outputs returned.

Worked Examples illustrating the information that HEFCE’s EDAP and the University’s Equality & Diversity Committee will need in order to make these decisions have been published by the Equality Challenge Unit and can be found at: http://www.ecu.ac.uk/documents/ref-materials/complex-circumstances-examples

In all circumstances, the information returned by an Institution must be based on verifiable evidence.

Disclosure of individual circumstances In order to allow for an informed decision about inclusion to be made, all eligible staff will be contacted and requested to provide details of any special circumstances which have impacted on their ability to produce four outputs of the required quality.

This information will be requested electronically from 1st May 2012 and will be required in advance of formal decision making round. Staff who are absent from work will be contacted by letter to their home address and provided with details of how to provide this information, either electronically or via a paper copy of the form.

A null return will be taken to indicate that no special circumstances need be considered.

Should circumstances change following submission of the information staff members will be able to access a version of the form to provide additional details.

Access to sensitive personal information

Information disclosed to the University: The information provided will be stored electronically within HR and will be considered confidential. Access to this information will be restricted as follows.

Clearly defined circumstances: the College HR Manager, in discussion with the UoA Champion, will identify if there are any clearly defined circumstances which may have impacted on the individual’s ability to produce four appropriate outputs. For these cases, the CAP will receive short details of the circumstance in line with those required by the REF2014 Panels.

Complex circumstances: In these cases, the REF EDAP will make an assessment of the circumstances to determine if they merit a reduction in output. Therefore, in order to facilitate an informed decision by the University, the University Equality & Diversity Committee (UEDC) will receive more detailed information about the circumstances in line with REF requirements. The UEDC will review each case

Page 11 of 14

using worked examples published by the Equality Challenge Unit as guidance19 and will notify the relevant CAP of any reduction in outputs agreed. All information will be treated as confidential.

The University will need to be able to provide evidence of special circumstances to support cases for reduced output and may be required to provide supplementary evidence as part of the REF2014 audit process which will take place in the year following the date of submission. Relevant information will therefore be retained within HR for two years following submission to facilitate this process.

Information submitted to REF2014: Information provided may be shared externally for the purposes of evidencing any reduction in the number of research outputs.

All information provided for this purpose will be kept confidential to the REF team and the panel members (for clearly defined circumstances) and the EDAP and main panel chairs (for complex circumstances). All REF panel members, chairs and secretaries are bound by confidentiality requirements, and acceptance of the confidentiality requirements is a condition of their appointment to the role. No information relating to identifiable individuals’ circumstances will be published by the funding bodies REF Team. All data collected, stored and processed by the UK funding bodies REF Team will be handled in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998.

REF sub-panels will know that there are complex circumstances and will receive a decision about the appropriate number of outputs to reduce without penalty, but will not have access to further information about the circumstances. These arrangements will enable individuals to disclose the information in a confidential manner, and enable consistent treatment of complex circumstances across the exercise.

Information submitted will be used only for the purposes of assessing the REF submission in which it is contained, will not be published at any time and will be destroyed on completion of the REF.

It is the responsibility of the HEI to ensure that the information is submitted in compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998 and all other legal obligations.

19Worked examples of the information that will be reviewed by HEFCE and our UEDC can be found at: http://www.ecu.ac.uk/documents/ref-materials/complex-circumstances-examples

Page 12 of 14

Summary flowchart indicating the process for assessing personal circumstances

Staff enter circumstances via online form

Clearly defined Complex circumstances circumstances

Information to be provided: Information to be provided: •Type of circumstance (s) •Type of circumstance (s)

•Start (and end) date (s) for •Start (and end) date (s) for circumstance (s) circumstance (s) • Brief explanation of the impact on working hours or ability to fulfil working hours • Brief explanation of any other impact on productivity

College HR ED Officer (and Manager (and Representative of UoA Champion) VP(R&E))

Calculate reduction Summarise issue and based on established propose potential tariffs reduction

ED Champion Rep from each CAP University EDC ED Officer Corp HR Manager Exec Asst to VP(R&E)

Notify reduction to CAP

Gather Gather appropriate appropriate evidence evidence

Page 13 of 14

APPENDIX 3: Form for submitting a formal appeal

University of Glasgow Selection of Staff for Submission to REF2014 Case for Appeal

Please return this form to Professor Steve Beaumont, Vice Principal (Research and Enterprise) by 12th April 2013. Please include copies of up to four research outputs (according to circumstances) which you would put forward for inclusion in the University’s REF submission.

Contact Details Name: (telephone and e-mail) School / Research

Institute

Unit of Assessment

(number & description) Selection Status

(de-selected or pending) Personal Circumstances: Personal circumstances may apply which have not been adequately considered (please see Appendix 1 of the University’s Code of Practice for Main Reason for Appeal Selection of Staff for REF2014 for circumstances which can (select from list) be considered as part of the exercise)

Selection Process: selection process set out in University’s Code of Practice has not been followed Provide a summary of your appeal:

Signature Date

Page 14 of 14

Summary report of Performance and Development Review (P&DR), 2011

The overall completion rate for all staff across the University for the 2011 Appraisal (i.e. P&DR) round was 92%, with 100% completion for the Professoriate and Senior support staff, 90% for staff levels 6 to 9, and 93% for levels 1 to 5.

A 4 point rating system was used in 2011, ranging from 1 (Outstanding) to 4 (Below Expectation). Fig. 1 summarises the distribution of ratings by groups of grades:

70 Fig. 1 Ratings distribution by grouped grades, percentages 60 57 49 50 45 42 38 38 40 Grades 1 - 5

30 Grades 6 - 9 Grade 10 20 14 8 10 4 1 1 2 0 Out-standing Excellent Good Below

Court may be particularly interested in the rating distribution for Academic staff. Fig. 2 summarises staff at levels 6 to 9 by College. All Academic staff excluding the Professoriate are in these grades, and most staff in the Colleges are of course Academic staff. University Services staff data is included, but in this area, most staff are in the MPA job family.

100 P 90 e 80 Fig. 2 Percentage distribution of ratings by College, staff levels 6 - 9 r 70 Arts c 60 e 50 MVLS 40 n Science and Engineering 30 t 20 Social Sciences a 10 University Services g 0 e Out-standing Excellent Good Below Rating

For the Professoriate, Fig 3 shows the rating distribution after moderation. Full Moderation was applied to this staff group to ensure common approaches were used across the University. Such an approach for all grades would be extremely labour intensive, and although a 25% sample was applied for level 9 staff, Fig. 2 shows the unmoderated results. 100

P 90 Fig. 3 Percentage distribution of ratings by College, Professors & Level 10 e 80 r 70 c 60 Arts e 50 MVLS n 40 Science and Engineering t a 30 Social Sciences g 20 University Services e 10 0 Out-standing Excellent Good Below Rating

A number of practical issues were raised by managers and staff during the 2011 process, and in 2012 the changes will be:

• A 3 point rating scale, with extensive definitions of what is expected for each rating • Additional training to be made available • No Moderation below level 10, but there will be a statistical analysis of ratings for each college to ensure broadly consistent approaches have been followed. • A clearer, more concentrated timetable with key dates already notified for key meetings such as the Principal’s Board of review etc, • Moderation will continue for level 10 staff.

UCU has raised a collective grievance about the P&DR process in 2011. In essence they have objected to the use of ratings – suggesting this is now the sole focus of appraisal discussions – and have also objected to the use of Moderation, as well as raising concerns about definitions, timescales and varying practices between colleges.

University management has replied that it believes ratings are extremely important and should remain a part of the process: the other points described above reflect, we believe, a willingness to listen to staff, to their managers, and for TU members, to their representatives and make changes which will strengthen the system.

I H Black

Director of Human Resources

Court – Wednesday 18 April 2012

Report from the Meeting of the Health, Safety & Wellbeing Committee held on 13 March 2012

Cover Sheet

Brief description of the papers

HSWC minute - meeting (Tuesday 13 March 2012)

Action required

For information purposes only

Author’s Name: Debbie Beales Title: Clerk to HSW Committee Date 22.3.12 University of Glasgow

Health Safety and Wellbeing Committee

Minute of Meeting held on Tuesday 13 March 2012 at 10:00 AM in the Senate Room

Present:

Mr Ian Black, Dr Gordon Duckett, Dr Desmond Gilmore, Mr James Gray, Mr David McLean, Dr Catherine Martin, Mr David Newall, Dr John O'Dowd, Mr Paul Phillips, Mr Alex Ross, Ms Aileen Stewart, Ms Selina Woolcott, Dr Robin Easton, Mr Deric Robinson, Ms Ellen Docherty, Mr John Malcolm, Mr Robert Kilpatrick

In Attendance:

Ms Debbie Beales, Dr Nick Elliott

Apologies:

Ms Margaret Goodfellow, Ms Julie Ommer, Ms Amy Johnson

HSWC/2011/1 Convenors Business

The Convenor welcomed Mr D Robinson as a new Committee member representing JULC. He also welcomed Dr N Elliott who, as the new Asbestos Manager, would be introducing himself to the Committee via a PowerPoint presentation. The Convenor also informed the Committee that Prof A.T Elliott had recently retired and thanked him for his input to the Committee over the years, especially on matters relating to radiation.

HSWC/2011/2 Minutes of the Meeting held on Tuesday 6 December 2011

The Minute of the meeting of 6th December 2011 was approved with the following amendments: Item 16 - "3 Schools" would be replaced by "1 College and 2 Schools" and the word "fourth" would be replaced with "third School"

HSWC/2011/3 Matters arising

HSWC/2011/3.1 Progress with programme of audits (verbal update Ms S Woolcott)

Ms S Woolcott informed the Committee that she had received the H&S audit reports for the College of Arts, the School of Medicine & the School of Chemistry. Using their top 10 recommendations she had established the following common themes:

• Review/produce H&S manuals. Due to the recent restructure some areas did not have relevant safety manuals • Develop/review workplace inspection regimes • Formalise local induction • Identify persons required to attend IOSH Managing Safety Course • Establish general risk assessment formats • Review incident reporting/recording/investigation protocols • Develop safe systems of works in response to audit and risk assessment findings

The College of Arts was asked to review the security at University Gardens. This was complex as the buildings were interconnected. They were also asked to review Portable Appliance Testing (PAT) regimes. The School of Chemistry was asked to make Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) training mandatory and the School of Medicine was asked to review COSHH overall. Both Schools were asked to review their housekeeping monitoring. Using a traffic light rating system for the audit, only one item was identified as red (high priority). This was for improved housekeeping in Chemistry. Ms S Woolcott informed the Committee that she was awaiting reports from the other audits and would feed back to the Committee in May.

HSWC/2011/3.2 Soddy Box (verbal update Mr J Gray)

Mr J Gray informed the Committee that the Soddy Box had now been opened and its contents removed. The box and glass jars, had been declared free of contamination and could now be displayed as a historical artefact if required. The sources were now in a high level secure store awaiting disposal along with a Uranium Hexafluoride (UF6) source. The School of Chemistry now had no sources on-site and thanked Mr Gray for his help in this matter.

HSWC/2011/3.3 Singapore Institute of Technology (verbal update Dr G Duckett)

Dr G Duckett informed the Committee that he had met with Ms S Woolcott and a representative from SIT to discuss how staff based in Singapore could receive H&S induction. It had already been agreed that the e-induction used by staff at Glasgow University was unsuitable. It was agreed that, as new SIT staff came into post, they would be directed to the representative at SIT who would ensure that they received H&S induction at local level.

HSWC/2011/3.4 Management of Stress & Wellbeing Policy (verbal update Ms S Woolcott)

Ms S Woolcott informed the Committee that, as the staff attitude survey would be taking place over the next month, she hoped to review the Policy in time for the September Committee meeting. Mr I Black informed the Committee that HR were publicising the survey to ensure that as many applicants as possible took part and that the 35 question set from the HSE (Stress) Management Standards would be included in the survey for the third time.

HSWC/2011/4 Presentation by new Asbestos Manager (Dr Nick Elliott)

Dr N Elliott introduced himself to the Committee and, using a PowerPoint presentation, informed the Committee on asbestos legislation, external agencies involved in asbestos management and the risks involved. He went on to focus on the University asbestos legacy and priorities for the near future. His main message to the Committee was that communication was the key and that, as custodian of the asbestos register, he needed to be notified of the local arrangements in place in all management units for managing asbestos. He emphasised the importance of training in asbestos awareness for any staff involved in carrying out or authorising work that could involve damage to materials containing asbestos (ACM's). Mr R Kilpatrick added that asbestos could also be found within equipment, and that any work that involved disturbing the building fabric should only be carried out through Estates & Buildings. Dr N Elliott informed the Committee that management units needed to identify staff requiring asbestos related training and the level of training required. He also informed the Committee that, as the Institute of Occupational Medicine (the appointed contractor) had already completed the first round of asbestos management surveys, the second round priority surveys would start in April. Liaison officers would be required from each School to inform him about building/room usage for this audit. The Committee agreed that Mr D Newall would write to Heads of Schools, Directors of Research Institutes and Heads of University Services for nominated liaison officers. The Committee suggested that the assessments be completed by Unit rather than by building and that the involvement of existing building user groups could be useful in establishing usage.

HSWC/2011/5 SEQOHS accreditation (verbal report Ms A Stewart)

Ms A Stewart informed the Committee that Occupational Health were seeking SEQOHS (Safe Effective Quality Occupational Health Service) accreditation. These were a set of 6 standards designed to raise the standard of service and care delivered through OH services. These standards related to business probity, information governance, people, facilities and equipment, relationships with purchasers and relationships with workers. Although currently voluntary, there was strong governmental support for accreditation and it was thought that this would eventually become mandatory. The OH unit had now submitted all required documentation and awaited feedback and an audit on the standards later this year. Ms A Stewart agreed to update the Committee on this matter at the May meeting.

HSWC/2011/6 Annual Report (Paper 1)

The Committee noted the Paper that was circulated. Ms S Woolcott informed the Committee that due to the VSER programme, retirements and resignations, HS&W now had a smaller professional team. However, she felt that this had provided an opportunity to reshape the team in such a way that the service would continue to meet its key objectives. Mr D McLean agreed to provide the Committee with a chart listing the new staff within SEPS for information purposes. The total number of staff trained by SEPS and RPS had been 1,372, an increase from the previous year. The national "Improving Performance through Wellbeing and Engagement" project had reached the end of phase 2 (the implementation of wellbeing/engagement interventions with participating HEI's). This culminated in a conference that saw the publication of the final report as well as a poster presentation of work which the University of Glasgow contributed to. The Universities & Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) now had custodianship of the project and were responsible for phase 3 (ensuring that the knowledge and experience gained from earlier phases were put to good use for the benefit of other employers looking to implement their own interventions in future). Other major achievements by HS&W last year included:

• Introduction to H&S for Heads of Management Units which received positive feedback from throughout the University • Review of Portable Appliance Testing which resulted in a review of existing guidance and information on access to external contract for PAT services • Launch of E-induction which, after some initial communication problems, was now working well. Ms S Woolcott agreed to produce a report on completion rates for e-induction for the next Committee meeting.

The Committee thanked the HS&W team for maintaining a high level of service during the reshaping of the service. HSWC/2011/7 OH Report (Paper 2)

The Committee noted the Paper that was circulated. Ms A Stewart informed the Committee that an issue over the last 12 months had been a failure to attend appointments by both staff and students. OH were exploring the possibility of texting students to remind them of appointments to address this matter. She also informed the Committee that she felt that there were still pockets of staff being missed for health surveillance and that she would contact the relevant Schools again to chase up. The Committee suggested that she contact the relevant College reps on the Committee to chase up. Work in reference to research passports was also something that was increasing in volume. This was put in place for non clinical researchers, with no contractual arrangements with the NHS, who carry out research in the NHS affecting patient care.

HSWC/2011/8 Accident Statistics (Paper 3)

The Committee noted the Paper that was circulated. Mr D McLean informed the Committee that there were no unusual anomalies to report and that the amount of incidents reported to HSE in the previous quarter was actually very low (only 3). As requested by the Committee, his report now provided an extra table which broke down minor injuries into causal type for further information.

HSWC/2011/9 Radiation Safety Committee (verbal report Mr J Gray)

Mr J Gray informed the Committee that the Convenor of the Radiation Safety Committee (RSC) Prof AT Elliott had now left. His feeling was that, as Prof Elliott's knowledge on radiation matters was so specialised, it would be difficult to find a replacement. Mr Gray proposed that the University disband the RSC. This was based on the fact that the RSC only met annually and that he, as the University's Radiation Safety Adviser, was now a member of the HS&W Committee. The Committee agreed that, as Mr Gray brought any issues regarding radiation to them on a regular basis, the RSC was no longer required.

HSWC/2011/10 Anti-terrorism, Crime & Security Act - 2001 and responses to recent inspection (Paper 4)

The Committee noted the Paper that was circulated. Mr D McLean informed the Committee that legislation existed which imposed duties on institutions sponsoring studies using certain controlled agents known as Schedule 5 agents. As a result the University was inspected by the Local Counter Terrorism Security Adviser who made a number of recommendations regarding Schedule 5 and other harmful agents. These included a requirement for a regime for registration of these agents. This resulted in the production of a proposed Procedure and a registration form, both of which were prepared by the now retired University Biological Safety Adviser (Mr Bob Osborne). The Committee welcomed the Paper and its content.

HSWC/2011/11 Student safety, Kelvin Way (verbal report SRC)

Ms E Docherty informed the Committee that there had been a spate of attacks on Kelvin Way. This issue wasn't helped by poor lighting and infrequent replacement of spent bulbs on Kelvin Way. The Committee agreed that this was indeed a serious matter and Mr D Newall agreed to meet with the Head of Security & Central Services to liaise with Kelvingrove Museum and the local primary school (who were also affected by this) to approach Glasgow City Council on this matter. HSWC/2011/12 Any Other Business

HSWC/2011/12.1 Evacuation chairs - practice & policy (verbal report Mr A Ross)

Mr A Ross informed the Committee that he had concerns about the current Policy for assisted emergency evacuation and had discussed this matter with relevant staff members. As a result the following actions had been passed from the Equality & Diversity Strategy Committee to the Health, Safety & Wellbeing Committee:

• Current Emergency Egress policy to be revised in light of current legislation to ensure it is fit for purpose. • Clear ownership of the policy and all supporting processes surrounding the production of PEEPS and documentation to be established. • The Assisted Evacuation Working Group to be reconvened to fully examine the suggested solutions and provide effective, robust procedures.

As the Committee did not have a copy of the Minute detailing these actions for the meeting the Committee agreed to revisit this matter at the next Committee meeting. In the interim Mr D McLean agreed to include a link from the SEPS web pages to the current Assisted Emergency Evacuation Policy. The Committee agreed that a working group be set up to address issues related to this matter externally to the Committee. Mr D McLean agreed to contact relevant staff with the intention of getting the working group up and running.

HSWC/2011/12.2 RIDDOR, forthcoming changes (verbal report Mr D McLean)

Mr D McLean informed the Committee about forthcoming changes from RIDDOR (Reporting of Injuries, Diseases & Dangerous Occurrences Regulations) effective from 6 April 2012. These changes would be:

• The current requirement to report all injuries resulting in over 3 days absence to HSE would change to reporting all injuries resulting in over 7 days absence • Employers now had 15 days to report these injuries rather than the original 10 day limit

Mr D McLean emphasised to the Committee that there was still a requirement for staff to report 3 day injuries to SEPS who would establish whether they then exceeded the 7 days of absence.

