minutes June University of Greenwich by liaoqinmei


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)


          Mr J E Brathwaite
          Mr S Howlett


          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

Court: 29 June 2009                                                                       page 1

          There were no declarations of conflict of interests.


          The minutes of the meeting held on 16 March 2009 were taken as read and signed as a true


          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

          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

          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.


          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

          The Court noted the objections raised by Professor Patrick Ainley to proceeding with the
          project arising from his concerns about financial risk.


          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

          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.


          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

          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.


          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

          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.


          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

          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.


          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.

      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.


          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.


          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.


          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.


          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

          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.


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


          The Court ratified the timetable of Court and Committee dates for 2009-2010 (see appendix
          3 to the minutes).


          The Court received:

          i           a report on Risks, Reserves & Liquidity

          ii          Management Accounts for the University of Greenwich for the period to 30 April


          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

          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


          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)


          (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.

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


                         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

                         To implement an Environmental Policy.

Court: 29 June 2009                                                                               page 15
                                    Appendix 2 to minutes of Court meeting held on 29 June 2009



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.


The Committee will meet at least three times per year.


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

11. To receive any relevant reports from the National Audit Office, the HEFCE and other

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

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


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

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


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)


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)


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

To top