corporation board - abingdon-witney.ac.uk€¦ · qip; differentiation in ... project ice (inspire,...

8
Corporation Board 2017-18 Page 7 CORPORATION BOARD Minutes of a meeting of the Corporation Board held on Thursday 14 December 2017 at Abingdon Campus at 6pm Present Di Batchelor (Principal) Barry Jenner (Chair) Tim Lincoln Gavin Maitland-Smith Tony Petruso John Revis Sean Wellington Stephen Vickers In attendance Mark Lay, Finance Director Jenny Craig, Vice Principal, Curriculum & Quality Maureen Boyle, Vice Principal, Student Engagement Ruth Reavley, Clerk Governor questions are represented with bullet points, and management responses are italicized. 1. Opening comments, apologies for absence and new declarations of interest All those expected being present, the meeting opened at 5.50pm. Apologies had been accepted from Mark Johnstone, Kath Parker, Fay Croft, Vicky Field, Roger File and Nick Handy. The meeting was quorate. The Deputy Principal was on maternity leave. The Chair updated members on the situation regarding Student Governors: two nominations had been received, and an election process was planned for early in Spring Term. Confirmation of appointment by written resolution would allow those elected to participate in Committees prior to the March Board meeting. There were no new declarations of interest. The Chair reported highlights from the Association of Colleges’ Annual Conference. 2. Minutes of the meeting held on 12 October 2017 All minutes were approved and signed. 3. Matters arising from the Minutes not covered elsewhere on the agenda The report was noted. STRATEGIC PLAN: CHANGING LIVES & COMMUNITIES 4. Principal’s Update The new Health & Safety high level report was discussed. What distinguishes an incident from an accident? Within the College an accident is distinguished by an injury having occurred. The definitions are standard across all campuses. There is no consensus across Landex Colleges on definitions, which makes benchmarking a challenge. Given the higher probability of accidents occurring on the Farm Campus, benchmarking with Landex is appropriate. The College has therefore sought and achieved external “badging”, for instance RoSPA. Welcoming the data on staff wellbeing and mental health, is it the case that a small number of people account for a high number of the days absent? Yes, that is so. What was being done to address the relatively low levels of compliance on greyfleet? Further information is being provided to enable staff who only commute to opt out of the greyfleet. The default is to opt all staff in. Status is refreshed annually. The Board welcomed the format, which will be used for future reports. The Balanced Score Card (BSC) was discussed. Should governors be concerned that cumulative apprenticeship income was behind budget? The budget for this line was profiled wrongly. This is the first year for accessing this type of apprenticeship funding. Nationally there has been a 60% drop in take-up of apprenticeships since the current system was set up.

Upload: vantu

Post on 11-Jun-2018

220 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: CORPORATION BOARD - abingdon-witney.ac.uk€¦ · QIP; differentiation in ... Project ICE (inspire, challenge, engage) is encouraging creativity and the sharing of best ... 6. Management

Corporation Board 2017-18 Page 7

CORPORATION BOARD Minutes of a meeting of the Corporation Board held on Thursday 14 December 2017 at Abingdon Campus at 6pm Present Di Batchelor (Principal) Barry Jenner (Chair) Tim Lincoln Gavin Maitland-Smith Tony Petruso

John Revis Sean Wellington Stephen Vickers

In attendance Mark Lay, Finance Director Jenny Craig, Vice Principal, Curriculum & Quality Maureen Boyle, Vice Principal, Student Engagement Ruth Reavley, Clerk

Governor questions are represented with bullet points, and management responses are italicized.

1. Opening comments, apologies for absence and new declarations of interest All those expected being present, the meeting opened at 5.50pm. Apologies had been accepted from Mark Johnstone, Kath Parker, Fay Croft, Vicky Field, Roger File and Nick Handy. The meeting was quorate. The Deputy Principal was on maternity leave. The Chair updated members on the situation regarding Student Governors: two nominations had been received, and an election process was planned for early in Spring Term. Confirmation of appointment by written resolution would allow those elected to participate in Committees prior to the March Board meeting. There were no new declarations of interest. The Chair reported highlights from the Association of Colleges’ Annual Conference. 2. Minutes of the meeting held on 12 October 2017 All minutes were approved and signed. 3. Matters arising from the Minutes not covered elsewhere on the agenda

The report was noted.

STRATEGIC PLAN: CHANGING LIVES & COMMUNITIES

4. Principal’s Update

The new Health & Safety high level report was discussed.

What distinguishes an incident from an accident? Within the College an accident is distinguished by an injury having occurred. The definitions are standard across all campuses. There is no consensus across Landex Colleges on definitions, which makes benchmarking a challenge. Given the higher probability of accidents occurring on the Farm Campus, benchmarking with Landex is appropriate. The College has therefore sought and achieved external “badging”, for instance RoSPA.

Welcoming the data on staff wellbeing and mental health, is it the case that a small number of people account for a high number of the days absent? Yes, that is so.

What was being done to address the relatively low levels of compliance on greyfleet? Further information is being provided to enable staff who only commute to opt out of the greyfleet. The default is to opt all staff in. Status is refreshed annually.

The Board welcomed the format, which will be used for future reports. The Balanced Score Card (BSC) was discussed.

Should governors be concerned that cumulative apprenticeship income was behind budget? The budget for this line was profiled wrongly. This is the first year for accessing this type of apprenticeship funding. Nationally there has been a 60% drop in take-up of apprenticeships since the current system was set up.

Page 2: CORPORATION BOARD - abingdon-witney.ac.uk€¦ · QIP; differentiation in ... Project ICE (inspire, challenge, engage) is encouraging creativity and the sharing of best ... 6. Management

Corporation Board 2017-18 Page 8

How does the attendance target compare with 2016-17? This year’s target is higher. 92% is what was achieved last year.

How are action points arising from the 2017 Ofsted inspection covered in the BSC? Three key areas are not included in the BSC: English & Maths qualification achievement information will be available in August 2018; Prevent agenda actions are addressed in the QIP; differentiation in the classroom is addressed as an aspect of staff progress towards the leadership pathway. The Quality variables are of greatest value in considering the Ofsted agenda. Of those, no FE or HE courses are yet complete. Ofsted’s focus on progress into careers is not reflected in the BSC.

How is the Quality Improvement Plan arising from the Self Assessment Report monitored? Six-weekly Key Performance Indicator meetings are held by the Vice Principal, Curriculum & Quality, with Heads of Departments. Some real-time dashboard data is available for Curriculum Managers and Course Leaders. A range of mechanisms are used by lecturers to monitor individual students.

Governors noted that the BSC built on previous iterations, and this year’s format had been debated and approved by the Governance & Strategy Committee. