councilpapers doc Cherry Extract

Document Sample
councilpapers doc Cherry Extract Powered By Docstoc

                                         Meeting held on Monday 17 November 2008

Attendance list
Name of Member

                                                       Meeting 1

                                                                    Meeting 2

                                                                                Meeting 3

                                                                                                  Meeting 4

                                                                                                                Meeting 5




                       Mr A Bagri                     A            
                       Mr R Bright                    A            
Independent Members

                       Mr S Bundred                   A            
                       Mr K Everett                   A            A
                       Ms C Freeman                               A
                       Mr A Halper                    *           A
                       Ms A Minogue                               
                       Mr K Murphy                                
                       Ms C Regan                     *           
                       Mr M H Robson                              
                       Prof Dr H Schreuder            A            A
                       Sir J Stuttard (Chair)                     
                       Mr R Woodward                              A
Staff & Students

                       Professor D Bolton                         
                       Mr N Raj Cumlajee                          A
                       Professor M Gillies (VC)                   
                       Mr A Lack                                  
                       Professor P Kunzlik                        
                       Professor J Weinberg                       
With the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and International), Professor Dinos Arcoumanis; the
Chief Operating Officer, Ms Henrietta Royle; the Finance Director, Pat O‟Donnell; the Acting
Dean of the School of Community and Health Sciences, Ms Jennifer Edie (for item 9 only); the
COO of the School of Community and Health Sciences, Ms Cathy O‟Sullivan (for item 9 only);
the University Secretary, Mr Frank Toop; and the Director of the Governance and Risk Team,
Miss Xan Kite.
                       indicates attendance        * Conflict of Interest                  A Apologies given
     Part One – Preliminary Items

The meeting began with a minute‟s silence as a mark of respect following the death of past
Deputy Pro-Chancellor of the University, Mr Maurice Stonefrost. Steve Bundred recorded some
key highlights of Maurice‟s achievements.

1.                      Items for Starring
                        Council agreed the other starred items of business.
2.   Minutes
     Several issues were raised in respect of the minutes.

     Item 4 should read “Julius Weinberg offered to leave during the discussion of item 6 (i).

     Item 9 (viii) “the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies” should replace “the Oxford Centre of
     Mission Studies”

     Item 6 (ii) The accuracy of the minutes was questioned as to whether they should reflect
     the continuing involvement of Cherry Freeman and the Chair of Council in the process
     (including all discussions) relating to the recruitment of the CFO. After discussion it was
     agreed that the Vice-Chancellor should proceed with the appointment of the CFO as a
     level 2 role.

     The minutes of the meeting held on 29 September 2008 were approved, subject to the
     first two changes being made in respect of Items 4 and 9.

3.   Matters Arising
     There were no matters arising that were not covered elsewhere on the agenda.

4.   Declaration of any conflicts of interest
     None declared.

5.   Items Specially Brought Forward by the Chair

6.   Audit and Risk Committee

     (i)     Council considered a report of items considered at the meeting of Audit and Risk
             Committee held on 4 November 2008. The Finance team had been congratulated
             by the External Auditors and the Audit and Risk Committee for the standard of
             their processes for producing the annual accounts.

     (ii)    Council received the Annual Report of Audit and Risk Committee noting that the
             Committee had given assurance of the adequacy and effectiveness of the
             University arrangements for risk management, control, governance and value for
             money. It was noted that an opinion of partially effective had been given on data
             quality. The management reported that the University had a well-documented and
             communicated process concerning fraud.

     (iii)   Council approved the signing of the letter of representation by the Chair of

     (iv)    Council approved the Financial Statements 2007/08.

     (v)     Council approved the appointment of KPMG as External Auditor for 2007/08.

     (vi)    Council reviewed the Internal Audit report and further management information on
             investments and treasury management. The Chair of Audit & Risk Committee felt
             that management had been responsive and pro-active. The University had
             commissioned Mercers to review its investment strategy. The strategy needed to
             be linked to the University‟s corporate strategy. It was recognised that the risk

             appetite was currently zero or very close to zero. Corporate Governance and
             Nominations Committee would review the delegations ordinance and decide who
             should appoint the investment panel, investment managers and investment
             advisers. They would also decide which Committee should receive reports on
             investment performance. Audit & Risk would review the investment strategy and
             the risk appetite before they came to Council.

7.    Corporate Governance and Nominations Committee

      Council considered a report of the items considered at the meeting of Corporate
      Governance and Nominations Committee held on 20 October 2008.

      (i)    Council approved the revised Ordinances as presented in Paper H. Council noted
             that the delegations from Council were now explicitly made to the Vice-Chancellor,
             and it was agreed that this should include investments. Council agreed to correct
             an error in Appendix 10, paragraph 7III on the annual grant from the University to
             the Students‟ Union to replace the reference to the „University Secretary‟ with „Chief
             Operating Officer‟. The statements of Council responsibilities laid out in the Charter
             would be considered when reviewing the delegations. It was noted that Ordinance
             522 concerning academic staff (now Ordinance E and Appendix 12) was
             unchanged apart from the replacement of referenc es to the Academic Registrar
             with Director of Human Resources and that the appendices had the status of an
             Ordinance and would require Council approval for change.

      (ii)   Honorary degrees item closed

8.    Senate

      Council received a report of items considered at the meeting of Senate held on 12
      October 2008. Key issues highlighted included the visit of the QAA to the University from
      8th to 12th December 2008 as part of the Institutional Audit; the Senate consideration of
      the INTO proposition (see Minute 12 below); and the forthcoming review of the role of
      Senate which was intended to address the lines of responsibility in the University for
      academic quality and assurance matters. Council noted that benchmark information on
      practice across the sector should be considered in the review of the role of Senate.

9.    Presentation on the School of Community and Health Sciences

      Council received a presentation on the current position and possible strategies for the
      School of Community and Health Sciences. The Acting Dean noted that resolution of the
      infrastructure issues was key – the School was currently housed on eight separate sites.

10.   Report of the Vice-Chancellor

      The Vice-Chancellor presented his report to Council.

      The Vice-Chancellor reported that the post of Chief Financial Officer had been advertised
      with a closing date of 17 November 2008 and applications had been received. However,
      he had halted the work of the headhunters on this post until such time as the role
      statement and selection panel were agreed. He highlighted the risks associated with a
      change from his advertised version of the statement. Council agreed that The Chair of
      Council, Chair of Corporate Governance and Nominations Committee, Chair of Audit and
      Risk Committee and Vice-Chancellor would meet to resolve this matter as soon as

11.    Financial Forecast and Corporate Planning Statement

       Council approved the Financial Forecasts for 2008/09 -2011/12 and the Corporate
       Planning Statement 2007/08, both to be submitted to Hefce. It was noted that the world
       economy had changed radically since the financial forecasts had been prepared and that
       the University was entering into a new planning phase which would be conducted within
       the framework of the new University strategy.

12.    INTO

       Council noted that the University was entering into a phase of due diligence on a
       possible partnership with INTO University Partnerships. There was concern at their ability
       to borrow in the current economic climate and also that their accounts for 2007 were

13.    Financial Update

       Council considered a financial update on 2008/09. The current best estimate was a
       surplus of £27.4m – a deficit of £2.3m if the sale of the Halls of Residence were
       excluded. This was on budget despite the pay award being 1% higher and School
       contribution rates being £3m lower than planned. It was noted that there was still fee risk
       around the modular intakes in Cass and Health. The University was currently considering
       mechanisms to improve its marketing and conversion rate for student applicants and
       where savings could be made, especially in central services.

14.    Review of Council Effectiveness

       Council agreed to consider this item in depth at a future meeting to be arranged. Council
       agreed that it wished to continue to meet between 5pm and 8pm on about 6 occasions
       per year plus one away day.

The following items were not starred for discussion and were taken as read.

15.    Progress Report on the Law Project

16.    News from the Higher Education Sector

17.    Date of next meeting

       9 February 2008 at 17.00hrs at Saddler‟s Hall.

18.    Legal Advice

       The University Secretary reported that the Chair of Corporate Governance and
       Nominations Committee was seeking legal advice on HR matters and that after
       consulting the Chair of Council he had agreed that this should be done.

                                                                             Item 6, Paper B
                                                                          Council 09.02.2009



This paper provides a report of items considered at the meeting of Senate held on 21st
November 2008.

Recommended Action:

Council is asked:
    (i) to receive the report;

    (ii) to consider the recommendation from Senate relating to the Review of Senate

Contextual Information

Senate has delegated authority from the Council for the enhancement of academic quality and
assurance of academic standards.

Publication: Open

                                                                                 Item 6, Paper B
                                                                                Council 09.02.09

The purpose of this paper is to provide a report to Council of the items considered at the meeting
of Senate held on 21st November 2008.

Item for Council’s Consideration

1. Review of Senate

   Senate recommend to Council that both Council and Senate work together on furthering the
   determination of the role of Senate.

    This paper provided three possible models for the execution of Senate business, for
    comment as follows;

    Model One – “Senate Provides Management Advice to the VC”. In this model the purpose
    of Senate is to provide advice to the Vice-Chancellor on the management of the University,
    as it affects academic quality and assurance.
    Model Two – “Senate Provides Governance Assurance to Council”. In this model the
    purpose of Senate is to provide advice to Council on the governance of the University. This
    could be seen as an academic audit function. Elements of management currently in
    Senate‟s terms of reference would be removed,
    Model Three – “Retain the Status Quo”. In this model the purpose of Senate covers both
    the setting and the monitoring of its implementation, management decision-making on day-
    to-day issues of regulation and individual cases as well as audit of their effectiveness.

    Proposal: members of both Senate and Corporate Governance & Nominations
    Committee to form a joint working group to review the role of Senate.

Other Items actioned


   Senate after receiving a presentation from the President of UCU unanimously endorsed the
   proposals in the paper relating to the management and oversight of academic quality and

3. Report from Validation and Institutional Partnerships Committee

   Senate approved the revised University Policy on Validation.

4. Appointment of Honorary Visiting Professors

   Senate approved all recommendations.

Other items considered

5.     Report of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education).

6.     Report from Research Committee

7.     Report from Executive Committee.

8.     Reports from the Board of Studies in the School of Engineering and Mathematical
       Science and the School of Community and Health Sciences.

9.     Report from the Learning Development Centre.

Malcolm Gillies
Vice-Chancellor and Chair of Senate
January 2009

                                                                           Item 8, Paper E
                                                                            Council 9.2.09

Vice-Chancellor’s Report


This paper provides the report of the Vice-Chancellor.

No action required.

Recommended Action:

Council is asked to consider and note the report.

Contextual Information

The Vice-Chancellor makes a report to each Council meeting on actions taken under delegated
authority or on issues that he wishes to bring to Council‟s attention.

Publication: Open

                                                                                  Item 8, Paper E
                                                                                   Council 9.2.09

Vice-Chancellor’s Report

1. QAA Institutional Audit outcome

I wrote to members of Council on 18 December with news of a successful Quality Assurance
Agency appraisal of the University. The University expects a draft of the final QAA report on 13
February, and will then have one month to reply. The preliminary letter received before
Christmas confirmed confidence in the soundness of the University‟s current and likely future
management of the academic standards of its awards, and the quality of the learning
opportunities available to students. It also commended the University for its management of the
quality assurance process. The report is likely to highlight:

       “the innovative use of educational balance sheets to assist the University‟s educational
        planning and as an aid to communication with members of the University Council”

       “the contribution made by the school-based educational development associates to
        institution-wide developments in support of good academic practice”

       “the quality management processes for validated provision, with particular reference to
        the use of external advisors and the annual meetings with students”

       “the recent emphasis on constructive dialogue with students, as exemplified in the
        strengthening of student representation on the Student Affairs Committee.”

The report will contain one recommendation for action that the audit team considers it advisable
for the University to address:

       “The University should ensure that feedback to students on their assessed work is
        consistently timely and effective in supporting learning”.

Recommendations for action that the audit team considers it desirable for the University to
address are as follows:
       “the University should systematically disseminate the lessons and good practice
        identified through its quality management processes”

       “the University should consistently analyse and use management information to inform
        decision-making and action-planning in its institutional-level academic deliberative

       “the University should continue to move towards convergence of its collaborative
        provision processes for validation and partnership”

      “the University should satisfy itself that all published information, including that which is
       on-line, is accurate, accessible and current”.
The one, crucial recommendation is similar to that received in 2004, and highlights the
continuing need for the university to prioritize student learning, and within that effective feedback
(both formal and informal) to our students. The Deputy Vice-

Chancellor (Education) is already leading the University‟s response to these issues, as they
feature similarly in the results of recent years of the National Student Survey.

2. League Tables and Ranked Surveys

Several members of Council has expressed a desire to understand better the league tables and
ranked surveys that appear every few weeks in higher education. In particular they observe that
City University can occur in any decile of these surveys (currently in the top decile in
“employability” while in the bottom decile of a recent survey of student experience). We have
arranged for Ben Sowter, Head of Research at QS (and associated with The Times‟s rankings),
to be available to make a presentation and engage in discussion with Council members at the
Away Day on 24/25 April, at Greenwich.

3. Research Assessment Exercise 2008

The Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) is an audit exercise undertaken every 5 years
(previous RAEs took place in 1986, 1989, 1992, 1996 and 2001) on behalf of the four UK higher
education councils to evaluate the quality of research undertaken by British higher education
institutions. The RAE submissions from each subject area (unit of assessment) are given a rank
by a specialist peer review panel which informs the allocation of quality weighted research
funding (QR) to the various institutions. In addition to the QR funding, institutions are also
supported by the Research Councils through a peer review competitive process of research
proposals. The overall process is known as the dual support system. Both parts of the dual
funding scheme are now supported by the Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills
(DIUS). Overall, the UK has done extremely well since undertaking these exercises. Although it
has 1% of the world‟s population, it now carries out 4.5% of the world‟s research and produces
8.7% of the world‟s publications. It is second only to US in reputation and influence.

In the last RAE, of 2008, City University London submitted some 62% of academic and research
staff to 16 units of assessment, representing academic disciplines within City‟s seven schools.
The 2008 RAE used a four-point quality scale (4*, 3*, 2*, 1*) and returned a quality profile, rather
than a single aggregate quality score as in 2001, for each unit of assessment. A rating of 4*
represented quality that is world-leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour, 3*
represented internationally excellent quality, 2* represented quality recognised internationally
and 1* quality was only recognised nationally. Quality that falls below the 1* standard has been
considered as unclassified. A detailed breakdown for the 16 units of assessment is attached as
Appendix 1.

By any standards City University London has done extremely well, moving to a ranking of 45,
which is 14 places up in the Times Higher Education analysis since the 2001 RAE when it was
ranked 59th, out of the 159 universities and colleges. Although nearly all of the submissions

have improved their relative position, particular praise goes to Nursing and Midwifery, Music,
Food Policy, Business and Management, Economics and Computer Science which achieved the
highest average rankings. It should be noted that, in addition to the quality profile announced by
the 2008 RAE, the volume of the submitted research, which takes into account the number of
full-time-equivalent (FTE) staff submitted, also plays an important role in the level of QR funding
to be allocated to universities in 2009/10 and beyond. In particular, the Higher Education
Funding for England (HEFCE) grant will be determined as the product of Quality x Volume x
Subject Cost Weighting (where subject cost weightings will remain the same).

The allocation of the £1,572M QR funds will be announced to institutions on 4 March and to the
media the following day. It has already been announced by HEFCE that only activities classified
as international (4*/3*/2*) will be included in the funding allocation, with corresponding
weightings of 7:3:1. In addition, the decision was taken that the present share of national funding
allocated to research in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) will be
safeguarded in recognition of the high-level skills provided by the STEM subjects which underpin
finance, business, government and the economy as a whole. The implication of this decision is
that funding for Arts, Social Sciences, Business and Management may be slightly reduced;
however, the all important unit of resource which will determine the distribution of funds to the
various institutions has not been determined yet and any modelling by institutions at this stage
may prove to be inaccurate. On the other hand, additional funding will be provided to support
knowledge transfer activities through the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) as well as
university research activities engaged with business and charities.

The 2008 RAE was the last exercise of its kind since it will replaced by the Research Excellence
Framework (REF). The REF, which will be fully implemented in 2013, represents a unified
framework for assessing and funding research using both expert peer review of outputs as well
as a system of metrics in a proportion that will be determined for each subject. The aim of the
REF will be to reward research that is both excellent and valued by users, but also to reduce
operational costs through the use of metrics such as citations, research income and number of
PhD students.

4. The Arts Project

All three phases of the contract works are now complete and Verry Construction have vacated
the site. Music and Journalism departments are in occupation and teaching has commenced.
The School of Arts administration team will move from the Innovation Centre into their areas at
the beginning of March, following post contract fit-out works which are being funded by the

A final account settlement was reached with Verry Construction prior to completion and the total
out-turn project cost is forecast at £12.881M (this is some £300K above Council‟s approved
£12.571M in June 2008). Specialist equipment and furniture costs are additional to this, as
planned, and have been kept within the agreed budget of £1.982M. This is being funded as a
loan to the School from University reserves.

Some acoustic installations which are performing below expectations have been investigated
and remedied by the contractor and the design team in association with the users. The total
forecast cost includes an allowance to improve insulation between the music practice rooms
which is still not satisfactory. We are currently investigating this issue.

Against an original target of £2.9M (then extended by £1.5M to £4.4M) the University has so far
raised £3.7M for the Building plus a further £0.4m for equipment and related activity.

The Project Executive, chaired by David Turner, will review the project so that learning points
can be documented and implemented for future projects.

5. Law/Health building options

As Council is aware, the University has been looking at a range of options for the Law School to
meet both its need to find new accommodation when its lease on Gloucester Building runs out in
2013 and that fits the ambitions and opportunities of the School in the future. In particular we
need to enhance the Law Library to meet regulatory requirements. From Ms Edie‟s presentation
to the November Council it is evident that the School of Community and Health Sciences is
occupying unsatisfactory estate in West Smithfield and Whitechapel, neither of which are owned
by the University.

The options the University is currently comparing are:

1. Close the Law Department (not envisaged, but the costs will be provided for comparison

2. Do nothing for Law (Council have seen these rather unattractive numbers, but they will be
   reprovided for comparison purposes)

3. Doing the minimum (this would involve moving the Law Department into minimally
   refurbished accommodation in Goswell Place and leaving the library in the main campus)

4. Move the Law Department into a leased building in Myddleton Street (this would provide all
   the accommodation the School needed, both for expansion and the new library, but would
   have refurbishment costs)

5. Build a new building on the Sebastian Street site (where the Health Centre, a University car
   park and Goswell Place currently are) and house the Law Department, health activity
   currently in (probably) West Smithfield, plus new teaching space. Three versions of this
   scenario will be provided: 1) no donation, fully funded by the University, 2) half funded, c
   £15M raised in donations from health supporting institutions and individuals, and 3) fully
   funded, c £30M raised in donations from institutions and individuals.

Work is currently underway to assess the costs related to each option and the University is
planning to bring a paper, with options, to Council in April.

6. Resource Allocation Model

One of the early assignments for the Chief Operating Officer has been to lead the development
of a new Resource Allocation Model (RAM). The review of the Resource Allocation Model is
making steady progress. The review team is working with Schools to develop and agree a
catalogue of services provided by Central Services. Service-level definitions are being refreshed
and agreed on an “as is” basis. An expanded list of cost drivers has been agreed, the project
team is now in the process of mapping the relevant cost driver against the catalogue of services.
An impact analysis will be worked through in order to understand the effect the revised
model/methodology will have on the school financial positions.

The outputs from this review, including a) catalogue of services, b) service-level definitions, c)
mapping of cost drivers to services and d) impact analysis, will be shared and reviewed with key
stakeholders in early-mid February, before progressing to consideration by the Executive

7. Staff pay negotiations

The pay increase from October 2008 concluded the existing staff pay award. All higher
education unions and UCEA, the higher education employers‟ body, are part of new national
joint negotiating body, with the sole exception of the University and College Union (UCU, which has currently chosen not to join. The UCU has put in a pay claim to
UCEA, for either 8% or 5% plus RPI (in June 2009), whichever is the higher, for this year‟s pay

Employers and the four other unions continue to work together via the agreed negotiating
machinery and progress the preparations for negotiations with an on-going open invitation for
the UCU to join. UCEA has asked HEIs to opt in or out of collective bargaining arrangements for
the pay award. City University has opted in for 2009 and will consider the position in 2010. This
also involves signing up to a voluntary code setting out our response to industrial action, should
this occur.

Currently, there are talks ongoing at the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS).
The UCU has indicated that it will ballot if these talks fail; it is understood that this ballot has
been postponed until Friday 6 February. The UCU has further indicated that it is likely to target
external examiners, IS and library staff for taking industrial action this year. The situation,
however, still remains fluid and Council will be kept informed of developments.

8. University of London membership

Council discussed the possibility of City University London joining the new University of London
federation ( at its Away Day in March 2008. Sir Graeme Davies, that University‟s
Vice-Chancellor, attended that Away Day, to explain the nature of the new federation. At the
September 2008 meeting of Council, I reported that Sir Graeme “has recently written about
mechanisms for admission of new members to that University, following its changed constitution
from 1 August 2008. . . . the first opportunity for looking at new entrants to the University would
be around April 2009. This would allow the University time for its new governance arrangements
to settle down.”

During January I have been in conversation with both Sir Graeme Davies, and the University of
London Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor Geoffrey Crossick, the Warden of Goldsmiths,
University of London. They have indicated that this time-line has recently been confirmed, and
they would hope to start having discussions with City University London from April onwards. I
intend, therefore, that membership of the University of London be a major item on the agenda of
the April Away Day. The principal requirements of a joining member, as specified by the
University of London‟s Council on 7 July 2008, are:

     (a) operate in a complementary way within the existing Collegiate structure;
     (b) demonstrate a track record of excellence in Teaching and Research;
     (c) meet the requirements of the equivalent of Ordinance 21 and its related Regulations
         [conditions for gaining membership of the University of London];
     (d) embrace the commitments laid out in the University‟s Mission Statement.

It is also expected that “any institution seeking membership would need to satisfy the collegiate
Council that it could enhance the reputation of the University and add value to the collective
interests of its constituent Colleges.”

Council members should be aware that the current sentiment of staff and students is, on
balance, for joining the University of London.

9. Senior appointments

In December Ms Maire Lanigan joined the University as Director of Information Services and
Libraries. During 2000-8 she held a similar position at St Mary‟s University College, London.

In February Mr Alex Fraser takes up the position of COO of the Cass Business School. He was
previously Head of Operations at J Henry Schroder and Head of Logistics at HM Customs and

In February also Mr Nick Badman takes us the Chair in the new Centre for Entrepreneurship
(sponsored by Peter Cullum). He was formerly Managing Director of 3i Group.

In April Mr Paul Long becomes the COO of the City Law School.

The search for a Chief Financial Officer, initiated in November, drew a good field, culminating in
final interviews of four candidates on 30 January. The selection committee consisted of Mr
Kieran Murphy, Mr Rob Woodward, Professor Malcolm Gillies (Chair) and Ms Henrietta Royle.
A recommendation for the position of Chief Financial Officer will be tabled at this meeting of
Council. It is hoped that the new CFO will commence in May.

10. Dean of Law

I announce that Professor Peter Kunzlik will step down as Dean of the City Law School, and Pro-
Vice-Chancellor, on the completion of his five-year term early in 2010. I pay tribute now to
Professor Kunzlik‟s continuing leadership of the Law School, which we shall celebrate somewhat
closer to the time that he steps down. The University shall shortly commence a search.

11. Advisory Board

I report that the University‟s Advisory Board met on 3 November. That Board‟s purpose is now
to provide “advice to, and support, the Vice-Chancellor and his/her executive team to ensure the
good governance and management of the University”. The main item on its agenda was the
global economic upheaval, particularly in relation to the University‟s options in handling such
issues as pension under-funding, inflation and currency insecurities, industry and professional
training needs, student recruitment, government funding cuts and emerging student financial

12. Annual General Meeting of the Court (Annual Stakeholders’ Meeting)

The AGM of the Court was held on 8 December at the Cass Business School. It was chaired by
the Chancellor, the Lord Mayor, Alderman Ian Luder, who congratulated the University on its fine
achievements during 2008. I then provided a report on the year to Court (attached, as Appendix
2) before Ms Mattie Matauka Kayukwa, a fourth-year international politics student, talked about
her experiences as a student at City University London. Although it was a highly successful
meeting, the attendance of only fifty members of Court raised important questions as to whether
the time and, perhaps, the nature of the event is optimizing the relationship with the University‟s

13. City Leaders’ Lecture

Council member, Carolyn Regan is presenting a lecture in this University series at the City Law
School, Atkin Building, Gray‟s Inn at 6.30pm on Thursday 12 February. Her topic is
“Developments in the delivery of legal services”. To sign up for attendance contact:

Malcolm Gillies
1 February 2009

Appendix A: Research Assessment Exercise 2008 – City University London results

                                                Overall quality profile
                                     (percentage of research activity at each quality
Unit of Assessment         A staff
(UoA)                   submitted      4*       3*       2*       1*   unclassified
 7    Health Services        5.75       0        5       45       45              5
 11 Nursing and             48.60      30       40       15        5              10
 12 Allied Health
      and Studies
 12       A -               20.60      10       30       20       30              10
      Language and
 12       B -               21.75      10       20       45       15              10
      Optometry and
      Visual Science
 21 Applied                  8.20       5       15       65       15               0
 23 Computer                23.30      15       40       35       10               0
      Science and
 25 General                 34.95      10       35       45       10               0
      and Mineral &
 34 Economics and           14.20      10       45       45        0               0
 36 Business and            94.50      15       40       35       10               0
 37 Library and             11.30      15       50       30        5               0
 38 Law                     14.05       5       30       35       30               0
 40 Social Work              3.00      20       45       35        0               0
      and Social
      Policy &
 41 Sociology               27.20      15       30       30       20               5
 44 Psychology              10.80       5       45       40       10               0
 63 Art and Design           4.60       5       40       50        5               0
 67 Music                   11.00      30       35       30        5               0

                                                                                     Appendix 2
                                                              Annual General Meeting of the Court
                                                                              8 December 2008

Chancellor, Members of Court, colleagues and friends:

Welcome to this Forty-Second Annual General Meeting of the University Court!

I begin with the congratulations and the best wishes of us all to you, Chancellor, as you embark
upon a jam-packed year of appointments as Lord Mayor of The City of London. We are proud of
our University's strong links, since its inception in 1966, with The City of London. This is the link
that gives us our name and has in so many ways given us our institutional focus and purpose.
And this link is represented symbolically by the assumption each year of the University's
Chancellorship by the incoming Lord Mayor.

It is also customary for the University to award its honorary doctorate to each incoming
Chancellor. I look forward to making that award to you, Alderman Luder, at our graduation
ceremony in the Guildhall this Friday, after which you shall then preside over the awards

Members of Court: 2008 is not just another year in the upward progress together of The City
and its University, for in this year the year has been plunged into financial and moral crisis. The
City has stood for all that is best and brightest for the United Kingdom as a world leader in
financial services. The Lord Mayor is the traditional advocate for that service industry. You,
Chancellor, have made financial literacy one of the themes for your mayoral year, and we, as a
University, hope that that increased emphasis upon literacy will also include a renewed
emphasis upon the moral use of a heightened financial knowledge. The general public, as it
suffers through a downturn of still unknown dimensions, now looks to all City leaders to re-
establish a new sense of confidence in British financial services. It looks to us to show that,
despite some high-profile lapses into greed and selfishness, the City's professionalism remains
undimmed along with its generosity, its philanthropy, and its educational mission, and its selfless
service to mankind.

These values were at the heart of City University at its foundation in 1966, and remain so today.
Our motto is "to serve mankind" and our strapline is "the University for business and the
professions". At a time of financial malaise and hardship for many, we renew our pledge to high-
quality professional education and research, underpinned by a solid foundation in ethics and fair
professional practice. At your own graduation this Friday, Chancellor, you will find yourself
reading the words of our University's charge to its graduates. It includes the lines:

       Your word must be your bond. Your quality of service must be genuine and heart-felt.
       Your reputation ultimately determines our reputation as an educational institution and
       trainer of the next generation of professional leaders.

The stakeholders of City University London are legion. As well as the obvious stake of the City
of London, and its Corporation, I also wish to acknowledge the keen support we receive each
year from over fifty livery companies, from professional and accreditation bodies, and from the
leading businesses of London. We acknowledge that most parts of our University actually lie
within the London Borough of Islington, with which we continue to enjoy the warmest of relations

and a deepening sense of common purpose. And who could have a more important stake in our
enterprise than our own students and ex-students? I today pay homage to the way that the
Alumni Association has brought about its own reformation and renewal, and broadened its
activities both into the online world and across the globe of the real world. The University now
holds annual alumni events in New York, London, Athens and Hong Kong, not to mention many
more events of Cass Business School alumni, often in association with the international tours of
the Lord Mayor.

To all of you, who are here today, representing one or other stake in the University's enterprise, I
express appreciation for your support, advice and suggestions for improvement. As a
University, we aim still to serve those interests that brought us so proudly together in 1966 – and
have since grown nearly tenfold – as well as our ventures in areas such as law, health,
journalism and informatics, which were not envisaged four decades ago.

Many of you attended my annual Vice-Chancellor's Address on 2 October, which was on the
topic "Educating for Industry?" You will have noticed at that address that I discussed the
stresses and strains of a University in which the interests of four different groups of funders now
affect so much of University behaviour, namely, government, business, benefactors and our own
students. A strange group of bed-fellows, you might observe, but their interests both define, and
also circumscribe, so much of the University's activity today. To quote from that talk:

       The reality is that our universities, once public by nature and by funding, have become
       complex, mixed economies. They have become "post-public" institutions, and with that
       confusing mixture has come confusion, sometimes internal collision, of role and purpose.
       Within the one university now different economies play themselves out: some schools
       can be opportunistic almost to a Wild West degree, while others are reminiscent of the
       five-year planned economies of old-style communism. The university's role changes to
       reflect the obligations incurred to each funding partner. It must juggle those obligations
       while remaining true to the two defining axioms of any credible university – the
       education/research nexus and the neutral space [for debate and intellectual

The role of a vice-chancellor, then, becomes one of a harmonizer: trying to bring into alignment
the different expectations of government, business, benefactors and our students, while
remaining true to our long-term academic mission. The growth of student fees has dramatically
changed the emphasis in that mission in recent years. During 2008/9 City University London
expects that just over half of its entire income (namely, around £85 million on a turnover of
approaching £170 million) will come from student tuition fees. This is an incredible achievement,
but also manifest evidence of our need to view the student as consumer, and as the majority
"financial" stakeholder in our enterprise. What a far cry this is now from those days when
university education was free, and most students gained some form of living support.

I wish to report that the year 2007/8 was a good one for City University London. As you can see
from our financial accounts, we did return a surplus of over £5 million, which is very pleasing.
But 2007/8 was also a year of fundamental recommitment by the University to the quality of
student learning, a commitment which is sealed in our University Strategy to 2012. You will hear
from one of our students Mattie Matauka Kayukwa in a few minutes about her student
experience at the University. Her appearance at this meeting of Court reminds us all that the
University is now a partnership with our students. We are a learning community, all in search of
a better world, but some – our staff – are privileged to be paid for their services, while others –
our students – have the more dubious privilege of paying for those services. We, as students
and staff, ask you, our Court of stakeholders, now for support and guidance, as we lead from a
year of stability and growth into very uncertain economic times.

Three documents that have been placed before you, today: Our City University London
Strategy, 2008-2012, the new City magazine, and a summary of our 2007/8 accounts. These
documents give you a detailed picture of our stories of the last year, and of the values that we
seek to proclaim to the world. Let me now just touch upon several aspects of them, and then
entertain your questions.

In terms of real estate, we are inching towards completing the Arts School complex, within the
College Building. The Students' Union was thoroughly reconstructed over the summer, as was
one floor of the Library, now given over to being a learning commons for students. Yet we still
have important accommodation needs to be settled in Law and in the School of Community and
Health Sciences.

With regard to research, 2008 began magnificently with the award of a knighthood to Roger
Jowell, the Director of our Centre for Comparative Social Surveys, and it continues with many
and great achievements across all Schools, some of them described in City magazine. We now
await, anxiously, the results of the Research Assessment Exercise, the first to be held since
2001, and due to be announced on Wednesday of next week. The results of that Exercise will
determine the level of research funding support for some years to come. Meanwhile, however,
the University has instituted its own review of the institutional value of research and knowledge
transfer. This may seem a strange thing to do, but it did strike me, on coming to the University
last year, that we were rather traditional in what we recognized and reward as "research".
Research (and its trusty companion, knowledge transfer) is about new knowledge and new
applications, and that can range from a scientific experiment to writing a novel, from a new
technological device to a demographic analysis. Although governments always want to put
borders around what they wish to count for this or that funding exercise, we, as a University,
need to mandate a much wider form of discovery among our staff and students, if we are to be
fully affirming of their creativity. That is, the funding formulas must not fetter our vision in
research; rather, we need to find niftier ways of driving around them!

The University's Strategy was finalized in July, and is an unsensational, even modest document.
It is rooted in the tough realities of our times. Yet our Vision is still aspirational: "To lead London
in education, research and knowledge transfer for business and the professions". And lead it we
shall, provided we pay close attention to the key words which lace the Strategy, such as
"quality", "skills", "choice", "relevance" and "opportunity". You may remember that at the Court
last year I asked for your thoughts about several directions of travel for the University in the
years up to the London Olympics. They were:

        The balance of undergraduate and postgraduate students
        The balance of British and international students
        The nature of postgraduate learning
        The nature of undergraduate curriculum
        The relationship between research and education.

Many of you responded, and have influenced our final decision as a University, and mandated
by Council, to push by 2012 towards a 50/50 balance between undergraduate and postgraduate
students; and likewise between British and international students. Likewise, we are now running
reviews into undergraduate curriculum, headed by our new Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education),
David Bolton, and into research, headed by Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research), Dinos
Arcoumanis. We shall also, in two years time, institute a fundamental review of our graduate
programmes, to ensure that they are still as fit-for-purpose for the second decade of the century
as they have proven for its first decade.

Our Strategy also recognizes the strong vein of diversity within the University – its student
population, now with no dominating ethnicity; its staff, now drawn from over sixty countries
around the globe; and its modes of learning, adapted to the distinctive needs of specific
disciplines or professions. But we also recognize that each of the University's seven schools
have different histories, different current circumstances, and different hopes for the future. As a
University, we do not seek to crush that difference, but to celebrate it. The term we use for such
a university is a "plural university", an institution with several different ways of being "the
University for business and the professions".

The last year has seen many changes of role among the senior staff of the University. We now
have three deputy vice-chancellors, in education, research and international, and strategic
leadership roles. I pay particular thanks to Julius Weinberg, our most senior DVC, for his
support and advice as the many changes have been brought about. The University has
combined Resource and Service roles in a Chief Operating Officer, now held by Henrietta Royle,
formerly COO of the Cass Business School. Frank Toop, our longest-serving senior manager,
has now moved to a part-time position as University Secretary, and I thank Kevin Swindin, our
former Director of Services, for his eight years of contribution to the University.

Among our Deans, we have created two conjoint positions, that is, where one Dean serves two
Schools. This now reduces the number of deans from seven to five. Ken Grattan, from
Engineering, has been appointed the Conjoint Dean of the School of Informatics and the School
of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences. A new appointee is Christina Slade, the Conjoint
Dean of the School of Arts and the School of Social Sciences, who joins the University next
month from Macquarie University in Australia. I do need to thank Howard Tumber, Tony
Woodiwiss and Nancy Devlin for their support of these two Schools in this transitional year.

Our Council has also seen recent change. Sir David Howard stepped down as Chair of Council
in mid-year, after an incredible thirteen years of Council service, and was succeeded by Sir John
Stuttard. Sir John has, however, for health reasons recently resigned, and so Council is
currently engaged with finding a successor. By tradition, the Chair of Council has been a former
Chancellor of the University, that is, a former Lord Mayor. At this point in time, the relative
strengths of argument for tradition and innovation are still under debate, and I would appreciate
any comments you may have to make. Please be assured that amid these many changes
among management and on Council, the strength and continuity of the University are well
assured. Whatever the challenges of the moment, City University – your University – is well
prepared to meet those challenges.

I can imagine that many of you, hearing my report today, will have particular questions about
how well the University is equipped to meet the growing economic challenges. Since mid-year
we have been tracking the many different factors, and last month we decided that so many
factors had now drifted away from the original budgetary expectations for the 2008/9 financial
year that we would redraw the University's budget and re-present it to Council in early February.
While the University's long-term financial prudence leaves us with good reserves, we recognize
that our greatest threat lies with international student tuition fees. With nearly forty per cent of
our student body coming from outside Britain, the exposure both to international economic
downturn but also to radical currency shifts must remain of concern.

Chancellor, I congratulate you again on becoming the forty-third Chancellor of City University
London, and I look forward to bestowing an honorary doctorate upon you this Friday. Know that
you are welcome at the University at any time during your mayoral year, that we all look forward
to the dinner that you are hosting for the University on 1 April next year, and that we hope you
shall always remain a friend and supporter of the University of your City – the University of The
City of London.

Malcolm Gillies
Vice-Chancellor                                              8 December 2008

                                                                                       Item 9, Paper F
                                                                                        Council 9.2.09



The context of the mid-year forecast and revised budget was set out by the Vice-Chancellor in
his letter to staff in October which included the following statements:

       “I do need, however, to let you know that the University is already being affected by the
       current global instabilities. Not just our pay bill but also our pension liabilities and utility
       charges are escalating. On the income side we are affected by insecurities of student
       flows, uncertain currency movements and lessened investment and donation returns.

       In consequences of these many and unpredictable factors the University will be
       reassessing its 2008/9 budget and will present a revised budget to the University Council
       at its February meeting.”

This report sets out the revised budget referred to in the Vice Chancellor‟s letter.

The mid-year forecast and revised budget shows a deficit (before the sale of Halls) of £5.4m.
The forecast position is down £3.1m from the original budget deficit of £2.3m. This excludes the
profit on the sale of Halls at £29.7m. Therefore an overall surplus of £24.3m is forecast. A risk
range (based of c1.25% of turnover) is a forecast deficit of between £3m - £7m. Turnover is
forecast at £170m (2007/8 £159m).

The down-turn on the bottom-line position from the original budget of c£3m is primarily due to a
shortfall in tuition fee income across a number of Schools and additional costs to provide a
significant provision for the possible restructuring in Central Services and the School of Arts. As
a result of restructuring it is expected that operating costs in these areas will reduce in 2009/10.

The Balance Sheet is expected to remain in good shape at the year-end with a current ratio of
2.5, reserves at c£101m, and no external borrowing. This provides the University with a good
financial platform to move forward into 2009/10.

Recommended Action

Council is asked to consider and approve the revised budget for 2008-09 and confirm the Mid
Year Forecast for 2008-09.

Publication: Open

                                                                                  Item 9, Paper F
                                                                                   Council 9.2.09


The mid-year forecast and revised budget (before the sale of Halls) shows a deficit of £5.4m.
The surplus on the sale of Halls is £29.7m, so overall a surplus of £24.3m is forecast. This is
down against the flash forecast (presented to Council in November) deficit of £2.3m and the
original budget deficit of £2.3m. Turnover is expected to reach £170m. A risk range (based of
c1.25% of turnover) on the forecast year-end position provides a deficit of between £3m - £7m.

The main changes from the original budget agreed by Council in July are:-

      A drop in School contribution of £2.7m, with the main reductions in Law £0.9m, SCHS
        £0.8m, Engineering £0.5m, Informatics £0.3m, Social Sciences £0.2m, and Arts £0.2m.
        The large reductions are primarily due to expected falls in tuition fee income and NHS
        contract income (SCHS).

      An increase in the restructuring provision of £1.9m from £0.1m to £2m. The two main
        reasons for this increase in restructuring provisions is to achieve greater efficiency in
        central services departments (estimated cost of £1.4m) and to cover the consequences
        of the loss of ELQ funding in the School of Arts (estimated cost of £0.4m). On the basis
        of the restructuring cost assumptions we expect cost savings of at least £2m to be
        achieved in steady state (this assumes a minimum pay-back period of 1 year).

      Additional HEFCE income of £1.2m via the release of RDS funds and deferred capital

      Estimated VAT savings of c£0.5m due to a reduction in rates from 17.5% to 15%.

      A full summary of movements by category of income and expenditure from the original
        budget is provided in Annex 9. The flash forecast prepared in November 2008 is also
        provided for reference in annex 2

The following assumptions have also been factored into the forecast.

      The returns on investments have been reduced to 1.25% for the remainder of the year.
        This has reduced our expected investment income by £1.6m from £3.6m to £2m since
        the flash forecast prepared in November.

      We have built in expected vacancy savings of £1.5m, offset by an increase in non-staff
       costs of £0.6m to provide temporary cover. Other non-staff savings have been factored in
       at £0.4m.

      New strategic investment of £1.4m has been included in the forecast relating to items
        recently approved by URAG including research support £0.2m, new Informatics and
        Engineering courses £0.6m, strategic inter-disciplinary centres £0.4m, Intellectual
        Property Rights (IPR) support and other educational innovations £0.2m.

      The University exits its Canary Wharf leasehold premises at a cost of c£0.2m.

Schools and Central Services

Schools forecasts (see annex 6) show an overall deficit of £1.7m (budget £0.2m deficit).
Deficits are forecast for at Law £1.7m, and Engineering at £0.4m. Cass, SCHS, Informatics,
Social Sciences and Arts are forecasting positions close to break-even or a small surplus.

Cass Business School (Cass) is forecasting a surplus of £0.1m (budget surplus £0.2m).
Turnover is £50m (2007/8 £45.6m) with a contribution on direct costs of 24%. Their current
forecast range is £0.4m surplus - £0.7m deficit.

Community & Health Sciences (SCHS ) is forecasting a surplus of £0.1m which is down
against a budget of £0.8m. Turnover is c£36.6m (2007/8 £35.8m) with a contribution rate of
28%. Their current forecast range is £0.9m surplus- £1.8m deficit. The downturn against
budget is due to a reassessment of NHS income and running costs.

School of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences is forecasting a deficit of £0.4m compared
to a budget target of £0.1m deficit. The downturn is largely due to a shortfall in fee income.
Turnover is forecast to reach £16.2m (2007/8 £15.4m) with a contribution rate of 37%. Their
current forecast range is £0.3m surplus - £0.9m deficit.

School of Informatics is forecasting a breakeven position (Budget £0.1m deficit). Turnover is
£9.8m (2007/8 £9.1m) with a contribution of 26%. Their current forecast range is £0.1 surplus -
£0.5 deficit

School of Social Science is forecasting a surplus of £0.1m (Budget surplus £0.3m). Turnover is
£13.9m (2007/8 £12.2m) with a contribution rate of 33%. Their current forecast range is £0.1
surplus - £0.1m deficit.

School of Arts is forecasting a surplus of £0.2m (before restructuring costs of c£0.3m) in line
with budget forecast. Turnover is £11.3m (2007/8 £11m) with a contribution rate of 33%. Their
current forecast range is £0.1 surplus - £0.5 deficit. Their current forecast range is £0.3 surplus -

City Law School is forecasting a deficit of £1.7m compared to a budget deficit of £1.4m. A
shortfall in postgraduate fee income of c£1.5m is the reason for the downturn. Turnover is
£12.3m – which is down against turnover for 2007/8 of £13.3m. Contribution rate is 27%. Their
current forecast range is £1.3 deficit - £1.9m deficit.

Central Service Departments (see annex 7) spend is estimated at £38.9m (budget was
£38.9m). On the whole Central service departments have met targets to save 1% of their original
budgets and in addition absorbed the additional pay-ward. The following exceptions to the
savings are due to specific investments approved by URAG:-

    Information services costs at £12.6m are £0.3m over the original budget. This is primarily
      due extended Library hours, e-subscriptions and ERA licenses not being included in the
      original budget. The CIO is in discussions with the COO about the possible restructuring
      of IS and a provision has been included to cover these costs in the forecast.

    Other additional costs include CRIDO costs, international student advisor support, the
      appointment of a Chief Finance Officer and additional spend in the Learning
      Development Centre.

Restructuring costs of £1.4m have been provided in the forecast to cover off a possible
restructure of central services.


The main risks to the forecast are

      There remains risk around tuition fees and NHS contract income, which mainly relates to
        student recruitment in the second half of the year. This particularly impacts on Cass who
        have new intake of students for EMBA (February and May) and the Executive Education
        activity. SCHS also has a large February intake for pre-registration students. Other
        Schools are affected to a lesser extent. Increased risk of bad debt; Schools have
        provided c£0.5m against this risk. The position should become clearer after the next
        instalment date for student to pay fees on 31st January 2009. It should be noted that of
        the £39m sale proceeds from the disposal of halls in August last year, £5m has been
        ring-fenced to provide a hardship fund to help students facing financial difficulty to
        continue with their studies.

      Forecasts prepared by Schools and central services can show significant variances
        compared to the final position at the year-end. The reasons for variances vary – but
        include issues such as timing differences, particularly for restructuring, long term
        maintenance, project spending, and timing of staff appointments. Some managers tend
        to take a prudent view when forecasting particularly where there is some risk factor or
        uncertainty and vacancy. A corporate view of forecasts is also made and where we find
        reasonable evidence or trend indicators to update forecasts a global adjustment is made.
        In the current forecasts we have made a global adjustment to improve the bottom-line by
        £1m. Schools have estimated their risks range between £0.4m surplus - £5.9m deficit (a
        spread of c£6m). The largest risk ranges are in SCHS £2.7m, SEMS £1.2m, and Cass

      The HEFCE claw-back of £0.7m (relating to our student return in 2005) was provided for
        in the 2007/8 accounts. We have assumed our appeal to HEFCE will be rejected and
        therefore we will lose this funding. More generally data quality issues can have major
        financial consequences and a group has recently been set up to tackle data quality
        issues at City. To highlight the risk a recent report in THES suggests that London Met
        may have been over-funded c£50m due to poor student records.

      Further changes to interest rates – the University holds c£90m in cash based investments.
        The down-side risk is now restricted as returns of 1.25% have been assumed for the
        remainder of the year.

      Restructuring costs for central services are indicative estimate at this stage and may vary
        significantly depending on the mix and number of staff made redundant by July 2009. It
        has been assumed that restructuring proposals will be largely complete in the current
        financial year so that costs can be booked into the 2008/9 accounts. Once restructuring
        plans are firmed a more accurate estimate of costs and benefits will be provided.

      It has been assumed that no increase in employer pension costs will incur in the current
         financial year. It is expected that USS rates will increase by at least 2% at some point
         during 2009.

      No costs have been factored into the forecast for the proposed INTO project.