HSWC/2011/13 Date of Next Meeting

The next meeting of the Health, Safety & Wellbeing Committee will take place on Wednesday 30 May 2012 at 10am (Melville Room).

Created by: Miss Debbie Beales

Court - Wednesday 18 April 2012

Report from the Rector

Charles Kennedy

This Report is necessarily brief on this occasion as the two main items in the ongoing Rectorial intray - i.e. the implications of the Governance Review and the continuing discussions in respect of the future of the GUU Extension premises - are both recurring issues as part of the Court's broader agenda. I do not see the need to occupy additional time and space here on either as ample opportunity exists to contribute to the ongoing discussions, both within and outside the Court itself - and in my recurrent pre Court meetings with the four student presidents. Therefore, I would like to flag up one other matter which continues to arouse ongoing - and, in my view, justifiable - anxiety: viz., the proposed redevelopment of the John MacIntyre building into a highly desirable welcoming focal point for the university campus itself. My concern is that this commendable initiative ensures that proper and prominent space is made available for the SRC presence and role to register fully with visitors. Fundamentally, a university is about its students; as such the representative body of the student population must be accorded its correct status. I do hope that Court colleagues will bear this thought in mind during the period ahead.

CK April 2012

University of Glasgow

University Court - Wednesday 18 April 2012

Communications to Court from the meeting of Senate held on 12 April 2012

For Information

Proposed Renaming of the Business School

At its meeting on 16 January, Senate had received a proposal to rename the Business School as The University of Glasgow Adam Smith Business School. Senate had noted considerations regarding the appropriate use of Smith’s name in celebration of his link to the University, which many felt had been underplayed in the past, and had remitted the proposal to the College of Social Sciences Council for further discussion.

On 12 April, Senate received an extract from the minutes of the meeting of the Social Sciences College Council meeting of 8 March, which had noted the importance of Smith’s thinking to significant areas of research and teaching across the College. It had been considered that there were several ways in which Smith’s legacy could be recognised more fully. At Senate, Professor Anderson, Vice-Principal and Head of the College of Social Sciences, reported that specific developments under consideration included a new post to be jointly appointed by the Business School and School of Social and Political Sciences and a series of lectures on Smith to be given by Professor Macdonald, holder of the Adam Smith Chair of Political Economy. The development of students’ appreciation of Smith’s work would be to the fore in taking forward these developments, and named prizes and scholarships would be considered. The Council had noted that these broader reflections on the association between the University and Smith had eased the concerns that had existed in other Schools about the proposal to rename the Business School. The proposal to rename the School was fully supported by the College Council.

Professor Ball, Head of the School of Humanities, reported that the School was about to appoint a Chair in Logic and Rhetoric – one of the two chairs Smith had held at the University – and noted that the School would wish to be involved in taking forward the greater marking of Smith’s connection to Glasgow. This was strongly welcomed by Professor Anderson.

It was the decision of Senate to approve the renaming of the Business School as The University of Glasgow Adam Smith Business School.

Draft Guide to University Governance

It was reported that members of the Communications Working Group, together with the Secretary of Court, Clerk to Court, Head of the Principal’s office and Director of the Senate Office have been developing a guide to governance at the University. A key issue concerned arrangements that would operate in the event of disagreement between Senate and Court. The Communications Working Group had received the current draft of the guide, which included proposed arrangements for such disagreement. The draft had been made available to the Convener of Court, Mr David Ross, for comment. Mr Ross had subsequently produced an alternative to the sub-group proposals. This was also considered by the Communications

1

Working Group. The Group had noted fundamental distinctions between the two versions and agreed to invite Mr Ross to meet with the sub-group to seek to arrive at mutually agreeable proposals.

Response to Scottish Government Review of Higher Education Governance

Senate was reminded that in 2011 the Scottish Government had commissioned a review of governance in Higher Education. The review group, chaired by Professor von Prondzynski, Principal of the Robert Gordon University, submitted its report to ministers on 1 February 2012. The report may be found at:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/02/3646

At the request of the Clerk of Senate, the Senate Communications Working Group met to consider draft responses to the report. These were provided and a copy is appended to these communications – Annex 1. To assist the Working Group, Professor Caie had invited members of Senate to submit their comments to him. A small number of responses were received; the Working Group had considered these at its meeting as was grateful to those who submitted views.

Senate noted that, as yet, there has been no formal request from Government for responses to the report. It had recently been learned that there may be a delay of several months before such a request is forthcoming. However, it was also understood informally that many universities were preparing their own commentaries on the review report.

The Working Group was pleased that the Secretary of Court attended its meeting. Mr Newall reported that a sub-group of Court was also considering the review report and was able to inform the Senate Group of the Court group's views on the review. It was hoped by the Working Group that it would be possible to submit, in due course, a single University response. In the event that it proved necessary, the response could note any areas where the views of Senate and Court differ.

It will be noted that the Working Group's document does not take the form of a conventional narrative. Rather, it notes responses to individual issues within the report. This is to aid accessibility, and to facilitate the compilation of a single University response.

One of the recommendations contained within the report concerns the establishment of a joint Senate-Court academic planning committee (Section 4.3 of the Review report refers). At Senate, it was noted that the Communications Working Group had considered that further detail on the remit of such a committee was needed, including the extent of its intended authority. The view was put that the recommendation was straightforward and required little amplification. It was explained that it was unclear from the report whether it was intended that this would be a standing committee or whether it would be summoned only on the occasion that Senate and Court were unable to agree on a matter affecting academic activity. The Working Group had been concerned that, if the body was constituted as a standing committee, there was the potential for it to assume an executive role that appropriated the authority of Senate and/or Court.

Senate would be kept advised of any request from Government for a response to the review and on how the development of the response develops.

2

Internationalisation Strategy: Mid-term Review

Senate received documentation and a presentation on progress with the University’s Internationalisation Strategy from Professor Nolan, Senior Vice-Principal.

Professor Nolan noted that the importance the University attributed to its internationalisation activity was reflected in its status as one of three primary aims in the Strategic Plan, Glasgow 20:20. The Internationalisation Strategy was intended as a framework to guide and help prompt activity. The spectrum of associated activities included work concerning: the student experience; research; partnerships; staff; together with developmental work concerning local engagement and the University’s alumni.

In relation to the focus on the student experience and partnership development, activity was directed at deepening international partnerships; growing the international student community while maintaining high levels of student satisfaction; expanding international learning opportunities; and developing further collaborative degree programmes.

Achievements included student satisfaction levels that were the best in the UK; student recruitment that was ahead of target in 2010-11 and 2011-12; the establishment of University activity in Singapore; the opening of the Confucius Institute; a 9% increase in international research income; and the significant expansion of Postgraduate Taught provision through the development of 58 new Masters programmes.

