Get documents about "minutes June University of Greenwich
Shared by: liaoqinmei
-
Stats
- views:
- 4
- posted:
- 11/6/2012
- language:
- English
- pages:
- 20
Document Sample
Revised
the
COURT
MINUTES of the fourth meeting of the 2008/2009 academic year held on
Monday, 29th June, 2009, in the Council Room, Queen Anne Court,
Greenwich Campus, Greenwich, SE10 9LS, commencing at 5.30 pm.
Present: Mr S Etherington (in the Chair)
Mr B Adeeso Prof S Golding
Prof P Ainley Ms M Hay
Mr R J Baglin Mr P Housden
Mr J Barnes Mr J R H Loudon
Baroness Blackstone Sir Callum McCarthy
Mrs S Clarke Dr A S Pugh
Mr S H Davie Ms C Rose
Mr N Eastwell
In attendance:
Prof T Barnes (Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research & Enterprise))
Mrs T A Brighton (Minutes Clerk)
Mrs L Cording (Secretary and Registrar)
Mr R V T Daly (Director of Finance)
Prof S Jarvis (University of Westminster) (Deputy Vice-Chancellor Elect)
Dr M Noble (Pro Vice-Chancellor (Learning & Quality))
Prof D Wills (Deputy Vice-Chancellor)
Apologies:
Mr J E Brathwaite
Mr S Howlett
08/55 WELCOME AND THANKS
The Chairman welcomed Professor Simon Jarvis, who would be taking up appointment as
Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic Development) in September.
He reported that Dr Margaret Noble and Professor David Wills were both attending their last
meeting of Court. On behalf of Court Members, he wished them the very best for the future
and thanked them for their considerable contributions to the work of the Court. He also
thanked Professor Sue Golding, whose term of office was due to expire at the end of August
2009.
Court: 29 June 2009 page 1
08/56 DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
There were no declarations of conflict of interests.
08/57 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING (CRT 08/56)
The minutes of the meeting held on 16 March 2009 were taken as read and signed as a true
record.
08/58 MATTERS ARISING
No Matters Arising were raised.
08/59 STRATEGIC PLAN (CRT 08/57)
59.1 Response to Demographic Changes and Public Expenditure Cuts
The Vice-Chancellor recalled that, following discussions at the Court Strategy Day in May,
the Court had asked for a report on how the University might respond to the expected
demographic changes and public expenditure cuts over the next few years.
It was reported that between 2010 and 2020 the population of 18-20 year olds was predicted
to decline overall in England by 13%, but by less in London. As middle aged ranges were
expected to increase slightly and 42% of the University’s undergraduates were mature
students, the University anticipated that it was likely to be able to maintain recruitment
levels. Resources would be deployed to encourage greater participation in part-time and
CPD courses, to help maintain numbers.
It was further noted that, whilst cuts in public spending were inevitable, the extent of any
reductions was difficult to predict. HEFCE’s future funding would be announced in the next
few weeks. It was noted that Officers would be looking at options to deal with reduced
funding in greater detail although these options were limited because of the level of fixed
expenditure.
The Court noted some examples of income raising and savings set out in the paper and noted
also that a review of support services, including those within Schools, was to be undertaken
imminently. Members looked forward to receiving a more detailed analysis at its next
meeting. It was hoped that any proposals to meet the likely reduction in resources would not
undermine the University’s mission on widening participation.
Court: 29 June 2009 page 2
59.2 International Recruitment and Partnerships
The PVC (Learning and Quality) recalled the discussion at the Court Strategy Day on the
cost and benefits of the University’s international activity and the request for more
information on future plans for international recruitment and partnerships.
It was reported that the University’s plans and targets were formalised in two institutional
strategies; the Internationalisation Strategy and the Collaborative Strategy. At present
Greenwich was the principal recruiting country for students from India and Mauritius and
was the 19th most important British institution for recruiting international students on
campus. The University planned to build on its international reputation and recruit 4000 fte
international students by the end of 2010/11. The present level of activity generated revenue
amounting to £22m. However, recruiting students would become more difficult as
competition from international education hubs overseas caused on-campus student numbers
to decline and the trend for students to study overseas through transnational partnerships
increased.