A.Sedgwick, P.O‟Donnell

                                                                                                           Annex 1
Summary Financial Information for the 5 Years to 31 July 2009

                                                                                                            Mid year
                                                                Actual     Actual     Actual     Actual     Forecast
                                                                 2005       2006       2007       2008         2009
Consolidated Income and Expenditure Account                    £million   £million   £million   £million     £million

Funding Council Grants                                              29         30         33         34           37
Tuition Fees                                                        53         60         70         77           84
NHS Education Contracts                                             20         21         20         21           21
Research Grants and Contracts                                        8          7          8          8            8
Surplus on Sale of Halls                                             0          0          0          0           30
Other Income                                                        16         18         17         19           19
Total Income                                                       126        136        148        159          199

Staff Costs                                                         74         80         91         94          105
Other Expenditure                                                   45         46         49         51           59
Depreciation                                                         7          8          8          9           11
Total Expenditure                                                  126        134        148        154          175

Surplus / (Deficit) for the year                                     0          2          0          5           24

Consolidated Balance Sheet                                    Restated
Fixed Assets                                                      106        110        109        115          111
Endowment Investments                                                 4         4          5          6            6
Short term investments including cash                               47         52         58         46           79
Other Current Assets                                                  9         7          6          9            9
Current liabilities                                               (25)       (29)       (31)       (36)         (35)
Provisions                                                          (3)       (1)        (4)        (2)          (3)
Long Term Liabilities ie Bank Loans                               (19)       (18)       (18)          0            0
Deficit on LPFA Pension Scheme                                    (11)       (11)        (6)       (10)         (10)
Total Funds                                                       108        114        119        128          156

Consolidated Cash Flow Statement
Cash inflow from operating activities                                3         12         10         10          (0)
Returns on investment and servicing of finance                       1          1           2         2            2
Capital expenditure                                               (12)       (12)         (7)      (14)         (16)
Grants and other capital donations                                   6          4           1         8            8
Net Proceeds on Sale of Halls                                        0          0           0         0           39
Bank loan repayment                                                  0          0           0      (18)            0
Net cash and short-term investments inflow/(outflow)               (2)          5           6      (12)           33

Financial Performance Indicators                              Restated
Current Assets to Current Liabilities Ratio (Current Ratio)       2.20       2.01       2.05       1.51         2.51
Net Current Assets/Total Expenditure (days)*                        89         80         81         44          110
Long Term Liabilities as % of Total General Funds                 27%        26%         0%         0%           0%

* Number of days an institution could meet expenditure

                                                                                        Annex 2
Consolidated Income and Expenditure Account

                                                                            Flash       Mid Year
     Actual                                                     Budget     Forecast     Forecast
     2007/8                                                     2008/9      2008/9       2008/9
      £000                                                       £000        £000         £000

      34,127      Funding Council Grants                         35,553      36,819       37,533
      77,074      Tuition Fees                                   85,436      83,557       84,356
      21,283      NHS Education Contracts                        21,024      20,675       20,737
       7,717      Research Grants and Contracts                   8,048       7,866        7,930
      15,993      Other Operating Income                         15,917      13,687       16,980
       2,811      Endowment and Investment Income                 2,302       3,647        2,017

     159,005      Total Income                                  168,280     166,251      169,553


      92,916      Staff Costs (excluding restructuring)         102,803     102,436      102,764
       1,041      Restructuring Costs                               159         159        2,030
      51,079      Other Operating Expenses                       56,386      55,377       59,354
       8,549      Depreciation                                   11,188      10,609       10,803
         223      Interest Payable                                    0           0            0
     153,808      Total Expenditure                             170,536     168,581      174,951

       5,197      Surplus / (Deficit) before exceptional item    (2,256)      (2,330)      (5,398)

              0   Exceptional surplus on sale of halls                0      29,704       29,704

       5,197      Surplus / (Deficit) after exceptional item     (2,256)     27,374       24,306

        3.3% Operating Surplus/(Deficit) as a % of Turnover      (1.3%)       (1.4%)       (3.2%)
         61% Staff Costs as a % of total expenditure               60%          61%          60%

                                                                                            Annex 3
Consolidated Balance Sheet
                                                                                        Mid year
     Actual                                                                  Budget     Forecast
    2007/08                                                                  2008/09    2008/09
       £000                                                                   £000        £000

    115,184    Tangible Assets - historic cost                               117,566    111,349

      2,592    Endowment Assets - Expendable                                   2,744      2,516
      3,512    Endowment Assets - Permanent                                    3,717      3,014
    121,288    Fixed Assets                                                  124,027    116,879

         19    Stock                                                              30         30
      8,523    Debtors                                                         7,750      8,950
     40,570    Short term deposits                                            36,147     72,575
      5,155    Cash at bank and in hand                                        6,000      6,000
     54,267    Current Assets                                                 49,927     87,555

    (35,820)   Creditors due within 1 year                                   (38,250)    (34,950)

     18,447    Net Current Assets                                             11,677     52,605

          0    Loans - payment due after 1 year                                    0           0

     (2,019)   Provisions                                                     (1,113)     (3,013)

    (10,071)   Liability on LPFA Pension Scheme                               (6,499)    (10,071)

    127,645    TOTAL NET ASSETS                                              128,092    156,400

               Represented by

     34,138    Deferred Capital Grants                                        33,909     39,161

      2,592    Endowment Funds - Expendable                                    2,744       2,516
      3,512    Endowment Funds - Permanent                                     3,717       3,014

     11,000    Revaluation Reserve                                            11,000     11,000

      1,479    Reserves - Restricted                                           1,759         10
     32,961    Reserves - Capital                                             34,414     24,586
     52,034    Reserves - Other                                               47,048     86,184
     86,474                                                                   83,221    110,780
    (10,071)   Deficit on LPFA Pension Scheme                                 (6,499)   (10,071)
     76,403                                                                   76,722    100,709

    127,645    TOTAL FUNDS                                                   128,092    156,400

               Financial Performance Indicators
       1.51    Current Assets to Current Liabilities Ratio (Current Ratio)      1.31        2.51
         44    Net Current Assets/Total Expenditure (days)                        25         110
         0%    Long Term Liabilities as % of Total General Funds                  0%          0%

                                                                                                 Annex 4
Income and Expenditure Reserves

                                  Opening Revenue            Closing
                                  Balance Movements          Balance
2008/2009 Mid Year
                                    £000          £000          £000

Capital Reserves                    32,962         (8,376)       24,586
Infrastructure Reserves             11,599          1,137        12,736
Strategic Reserves                  13,681         33,978        47,659
Risk Reserves                       14,846            221        15,067
School/Dept Reserves                13,386         (2,655)       10,731
LPFA Pension Scheme Deficit        (10,071)             0       (10,071)
Total                               76,403         24,306       100,709

                                                                                                 Annex 5
Consolidated Cash flow Summary

                                                                                      Mid year
   Actual                                                                  Budget     Forecast
  2007/08                                                                  2008/09     2008/09
     £000                                                                     £000        £000

      5,197    Accounting Surplus/(Deficit) for the year                    (2,256)    24,306

               Adjustments for non-cash items:
          0    Surplus on sale of Halls                                         0     (29,704)
      8,549    Depreciation                                                11,188      10,803
     (2,114)   Deferred capital grants released                            (2,891)     (3,190)
        897    Working capital adjustments                                  1,655        (314)
     (2,377)   Returns on investment and servicing of finance              (2,302)     (2,017)
       (242)   LPFA pension fund adjustment                                     0           0

      9,910    Operating cash surplus/(deficit)                             5,394        (116)

               Capital Transactions:
   2,377       Returns on investment and servicing of finance                2,302      2,017
 (14,521)      Capital expenditure                                         (12,683)   (15,815)
   8,177       Grants and other capital donations                            1,567      8,213
       0       Net proceeds on sale of Halls                                     0     38,551
 (18,365)      Repayment of bank loan                                            0          0
 (22,332)                                                                   (8,814)    32,966

 (12,422)      Net cashflow for the year                                    (3,420)    32,850

     58,147    Cash and investments opening balance                        45,567      45,725
     45,725    Cash and investments closing balance                        42,147      78,575

                                                                                                                                                                Annex 6
Financial Summary by School

                                            Cass                        SCHS                      Engineering                  Informatics
                               Actual Budget Flash Mid-Year Actual Budget Flash Mid-Year Actual Budget Flash Mid-Year Actual Budget Flash Mid-Year
                               2007/8 2008/9 2008/9 2008/9 2007/8 2008/9 2008/9 2008/9 2007/8 2008/9 2008/9 2008/9 2007/8 2008/9 2008/9 2008/9
Income & Expenditure            £m     £m      £m    £m      £m     £m     £m     £m      £m     £m      £m    £m      £m     £m      £m    £m
Income                           45.6   49.5   49.8    50.0  35.8    37.2  36.6     36.6  15.4    16.7   15.4    16.2    9.1    9.7    9.7     9.8
Pay                              20.2   22.5   22.8    22.9  17.8    19.8  19.4     19.5   6.4     6.8    6.8     6.9    5.4    5.6    5.5     5.9
Non Pay                          12.0   12.0   12.4    11.9   4.6     5.1    5.7     5.6   2.9     3.4    2.8     3.3    1.0    1.2    1.2     1.4
Direct Expenditure               32.2   34.5   35.3    34.8  22.4    24.9  25.1     25.1   9.3    10.2    9.6    10.2    6.4    6.8    6.7     7.3
Contribution                     13.4   15.0   14.6    15.3  13.4    12.3  11.5     11.5   6.1     6.5    5.8     6.0    2.7    2.9    3.1     2.6
Indirect Expenditure             13.5   13.3   13.3    13.7   9.0    10.4  10.4     10.3   5.6     6.1    5.8     5.9    2.4    2.7    2.8     2.3
Surplus/(Deficit) before SDF     (0.1)   1.7     1.3    1.6   4.4     1.9    1.1     1.2   0.5     0.4   (0.0)    0.1    0.3    0.2    0.3     0.3
SDF Contribution                  1.3    1.5     1.5    1.5   1.0     1.1    1.1     1.1   0.5     0.5    0.5     0.5    0.3    0.3    0.3     0.3
Surplus/(Deficit)                (1.4)   0.2   (0.2)    0.1   3.4     0.8    0.0     0.1   0.0    (0.1)  (0.5)   (0.4)  (0.0)  (0.1)   0.0     0.0

Closing Reserve                   (1.4)     (1.2)   (1.6)    (1.3)     3.4      4.2     3.4        3.5      0.0    (0.1)    (0.5)      (0.4)    0.3    0.2    0.3    0.3
Contribution % income             29%       30%     29%      30%      37%      33%     31%        31%      40%     39%      38%        37%     30%    30%    31%    26%
Surplus/(deficit) % income         -3%        0%      0%       0%       9%       2%      0%         0%       0%     -1%      -3%        -2%      0%   -1%      0%     0%

Pay % income                      44%        45%     46%    46%   50%     53%       53%    53%   42%   41%      44%     43%   59%   58%      56%    60%
Student/Academic staff ratio     24.1       23.8    26.0   26.4  16.3    17.3      18.8   19.5  27.7  29.5     30.6    30.8  20.0  24.0     23.1   22.8
                                           Social Science                      Arts                         Law                         Total
                               Actual     Budget Flash Mid-Year Actual Budget Flash Mid-Year Actual Budget Flash Mid-Year Actual Budget Flash Mid-Year
                               2007/8     2008/9 2008/9 2008/9 2007/8 2008/9 2008/9 2008/9 2007/8 2008/9 2008/9 2008/9 2007/8 2008/9 2008/9 2008/9
Income & Expenditure            £m          £m      £m    £m     £m     £m         £m    £m     £m    £m       £m     £m     £m    £m       £m    £m
Income                           12.2       12.8    12.9   13.9  11.0    11.3      11.2   11.3  13.3  13.8     12.3    12.3 142.4 151.0 147.9     150.2
Pay                               6.2         6.7     7.1    7.3   5.7     5.7       5.8    5.9   6.7   7.7      7.2     7.2 68.4  74.8     74.7   75.7
Non Pay                           1.4         1.4     1.4    2.1   1.9     1.6       1.7    1.7   1.6   2.0      2.0     1.8 25.4  26.6     27.0   27.6
Direct Expenditure                7.6         8.1     8.5    9.4   7.6     7.4       7.5    7.6   8.3   9.7      9.2     9.0 93.8 101.5 101.7     103.3
Contribution                      4.6         4.7     4.4    4.5   3.4     4.0       3.7    3.8   5.0   4.2      3.1     3.3 48.6  49.6     46.2   46.9
Indirect Expenditure              3.7         4.0     4.2    4.0   2.8     3.5       3.4    3.3   4.5   5.2      4.6     4.7 41.5  45.2     44.5   44.2
Surplus/(Deficit) before SDF      0.9         0.7     0.2    0.5   0.6     0.5       0.3    0.5   0.5  (1.0)    (1.6)  (1.3)   7.1   4.3      1.7    2.8
SDF Contribution                  0.4         0.4     0.4    0.4   0.3     0.3       0.3    0.3   0.4   0.4      0.4     0.4   4.2   4.5      4.5    4.5
Surplus/(Deficit)                 0.5         0.3   (0.2)    0.1   0.3     0.2       0.0    0.2   0.1  (1.4)    (2.0)  (1.7)   2.9  (0.2)   (2.8)  (1.7)

Closing Reserve                    0.5       0.8     0.3      0.6      1.0      1.2     1.0        1.2      4.8      3.4     2.8        3.1     8.6    8.4    5.8    6.9
Contribution % income             38%       36%     34%      33%      31%      35%     33%        33%      38%      30%     25%        27%     34%    33%    31%    31%
Surplus/(deficit) % income          4%        2%    -2%        1%       3%       1%      0%         1%       1%    -10%    -16%       -14%       2%     0%   -2%    -1%

Pay % income                      51%     53%      55%         53%      52%    51%       52%       52%      50%     55%      59%         58%    48%    50%    51%    50%
Student/Academic staff ratio     22.2    22.6     22.1        22.2     18.2   24.4      24.1      25.7     16.3    15.0     17.1        17.4   19.9   20.9   22.1   22.5
Note: the costs of locally managed estates, IT and library functions are shown as indirect, where material and separately identifiable.

                                                                                 Annex 7
Central Department Expenditure

                                                 Year End             Mid-Year
                                                  Actuals   Budget    Forecast
                                                  2007/8    2008/09   2008/09
                                                    £m        £m        £m
Support Services
Finance                      Staff Exp             1.4        1.8       1.7
                             Non-Staff Exp         0.6        0.5       0.5
                             Total Expenditure     2.0        2.3       2.3

Property and Facilities      Staff Exp             3.3        3.1       3.0
                             Non-Staff Exp         4.3        4.6       4.7
                             Total Expenditure     7.6        7.8       7.7

Human Resources              Staff Exp             1.6        2.0       2.0
                             Non-Staff Exp         1.0        0.7       0.7
                             Total Expenditure     2.6        2.7       2.7

Information Services         Staff Exp              6.6       7.3        7.3
                             Non-Staff Exp          4.1       5.0        5.3
                             Total Expenditure     10.8      12.3       12.6

Marketing and Recruitment    Staff Exp             1.0        1.1       1.2
                             Non-Staff Exp         1.3        1.0       1.0
                             Total Expenditure     2.4        2.2       2.2

Development and Alumni       Staff Exp             0.5        0.7       0.7
                             Non-Staff Exp         0.3        0.3       0.3
                             Total Expenditure     0.8        1.0       1.0

Student Support              Staff Exp             2.0        2.4       2.4
                             Non-Staff Exp         0.4        0.3       0.3
                             Total Expenditure     2.4        2.6       2.7

Commercial                   Staff Exp             0.3        0.4       0.4
                             Non-Staff Exp         0.0        0.2       0.2
                             Total Expenditure     0.3        0.6       0.6

Pay Award & Other            Staff Exp             0.0        0.4       0.0
                             Non-Staff Exp         0.0        0.0       0.0
                             Total Expenditure     0.0        0.4       0.0

Total Support Services       Staff Exp             16.7      19.1       18.7
                             Non-Staff Exp         12.1      12.7       13.0
                             Total Expenditure     28.8      31.8       31.7

VC's Office

Vice Chancellor                Staff Exp           0.4    0.4    0.4
                               Non-Staff Exp       0.1    0.1    0.1
                               Total Expenditure   0.5    0.5    0.5

COO                            Staff Exp           0.0    0.2    0.3
                               Non-Staff Exp       0.0    0.2    0.2
                               Total Expenditure   0.0    0.4    0.4

University Secretary           Staff Exp           0.0    0.3    0.3
                               Non-Staff Exp       0.1    0.2    0.1
                               Total Expenditure   0.1    0.4    0.3

Internal Audit                 Staff Exp           0.1    0.2    0.2
                               Non-Staff Exp       0.1    0.0    0.0
                               Total Expenditure   0.2    0.2    0.2

DVC                            Staff Exp           0.6    0.5    0.5
                               Non-Staff Exp       0.0    0.0    0.0
                               Total Expenditure   0.6    0.6    0.6

DVC Education                  Staff Exp           1.4    1.8    1.8
                               Non-Staff Exp       0.5    0.7    0.8
                               Total Expenditure   1.9    2.5    2.6

DVC Research                   Staff Exp           1.0    1.5    1.5
                               Non-Staff Exp       0.5    0.9    1.1
                               Total Expenditure   1.5    2.4    2.6

Pay Award & Other              Staff Exp           0.5    0.1    0.0
                               Non-Staff Exp       0.3    0.0    0.0
                               Total Expenditure   0.8    0.1    0.0

Total VC's Office              Staff Exp           4.0    5.1    4.9
                               Non-Staff Exp       1.7    2.1    2.3
                               Total Expenditure   5.7    7.2    7.2

Sub-Total Department Budgets   Staff Exp           20.7   24.2   23.5
                               Non-Staff Exp       13.8   14.8   15.4
                               Total Expenditure   34.5   38.9   38.9

Trading                                Income                 (1.2)      (1.7)       (2.0)
(Excluding Halls)                      Staff Exp               0.7        1.1         1.0
                                       Non-Staff Exp           1.8        2.0         2.2
                                       Total Expenditure       1.3        1.3         1.2

Students Union                         Income                 (0.2)      (0.0)       (0.0)
                                       Staff Exp               0.7        0.3         0.3
                                       Non-Staff Exp           0.3        0.2         0.2
                                       Total Expenditure       0.8        0.4         0.4

Corporate Estates                      Staff Exp               0.6        0.6         0.7
Running Costs                          Non-Staff Exp           7.2        9.3         9.6
                                       Total Expenditure       7.8        9.9        10.3

Halls of Residence                     Staff Exp               0.6        0.7        0.7
                                       Non-Staff Exp           1.8        2.0        3.2
                                       Total Expenditure       2.4        2.7        3.9

Capital Projects                       Staff Exp               0.3        0.2         0.4
                                       Non-Staff Exp           9.6       11.5        11.0
                                       Total Expenditure       9.9       11.7        11.4

Consolidation Adjustments              Staff Exp               1.9        1.2        2.5
                                       Non-Staff Exp           0.0        1.1        1.0
                                       Total Expenditure       1.9        2.3        3.5

Grand Total                            Income                 (1.4)      (1.8)       (2.0)
                                       Staff Exp              25.5       28.2        29.1
                                       Non-Staff Exp          34.5       40.9        42.5
                                       Total Expenditure      58.6       67.3        69.7

The figures above exclude Hefce allocations, funding allocated through the RAM and
generated through internal recharging, but include income from trading activities.
Olive Tree now included within DVC Research

                                                                                                                                                                                                              Annex 8
Income and Expenditure Ranges for Mid Year Forecast 2008/9
                                         Cass                 SCHS                 Engineering    Informatics              Social Sciences             Arts                   Law                             Total
                                    Mid     Range        Mid      Range          Mid     Range  Mid     Range              Mid      Range        Mid      Range         Mid      Range              Mid           Range
                                    Year -ve +ve         Year -ve    +ve         Year -ve +ve   Year -ve +ve               Year -ve +ve          Year -ve    +ve        Year -ve    +ve             Year     -ve    +ve
                                    £000 £000 £000       £000  £000 £000         £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000             £000 £000 £000        £000  £000 £000        £000  £000 £000             £000      £000    £000

HEFCE                               4,594    0    0 5,587       0    0 6,207     0 174 4,185 (106) (13) 4,560                        0     0 4,820          0     0 1,362              0      0 31,314    (106)          161
Tuition Fees                       41,262 (150) 100 5,503    (300)   0 8,266 (300)    0 3,790 (131)  0 7,792                       (25)    0 6,493       (100)   30 10,865           (68)    50 83,971 (1,074)           181
NHS Education Contracts                 0    0    0 20,767   (787) 250      0    0    0     0    0   0      0                        0     0      0         0     0      0             0      0 20,767    (787)          250
Research Grants                     1,000    0 100 2,498      (81) 50 1,400      0 100 1,591 (91)    0 1,421                        (0)   (0)    20       (20)    0     58             0      0   7,988   (192)          250
Other operating income              3,190 (200) 100 2,213    (100) 100    330 (100) 220   277 (62) 20     122                      (20)   20     12       (12)    0     53             0      0   6,198   (494)          459
Total Income                       50,046 (350) 300 36,568 (1,268) 400 16,203 (400) 494 9,842 (389)  8 13,895                      (45)   19 11,344      (132)   30 12,338           (68)    50 150,238 (2,653)        1,302

Staff Costs (excl restructuring)   24,435    50 (50) 20,290        226 (369) 6,921        (0) (121) 5,920    20     (40)   7,221   25      (0)   5,876    50       0    7,123        82     (160) 77,787       452       (740)
Restructuring Costs                   100     0    0       0         0    0       4        0     0     12     0       0       87   18     (50)      32    18      (2)      30         0      (30)     265       36        (82)
Other operating expenses           15,055   150 (200) 7,167        304 (96) 3,296         93 (96) 1,351       0     (10)   2,064   37       0    1,671    29     (71)   1,832         0     (210) 32,434       615       (681)
Total Direct Expenditure           39,590   200 (250) 27,457       530 (465) 10,221       93 (217) 7,283     20     (50)   9,371   81     (49)   7,579    97     (73)   8,985        82     (400) 110,486    1,103     (1,504)

Contribution                       10,456 (550) 550      9,111 (1,798) 865       5,982 (494) 711 2,559 (409)        58     4,524 (126)    69     3,765   (229)   103    3,354      (150)    450     39,752 (3,756)     2,805

Indirect Expenditure               10,373   267   267    9,045      (0)    (0)   6,366     0    0 2,550      93      (0)   4,440     8      8    3,606    (50)     0    5,089          0       0    41,469     318       275

Surplus/Deficit                      83 (817) 283          66 (1,798) 865        (383) (494) 710       9 (502)      58       84 (134)     61      159    (179)   103    (1,736)    (150)    450     (1,717) (4,074)    2,530
The ranges are movements against the forecast - not a new surplus or deficit.
Restated Surplus/Deficit                  (734) 366             (1,732) 931              (877) 327          (493)   67             (50) 145               (19)   263              (1,886) (1,286)            (5,791)     813

                                                                                   Annex 9
Variances from Original Budget

                                                             Mid Year
                                                Budget       Forecast       Variance
                                                2008/9        2008/9         2008/9
                                                 £000          £000           £000        Notes

Funding Council Grants                           35,553        37,533           1,980     1
Tuition Fees                                     85,436        84,356          (1,080)    2
NHS Education Contracts                          21,024        20,737            (287)
Research Grants and Contracts                     8,048         7,930            (118)
Other Operating Income                           15,917        16,980           1,063     3
Endowment and Investment Income                   2,302         2,017            (285)    4

Total Income                                    168,280       169,553           1,273


Staff Costs (excluding restructuring)           102,803       102,764             (39)
Restructuring Costs                                 159         2,030           1,871     5
Other Operating Expenses                         56,386        59,354           2,968     6
Depreciation                                     11,188        10,803            (385)
Interest Payable                                      0             0               0

Total Expenditure                               170,536       174,951           4,415

Surplus / (Deficit) before exceptional item      (2,256)        (5,398)        (3,142)

Exceptional surplus on sale of halls                  0        29,704          29,704     7

Surplus / (Deficit) after exceptional item       (2,256)       24,306          26,562

Notes: explanation of significant variances

   1. Additional (release of) HEFCE RDS income and capital grants £1.2m
   2. Reduced fee income in City Law School, Engineering, partially offset by increase in
      Cass £0.4m
   3. City Academy donation £1.0m
   4. A reduction in investment income due to interest rate reductions. This despite
      additional cash balances due to Halls sale.
   5. Additional restructuring provisions.
   6. Additional costs includes City Academy payment £1.0m, additional non staff
      expenditure in schools £0.6m, premises expenditure £0.4m and contribution related
      to the halls that have been sold – now paid over to Liberty Living £1.2m (see note 7
   7. Surplus on sale of halls – the budget figures assumed that the halls were not sold.
      These included a surplus of £1.2m that was being used to provide for long-term
      maintenance and repay an internal loan. The forecast is based on the agreement
      with Liberty whereby for this year only the University continues to run the halls and
      recognise their income and expenditure in its books but must also pay over the
      £1.2m surplus.
                                                                             Item 9, Paper J
                                                                              Council 9.2.09

Institutional Performance Indicators


Council approved in July 2008 the University‟s Strategy to 2012. Council further agreed that
the Strategy would be monitored with the use of a set of high level Institutional Performance
Indicators (PI) that map to the strategy‟s strategic areas and in turn to the goals and
priorities. This paper sets out the suggested set of University PIs, indicating where they are
drawn from the University Strategy and the aggregation against the top level University goals
and priorities. The PIs have also been mapped to the recommended PIs in the Committee of
University Chairmen‟s report on Performance Indicators.

Recommended Actions

Council is asked to consider and approve the Institutional KPIs to be used in monitoring
against the University Strategy.

Publication: Open

                                                                                 Item 9, Paper J
                                                                                  Council 9.2.09
University Performance Indicators


ExCo considered draft Institutional PIs, alongside guidance notes detailing the development,
operation and monitoring of the indicators and the derivation of the collated data at its
meeting on 8th January.

ExCo made several recommendations, in particular that:
    there should be a distinct, high level, set of PIs for reporting to Council and a more
      detailed list for University managers.
    the PIs should reflect the income streams and activity of the University.
    the management subset should include the excepted key performance indicators
      such as those used in HE league tables as well as those reported in statutory returns
      to such bodies as HESA and HEFCE.

Deriving PIs
The PIs presented here are commensurate with and, proportionate to, the University‟s
Strategy in line with ExCo‟s recommendations.

The Strategy and Planning Team are currently refining a subset of operational PI‟s
(appendix 2: for information) that can be used by ExCo to monitor performance. These will
be built into a PI approach to the annual planning round for Schools and central service
departments. It is envisaged that the PI‟s both at University and ExCo level will inform and
dovetail with the University‟s risk management cycle. Furthermore, the year on year collation
of the University‟s PI‟s will produce longitudinal data that will permit Council and ExCo to
review the University‟s performance against internal historical performance and external
benchmarks so that performance can be assessed in relation to competitor and peer

In addition to the Institutional PIs, Council will continue to receive more detailed information
on activity through routine reporting, for example of financial data and reports from Council

Each PI has been mapped to the strategy and the University goals and priorities and in
addition, to the Council of University Chair‟s proposed PIs in Higher Education Report
(appendix 1). This format will be used for future monitoring reports to Council as it is a
simple yet effective tool for Council to monitor at a glance, the University‟s performance
against Strategy.

Next Steps

Council are asked to consider and:

       Approve the PI‟s (table attached)
       Agree appropriate targets for each indicator (suggested levels have been added to
        the table)

Strategic Area KPI            Description                   Value Target                                                                             CUC
                                                                   2012 Extract from Strategy                    Goals and Priorities
Education       Student       % 'agree' response on          80     85     ..will be a university of choice for                                      KPI
Quality         Experience    NSS (3rd yr u/g only)                       students and alumni…'                                                      20
                Markets       Tariff Score (1)              298           The University will concentrate on City University London will be a        KPI
                                                                          high quality courses which appeal university of choice for students        17
                                                                          to its markets'                       and alumni wishing to develop
                                                                                                                and enhance their skills in the
                              No of applications per         4.1     4    The University will raise its         professions and businesses           KPI
                              place (PG) (2)                              academic standards for entry'         associated with London and           17
                              Move to:                                                                          similar world cities.                KPI
                              Conversion of PG                                                                                                       17
                              Applications (2)
International   Student       % enrolments of non-UK         32     50    Reach approximate balance              City University London will         KPI
                Intake        students against total                      between number of students from        intensify its international focus    9
                              student number targets                      within and outside the UK
Research and Income           Total research and             15    20     The university will ensure its staff   The University will support basic   KPI
KT                            Knowledge transfer                          and PG students have skills in a       and applied research of high        24
                              income, including QR                        range of research and knowledge        quality…
                              (HEFCE grant) £M                            transfer activities such as gaining
                                                                          grants and contracts

Graduate       Employability % of students working,       91        90    The University will concentrate on     City University London will be a    KPI
Skills                       working and studying or                      High quality courses that appeal       university of choice for            21
                             studying (3)                                 to its markets                         employers
Sustainability Financial     Current assets to current 2.51         1.3                                                                              KPI
                             liabilities ratio (current (1.51)                                                                                       41
                                                                          The University will generate
                             ratio) (4)
                                                                          sufficient funds over the cycle of
                             Surplus as % of turnover      3         3                                           City University London will         KPI
                                                                          this plan for investment in its
                             (5)                                                                                 operate in a sustainable            38
                                                                          programmes and infrastructure
                                                                                                                 manner, economically,               KPI
                                                                                                                 environmentally and culturally.     52
                Infrastructure Space utilisation - m2 per    3.4          Support student experience in                                              KPI
                &              student (6)                                formal learning and in social                                              48
                Environment                                               opportunities

                Staff        Indicators relating to staff               The University terms of             City University London will be a   KPI
                             engagement will be                         employment, promotion and           university of choice for those     53
                             drawn from Staff Survey                    reward systems will benefit those   wishing to work in a demanding
                             (7)                                        whose activities promote the        yet supportive environment
                                                                        University mission
                Governance Audit Committee reports          80%   85%                           Enabling the Strategy                          KPI
                &          (% Satisfactory)                                                                                                     6


(1)The University will use A Level Tariff score on entry as a performance indicator. Some work still needs to be done on developing a target.
We will certainly aim to show year on year improvement
(2) Work needs to be done on a suitable PG application PI. We will use applications/place in the interim however it would be good to have
fewer high quality applicants, therefore this measure could be misleading. We will move to conversion of PG applications to admissions when
the data is available and has been validated.
(3)The wording is the standard wording for our HEFCE employability return.
(4)The current ratio is distorted by the sale of halls. The figure in brackets shows the current ratio without the halls included.
(5)The surplus will be generated over the cycle, not annually.
(6)It is proving difficult to find useful benchmarks for space as we are more space efficient than most HEIs and use of HEFCE benchmarks
would require us to become less efficient. We are seeking benchmarks and validating the way in which space is calculated as compared to
non educational usage.
(7)A staff survey will be taking place in March. It is intended to become a regular event. A suitable “staff health and engagement” PI will be

                                                                                  Appendix 1

                                    CUC PI Definitions

Number               KPI                             Definition/measurement
  9      Student population –            By level UG/PG
         character and diversity         By mode FT/PT
                                         home/overseas and region of domicile
                                         proportion of WP students

  17     Quality of student entry        Applications per place,
                                         A level point scores, or other indicators as

  20     Student satisfaction            National Student Survey (and other data as

  21     Employability and student       Institutional surveys and HESA

  24     Research income                 Total R income and income by research sponsor
                                         type, trends and by academic area.

  38     Aggregate surplus/deficit       From accounts
         for past 3 years as % of

  41     Current assets to liabilities   From accounts
         ratio (financial strength)

  48     Utilisation – square metres     From EMS
         per student

          Appendix 2

          Operational Performance Indicators

          These operational PIs are being developed to inform ExCo in monitoring performance.
          These will be built into a PI approach to the annual planning round for Schools and
          central service departments. It is envisaged that they will also inform and dovetail with
          the University‟s risk management cycle.

Strategic Area               PI                                      Value Target Comment

Education Quality            Students 'would recommend' City          78      85   Internal student survey

                             % headcount taught enrolments
                             against headcount targets
                             UG                                       96%
                                                                                   07/08 data targets to be developed
                             PG                                       76%
                             % undergraduates achieving 1st or
                                                                      62      60

                             % withdrawals or dormant (UG/PG)         29      20

                                                                                   Measure of “up to dateness” ? benchma
                             introductions/amendments/                50
                                                                                   7Central Amendments, 34 withdrawals 0
                             Headcount of students undertaking
International                exchanges or study abroad
                                                                                   Challenges with data collection. May nee
                                                                                   alternative measures of International eng
                             Headcount of international students                   students
                             undertaking 'occasional' modules at
                             % programmes with international
                                                                                   Data available September 09 including d
                             Headcount of non-UK staff                23      25   23% of all staff

Strategic Area               PI                                      Value Target Comment
                             % Research active staff as defined by
Research & KT Income         RAE
                                                                      65%          RAE result December 08

                             Success rate on research grant                        31% Eng; 30% Inf; 26% Cass; 69% Soc
                             applications, by school                               100% Art
                                                                                   41% home; 50% overseas completion in
                             PGR completion rates
                                                                                   to obtain metrics for 4yr completion)

                             KT/consultancy income as % of
                                                                     677K          Targets to be set, currently 0.004% of in
                             Cost recovery on research (TRAC)
                                                                      1.4          Targets to be set

Graduate Skills              Average starting salary                 24,000
                         Employer engagement in curriculum
                                                                                 Through Advisory Boards

                         Schools with active advisory boards         All   All   All

                         Net current assets/total expenditure
Sustainability           (days institution could meet exp from       44    40    Benchmark England Average
                         net current assets)
                         Long term liabilities as % of total
                                                                     0     15    England Average 60%
                         Income from alumni and other
                                                                    4.75         Need to review Target
                         fundraising (£M)

                         Reduction in carbon footprint %             14    10    To be reviewed annually

                         % teaching rooms with modern
                                                                     78    90    Refers to centrally booked rooms only
                         teaching equipment
                         Nbr and type of institutions with
                                                                                 Data to be collected and target to be set
                         formalised partnership with City
Strategic Area           KPI                                        Value Target Comment
                                                                                 Data to be collected and target to be set
                         PC/Library spend per student
Sustainability (cont.)                                                           return
                                                                                 Gender 52% male, 48% female.
                         Staff diversity profile                                 Age 40% aged 45 and over
                                                                                 16% black & minority 2% declared disab
                         Expenditure on staff development                        Targets to be set with HR drawing on co
                         and training                                            longitudinal information
                         Results of External audits of                           Methodology to be considered. Target to
                         Programmes                                              nos of recommendations

                         Interdisciplinary focus - include nsr of
                                                                     4           6 Centres now established
                         centres set up as a KPI?