There had hitherto been little institutional infrastructure to support internationalisation. This was now more developed, on the bases of minimising bureaucracy and making use of established structures and processes.

The example of Africa was used to illustrate progress in fostering both formal and informal links with overseas universities.

It was recognised that, for funding purposes, students from other EU countries were categorised as ‘home’ students. However, it was important to remember that these students were also from outwith the UK, and the total number of international students was now almost 6,000 - over 22% of the total student population.

Work was also being done to promote students’ international employability through increased opportunities for overseas study and placements. Club 21 now also included overseas companies that offered employment opportunities for students and graduates.

Partnership development was being pursued by several means: institutional level partners had been identified; regional action plans had been developed; there were College partnership priorities; the Partnership Development Fund had been introduced; and a framework for academic collaboration had been developed. The impact produced in local media by the establishment of new partnerships in China and India, e.g., had been striking and reflected the very positive tenor of relations between the University and its partners.

A key element of work in relation to research and knowledge exchange had been the development of a three-year plan to increase research funding from the EU. There were now seven large projects led by the University, with two European Research Council awards; increases in applications and the award of other European grants and an increase in total award values.

3

More recently, work had commenced to develop the involvement of the University’s international alumni community. This included a new Alumni Volunteering programme that was providing support at recruitment events and work experience for students and graduates. Investment had also been made to employ College Alumni officers.

To support staff, the new Staff Mobility programme had been launched; there were new training courses on topics such as the development of academic collaborations; and the first Internationalisation Conference had been recently held, which had prompted very positive feedback.

Activity aimed at engaging further with local overseas communities was also commencing. For example, students were participating in the ‘Confucius Classroom’ based at Hillhead School.

Professor Nolan also noted a number of challenges to University progress in internationalisation that had been identified. These included growing competition for students; improving the diversity of the international student population; and Government immigration policy. There were good opportunities to increase research funding. Other challenges were the intensive nature of partnership development, improving student mobility and further increasing student satisfaction levels when they were already very high.

Professor Nolan concluded that a good foundation had been established and she sought Senate views on whether the Strategy was appropriately directed.

In discussion, a number of issues were considered relating to work with Europe. In response to a concern expressed regarding the valuing by the University of European funded research, the assurance was given by the Deputy Head of the College concerned that support for staff applying for European grants had improved and such income and activity were fully appreciated. It was reported that not all European research awards were made on a match- fund basis. It was also noted that research funding methodology and bureaucracy in Europe were improving. The total budget available was approximately 80B Euros. The University had improved its income from European sources but still lagged behind other UK universities in this regard. Professor Caie, who was the International Dean for Europe, noted that the University’s new Europe Strategy had been introduced and had begun to take effect. A major initiative – ‘Erasmus for All’ – was being implemented, with a 70% increase in funding over current Erasmus levels. This would provide significantly improved opportunities for students. Senate was assured that Europe was central to internationalisation at the University.

Senate also noted existing and potential harmful effects on student recruitment stemming from Government immigration policy. Requirements were increasingly stringent and the ending of the Post-Study Work scheme had produced a markedly negative impression of the UK, notably in India.

It was observed that, while undergraduate and, in particular, postgraduate taught (PGT) international student numbers had increased, there had been little expansion of research student (PGR) numbers. It was reported that the University's experience was consistent with that elsewhere in the sector. A key reason for the limits on PGR recruitment was the reluctance of countries to send students to western universities due to the risk that they would not return to their home countries at the end of their research, with the result was that the expertise developed and paid for was lost to the home country. The view was also expressed that the benefits of research in less vocational disciplines needed to be better articulated. It was not thought that the increase in PGT provision was at the expense of potential PRG recruitment; the two student groups were largely distinct. However, it was expected that the strategic partnerships the University was establishing would help, and a new strategy for research student recruitment was under development.

4

With respect to increasing the diversity of the staff population, the point was made that, while some areas might have few staff from other countries, in some subjects, very few recently appointed staff were from the UK. There had been instances where there were no candidates from the UK even on shortlists. This was also a phenomenon recognised elsewhere in the UK sector. The matter was also difficult to address, although it was noted that its origin in some respects lay with access for UK graduates to PhD funding. Without adequate numbers of postgraduate researchers the next generation of academic staff would not be produced.

Professor Nolan was thanked for her presentation, which had indicated a range of ways in which the University was progressing with this area of key strategic importance.

Report from the Research Planning & Strategy Committee

The information in this item is confidential information of the University of Glasgow. The information must not be released in response to any request without first seeking advice from the DP/FOI Office.

Senate approved the report from the meeting of the Research Planning & Strategy Committee (RPSC) held on 15 March 2012.

REF14: Setting Institutional Quality thresholds

Senate noted the proposed threshold for staff inclusion in the REF. It was recalled that Senate had previously discussed the effects of errors in anticipated ratings and suggested that it would be useful to model the effects of different margins of error. It was also commented that the approach taken was to assume that over-estimations and under-estimations would be symmetrical. If errors in predictions were symmetrical, it was noted that a larger margin of error suggested that a relatively low threshold for inclusion was appropriate. It was agreed that some modelling of the effects of different levels of error would be made; however, it was also pointed out that it was very difficult to do other than to anticipate a symmetrical pattern and the view was put that the University had returned too many staff in RAE2008. There was agreement that the best way to produce accurate predictions of ratings was to ensure that they were informed by appropriate subject expertise. It was also noted that the pattern could vary between Units of Assessment. Professor Chapman reported that this matter would receive detailed consideration in the College of Science & Engineering. Senate was also reminded that the other vital factor to be considered was the funding level of each rating, and an improvement in the rating of just one paper by each member of staff would have a dramatic overall effect on the University's results.

REF14: Draft Code of Practice for the Selection of Staff

Senate noted the statement to be included in the Code of Practice for the selection of staff for inclusion in REF14: 'Inclusion or otherwise in the REF exercise will, therefore, not prejudice the future role or progression of an individual within the University.' In response to a query, the Principal said that he recognised that ensuring that the future career of staff was not prejudiced by their absence from the REF represented a difficult challenge for the HE sector. He accepted also that the veracity of the claim that staff were not affected was ultimately subject to testing in the civil courts. However, the matter would be controlled as much as was possible within the University.

5

Appointment of Clerk of Senate

Professor Caie is scheduled to retire as Clerk of Senate on 30 August. Senate approved the job description and details of the procedure for the appointment of Professor Caie's successor.

The job description is appended to these communications for Court's information - Annex 2.