The University’s policy of developing collaborative education partnerships overseas would
necessarily become more prominent. At present Greenwich had partnerships in 25 countries
involving more than 45 partners. These ranged in size from mono-disciplinary to large
multi-disciplinary partnerships and currently accounted for more than 3,500 students and
£3.5m income. It was noted that the University planned to expand its international
collaboration work and, in response to queries raised by Members, it was clarified that all
partnerships were required to break even in the first year and to return a surplus by the third
year of operation. It was confirmed that a study abroad coordinator would be taking up post
in September to concentrate on the American markets.
Whilst the Court was generally supportive of the programme of international work
undertaken by the University and recognised the diversification of income it provided, there
were concerns that the future plans lacked focus and direction. Members believed that, in
view of the risks and competition from other institutions, there needed to be a strategy which
clearly set out the markets to be targeted and prioritised the selection of countries. The
Court thanked the PVC (Learning and Quality) for her informative paper and agreed that a
further discussion on the international work would be held at a future meeting.
59.3 Annual Review of Implementation of Operating Plan 2008-2009
The Court received the annual review of progress on implementation of the 40 targets
contained in the 2008-2009 Annual Operating Plan. The Court noted, in particular, that the
targets for increasing the number of e-learning courses and the amount of learning support
for study skills had been exceeded. Members were especially pleased to note that the non-
completion rate for 2007-08 had dropped to 16%. However, the University had been less
successful in achieving its targets for improving graduate employability and increasing the
numbers of work placements and the current economic downturn was thought to be a major
contributory factor.
Court: 29 June 2009 page 3
59.4 Key Performance Indicators: Proposals for the Future
The Secretary and Registrar recalled that the University had been monitoring 40 Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs) since 2006. As part of the development of the new Strategic
Plan, a review of these Indicators had been carried out which had, amongst its objectives, the
need to ensure an explicit link between KPIs and the Institutional Risk Register and the need
for KPIs and operating targets to be discussed within the committee structure. She further
reported that work was still in progress but at this stage it was proposed that the number of
KPIs should be reduced and that monitoring documentation would include a summary page
incorporating a traffic lights system to alert Members to areas of concern.
The Court agreed that the University’s Key Performance Indicators should be
reduced from 40 to nine overarching indicators as set out in appendix 1.
08/60 ESTATES STRATEGY 2006-2016 : AFFORDABILITY ANALYSIS (CRT 08/58)
The Court considered the updated affordability assessment of the Estates Strategy which had
been amended following acquisition of the Stockwell Street site and revised further in the
light of discussion at the Finance Committee meeting held on 8 June 2009.
The Deputy Vice-Chancellor reported that the affordability assessment confirmed that full
implementation (ie concurrent new build for the new School of Architecture and
Construction and the Learning Resource Centre) at a total cost of £86.2m was not achievable
without jeopardising the financial status of the University. Consequently, the Finance
Committee had recommended that development of the Stockwell Street site should proceed
as a phased programme.
The Chairman of the Finance Committee briefed Court Members on the detail of the
discussions on the affordability analysis of the Finance Committee. He emphasised that
Members had paid particular attention to the list of identified efficiencies and additional
income required to meet the costs of phased implementation. The Committee had been
satisfactorily reassured that the figures were realistic and achievable but had asked that the
identified risks associated with the economic downturn, and the measures to offset these, be
expanded and set out more explicitly within the affordability assessment.
It was noted that Finance Committee minute 66.1 stated that phased implementation would
“ensure continual compliance with the bond covenants through the planning period,
adequate levels of liquidity and only one year of forecast deficit …”. In view of the major
risks and imponderables associated with project implementation it was agreed that the
wording should be amended.
It was reported that the University hoped to start demolition works on the Stockwell Street
site once discussions with the London Borough of Greenwich had been completed. As
phased development of the site was likely to involve a protracted timescale, the University
was proposing to formulate a communications plan to ensure that the residents were aware of
the implications for those living in the vicinity.
Court: 29 June 2009 page 4
The Court resolved to approve the recommendation of the Finance Committee that a
phased implementation of Stage 1 (new build for the School of Architecture &
Construction and associated works at Mansion site) proceed at a total cost not
exceeding £59.6m (which included the £9m for the acquisition of the site). The
decision to proceed with the second stage would be taken on completion of the first
stage.