                         The Law Development focus                               For discussion
                         Timely completion of institutional
                                                                                 RAM, promotion, research

                                                                        Item 9, Paper K
                                                                          Council 9.2.09

World Cities University (WCU) Network


This paper outlines the details and advantages of joining the WCU Network.

One action required.

Recommended Action

Council is asked to approve City University London joining the World Cities University

Publication: Open

                                                                           Item 9, Paper K
                                                                             Council 9.2.09

World Cities University (WCU) Network

City University London has been invited to participate in the World Cities University
(WCU) Network. As one of the remaining independent UK universities whose goal is to
serve the educational needs of London as a world city, it is important to consider the
potential benefits for City University to become a member of the WCU network. This is
expected to enhance our international profile and facilitate the development of
partnerships with a number of institutions that have similar academic and research
interests to those of City University. Potential benefits include student and staff
exchanges, study abroad programmes, enhancement of international student
recruitment efforts, research collaborations and improved networking which may improve
City‟s chances to be included in the top 200 universities in future world rankings.

The WCU Network, which is registered as a not-for-profit organisation, was developed
with the aim of bringing together universities located at the heart of the major world cities
in order to address cultural, environmental and political issues common to world cities
and their universities. By promoting interaction between Universities, local government
and business communities, WCU helps to create a forum where Universities are more
responsive to needs and issues of relevance to world cities.

In what follows, information is provided about the present members of WCU, the criteria
for eligibility and the responsibilities of present and future members. More details about
the member universities is provided in the Appendix.

Membership of WCU
WCU was officially inaugurated in June 2007 at Pace University in New York City. Its
present membership consists of:

      Pace University, New York
      Shanghai University, Shanghai
      Tec de Monterey (ITSEM), Mexico City
      Beijing Union University, Beijing
      Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong
      University of Technology, Sydney
      RMIT, Melbourne
      Ryerson University, Toronto
      University of Westminster, London

Each member university is expected to fulfil certain obligations such as making an
annual financial contribution to the network (£6k), facilitating contacts within their own
World City, adoption of at least one of the operational tasks of the organisation (either
semi-permanently or on a rotational basis) and adoption of at least one major activity or
project within the key focal areas of WCU. At present, three of the top 10 world cities are
represented in the WCU (Mexico City, New York and Shanghai) but surprisingly there
are no representatives from Tokyo (such as, for example, Waseda University), Mumbai
or Deli from India, Buenos Aires and Dhaka (amongst the over 10m population cities), as
well as from world cities like Seoul and Boston.

Membership is open to local universities in major World Cities, with the objective to
secure adequate representation from World Cities in North America, South America,
Europe, Asia, Africa and Australasia.

WCU member Universities should possess the following criteria:
     Be at the heart of a World City and be recognised locally as a major university
     Have a commitment to, and track record in , international activities
     Be cosmopolitan in perspective and strategic direction
     Be committed to close two-way interaction with their local society and economy
     Have academic strengths particularly relevant to World Cities
     Be driven to meet the development of new areas of knowledge and technology
     Be civically engaged with the broader community in both the public and private
     Commit to act as a local hub for the WCU network

    To provide a forum for World Cities and their Universities to discuss matters of
       common interest
    To promote greater understanding of World Cities and their universities through
       staff and student exchange and cooperation, as well as interaction amongst
       universities, city organisations, businesses and local government
    To create a network of World Cities with local universities acting as independent
       drivers to create ad-hoc or semi-permanent think-tanks on topics particularly
       relevant to World Cities
    To strive to make a difference to World Cities by facilitating transformative
    To make universities more responsive to World Cities‟ issues and needs
    To take advantage of London‟s popularity in attracting larger numbers of study
       abroad students
    To create „research clubs‟ on topics of relevance to world cities

Thematic Areas of Research (2007-8)
Activities undertaken by the WCU members include proposals for events such as
symposia, international seminars and conferences, studies and publications, mobility of
staff and students, mobility of experts or exhibitions, that pertain to one of the following
five project themes:

       World city metropolitan environment (transport, social and environmental issues
        faced by world cities)
       World city governance and international political issues (migration and World City
       World City business and commerce in a global context (economic issues faced
        by World Cities)
       World City as a centre of arts, culture and creative industries (the role of culture
        and creativity in World Cities)
       Sustainability of World City Universities (the role of education and advanced
        knowledge generation, specific environmental challenges from World City

Recommended Action

Council is asked to approve City University London joining the World Cities University

Dinos Arcoumanis
Deputy Vice-Chancellor
(Research and International)


1. Pace University, New York
Pace is a private metropolitan university, over 100 years old, located just steps from the
New York‟s Financial District, with over 13,500 students enrolled in bachelor, masters
and doctoral programs in the Dyson College of Arts and Sciences, Seidenberg School of
Computer Science and Information Systems, Law School, Leinhard School of Nursing,
Lubin School of Business and School of Education. Only 5% of its students are
international but they are representing some 130 countries. Most of its students are
undergraduate commuters studying business, arts and sciences while the majority of the
PG students are in education. Pace has an operating budget of over $270m, very
modest income in research and has some 120m worldwide alumni.

2. Shanghai University, Shanghai
Shanghai University is the biggest institution of higher learning run by the Shanghai
Municipality and is on the list of national “Project 211” in China with a 90 years history. It
has some 30,000 students (25,000 undergraduates with only 3% international students)
studying a wide variety of scientific and technological disciplines including Electronic
Engineering and Communication, Mathematics, Materials Science and Information

3. TEC de Monterrey, Mexico City
The Tecnologico de Monterrey, Campus Estado de Mexico is located in Mexico City and
was founded in 1976. It has 8,000 students enrolled in programs in Business
Administration, Social Sciences, Engineering and Architecture.

4. Beijing Union University, Beijing
Beijing Union University (BUU) was established in 1985 through the amalgamation of 17
college branches of Peking, Tsinghua and other universities in the Beijing area. It is a
truly multi-disciplinary university, „people-oriented and application-rooted‟. BUU has over
29,000 students of whom 19,000 are undergraduates and 10,000 vocational students in
the fields of economics, law, education, literature, history, science, engineering and
management. BUU regards teaching practice as a central task of all school activities
and it is only in 2007 that it was authorised to award Master degrees in history, computer
technology and food science and technology. Overall, BUU‟s emphasis is in the general
areas of science and technology.

5. Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong
It is located in the heart of Kowloon and consists of three campuses, with the oldest
opening in 1966. It became a public-funded institution in 1983 with activities in Business,
Chinese Medicine, Communications/Media studies, Education, Engineering and a very
strong Social Sciences Faculty. HKBU‟s new Strategic Plan is to convert all 3-year
system degrees to four-year ones by 2012, and to enhance its position as an
international gateway between mainland China and the global community through
strengthening of its international networks. HKBU has some 8,000 students, around
£154m turnover of which around 15% represent research funding.

6. University of Technology, Sydney
UTS is a relatively young university with over 32,000 students enrolled in onshore and
offshore courses and some 2,500 staff. Its overall income is over $400m, with fees
corresponding to about 60% and research income of not more than15% of total
revenues. UTS has a strong international focus with about 31% of the students coming
from a non-English speaking background and half of the students born outside Australia.
It has seven faculties: Arts and Social Sciences; Business; Design, Architecture and
Building; Engineering and Information Technology; Law: Nursing, Midwifery and Health;
Science. UTS has identified 25 research strengths grouped in five clusters including
environmental sustainability, creative and civic societies, science and technology
(nanotechnology). In particular, UTS has selected the following five strategic research
investment areas:
       1. Institute for the biotechnology of infectious Diseases
       2. Plant functional biology and climate change
       3. Intelligent information systems
       4. Social and cultural change in China
       5. Centre for the study of choice

7. RMIT University, Melbourne
RMIT is one of Australia‟s original (over 120 years old) and largest educational
institutions, with international reputation for excellence in work-relevant education and
high quality research, and engagement with the needs of industry and community. It is
one of Australia‟s top research universities, a truly global university of technology with
more than 60,000 students, its heart in the city of Melbourne and additional campuses in
regional Victoria and Vietnam. RMIT‟s mission is to provide outcome-related applied
research and consultancy services that address real world issues, in partnership with
multinational corporations. It offers programs of study in 25 schools across 3 academic
portfolios: Business; Design and Social Context; and Science, Engineering and
Technology. RMIT has one of the most impressive internationalisation programs with
hundreds of international student exchange partners and offshore programs. It is also a
world leader in bringing together vocational and higher education in the form of
sequential dual-sector qualifications, the so-called “industry-based pathways”.

8. Ryerson University, Toronto
Ryerson University (RU) was founded in 1948 as Ryerson Institute of Technology, with
its first undergraduate degrees awarded in 1972 and the first graduate degrees in 2001.
It is located in the heart of Toronto and has some 24,000 full-time students; its Ted
Rogers School of Management is Canada‟s largest undergraduate School of

9. University of Westminster, London
The University of Westminster was founded as London‟s first polytechnic in 1838. The
mission of Westminster is to provide quality education and research, in both national and
international contexts for the intellectual, social and professional development of the
individual and for the economic and cultural enrichment of London and wider
communities. Today The university is host to over 5000 international students from 150
countries, with an overall student population of some 22000 students enrolled in
undergraduate, graduate, research, professional programmes and short courses.
Westminster student study in central London and Harrow for degrees in business,
architecture & build environment, computer science, informatics, law, biosciences, health
sciences, media and design, social sciences, humanities and languages. Turnover for
Westminster increased 6% to £146m (2007). For 2008 research income (£7m in 2007) is
projected to represent 5% of overall turnover.

                                                                           Item 9, Paper L
                                                                            Council 9.2.09

Investment and Treasury Management


In the summer, Council expressed concern about the level of concentration of the
University‟s funds in the context of market uncertainty and abnormally high levels of risk
related to normally stable financial institutions. It asked the University to diversify the
allocation of its funds to reduce risk. This report presents the University‟s action in
response to this guidance.

Diversification will be achieved by reducing the level of funds held with our current Fund
Management team Barclays Global Investors, introducing two new Fund Management
teams, Legal & General and Goldman Sachs and spreading the University cash holdings
across three Fund types :Government Funds, Deposit Fund and Standard Cash Funds.

One action required.

Recommended Action

Council is asked to approve the Investment Panel recommendations

Publication: Open

                                                                         Item 9, Paper L
                                                                          Council 9.2.09

Investment and Treasury Management
City University London Investments : Council Update No.3

The purpose of this paper is to update Council on progress against the following
Investment Panel recommendation, which was made in the light of Council‟s instruction
to diversify the management of the University‟s funds and place them in low risk funds:

“select a consulting firm that will provide a representative list of pooled cash funds,
provided by the major suppliers of very low to moderately low risk, together with a
comparison of their critical characteristics. The consulting firm is in turn expected to
provide a recommendation of which fund or funds to select from in order to provide a
broadly diversified portfolio and an acceptable level of manager risk concentration.”

Given the recent financial market turmoil and the fact that 90% of the University‟s cash
funds (£82.8m…see Appendix 1) are managed by Barclays Global Investors (BGI), it
was deemed prudent to diversify the management of these funds.

The consulting firm Mercer was appointed in line with the University tendering process to
provide recommendations as to suitable cash funds. They were asked to take into
consideration the following:

   the University‟s main objective is for capital preservation and liquidity rather than
    enhanced return;

   the base currency for the cash funds must be sterling;

   the University will consider sterling government funds;

   there must be at least one bank deposit fund within the mix of funds considered;

   the funds proposed should be managed by well known “household” names;

   the University wishes to spread the monies between more than one and up to four
    managers; and

   the University is willing to leave a portion of the assets in the BGI Liquidity First
    Fund, provided that Mercers can confirm that it meets all the University‟s other

Mercer‟s research identified the following short list of managers:

Government Funds
 BGI Sterling Government Liquidity Fund;

    Legal & General Investment Management (“LGIM”) UK Treasury Bills Fund

Deposit Fund
 LGIM Cash Fund

Standard Cash Funds
 BGI Sterling Liquidity First Fund;

    BlackRock Sterling Institutional Liquidity Fund;

    Goldman Sachs Asset Management (“GSAM”) Sterling Liquid Reserves Fund.

Mercer recommendation:

Government Funds : BGI Sterling Government Liquidity Fund                   25%
Government Funds : LGIM UK Treasury Bills Fund                              25%

Deposit Fund : LGIM Cash Fund                                               25%

Standard Cash Fund : GSAM Sterling Liquid Reserves                          25%

The rationale for their recommendation was as follows:
All proposed six funds proposed were viewed by Mercer as being potentially suitable for
the University and were happy to propose any of the funds. Given the value of the
monies to be invested and the University‟s wish to limit single name exposure they
proposed splitting the monies across three or four funds.

Government Funds : Mercers have confidence in both the BGI and LGIM management
teams running these new products. Government Funds sit at the lower end of the risk

Deposit Funds : The LGIM cash fund is the main deposit fund available in the market
dating back to 1996. Together with Government Funds, deposit funds are at the lower
end of the risk spectrum.

Standard Cash Funds : Of the three funds, the GSAM fund represents the lowest risk
option in that the main objective is for preservation of capital and liquidity rather than
aiming to outperform the 7 day LIBID benchmark.

The proposed structure leaves 50% of the assets with one manager (LGIM), this is on
the understanding that the University‟s desire for the majority of assets to be held in very
low risk Government and Deposit funds outweighs the desire to limit single name

Investment Panel Recommendation

Following discussions between the Investment panel and Mercers, the Investment Panel
recommend the following structure:

Government Funds : BGI Sterling Government Liquidity Fund                   25%

Deposit Fund : LGIM Cash Fund                                               25%

Standard Cash Fund : BGI Sterling Liquidity First Fund                      25%
Standard Cash Fund : GSAM Sterling Liquid Reserve                           25%

Key differences compared to the Mercer proposal being:

-   Government Funds : remove LGIM UK Treasury Bills Fund
-   Standard Cash Fund : add / retain BGI Sterling Liquidity First Fund

The rationale for this recommendation is as follows:

LGIM UK Treasury Bills Fund
The Investment Panel was concerned that as at the 31st December 2008, this fund had
acquired only 4 investors with combined managed funds of £92m since its launch in
October 2008. LGIM are apparently not certain of the duration of this newly launched
product and, even if the University were only to place 25% of its funds here, those funds
would represent more than 25% of the total fund. The Panel was not comfortable with
this and felt that dilution costs might be introduced if we wanted to exit. Other exit costs
are represented by the bid/offer spread.

BGI Sterling Liquidity First Fund
This Fund has an advantage in practical terms in that it is the incumbent manager for the
University‟s current funds. It‟s performance to date has held up over the recent turbulent
market conditions.

BlackRock Sterling Institutional Liquidity Fund
Across both recommendations, the BlackRock standard cash fund was omitted for the
following reasons:
 - reluctance to have two US based funds
 - most expensive with regard to Ongoing Management Charges
 - ownership concerns: Merill Lynch Investment Managers merged with Blackrock in
September 2006. Following the recent market turmoil, Bank of America announced the
acquisition of Merrill Lynch in September 2008. The deal is expected to close during the
first quarter of 2009. To date, no intention to merge the assets or asset management
team of Bank of America‟s Columbia Asset Management company with that of
Blackrock, or to sell a stake in Blackrock have been indicated by Bank of America.

During the Investment Panel meeting with Mercer, it was established that there was no
conflict of interest between Mercer and any of the proposed funds.

Management concentration with BGI has now been reduced from 90% to 50%, and in
the opinion of the Investment Panel the management risk associated with Government
Funds is close to zero.

Entry and Exit costs to/from the funds listed within the Investment Panel
recommendation are nil. (Mercers recommend a thorough review of the legal contracts
to ensure that there are no special circumstances which could trigger such costs).

In-house administration supporting the relationship between City University, London and
each of the above three fund managers is felt to be manageable.

The Investment Panel felt that the University was in a relatively strong position and
moving in the right direction: essentially, it is cash rich, it moved out of property at the
right time (recent sale of two Halls of Residencies), it moved out of the BGI Liquidity Plus
fund just before performance fell most sharply and it opened up three new operational
Following Council approval of the Investment Panel‟s recommendations and their
implementation, the three new operational accounts with Barclays, HSBC and Lloyds
TSB will be reviewed.