Composition of the Senate Business Committee

The current composition of the Senate Business Committee is: Principal (Convener), Clerk of Senate, Vice-Principals and President of the Students' Representative Council. Senate approved the recommendation of the Communications working Group that the composition should be extended through the appointment to the Committee of one professorial and one non-professorial member of Senate from each College, selected by the Colleges.

Convener's Business:

SFC Main Grant Letter

The Principal reported that the SFC Main Grant letter received in March very largely confirmed the terms set out in the Indicative Grant letter issued by the Funding Council in December 2011. Key highlights were:

• The full restoration of the 2010/11 Teaching Units of Resource (TURs) and funded places, together with an uplift to the TURs of 2.6%. • Of an additional 300 funded places in Science, Technology, engineering and Mathematics allocated in 2012/13, 50 would be received by the university. This number would rise to 200 by 2015/16. • Teaching funding will be conditional upon an 'Outcome agreement' being reached by each institution with the SFC. This covered a range of metrics. The Outcome Agreement was to be in place by the start of 2012/13 and the 2012/13 grant would remain at 2011/12 levels until the Agreement had been accepted by the SFC. • 2* research would no longer be funded and the differential in quality weighting applied to 4* and 3* research increased from 3:1 to 2.4:1, thus moving into line with elsewhere in the UK. • Knowledge Transfer funding for the university was £2.928M compared to the earlier forecast of £2.378M. • The university's early adoption of its Easy Access intellectual Property policy had been welcomed by Government; all institutions would be required to have such a policy in place by 2012/13 if they are to receive a Knowledge Transfer Grant in 2012/13. • Some research funding would be associated with new Innovation Centres, and where links with industry demonstrably contributed to economic growth. The areas covered: the creative industries; financial and business services; food and drink; Life Sciences; and Tourism. An initial £10M would be available to support this activity, possibly rising to £20M in 2014/15. • The total capital funding for the university in 2012/13 would be £6.61M and was expected to remain largely fixed at that level until 2014/15.

Appointment to Scottish Funding Council

The Principal reported that he had been appointed to the Scottish Funding Council. The appointment of a university principal had been welcomed by the sector; the Council already included a Further education College principal.

6

Appointment of Senate Assessor on Court

An election will be held shortly for the appointment of a Senate Assessor on court to succeed Dr Gordon Hay.

Intimations

Senate stood in silence to mark its respect for two former members whose deaths had recently been announced:-

Chris Wilkinson was Emeritus Professor and Honorary Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Electronics and Electrical Engineering. He held the James Watt Chair of Electrical Engineering from 1992 to 2005. Chris was the father of nanotechnology at the University of Glasgow, as he was instrumental in setting up Kelvin Nanotechnology in 1997. He died on the 23rd February, 2012.

Derick Smith Thomson was Professor of Celtic from 1963-1991.He was one of the leading Gaelic poets and critics of his generation. He published and edited the Gaelic language magazine Gairm for over fifty years and is acclaimed the father of modern Gaelic publishing. He was awarded an honorary DLitt by this university in 2007.

7

Annex 1

Senate Communications Working Group 27 March 2012

Responding to the Scottish government Review of HE Governance

Recommendations/Section subject Suggested response

2.1 Institutional & Legal Framework

2.2 The role of the Privy Council

The existing jurisdiction of the Privy Council in relation to Welcomed as a simplifying, standardising and modernising measure. universities and higher education institutions should be transferred to a committee comprising the First Minister of Scotland, the Lord Advocate and the Lord President of the Court of Session, subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

2.3 A New Statute of the Scottish Parliament

The Scottish Parliament should enact a statute for Scotland's Welcomed in principle as a simplifying, standardising and modernising higher education sector setting out the key principles of measure, subject to need to ensure institutional diversity and autonomy governance and management and serving as the legal basis are protected, and consideration of detailed proposals. for the continued establishment of all recognised higher education institutions.

Under the new statute, the designation 'university' should be Welcomed and endorsed. reserved to independent public bodies accredited in Scotland under legislation for these purposes.

2.4 Academic Freedom and Institutional Autonomy

A definition of academic freedom should be incorporated in the statute governing higher education, based on the definition contained in Ireland's Universities Act 1997, and applying to all 'relevant persons' as under the existing 2005

1

Act.

Scottish universities and higher education institutions should Welcomed. It is noted that academic freedom as it applies to adopt a similar approach and that each institution should individuals and to academic units may need to be distinguished. adopt through appropriate internal processes, and present to the SFC, a statement on its implementation of the statutory protection of academic freedom.

2.5 The Role of Governance

Governing bodies should be required to demonstrate that their The four principles are endorsed. It is assumed that ‘stakeholders’ deliberations and decisions appropriately observe the four include students and staff. objectives the panel has set out for university governance, and they should regularly review their own performance against these.

The fundamental principle of a collaborative approach wherever appropriate should be enshrined in the Scottish GU has participated extensively in pooling. We agree on the importance university system through making the fostering of of promoting mutually enhancing links consistent with individual collaboration between universities a task for the Scottish institutional autonomy and priorities. Funding Council.

2.6 The Governance Framework The relative responsibilities of Academic Boards/Senates and Courts are not fully articulated; it would be helpful to do so, and to provide further information on the operation of the suggested joint Senate/Court committee. It is recommended that institutions are permitted to establish their own local arrangements for matters at a secondary level.

2.7 Senior Management

[text notes potential for managerialism at expense of Acknowledged. This underlines the importance of institutional missions undermined collegiality and the benefit of dedicated senior and internal commitment to them. management in being able to seize opportunities]

2.8 Advisory Forum

A Scottish Higher Education Forum should be established, It is noted that no executive powers are ascribed to the forum, and on convened by the Scottish Funding Council and chaired by the that basis, as a forum for national debate and discussion on HE, but Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, which which would not intrude on institutional autonomy, it is welcomed.

2 would meet on fixed dates at least once a year.

2.9 The Relationship with Further Education

All Scottish universities should not only include responsibilities to their region, alongside their national and international objectives, in their mission statements, but also seek ways to We welcome the creation of teaching/other mutually enhancing engage proactively, for the benefit of students and the academic links consistent with individual institutional missions and Scottish education system as a whole, with further education autonomy. institutions and any new governance structures that may be put in place.

3.1 Appointment and Role of Principals

The heads of Scottish higher education institutions should be The title ‘Principal’ is endorsed. The omission of ‘executive’ from the described as the 'chief officer', and that the job title should term ‘chief officer’ is welcomed, though it is not clear why this continue to be 'Principal'. additional description is needed.

There should be widened participation in the process for This is acceptable. A member of staff (Senior Senate Assessor) is appointing Principals, and core to this approach should be the already included in our ‘search Committee’. There should be reform of the way in which of appointment panels are set up transparency re the membership of such committees. and operate.