The Court noted the objections raised by Professor Patrick Ainley to proceeding with the
project arising from his concerns about financial risk.
08/61 HOME AND EU FEES POLICY AFTER 2010 (CRT 08/59)
Introducing the paper containing proposals for undergraduate fees for 2010/11, the Pro Vice-
Chancellor (Learning and Quality) reported that research suggested that the introduction of
variable fees for full-time undergraduate students had had no lasting impact on student
recruitment. She recalled that most institutions had chosen to charge the full tuition fee of
£3,000 (£3,145 at current rates) but Greenwich, together with a small number of others, had
chosen to charge less. At the same time, the University had also established a number of
bursaries and scholarships. This had been part of a clear strategy to support access and to
provide lower fees for the whole student population. Adopting this policy had also avoided
the bureaucracy of administering bursaries to students (mandatory for all institutions
charging over £2,700 at 2006/7 prices).
The Court discussed the proposal that the University raise its full-time undergraduate fees
and considered the advantages and disadvantages of the change in policy to charge the full
undergraduate fee allowed by the government. The University would benefit from additional
fee income, while any potential association between quality and fees would be removed. On
the other hand, lower fees were an important aspect of the University’s brand and as
evidence suggested that students from minority ethnic groups and lower socio-economic
groups paid greater important to bursaries, the University would need to adopt a more
comprehensive bursary and scholarships scheme. This would result in additional costs, both
actual and administrative.
Court Members questioned whether the published research which claimed that raising fees to
the maximum level permitted would have no discernable impact on applications and entries
was reliable. The Pro Vice-Chancellor reported that fees were reputed to be only the tenth
most important factor in determining the choice of university. Members registered some
concern that higher fees might prevent students from lower socio-economic groups applying
for higher education. The Court was advised that the enhanced bursary scheme would offset
some of the increase. On the basis of the arguments presented in the report and the
discussion, the Court resolved that the University should:
i increase its fees for home and EU full-time undergraduate students for 2010/11 to the
level of the fees cap
ii undertake detailed financial analysis of the increase in income from raising fees
against potential increased bursary, support and administrative costs
Court: 29 June 2009 page 5
iii increase its fees for sub degree programmes to a minimum of 60% of agreed honours
fee levels
iv maintain a differential for undergraduate honours degree programmes offered by
partner colleges but, as at present, maintain a common fee level for sub degree
programs
v review its scholarship and bursary policy
vi increases its fees for part-time students pro rata to full-time undergraduate fees but
maintain the current differential.
08/62 VICE-CHANCELLOR’S REPORT
The Vice-Chancellor reported verbally on the following recent developments:
62.1 Architects for Stockwell Street Site – Seven companies of architects had now been
shortlisted to appear before a selection panel on 23rd July, to be chaired by Richard
Rogers. An exhibition of the models and designs by the shortlisted companies would
be displayed in Queen Anne Court a week before the panel presentations. It was
agreed that a Member of Court would be welcomed on the Panel.
62.2 Governmental Departmental Changes – As a result of recent governmental
changes, the Department for Innovation, Universities & Skills, which had been set up
less than two years ago, had been abolished. The responsibility for education and
universities was instead to be absorbed into a new department of “Business,
Innovation and Skills” (Bis) to be led by Lord Mandelson. It had been announced
the previous week that the 10,000 Additional Student Numbers (ASNs) which had
been withdrawn last month were now to be restored. Formal notification of this was
still awaited. The Vice-Chancellor clarified that whilst there were no plans to
expand, the University would still welcome some additional growth of student
numbers.
62.3 UCU Pay Claim – The pay claim was still unresolved. Although industrial action
had been threatened, the UCU now proposed to ballot members in October.
62.4 Appointment of New Staff – Additional staff were to be recruited to help Schools
recruit and teach more students. A new senior post of Director of Planning and
Statistics was also being created and would be advertised shortly.
08/63 FINANCE COMMITTEE (CRT 08/60)
Introducing the report to Court outlining principal items of significance arising from the
meetings of the Committee held on 27 April 2009 and 8 June 2009, the Chairman of the
Finance Committee noted that the minutes of the 8 June 2009 meeting had omitted to
formally record the Committee’s appreciation of the contributions made by Margaret Noble
and David Wills. The minutes would be amended accordingly. The following items were
Court: 29 June 2009 page 6
highlighted:
63.1 Students’ Union
The Committee was pleased to note that, on the basis of the annual subvention remaining at
the 2008-09 level, a small surplus was being forecast for the 2009-10 financial year. This
improvement was dependent on an expected upturn in trading activities.
The new Chief Executive Office, Jenny Greenfield, had taken up appointment on 1 April
2009 and the Committee had welcomed realistic objectives for the Students’ Union for the
2009-10 operational year.
63.2 Natural Resources Institute (appendix 1 to CRT 08/60)
The Director of NRI, Dr Guy Poulter, had attended the Committee’s discussion on a report
on the performance of NRI and organisational options for its future direction (ie become
more commercial, become more academic, closure or continuation as current). As a result
of a useful discussion, the Committee had been satisfied that the work of NRI was of a high
standard and that NRI brought benefit to the University in a variety of ways. In addition,
Members noted that the University enjoyed income from NRI through its research and
enterprise contracts contributions to HEFCE funding both through the RAE and through
other HEFCE allocations made by formula. In response to a question it was confirmed that
NRI’s reported deficit for 2008/2009 was £800k, after central overhead charges of £680k.
When account is taken of the £600k of un-credited HEFCE income, NRI has a positive
contribution of £120k, and a residual deficit of £200k. Members believed that NRI’s
financial contribution to the University through these allocations was not always obvious in
the paperwork provided to the Committee. Following examination of the options available,
the Committee remained convinced that NRI should continue to operate in its current mode
but hoped that it could make more use of its expertise in teaching. Members looked forward
to a period when NRI was not in deficit.
63.3 Provisional Budget 2009-2010 (appendix 2 to CRT 08/60)
The Chairman of the Committee reported that the projected surplus of £1.6m for 2009-2010
would be difficult to achieve. The provisional budget had taken account of a recently-
announced cut in HEFCE funding of 1.4% for the 2009-2010 academic year but further cuts
were expected. Detailed information on the impact of these cuts would not be available
until the HEFCE Board meeting in July.
It was further reported that the Committee had spent some time examining the assumptions
underlying the budget. Achievement of student recruitment targets both home and
international would be key to meeting the budgetary predictions for a surplus of 1% of
turnover. Aware of the many uncertainties facing the University, the Committee had been
mindful that the long standing contingency plans might need to be invoked during the course
of the year. The significant risks associated with the budget were emphasised. Court was
aware that difficult decisions might need to be taken in the future should any of the risks
come to fruition.
Court: 29 June 2009 page 7
The Court resolved that the draft 2009-2010 revenue and capital budgets be
approved on the understanding that they might need to be amended in the light of
HEFCE decisions.
63.4 University Estates Issues
63.4.1 Disposal of Pyrotechnic Site, Joyce Green Lane, Dartford
Noting that the University’s site in Dartford, which had formerly housed a fireworks factory
had been surplus to requirements for a number of years, the Court resolved that:
i the offer of £300,000 for the freehold of the pyrotechnics site, Joyce Green Lane,
Dartford be accepted
ii should the buyer reduce his offer because of the cost of possible asbestos removal no
less than £250,000 be accepted
iii delegated authority be granted to an appropriate Member of Court and Vice-
Chancellor/Secretary and Registrar to sign the necessary contract for sale and
supplemental legal documents.
63.4.2 Acquisition of West Lodge, Avery Hill Mansion Site
The Court noted that the Committee’s recommendation to purchase the freehold of the West
Lodge at the Avery Hill Mansion site had been withdrawn following acceptance of a higher
offer by another party.
08/64 AUDIT COMMITTEE (CRT 08/61)
The Chairman of the Audit Committee introduced the report to Court detailing principal
items of significance arising from the meeting of the Committee held on 21st May 2009. The
following items were discussed:
64.1 Value for Money Studies
The Committee had been concerned that no Value for Money Studies had been reported in
the 2008-09 year and that the Value for Money Study on conference activities had not yet
been undertaken. It looked forward to receiving some reports at its October 2009 meeting.
