By Peter Evans
It was decision time for the Court in February, with regard to the two major capital projects partly supported by SRIF funds, the Life Sciences (CIR) and Applied Computing/Queen Mother Research Centre buildings.
Other SRIF projects had been signed off in June 2002, but the Court had deferred final decisions on these two larger projects to allow time for additional external fund-raising. With the clock now firmly ticking for the take-up of SRIF monies, the Court was informed that the funding gap had been closed, although not without a provisional allocation from the second round of SRIF awards made earlier this year.
The case for these landmark new buildings had been well rehearsed at previous meetings, but that did not prevent a lengthy debate. Concerns revolved principally around the contribution from University general funds (£4.6m), which a few Court members felt was too large - despite the bulk of it being earmarked for improvement of teaching infrastructure, one of the strategic priorities of the capital programme. The converse argument was that, against its own relatively modest investment, the University stood to benefit from capital developments costing almost £29m; moreover the funds pledged from external sources were specifically for these two projects and could not be redirected to other purposes. Attention was also drawn to the risks of not proceeding, including the inability to expand and enhance teaching, particularly in Applied Computing, and to continue to recruit researchers of international calibre in Life Sciences. A decision to proceed was finally taken on a vote, which was overwhelmingly in favour. Building work will commence in 2003.
The Court then turned to another crunch issue: the future strategy for the University's residences. A team led by Bill Barr, Director of Campus Services, had been working intensively on this project, with regular reports to the Court. Its recommendation was that outsourcing should be the preferred option. Under the proposed arrangements, the residences would be leased to a special purpose vehicle (Dundee Student Villages Ltd) involving the University, Sanctuary Housing Association and a bank as equal partners. This approach offered the best opportunity for upgrading the residences stock, while relieving the University of responsibility for the costs of maintenance and HMO compliance. Having received reassurances on various points, including safeguards for students and for staff transferring to the SPV, the Court approved the recommendation, subject to further negotiations with SHA and its financial associates. It also authorised expenditure of £650k for start-up costs.
Entering waters that were considerably calmer than they had been six months ago, the Court reviewed progress in meeting staff cost reduction targets for 2003/04. The good working relationship which had been developed with the campus unions to effect staffing reductions by voluntary means was emphasised. Taking predicted income improvements into account, 91% of the targeted savings had been secured so far. Shortfalls remained in the Faculties of Duncan of Jordanstone College and Engineering & Physical Sciences, although further savings were still being identified. The Court approved the extension of the early retirement and voluntary severance scheme to 18 April.
Arising from the report of the Finance Committee, the Court approved the recommendation of the Trustees of the University of Dundee Superannuation Scheme (for clerical, technical and manual staff) that the employer's contribution rate should be increased to 13.5% from 1 August 2003, at an additional annual cost to the University of £560k. This requirement was forced by falling stock market values, reflecting pressures on the pensions industry generally.
On the constitutional side the Court approved, for its part, a revision of the constitution of the Students' Association (addressing, inter alia, the implications of semesterisation for election dates and the need for a more realistic quorum for General Meetings), as well as an amendment to Ordinance 20 allowing the annual meeting of the Graduates' Council to be held in conjunction with Graduation festivities in July - or at any time of year other than April, as hitherto specified.
Finally, on a suitably scholastic note, the Court welcomed a proposal that Emeritus Professor David Swinfen, the recently retired Vice-Principal, should produce an updated history of the University by 2007, to coincide with the 40th anniversary of its founding.
The Court held its third annual Retreat at the West Park Centre at the end of April.
At a brief, initial business meeting the Court received a final report on the savings achieved through the early retirement and voluntary severance scheme. It was believed that, with full-year effect for all posts, the overall savings target (including additional income) of £1.9m would be achieved. The Court accordingly agreed that the ERVS scheme should be closed for the time being - except for staff of the Medical School, for whom it should remain open until 30 June so that the Faculty could fulfil its plans for strategic reinvestment.
Moving to Retreat mode, the Court held presentation and discussion sessions on: the positioning of the University over the next 3-5 years in response to changes in the funding of the sector and other factors; on educational development (this being the first Court meeting to be attended by the new Vice-Principal for Educational Development, Professor James Calderhead); and on estates issues.
Notwithstanding interruption of its final business session on corporate governance by a fire alarm (which forced a temporary adjournment to the car park), the Court picked up the threads of a discussion which had been started at the February meeting about the conduct of Court business. Actions were approved to address the various points of consensus which had emerged at that meeting. These entailed improved presentation of issues to Court through more use of summaries, briefings and themed discussions, as well as increased involvement of Court members in the work of committees and project/task groups.
A Schedule of Delegation was approved, detailing the powers that Court reserved to itself and those which were explicitly delegated to committees or officers. Other aspects of best practice in corporate governance were touched upon in discussion, as well as the composition of the Court itself. In particular the definition in the Statutes of co-opted lay members as representatives of the local community was questioned, in the light of current practice and encouragement in the Scottish Executive's Higher Education Review for governing bodies to tap into an international perspective. There will be further developments on some of these matters at the Court's June meeting.