The appraisal of Principals should involve external governing body members, staff and students. Endorsed.

3.2 Remuneration of Principals and Senior Management

Further percentage increases beyond those awarded to staff in Agreed. general should not take place until existing processes have been reviewed and, if appropriate, amended.

Universities should ensure that any payments that may be perceived as bonuses are either abolished or at least transparently awarded and brought into line with the scale of Many groups of staff are able to apply for recognition and reward 'contribution payments' available to on-scale staff. payments. Consequently, transparency is preferred to abolition. It is agreed that senior staff pay scales should be published. It is possible Remuneration committees should include staff and student that the improvement in remuneration committee activity intended here members. The work of the committee should be transparent, could be obtained without extending membership through wider and in particular, the basis upon which pay is calculated

3 should be published. While the Framework Agreement, inclusion in the information being considered by existing committees. determining pay scales for university staff up to the grade of The appointment of staff to this currently entirely lay body would bring professor, is a UK matter, the Scottish Government should considerable pressure to the individual(s) concerned. investigate whether it might be extended north of the border to include all staff including Principals. There should be a standard format for reporting senior officer pay, and the SFC should publish these figures annually.

The SFC should investigate how the principles of the Hutton Report are being or should be applied to universities in Scotland.

4. Role, Composition and Appointment of Governing Bodies Greater openness is welcomed, but the amount of necessarily reserved Meetings of governing bodies should normally be held in business could render impractical. The effect of open meetings could public unless the matters under consideration are deemed to also be counterproductive, by driving decisions to other, less visible be of a confidential or commercially sensitive nature; these forums. An annual public meeting could provide a workable alternative. exceptional matters should be established through clear guidelines. This appears inconsistent with the exclusion of senior managers. (See below also.)

4.1 Chairing of Governing Bodies

The chair of the governing body should be elected, thus The Rector of the University of Glasgow is elected (by the student reflecting the democratic ideal of Scottish higher education body). The benefit of electing the Convener of Court is not clear, (recommended by a majority, one member dissenting). however, and not supported.

The chair should receive some form of reasonable It is not clear from the report whether it is intended that the Rector and remuneration (recommended by a majority, one member Chair of Court would be one and the same. dissenting).

4.2 Membership of Governing Bodies

Positions on governing bodies for lay or external members should be advertised externally and all appointments should be handled by the nominations committee of the governing Supported. body. Each governing body should be so constituted that the lay or external members have a majority of the total

4 membership.

There should be a minimum of two students on the governing It is noted that, in practice, appointment as staff rather than Trade body, nominated by the students' association/union, one of Union representatives may be preferred. whom should be the President of the Students' Association and at least one of whom should be a woman. There should The application of membership quotas for women or other frequently be at least two directly elected staff members. In addition, under-represented groups in general is not supported in principle. A there should be one member nominated by academic and positive emphasis on equality is preferred to a stipulation of numbers. related unions and one by administrative, technical or support There is considerable potential for practical difficulties also. staff unions. The existing system of academic board representatives (called 'Senate assessors' in some universities) should also be continued. Governing bodies should also have up to two alumni representatives.

The existing practice in some universities of having 'Chancellor's assessors' should be discontinued. Acceptable.

Each governing body should be required to ensure (over a See above. specified transition period) that at least 40 per cent of the membership is female. Each governing body should also ensure that the membership reflects the principles of equality and diversity more generally, reflecting the diversity of the wider society.

Governing bodies should be required to draw up and make public a skills and values matrix for the membership of the governing body, which would inform the recruitment of independent members of the governing body. The membership of the governing body should be regularly evaluated against this matrix.

Expenses available to those who sit on the governing body should include any wages lost as a result of attending meetings.

It is agreed that the Principal should be the sole senior manager who is Senior managers other than the Principal should not be a member of Court. There is some support for the exclusion of other governing body members and should not be in attendance at senior managers, but also concern that this would hamper the governing body meetings, except for specific agenda items at conducting of meetings. It is suggested that other senior managers which their individual participation is considered necessary, attend by invitation of Court when appropriate. Again, the exclusion of senior staff needs to be reconciled with any move towards holding Court

5 and for those agenda items only. meetings in public.

4.3 Committee Structure

[Suggested that a joint Senate/Court committee is set up to It is again suggested that the relative powers and limitations on Court coordinate academic planning and resource issues] and Senate are articulated. Fuller detail on the remit of the suggested joint Court/Senate academic planning committee is needed, including the extent of its intended authority. It is agreed that Senate should have the final say over academic matters.

We note that the roles of a general ethics and a research ethics committee appear to be conflated in the report.

4.4 Training

All universities should be required to ensure that governors - Such training is already provided at the University of Glasgow. including external governors, staff governors and student governors - are fully briefed and trained, and their knowledge should be refreshed regularly in appropriate programmes. Each governing body should be required to report annually on the details of training made available to and availed of by governors.

5.1 Composition of the Academic Board and Appointment of Members

In line with existing legislation applying to the ancient universities, the academic board should be the final arbiter on Agreed. academic matters. There is support for the establishment of a Senate with a maximum of Apart from the Principal and the heads of School (or c. 120 members (perhaps a little larger would be more appropriate to equivalent) who should attend ex officio, all other members meet the requirements of larger institutions). This would reduce the should be elected by the constituency that they represent, size of Senate at the University very considerably. (Current membership and elected members should form a majority of the total = c. 500.) This would also address the problem of ensuring Senate membership. In establishing the membership of the academic meetings at this University are quorate. (Current quorum = one-third board, due regard should be given to the principles of of total membership.) equality, and the need for the body to be representative. This includes a requirement to ensure that there is significant A predominantly elected Senate is also preferred. Non-members might (rather than token) student representation. Overall, academic be invited to attend meetings. The sub-committee structure can ensure that the breadth of input to Senate is sufficient. It is seen as

6 boards should not normally have more than 120 members. important that subsidiary academic units of the institution are constitutionally linked to Senate to ensure coherence in academic policy and planning.

6. Role of Stakeholders

6.1 Staff

The role of staff and their representative bodies in collegial Endorsed. decision-making.

6.2 Governance & Student Associations/Unions

Role of universities in ensuring Student rep bodies can fulfil their roles. ‘Partnership agreements’ suggested.

6.3 Wider Community

More community engagement encouraged.

6.4 Industry & the Business Community

Fora for discussion encouraged, partly to develop HEIs’ understanding of desired graduate attributes, and partly to persuade employers of the benefits of more traditional attributes of university experience.