64.2 Appointment of External Auditors
The Chairman reported that three of the five companies which had tendered for the contract
for the provision of external audit services had been shortlisted for assessment by the
Evaluation Committee on 16 June 2009. Following their presentations, the Evaluation
Committee had concluded that the present service providers should be re-appointed. The
Court therefore resolved that:
Grant Thornton UK LLP be re-appointed as external auditors for a further five years
to cover the audits for the 2009/10 – 2013/14 financial years.
Court: 29 June 2009 page 8
64.3 Committee Terms of Reference
The Court approved amended Terms of Reference for the Audit Committee for immediate
adoption (see appendix 2 to these minutes).
64.4 Memorandum of Understanding between the University of Greenwich and
Greenwich University Enterprise Limited (appendix 1 to CRT 08/61)
The Chairman recalled that the Memorandum of Understanding between the University and
GUEL first agreed in 2006 was to be reviewed every three years. Following its recent
review, the Board of GUEL had revised its objectives, inserted new clauses to reflect the risk
management framework within which the University operates and incorporated
recommendations from a recent internal audit. The Court approved the amended
Memorandum of Understanding for immediate adoption.
64.5 Internal Audit Reports
It was reported that, whilst Committee Members had been reasonably satisfied with the
internal audit reports received, they were concerned about the limited scope of some of the
audits. The Committee Members had asked that in future the scope of the audits should be
more clearly defined to enable the Committee to be confident that the audit opinions were
robust.
64.6 HEFCE Assurance
The Court was pleased to note that, based on the documentation submitted for 2007-2008,
HEFCE had concluded that the University was not at high risk and was meeting the
accountability obligations set out in the Model Financial Memorandum between HEFCE and
the institution.
08/65 ACADEMIC COUNCIL (CRT 08/62)
The Court received a report on items of academic significance arising from the meetings of
Academic Council held on 4 March, 24 April and 3 June 2009 and noted that:
i a report on the online registration system which had been introduced for new students
in 2008-2009 had confirmed that the process had worked well and had been
particularly successful in reducing waiting times for registration. Council had
approved a series of recommendations which would further develop the system;
ii consideration of an overview of the induction process had highlighted criticism from
students about relevant and timely information and insufficient knowledge about
induction events. A policy framework for student induction was endorsed;
iii a number of recommendations arising from an audit of the administration of
examination boards (PABs), including the need for more training and development of
staff involved with the PAB process, were endorsed. In future the audit would be
Court: 29 June 2009 page 9
undertaken annually;
iv Council had received annual reports on the services provided by staff in the Student
Centres, and the Student Finance and Financial Support and Examinations areas.
08/66 STUDENTS’ UNION, UNIVERSITY OF GREENWICH – DRAFT ARTICLES OF
GOVERNANCE (CRT 08/63)
The Court considered draft Articles of Governance for the Students’ Union. The Secretary
and Registrar reported that the Articles had been drawn up by a constitutional working group
comprising staff, students and Sabbatical Officers. The new Articles incorporated many
changes, including a reduction in the number of Sabbatical Officers from 5 to 4 effective
from the 2010-2011 academic year, and clarification of the lines of accountability. The
Articles also enabled a Board of Trustees to be established.
The Court approved the Articles of Governance of the Students’ Union, University of
Greenwich, for immediate adoption. It was noted that detailed Bye Laws would be
submitted to the autumn meeting of Court.
08/67 COURT EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW (CRT 08/64)
The Secretary and Registrar recalled that, when the Court last reviewed its effectiveness in
2006, it was agreed that a further review should be conducted in 2009. In considering an
appropriate methodology for the 2009 Effectiveness Review, consideration had been given to
the six enablers of effective governance identified by the Leadership Foundation for Higher
Education. It was now proposed that the review should concentrate on two elements of these
– Performance Monitoring and Communication - and that the review process follow that of
previous reviews ie a questionnaire completed by individual Members of Court followed by
a report on the outcomes to the following meeting.