N.B. The Investment Panel agreed that its recommendation should represent the first
stage of a two stage process. Stage one represented action to be taken to preserve the
capital value of the University‟s cash holdings. Stage two would involve action following
the identification of an investment strategy which supported the capital spend plans of
the University over a five to ten year time horizon and reflected the University‟s agreed
risk appetite.

Risk and Control Issues
The above investment structure represents a swift and appropriate reaction to external
changes which threaten the preservation of the capital value of the University‟s cash

Recommended Action

Council is asked to approve the Investment Panel recommendations

Pat O‟Donnell
Finance Director

                                                                    Item 10, Paper M
                                                                    Council 9.2.2009

Educational Balance Sheet


This paper includes:

1      University profile 2007/08 – total headcount
       Student intake 2008/09 – as at November 2008
       Student Intake - snapshot of undergraduate admissions for 2009 entry
       A comparison of UCAS applications for 2007, 2008 and 2009 entry
       Quality measures: Undergraduate mean tariff scores 2005/06 and 2006/07

2      Intake of International (non-EU) Students

Recommended Action

Council is asked to receive the latest Educational Balance Sheet.

Publication: Open

1.      Student Intake

University profile 2007/08 – total headcount Jan 2009

     HEADCOUNT             (includes FD and           TAUGHT          RESEARCH
                         modular credit bearing)
        18545                    11585                 6396                 564

Student intake 2008/9 Academic Year – as at November 2008

Domicile            Applications Offers Intake                (%) Target
Home                      17089     8363       2020            (73)      2229
EU                                              242            (8.7)
Overseas                    3752    1781        507            (18)       480
Total                     20841   10144        2769                      2709

                    POSTGRADUATE TAUGHT
Domicile            Applications Offers Intake                 (%) Target
FT Home                  4351     1756        1230               (32)        2500
FT EU                    1971     1155         485            (12.6)
FT Overseas              7479     3313        1328            (34.5)         1315
PT Home                   763       564        561            (14.6)           858
PT EU                     198       155          98             (2.6)
PT Overseas               321       206        145              (3.8)          206
Total                  15083      7149        3847                           4879

                    POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH: 494

Note: EU Students are included in the Home Student target

Quality Measures: Undergraduate

 Degrees % 1st Class and 2i          63%

        Withdrew: 07/08              7.2%
Student Intake - snapshot of undergraduate admissions for 2009 entry

                                     Applications by Domicile
                                                                           Competitors %
                                                   % Change     % Change Change 08/09
                  2007        2008          2009   2007/2009    2008/2009
 UK              12126       13111         13478          11.15        2.8
 EU               1427        1470          1610          12.82       9.52
 Non-EU           2247        2296          2377           5.79       3.44
 Total           15800       16877         17465          10.54       3.48            3.39

Note: The Competitors are a set of largely London institutions determined by UCAS and
driven by those institutions to which our applicants also apply.

Although our rise in applicants(3.4%) is below the national rise (7.2%), however we are
seeing increases in overall applications at a higher rate than our competitors (2.8%). There
seems to be a London effect, with lower rates of increase in London Institutions.

Institutional Level Competitors Brunel; King's College London; Kingston; London
South Bank; Queen Mary; Westminster

UCAS Applications: Market Share comparison with basket of London Competitors
(as at 01/02/2009)

Subject Area                                 2007 (%)   2008 (%) 2009 (%)
Engineering & Technology                           14.4      13.2          13
Subjects allied to medicine                        28.4      18.6        18.9
Business & Admin Studies                         11.72      13.64       12.69
Law                                                10.7      11.9        11.6
Mathematical & Comp Science                      13.54      15.09       14.32
Social studies                                      7.1         9         8.9
Mass communications & documentation                 n/a      1.54        7.53
Biological Sciences                                7.79      7.01           8
Creative arts & design                             1.49      2.19        2.68
Combined Social Sciences                         10.63      10.44        9.02
Sciences with Social Sciences                      7.71      8.26        8.11
Social Sciences with Arts                          6.14      5.91        3.52
                                  City Mean Change Market Share 08/09: 0.12%

At National level there are increasing numbers of applicants in most areas; Business studies
and Law are notable exceptions:

Engineering & Technology (12.5% up); Subjects allied to medicine (8.4%up)
Business & Admin Studies (8.2% fall); Law (5.7% fall); Mathematical & Comp
Science (2.6% up); Social studies (4.4% up); Mass communications &
documentation (10.1% up); Biological Sciences (5.8% up); Creative arts & design
(10.3% up); Combined Social Sciences (5.6% up); Sciences with Social Sciences
(8.5% up); Social Sciences with Arts (4.6% up).

Generally City applications seem to be maintaining market share even though out Tariff has
2.      Intake of International (Non-EU) Students – Report by Chris Morris, January

This section sets out the history of City‟s intake of international (non-EU) students over a
period of five years from 2002/03 to 2006/07 and then in 2008/09. For 2002/03 to
2006/07 there is an examination of all international students in UK HE to give
perspective on markets and international demand.

The numbers are taken from the HESA record for 2002/03 to 2006/07. Only first year
full-time students classified as not eligible to pay fees at the home rate are counted. The
levels of study surveyed are first degree and taught postgraduate and only students
studying in the HESA subject categories in which City offers courses are counted.

The numbers for 2008/09 were taken from the University record on 28 October 2008.

Main conclusions and points of note are:

a. For the UK

    For both first degree and taught postgraduate numbers, source markets across the
     period are remarkably stable as a cohort, although there is change in rank order in
     the top 10 and top 80% groups.
    Reduction in numbers from the top source countries has not shifted their pre-
     eminence in rank so China, Hong Kong and Malaysia remain dominant.
    Notable growth has been in Pakistan and Nigeria, and among smaller source
     countries Bangladesh, Vietnam and Russia are important areas of growth.

b. For City

    Across the same period, City‟s cohort of 80% delivery source countries shows
     reasonable correlation with those of the UK
    At first degree level, though, certain markets are much more important for City,
     particularly Mauritius, Russia, Canada, Norway and Iran.
    At taught postgraduate level, Bangladesh and Russia are clearly much stronger
     markets for City than for the UK as a whole, while City‟s top 10 does not include
    At both levels of study, Nigeria does not rank as highly for City as it should when
     volume and growth for this country is taken into account.

c. City’s 2008/09 intake

    There is an interesting combination of traditional high volume and growth source
     countries and newly emerging sources, together with several strong niche source
    With very few exceptions (US, Lebanon, Thailand, Australia), the source countries
     are covered in the University‟s annual round of visits for promotional events.
    Numbers from Nigeria continue to cause concern and indicate the need for greater
     investment in recruitment activity there.
    City‟s dominance in certain niche markets (Russia, Mauritius, Norway, Kazakhstan)
     indicates the need for sound investment in order to preserve market share.
    No newly emerging markets are absent from the cohort of 80% delivery countries at
     either level of study.
   As demonstrated in the separate share analysis, and evidenced here, intake at first
    degree level from India is not substantial and some priority will need to be given to
    engagement in this market, especially in developing a sound admissions policy.

Top source markets for UK HE, 2002/03 to 2006/07

Appendix A ranks by volume both the top ten markets and the markets that deliver 80%
of the international student intake to UK HE. The cumulative proportion of the total
numbers delivered by this cohort is also shown.

At first degree level:

   Although there are variations of rank in certain cases (and the disappearance of
    Cyprus due to EU membership in 2004/05), there is remarkable consistency in the
    top 10 countries over the period.
   In the top 10 particular growth has been seen in India, Pakistan, and Nigeria, and
    while numbers from China, Malaysia and Hong Kong have reduced, these countries
    maintain their top three ranking positions over the period.
   Sri Lanka enters the top 10 in 2003/04 and remains there, and Bangladesh and
    Russia enter the top 10 in 2006/07, while the USA, Kenya and Norway all move in
    and out of the lower end over the period.
   Outside the top 10, Vietnam and South Korea show noticeable progression in rank.

At taught postgraduate level:

   Again, there is consistency in the top 10 cohort, and China and India retain their top
    two ranking positions across the period, showing considerable growth.
   Nigeria and Pakistan are the most significantly growing markets within the top 10,
    while Hong Kong is notable for its decline in numbers, and exit from the top 10.
   At the margins, Canada and Ghana alternate as top 10 group members, but while
    Canada numbers increase across the period, those from Ghana decrease.
   Outside the top 10, South Korea and Turkey show consistency across the period
    while Russia and Bangladesh make later entries.

City’s intake of international students

City‟s performance over the same period is shown in Appendix B. Generally, City‟s top
80% delivery cohort is larger than that for the UK, and the cohort, especially the top 10,
has some different countries and differences of rank for countries that appear in the UK
HE analysis.

At first degree level:

   China is the top source country, as for the UK, but departs from the national trend in
    its decline in proportion of the whole.
   Malaysia and Hong Kong also appear very high in the top 10, with some variations in
    rank from year to year that is to be expected from a smaller student sample.
   Mauritius is a notably consistent top 10 country for City while for the UK it never
    achieves this status, and similarly Russia enters City‟s top 10 in 2004/05 to remain
    there for the remainder of the period.
   Pakistan proves an even higher growing source country for City than for the UK but
    City does not share in the UK‟s growth in Nigeria numbers.
At taught postgraduate level:

      There is good correlation between City‟s top10 cohort and that of the UK, especially
       in 2006/07, the exception being Russia which provides a far higher proportion of
       City‟s entry.
      Again the proportion delivered by China is lower than for the UK and although India
       ranks as City‟s largest source country, it does not deliver the proportion of intake that
       is seen for the UK as a whole.
      Bangladesh enters and remains in the top 10 cohort from 2005/06 driven by numbers
       on the BVC.

Some of the most significant points regarding City compared to the UK are clear in the
2006/07 figures. The charts below show proportion of intake across the UK‟s top 80%

                       % intake of first degree international (non-EU) students to UK HE
                                                 and City, 2006/07



    % intake




                       V ay
                         al a

                            L a

                       P dia


                         au n
                          R h
                        gl re

                            Ja i

                         C ia
                         N ya


                       di rea

                       t am
                          N n
                          g a



                      M pa


                     S ank
                      S er
                      o n si



                     an o




                               r it



                   B gap


                   au o



                  S hK






                                          Countries delivering 80% intake to UK HE

                                               UK HE % intake      City's % intake

                        % intake of taught postgraduate international (non-EU)
                                 students to UK HE and City, 2006/07

      % intake


                                                M nd

                              ak ia

                                                S o ng

                                                   C n

                                                o n esh
                                                 th na


                                                  gl y
                                                 Th A























                                       Countries delivering 80% of intake to UK HE

                                              UK HE % intake         City's % intake
At first degree level China, Malaysia, India and Nigeria figure as less significant for City,
while City does very well in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Russia, Kenya, Vietnam, South
Korea, the UAE and Mauritius.

At taught postgraduate level, again China, India and Nigeria are notably less highly
ranked for City while Pakistan, the USA, Malaysia, Canada, South Korea and
Bangladesh are strong sources for City.

City’s intake in 2008/09

The charts below show City‟s proportion of intake in 2008/09. There are no national
figures against which to compare this, but the historical perspective given above helps to
draw out certain conclusions.

                    % intake of first degree international (non-EU) students to City,

   % intake


                      No a





                               s ia










                           ri t




                         k is














                  i te



                                        Countries delivering 80% of intake
                     % intake of taught postgraduate international (non-EU) students to
                                               City, 2008/09

    % intake


                       Pa di a

                          lad s

                 Sa hai g

                        Tr E
                         Tu i a
                           St n

                        iA d

                        Ta i a

                      Au Iran
                         Ru ia

                        Ca on

                          Ke m

                           Ja e
                      z a rea
                      M e sh

                       No da
                      Le key

                       ng i a
                         Ni n

                       Vi an
                       ng y
                       T on
                   i te is ta

                    u d l an
                      n g ate


                     u t s si



                   Ho r wa



                    Si tral




                  Ka Ko







                                          Countries delivering 80% of intake

At first degree level:

     There is an interesting combination of traditional high volume sources countries,
      newly emerging sources and some clear niche areas for City.
     China remains dominant and delivers the highest proportion of the intake since
     The traditional second place of Pakistan for the UK as a whole is taken by Russia,
      followed by Mauritius which have emerged as very clear niche areas for City.
     South Korea appears in the top 10 this year which is another specialism for City
      compared to the UK figures from 2002/03 to 2006/07.
     India is disappointingly low in the rank and should be an area for concerted

At taught postgraduate level:

     As in the period 2002/03 to 2006/07, City continues in 2008/09 to take its 80% of
      entry from considerably more countries than for the UK in general, but this is not
      necessarily a cause for concern since the cohort includes some niche countries for
     China, India and Pakistan head the City intake league and this compares favourably
      with ranking over the 2002/03 to 2006/07 period for both City and the UK.
     Nigeria‟s position for City is disappointing and indicates the need for extra investment
      in promotion and recruitment activity.
     The niche countries noted for 2006/07 remain, namely Russia, South Korea,
      Kazakhstan, and Norway.


                       2002/03                          2003/04                          2004/05                          2005/06                          2006/07
           Country       Total Cum %        Country       Total Cum %       Country        Total Cum %       Country        Total Cum %       Country        Total Cum %
         China              6045   31%    China              7470   34%   China               7100   33%   China               5800   29%   China               5740   27%
         Malaysia           1955   41%    Malaysia           2105   43%   Malaysia            2115   43%   Malaysia            1885   38%   Malaysia            1685   35%
         Hong Kong          1655   49%    Hong Kong          1790   51%   Hong Kong           1720   51%   Hong Kong           1395   45%   Hong Kong           1535   42%
         India               935   54%    India               970   56%   Nigeria              985   55%   India               1390   52%   India               1495   49%
Top 10

         Cyprus              590   57%    Pakistan            745   59%   India                950   60%   Nigeria              895   56%   Pakistan             910   54%
         Nigeria             580   60%    Nigeria             685   62%   Pakistan             895   64%   Pakistan             875   61%   Nigeria              870   58%
         Singapore           570   62%    Cyprus              605   65%   Singapore            435   66%   Sri Lanka            475   63%   Sri Lanka            485   60%
         Pakistan            460   65%    Singapore           465   67%   Sri Lanka            415   68%   Singapore            375   65%   Singapore            430   62%
         Norway              410   67%    Norway              435   69%   Kenya                340   69%   Norway               340   67%   Bangladesh           345   64%
         Kenya               400   69%    Sri Lanka           420   71%   USA                  330   71%   USA                  335   68%   Russia               335   65%
         Sri Lanka           380   71%    Kenya               340   72%   Norway               320   72%   South Korea          325   70%   USA                  325   67%
         USA                 275   72%    USA                 310   74%   South Korea          315   74%   Japan                295   71%   Kenya                305   68%
         Japan               255   74%    Japan               275   75%   Japan                280   75%   Kenya                285   73%   Norway               305   70%
         Mauritius           240   75%    South Korea         265   76%   Bangladesh           280   76%   UAE                  285   74%   Vietnam              300   71%
         Bangladesh          220   76%    Mauritius           260   78%   Mauritius            265   78%   Russia               265   75%   South Korea          295   73%
         Russia              220   77%    Bangladesh          255   79%   Russia               245   79%   Vietnam              260   77%   Saudi Arabia         295   74%
         Taiwan              205   78%    UAE                 245   80%   UAE                  240   80%   Bangladesh           255   78%   Canada               290   75%
         South Korea         205   79%    Ghana               200   81%   Vietnam              240   81%   Mauritius            225   79%   UAE                  285   77%
         Zimbabwe            200   80%    Russia              200   82%   Zimbabwe             175   82%   Saudi                215   80%   Brunei               265   78%
         Ghana               170   81%    Canada              175   82%   Saudi Arabia         175   83%   Zimbabwe             205   81%   Japan                250   79%
         Bahrain             155   82%    Bahrain             165   83%   Canada               170   83%   Canada               195   82%   Mauritius            230   80%


                       2002/03                          2003/04                          2004/05                          2005/06                          2006/07
           Country       Total Cum %        Country       Total Cum %       Country        Total Cum %       Country        Total Cum %        Country       Total Cum %
         China              9405   31%    China             11695   35%   China              11785   33%   China              10635   30%   China              10685   26%
         India              4545   46%    India              4210   47%   India               4660   46%   India               5230   45%   India               7270   44%
         Taiwan             1440   50%    USA                1585   52%   Pakistan            1820   52%   Pakistan            2080   51%   Nigeria             2360   50%
         USA                1405   55%    Taiwan             1475   56%   Nigeria             1750   57%   Nigeria             1925   56%   Pakistan            2325   56%
Top 10