7.1 Whistleblowing

All universities should maintain a whistleblowing policy, and this should be under the overall control of the governing body. Such a policy must include a clear process a person, whether Agreed. a member of the university or not, wishing to make a complaint can access, and it should be proactively publicised.

7.2 Evidence Base

The Government should instruct the Scottish Funding Council The added value of a purpose-made Centre is not apparent; the to establish in an appropriate academic setting a Scottish associated research (the need for which is recognised) might be Centre for Higher Education Research, which should be

7 available as a resource for the entire higher education sector undertaken by other means. and for government.

7.3 Avoiding Bureaucratisation

The Scottish Funding Council should undertake a review of the bureaucratic and administrative demands currently made of higher education institutions from all government and public Supported. agency sources, with a view to rationalising these and thereby promoting more transparent and efficient regulation and governance.

7.4 Code of Good Governance

The Scottish Funding Council should commission the drafting It is noted that the Committee of University Chairs already produces of a Code of Good Governance for higher education guidance material on governance. institutions.

8

Annex 2

UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW

JOB DESCRIPTION

Ref No.

Job Title Clerk of Senate

College/University University Services Services Reporting To The Principal

Job Purpose

To provide leadership for Senate and the University at a strategic level, working to maintain academic standards both in regulatory and, through ceremonial and representative activity, reputational terms. To make a key contribution to enhancing and supporting the student experience.

Main Duties and Responsibilities 1. To contribute to the academic leadership of the University and of Senate, advising on academic matters of strategic and institutional importance.

2. To promote positively the effectiveness of Senate in undertaking its role in the University - in this, working for the engagement of members in Senate affairs – with the support and advice of the Senate Office.

3. To undertake specific ambassadorial roles on behalf of the University as directed by the Principal.

4. To deputise for the Principal on specific matters as required.

5. To contribute to the enhancement of the student experience and support, working collaboratively in particular with the Vice-Principal (Learning & Teaching), student body and student-related service units. This includes the convening of the Student Support & Development Committee, Periodic Subject Review panels and other activities, including academic collaboration, with the intention of maintaining academic standards. It also involves pro-active involvement in SRC-led events and initiatives, where appropriate.

6. To take lead responsibility, supported by the Senate Office and others, for the ceremonial events of the University calendar.

7. To advise on the application and development of University academic regulations to ensure standards are maintained, through the Clerk’s membership of EdPSC, in all aspects of academic delivery (including associated institutions where this leads to Glasgow University awards), in this working with the Senate Office and colleagues from the Colleges.

8. To advise on the application and development of the student-related Codes for Academic Appeals, Complaints, Conduct and Fitness to Practise, in this working with the Senate Office and colleagues from the Colleges.

Annex 2

Dimensions

Senate is the senior academic body of the University. It bears statutory responsibility for academic affairs. It works to facilitate the development and smooth running of academic activities. It is assisted in these tasks by a number of sub-committees and officers. Senate currently comprises c. 500 members; papers are also received by a further c. 100 staff.

As a major, ancient academic institution, the University plays a significant public role that includes its calendar of ceremonial events. (A full list of events attended by the current incumbent will be provided to candidates). The Director of Equality and Diversity directly reports to the Clerk of Senate (60%) in relation to student related matters and the HR Director (40%) in relation to staff related matters. While the Clerk has no other staff directly reporting to her/him, the post is at the centre of the network of academic support services and as such may call upon the services of the staff of the Senate Office and others in the delivery of objectives.

There is a modest discretionary budget to support the Clerk’s activities.

This is a full-time role although, through negotiation with the successful candidate, there may be flexibility with regard to maintaining academic activities.

The term of office for this post is four years, with the possibility of extending for one further four year term.

Knowledge, Qualifications, Skills and Experience Knowledge, Qualifications & Experience

The Clerk of Senate is appointed from the membership of Senate. In practice, the appointee will be an experienced Senate member. The appointee should have experience in a senior role – normally having served as head of an academic unit (e.g. Head of School/Department/Research Institute or Dean) and/or of managing a major research team and other senior external professional engagement.

As such the appointee should have credibility as both an academic leader and an academic manager, experienced in leading and managing change in a complex environment.

The appointee will be able to demonstrate strong and long-term commitment to teaching and research and an affinity with the activities of Senate.

The appointee should possess a good knowledge of the University’s structure and constitution.

The appointee should have experience of chairing committees to deliver progress against objectives/work plan

Specific Aptitude and Abilities

Exceptionally good interpersonal skills, notably, leadership, diplomacy, influencing, consensus building, together with credibility with senior internal and external colleagues.

Highly developed oral and written communication skills.

An inclusive approach, and the ability to interact successfully and sensitively with students and staff. Annex 2

Quick grasp of detail, coupled with high-quality analytical and problem-solving skills.

Job Features Planning and Organising The role of the Clerk is central to the health of the University’s academic operations. The post-holder will proactively work to maintain the alignment of academic activity with the University’s ambitions and the maintenance of academic standards. In this, the Clerk works in close conjunction with the Director and staff of the Senate Office to ensure that systems and plans support objectives and are translated into effective action over variable time frames. These range from relatively short term planning challenges in relation to operational matters and over periods of up to 5 years in relation to strategic aspects affected by the University’s strategic planning cycle.

Decision Making Most crucially, the Clerk is involved in decisions that have far-reaching consequences (in the direction of policy/ legally/ personally/ in the commitment of resources) for the parties involved, including the University. There is need for efficiency, but also tact, and the good judgement to be able to reconcile academic rigour with the pragmatic, and to reconcile the efficiencies of standardisation with respect for local variation. The Clerk is a key adviser to the Principal and works closely with senior academic staff and service directors and academic staff and students across the institution.

Internal/External Relationships Nature of Relationship Purpose The Principal Direct report Line management, advice and support Vice-Principals & Peer Advice, collegiate support Secretary of Court and shared academic leadership Director of Senate Office Colleague Advice and close cooperation on most aspects of role Senior Academic staff Colleague Shared academic leadership and discussions on academic policy and its application. Academic staff and Colleague Discussions on specific students issues of policy/practice; provision of student

support.

Additional Features concerning Appointment as Vice-Principal

(NB: Vice-Principals are appointed by Court on the advice of the Principal)

• As a member of the Senior Management Group, to contribute to the overall strategic and corporate leadership and management of the University, with a willingness in this to abide by the convention of collective responsibility • To promote the University as required to external bodies and organisations and enhance its reputation, profile and influence in Scottish, UK and international forums Annex 2

• To lead/manage specific projects as requested by the Principal • Skilled at engaging a range of stakeholders to work together to tackle problems, identify and deliver solutions • Effective at leading and managing change • To demonstrate a background of academic leadership appropriate to the level of Vice-Principal in the University