The Court endorsed the suggested approach for the 2009 Effectiveness Review and
approved the recommendation that a small group of Court Members agree the format of a
questionnaire to be sent to Court Members during the summer. The resulting report would
be presented to the October meeting of Court as a basis for discussion.
08/68 WIDENING PARTICIPATION STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT (CRT 08/65)
The Court received:
i the University’s Widening Participation Strategic Assessment 2008-2009
ii the University’s Widening Participation Strategy for 2009-2013.
It was noted that HEFCE had asked universities to submit widening participation strategic
assessments which reported progress against the targets and milestones they had set
themselves. This was the first year for submission; in future the reports would form part of
the single conversation documents submitted to HEFCE in December.
Court: 29 June 2009 page 10
The Court approved the Widening Participation Strategic Assessment for submission
to HEFCE.
It was further noted that the Widening Participation Strategic Assessment had highlighted the
importance of widening participation as an integral part of the University’s mission.
Members asked for a better understanding of the work undertaken by the University and the
plans for enhancing and developing widening participation activities in the future.
It was agreed that a substantive discussion would be held at the January 2010
meeting of Court.
08/69 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICY (CRT 08/66)
The Court considered amendments to the University’s Intellectual Property Policy which had
initially been introduced following approval by Court in 2003. The updated document took
account of organisational changes and addressed a number of issues on which the original
policy had been silent, namely non-commercial intellectual property produced in the
University and the ownership and management of intellectual property created by students.
The Court approved the revised Intellectual Property Policy for immediate
implementation in the University.
08/70 COURT AND COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP (CRT 08/67)
70.1 Court Membership
The Court:
i resolved that, following his re-election as President of the Students’ Union, Benson
Adeeso be appointed to the Court under Article 7(2)(c) for the period 1 August 2009
to 31 July 2010
ii resolved that Nick Eastwell be transferred to Independent Member status w.e.f. 1
September 2009
iii resolved that Peter Housden be re-appointed as a Member under Article 7(2)(a) for
the period 1 September 2009 to 31 August 2012
iv noted that a recommendation for membership to fill the current vacancy would be
put to the October meeting of Court.
70.2 Committee Chairmanship
It was reported that the appointments of the current Chairmen of the Audit and Finance
Committees were due to expire at the end of the 2009-2010 academic session. The Court
agreed that Steve Davie and Nick Eastwell be appointed as Chairmen of the Audit and
Court: 29 June 2009 page 11
Finance Committees respectively w.e.f. 1 January 2010.
70.3 Remuneration Committee
The Court agreed that:
i the membership of the Remuneration Committee be amended as follows:
Chairman of the Finance Committee (Chairman)
Chairman of Court
Chairman of the Audit Committee
2 Lay Members of Court
Vice-Chancellor
ii under the category of 2 Lay Members of Court, Nick Eastwell and Marianne Hay be
appointed to serve on the Committee with immediate effect.
FORMAL AGENDA
08/71 STRATEGIC DISCUSSION ITEMS: 2009-2010 (CRT 08/68)
The Court noted the list of strategic discussion agenda items scheduled for the 2009-2010
session.
08/72 COURT AND COURT COMMITTEE TIMETABLE 2009-2010 (CRT 08/69)
The Court ratified the timetable of Court and Committee dates for 2009-2010 (see appendix
3 to the minutes).
08/73 FINANCIAL REPORTS (CRT 08/70)
The Court received:
i a report on Risks, Reserves & Liquidity
ii Management Accounts for the University of Greenwich for the period to 30 April
2009.
08/74 REPORT ON HEALTH & SAFETY ISSUES CONSIDERED DURING 2008-2009 BY
THE UNIVERSITY HEALTH & SAFETY COMMITTEE (CRT 08/71)
The Court received a report on health and safety issues considered by the University Health
& Safety Committee during the 2008-2009 academic session.
Court: 29 June 2009 page 12
08/75 PROFESSORIAL AND READER APPOINTMENTS 2008-2009 (CRT 08/72)
The Court noted the awards of the title Professor, Reader, Emeritus Reader, Visiting
Professor and Visiting Fellow made by the Professorial and Reader Appointments
Committee as a result of the 2008-09 round of applications (attached as appendix 4 to the
minutes).