         Nigeria             955   58%    Nigeria            1135   60%   USA                 1595   61%   Taiwan              1710   61%   Taiwan              2025   61%
         Malaysia            895   61%    Pakistan           1125   63%   Taiwan              1540   65%   USA                 1685   66%   USA                 1750   65%
         Thailand            885   64%    Thailand            890   65%   Thailand             940   68%   Thailand            1010   69%   Thailand            1190   68%
         Japan               655   66%    Malaysia            850   68%   Malaysia             670   70%   Japan                630   70%   Malaysia             770   70%
         Pakistan            640   68%    Japan               695   70%   Japan                660   72%   Malaysia             605   72%   Japan                630   71%
         Hong Kong           545   70%    Ghana               670   72%   Ghana                650   74%   Canada               530   74%   Canada               580   73%
         Ghana               495   72%    Hong Kong           465   73%   Canada               505   75%   Ghana                460   75%   Ghana                515   74%
         Canada              455   73%    Turkey              420   75%   Hong Kong            485   76%   Turkey               445   76%   South Korea          505   75%
         Cyprus              395   74%    Canada              405   76%   Turkey               400   78%   Hong Kong            430   77%   Turkey               480   77%
         Turkey              360   75%    Norway              400   77%   South Korea          395   79%   South Korea          390   79%   Bangladesh           475   78%
         Mexico              355   77%    South Korea         395   78%   Norway
                                                                          Non-EU               320   80%   Bangladesh           330   79%   Hong Kong            470   79%
         Norway              350   78%    Cyprus              365   79%   unknown              320   80%   Russia               305   80%   Sri Lanka            395   80%
         South Korea         320   79%    Mexico              290   80%   Bangladesh           280   81%   Norway               300   81%   Russia               350   81%
         Kenya               265   80%    Kenya               260   81%   Sri Lanka            270   82%   Saudi Arabia         290   82%   Iran                 305   81%
                                                            APPENDIX B: INTAKE OF INTERNATIONAL (NON-EU) STUDENTS TO CITY UNIVERSITY


                        2002/03                                 2003/04                                 2004/05                                 2005/06
            Country        Total        Cum%        Country        Total        Cum%        Country        Total        Cum%        Country        Total        Cum%        Cou
         China                     75      24%   China                     65      20%   China                     95      27%   China                     60      18%   China
         Malaysia                  25      32%   Cyprus                    15      25%   Pakistan                  25      34%   Malaysia                  20      24%   Pakista
         Cyprus                    15      37%   India                     15      29%   Malaysia                  20      39%   Pakistan                  20      30%   Hong K
         Mauritius                 15      41%   Malaysia                  15      34%   India                     15      44%   India                     15      35%   Malays
Top 10

         Norway                    15      46%   Mauritius                 15      38%   Israel                    15      48%   Mauritius                 15      39%   Mauritiu
         Sri Lanka                 10      49%   Canada                    10      42%   Russia                    15      52%   Russia                    15      44%   Russia
         Hong Kong                 10      52%   Kenya                     10      45%   Hong Kong                 10      55%   Canada                    10      47%   Canada
         India                     10      56%   South Korea               10      48%   Kenya                     10      58%   Sri Lanka                 10      50%   Sri Lan
         Kenya                     10      59%   Pakistan                  10      51%   Mauritius                 10      61%   Hong Kong                 10      53%   India
         Nigeria                   10      62%   Trinidad&                 10      54%   Saudi Arabia              10      63%   Iran                      10      56%   Iran
         Pakistan                  10      65%   United Arab               10      57%   Trinidad&                 10      66%   South Korea               10      59%   Israel
         Belgium                    5      67%   USA                       10      60%   Vietnam                   10      69%   Vietnam                   10      62%   Kenya
         Canada                     5      68%   Russia                    10      63%   Bahrain                    5      70%   Brunei                     5      64%   South K
         Taiwan                     5      70%   Algeria                    5      65%   Bulgaria                   5      72%   Bulgaria                   5      65%   Vietnam
         France                     5      71%   Bulgaria                   5      66%   Canada                     5      73%   Japan                      5      67%   Banglad
         Iran                       5      73%   Sri Lanka                  5      68%   Sri Lanka                  5      75%   Kenya                      5      68%   Bahrain
         Japan                      5      75%   Taiwan                     5      69%   Iran                       5      76%   Nigeria                    5      70%   Bulgaria
         South Korea                5      76%   Ghana                      5      71%   Japan                      5      77%   Norway                     5      71%   Taiwan
         Nepal                      5      78%   Hong Kong                  5      72%   South Korea                5      79%   Saudi Arabia               5      73%   Japan
         Zimbabwe                   5      79%   Iran                       5      74%   Nigeria                    5      80%   Tanzania.                  5      74%   Jordan
         Saudi Arabia               5      81%   Japan                      5      75%   Norway                     5      82%   Trinidad&                  5      76%   Lebano
         Singapore                  5      83%   Norway                     5      77%   Thailand                   5      83%   United Arab                5      77%   Mongol
         Switzerland                5      84%   Zimbabwe                   5      78%   USA                        5      85%   Turkey                     5      79%   Nigeria
         Tanzania.                  5      86%   Saudi Arabia               5      80%   Belarus                    5      86%   USA                        5      80%   Norway
         Trinidad&                  5      87%   Singapore                  5      82%   Kazakhstan                 5      87%   Bangladesh                 5      82%   Saudi A
         United Arab                5      89%   South Africa               5      83%   Ukraine                    5      89%   Kazakhstan                 5      83%   Singapo


                        2002/03                                 2003/04                                 2004/05                                 2005/06
            Country        Total        Cum%        Country        Total        Cum%        Country        Total        Cum%        Country        Total        Cum%        Cou
         China                     65      18%   China                     75      18%   China                 110         18%   China                 155         16%   China
         USA                       30      26%   USA                       45      29%   India                   55        28%   Pakistan                75        23%   India
         India                     25      32%   India                     30      37%   USA                     35        33%   India                   60        29%   Pakista
         Japan                     20      38%   Japan                     15      40%   Greece                  25        38%   USA                     60        36%   Malays
Top 10

         Cyprus                    15      42%   Nigeria                   15      44%   Nigeria                 25        42%   Nigeria                 45        40%   United
         Taiwan                    15      46%   Pakistan                  15      48%   Taiwan                  20        45%   Malaysia                40        44%   Banglad
         Malaysia                  15      50%   Russia                    15      51%   Pakistan                20        48%   Bangladesh              35        48%   Russia
         Brazil                    10      53%   Cyprus                    10      54%   Russia                  20        52%   Taiwan                  30        51%   Nigeria
         Hong Kong                 10      55%   Taiwan                    10      56%   Canada                  15        54%   Mauritius               25        53%   Canada
         Pakistan                  10      58%   Thailand                  10      59%   Japan                   15        57%   Russia                  25        56%   Taiwan
         Russia                    10      61%   Turkey                    10      61%   Norway                  15        59%   Canada                  20        58%   South K
         Ukraine                   10      64%   Australia                  5      62%   Thailand                15        62%   Japan                   20        60%   Mauritiu
         Bulgaria                   5      65%   Bahamas                    5      63%   Turkey                  15        64%   Thailand                20        62%   Kazakh
         Canada                     5      66%   Canada                     5      65%   Brazil                  10        66%   Turkey                  20        64%   Thailan
         Sri Lanka                  5      68%   Sri Lanka                  5      66%   Hong Kong               10        68%   Bahamas                 15        65%   Hong K
         Ghana                      5      69%   Chile                      5      67%   Kenya                   10        69%   Greece                  15        67%   Lebano
         Greece                     5      70%   Colombia                   5      68%   South Korea             10        71%   Hong Kong               15        69%   Iran
         Jamaica                    5      72%   Germany                    5      70%   Malaysia                10        73%   South Korea             15        70%   Japan
         Kenya                      5      73%   Ghana                      5      71%   Bahrain                  5        73%   Lebanon                 15        72%   Kenya
         South Korea                5      74%   Greece                     5      72%   Barbados                 5        74%   Norway                  15        73%   Norway
         North Korea                5      76%   Hong Kong                  5      73%   Bulgaria                 5        75%   Cyprus                  10        74%   Singapo
         Mauritius                  5      77%   Indonesia                  5      74%   Colombia                 5        76%   Ghana                   10        75%   Turkey
         Mexico                     5      78%   Israel                     5      76%   Cyprus                   5        77%   Iceland                 10        76%   Baham
         Nigeria                    5      80%   Kenya                      5      77%   France                   5        78%   Iran                    10        77%   Brazil
         Norway                     5      81%   South Korea                5      78%   Ghana                    5        78%   Kenya                   10        78%   Sri Lan
         Zimbabwe                   5      82%   Lebanon                    5      79%   Iran                     5        79%   Saudi Arabia            10        79%   Ghana
         Romania                    5      84%   Malaysia                   5      80%   Lebanon                  5        80%   Trinidad                10        80%   Jamaic
                                                                  Item 11, Paper N
                                                                     Council 9.2.09

Corporate Meetings Calendar 2009-10


The Corporate Meetings Calendar lists University meetings and graduation dates. It
is distributed throughout the University and externally to Committee members.

No action required.

Recommended Action:

Council is asked to receive the calendar for 2009-10.

Contextual Information

The Corporate Meetings Calendar is available on the City University website.

Publication: Open

                                                                  Item 11, Paper N
                                                                  Council 09.02.09
Corporate Meetings Calendar 2009-10
The Corporate Meetings Calendar is available on the City University website at The calendar is updated online so please use the
web version for updates.

Meeting dates for 2009-10
Particular dates to note for 2009-10 are as follows:

Council (17.00-19.30)
28 September 09 (holding slot only); 16 November 09; 08 February 10; 22 March 10
(holding slot only); 23-24 April 10 (Away Day); 17 May 10; 12 July 10.

Advisory Board (17.00-18.30)
2 November 09; 26 April 10

Audit and Risk Committee (17.30-19.30)
22 September 09; 3 November 09; 9 March 10; 29 June 10

Corporate Governance and Nominations Committee (17.00-19.00)
12 October 09; 22 February 10; 14 June 10

Remuneration Committee (15.00-16.30)
16 November 2009 (date subject to change)

Annual General Meeting of the Court (Stakeholders’) (17.00-20.00)
7 December 2009

Meeting dates for 2010-11
In response to Council members‟ requests for forward planning to allow improved
management of diaries and business commitments please note that meeting dates
for 2010-11 will be circulated in April 2009.
                                                                    Item 12 Paper O
                                                                      Council 9.2.09

News Digest


This issue of the Strategy and Planning Unit‟s monthly news digest focuses on the
credit crunch.

No action required.

Recommended Action

Council is asked to note the Report.

Contextual Information

A briefing of developments in the higher education sector is provided to the Executive
Committee (ExCo), Council and Senate.

Publication: Open
                                                                     Item 12 Paper O
                                                                        Council 9.2.09

Horizon Scan

The focus for this month‟s report is the potential impact of the UK credit crunch on
each of the University‟s strategic areas. The current global economic downturn is
unprecedented and is likely to lead to a longer recession than previously predicted
for the UK.

There will be a joint report (with the International Office) giving a more detailed
insight into the potential impact to City‟s international student markets and a further
paper is being prepared on the implications of the changes to visa requirements.

EC and OECD analyses suggest that the British economy will be one of those
hardest hit by the recession. The government‟s pre-budget report predictions of a
1% drop in gross domestic product is reflected in the OECD report, which is,
however, somewhat more pessimistic than the government about the scale and
speed of subsequent regrowth. Unemployment has already risen to its highest level
since 1997, and in contrast to previous recessions which have hit the manufacturing
industries particularly hard, London is likely to bear the brunt as a world financial
centre. Measures announced in the pre-budget report, including the temporary
reduction in VAT and acceleration of capital spending, together with reduction in
interest rates and downward pressure on sterling, may provide short term fiscal
stimulus. Plans to recoup government spend from 2010 onwards through major cuts
in public spending, however, have already been flagged as likely to have a major
affect on the health sector and it seems likely that education will also be hit.,3343,en_2649_34109_20347538_1_1_1_37443,

Education Quality

Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills
While not directly related to the credit crunch, initial plans to redress the £200m
shortfall in the DIUS budget announced at the end of October should be noted. .
Revised maintenance grant arrangements will remove support announced in July
2007 to students from families with income of between £50,020 and £60,000.
HEFCE has also confirmed that there will be no further additional student numbers
(ASNs) for 2009-10, since the 10,000 permitted by the Secretary of State have
already been allocated. There will also be no further allocations for 2010-11 at this

Implications for City: Around 30% of City students receive the full grant and are
unaffected by these proposals. Our information on students receiving the partial
grant is less robust; however, with around 85% of its undergraduate intake from the
state sector, and around 35% from NES –SE groupings 4-7, it seems likely that City
recruits significantly from middle income families, affected both by this policy and the
credit squeeze. The obvious has been noted, that those Universities with wide
participation can afford to be less generous with bursary provision than those with a
narrower demographic (HEPI, September 2008) and it seems unlikely that we could
significantly „tweak‟ the scheme to provide more help to those on partial assistance.
It should also be noted that City is preparing a joint bid with City and Islington College
to HEFCE SDF for an HE centre which will be reliant on additional numbers.


The public sector benefits from those looking to change careers. Research from the
Higher Education Careers Services Unit (Hecsu), a research charity, suggests that
as early as last year, graduates were swapping plans to work in the finance sector for
careers in the public sector.

Implications for City: Whilst student numbers in business and finance are likely to
be unaffected due to the volume of good quality applicants, some applicants may
reconsider their choice of programme. City‟s large portfolio of undergraduate and
postgraduate programmes oriented towards the public sector, particularly in health,
may benefit in terms of volume of applicants. The Hanover Report (see separate
paper) suggests that demand for Law programmes may also grow, as an attractive
alternative for those concerned about a career in finance or business.


City occupied its usual place towards the top of a list in the Times Higher last week of
institutions with high dependency on overseas student income. The figures, based
on 2006/07 student numbers, demonstrated a £2.6m deficit if overseas enrolments
dropped by just 10%. It should be noted that such a decline against the 2007/08
budget would not put City in deficit. Meanwhile, i-graduate‟s analysis of exchange
rate fluctuations suggests that the UK is currently 34% cheaper for Chinese students
than in November 2007, 8% cheaper for Indian students and 28% cheaper for
students from the USA and Hong Kong. Our nearest competitor in this regard is
Australia while the US has become 31% more expensive for Indian and Korean
students. Further research is also being conducted by i-graduate to ascertain the
trade-off between cost versus quality with regard to student choice; the planning unit
will investigate the cost of becoming full members of i-graduate (currently we only
receive summary reports).

US and Obama
President–elect Obama's education policy is very much centered on primary and
secondary education. His higher education policy is likely to focus on the
„affordability‟ of College, although he has pledged a doubling of federal spending on
research. Obama‟s win and the relaxing of strict visa/security requirements for
overseas visitors have uplifted hopes of revitalizing the international student market
in the US. A recent survey by i-graduate claimed that 43% of international students
surveyed thought more students would be likely to choose the US as a result of the
election. Cost, however, will remain a factor.

Implications for City: It would be imprudent to be complacent, as a decline in
overseas student numbers would significantly challenge the University. This risk
requires review and monitoring in the setting of 2009/10 budgets. City needs to
capitalise on the current exchange rate fluctuations and sell on its quality and


UCU has indicated that it will be submitting its 2009-10 higher education pay claim by
the end of the year, seeking a rise equivalent to the Retail Price Index (RPI) + 5% or
an 8% increase, whichever is higher. UCEA has emphasised that average academic
pay is now significantly higher than that for other professions and compared the
generosity of recent pay settlements with the public sector as a whole and indicated
that this claim is both premature and “wholly unrealistic and certainly unaffordable.”

Universities may also be asked to increase their contribution to staff pensions or cut
members‟ benefits as concerns grow for a funding shortfall in final salary pension

Implications for City: Although USS claims its position remains strong (despite a
high proportion of assets in equities and a reported 23% shortfall in March 2008), it is
anticipated that it will ask universities for a 2-4% increase in contributions. A further
statement is expected in January.

Strategy and Planning Unit
November 2008

Shared By:
Description: councilpapers doc Cherry Extract