08/76 MINUTES OF MEETINGS
The minutes of the following meetings were received:
i Finance Committee – 27 April 2009 (CRT 08/73)
ii Court Strategy Meeting – 21 May 2009 (CRT 08/74)
iii Audit Committee – 21 May 2009 (CRT 08/75)
iv Finance Committee – 8 June 2009 (CRT 08/76)
v Academic Council – 4 March 2009 (CRT 08/77)
vi Academic Council – 24 April 2009 (CRT 08/78)
08/77 EXECUTION OF DEEDS (CRT 08/80)
(i) the signing as a Deed of the following “Group A” document:
(a) LAND REGISTRY TRANSFER re: land and buildings on north east
side of Stockwell Street, London and land adjacent to 20 and 21
Stockwell Street, London between (1) Stockwell Street Greenwich No 1
Limited and Stockwell Street Greenwich No 2 Limited and (2) Hog
(ii) the signing as a Deed of the following “Group B” documents:
(a) LETTER OF VARIATION re: Commercialisation agreements of
inventions relating to “ion channel blockers for the treatment of and
improvement of the remission of, Multiple Sclerosis” between (1) Hog
(2) BTG plc (3) Kings College London (4) Dr L S Harbige (5) Dr M J
Leach and (6) Dr M Sharief
(b) LICENCE TO PERMIT OCCUPATION re: office suite at the Cooper
Building, Devonport House, King William Walk, Greenwich, London
SE10 between (1) The Secretary of State for Defence (Greenwich
Hospital) (2) UoG (3) Hyde Housing Association Limited and (4)
Greenwich Devonport Conference Centre Limited
The meeting finished at 7.30 pm.
T.A.Brighton
24.07.09
Court: 29 June 2009 page 13
H:/LC/Crt/Minutes/2009 June 29 minutes
Court: 29 June 2009 page 14
Appendix 1 to minutes of Court meeting held on 29 June 2009
UNIVERSITY’S KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
To attract students from a wide range of backgrounds and to promote equal
opportunities for all
To provide a learning experience for all students that fosters success through a
high quality and strongly supported learning environment
To improve the overall satisfaction of our students
To reduce non-completion rates
To improve the employability of graduates
To become a ‘research informed’ institution by growing the volume and quality
of research and enterprise
To achieve annual budget surpluses
To provide greater budgetary flexibility in responding to changes in economic
circumstances
To implement an Environmental Policy.
Court: 29 June 2009 page 15
Appendix 2 to minutes of Court meeting held on 29 June 2009
AUDIT COMMITTEE
Membership:
No fewer than 3 and not more than 5 Members comprising:
4 Members of Court who are not members of Finance Committee
1 independent member with recent and relevant experience in finance, accounting or auditing.
Period of Office:
The members of the Committee shall serve for a period of three years, and are eligible for re
election. Membership shall cease on expiry of the member’s term of office on the University Court.
Meetings:
The Committee will meet at least three times per year.
Quorum:
At least two members.
Terms of Reference:
1. To advise Court on the appointment of the external auditors, the audit fee, the provision of any
non-audit services by the external auditors and any questions of resignation or dismissal of the
external auditors.
2. To discuss if necessary with the external auditors, before the audit begins, the nature and scope
of the audit.
3. To discuss with the external auditors problems and reservations arising from the interim and
final audits, including a review of the management letter incorporating management responses,
and any other matters the external auditors may wish to discuss (in the absence of management
where necessary).
4. To consider and advise the Court on the appointment and terms of engagement of the internal
audit service, the audit fee, the provision of any non-audit services by the internal auditors and
any questions of resignation or dismissal of the internal auditors.
5. To review the internal auditors’ audit risk assessment and strategy and programme, to consider
major findings of internal audit investigations and managements’ response; and promote co-
ordination between the internal and external auditors. The Committee will make
recommendations to the Court to ensure that the resources made available for internal audit are
sufficient to meet the University’s needs.
Court: 29 June 2009 page 16
6. To keep under review the effectiveness of risk management, control and governance
arrangements, and in particular to review the external auditors’ management letter, the internal
auditors, annual report, and management responses.
7. To monitor the implementation of agreed audit-based recommendations from whatever source.
8. To ensure that all significant losses have been properly investigated and that the internal and
external auditors, and where appropriate the HEFCE Accounting Officer, have been informed.
9. To oversee the University’s policy on fraud and irregularity, including being notified of any
action taken under that policy.
10. To satisfy itself that satisfactory arrangements are in place to promote economy, efficiency and
effectiveness.
11. To receive any relevant reports from the National Audit Office, the HEFCE and other
organisations.
12. To monitor annually the performance and effectiveness of external and internal auditors
including matters affecting their objectivity and to make recommendations to the Court
concerning their re-appointment, where appropriate.
13. To agree the University’s accounting policies
14. To consider elements of the annual financial statements in the presence of the external auditors,
including the auditor’s formal opinion, the statement of members’ responsibilities and the
statement of internal control in accordance with HEFCE’S Accounts Directions.
15. To submit an annual report to the Court and designated officer, summarising the activity for the
year. It will give the committee’s opinion on the adequacy and effectiveness of the University’s
arrangements for the following; risk register, control and governance (including the accuracy of
the statement of internal control); economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The audit committee
annual report should normally be submitted to the Court before the members’ responsibility
statement in the annual financial statements is signed.
16. To review the effectiveness of the Committee from time to time.
All references to the University mean the University of Greenwich and any subsidiary Companies it
has formed.
Approved by Court : 29 June 2009
H:/LC/Audit Committee/Terms of Reference
Court: 29 June 2009 page 17
Appendix 3 to the minutes of the Court meeting held on 29 June 2009
Court and Committee Timetable 2009-2010
COMMITTEE TIME DAY DATE
Audit 5.00 pm Monday 5 October 2009
Court 5.30 pm Monday 19 October 2009
Finance 5.30 pm Monday 9 November 2009
Audit 5.00 pm Monday 16 November 2009
Court 5.30 pm Monday 30 November 2009
Court 5.30 pm Monday 1 February 2010
Finance 5.30 pm Monday 8 February 2010
Audit 5.00 pm Monday 1 March 2010
Finance 5.30 pm Monday 19 April 2010
Court 5.30 pm Monday 26 April 2010
Audit 5.00 pm Monday 24 May 2010
Finance 5.30 pm Monday 14 June 2010
Court 5.30 pm Monday 28 June 2010
Pro-Chancellor’s Advisory Group, Nominations Committee and Remuneration Committee meetings to be arranged as and when
necessary.
Court: 29 June 2009 page 18
Appendix 4 to minutes of the Court meeting held on 29 June 2009
Professorial and Readers Appointments 2008-2009
Appointments effective 1 September 2009 unless otherwise stated
READERS
Alessandro BENATI Reader in Second Language Acquisition
School of Humanities and Social Sciences
Mary FARRELL Reader in European and International Politics
School of Humanities and Social Sciences
Gabriella GIBSON Reader in Medical Entomology
NRI
Ana MARR Reader in International Development Economics
Business School
Teresa STOPPANI Reader in Architecture
School of Architecture and Construction
David SUNDERLAND Reader in Business History
Business School
VISITING PROFESSORS
Mohammad DASTBAZ Nominated by CMS (effective 1.9.08)
Ruth DUNCAN Nominated by School of Science (effective 1.4.09)
Roger KNIGHT Nominated by Greenwich Maritime Institute (effective 1.4.09)
VISITING FELLOWS
Chris BEST Nominated by School of Engineering (effective 1.4.09)
John DUNNE Nominated by School of Humanities and Social Sciences (effective 1.4.09)
Robin HOBSON Nominated by School of Science (effective 1.4.09)
John MCNEIL Nominated by School of Science (effective 1.4.09)
Susie PAGE Nominated by School of Health and Social Care (effective 1.4.09)
READER EMERITUS
Bill BAILEY Nominated by School of Education and Training (effective 1.4.09)
Court: 29 June 2009 page 19
VISITING PROFESSORS: RENEWALS for three years from 1 September 2009
Richard HALLAM Nominated by School of Health and Social Care
Ian SHARP Nominated by School of Science
VISITING FELLOW: RENEWAL for three years from 1 September 2009
Erik POUTSMA Nominated by the Business School
Court: 29 June 2009 page 20
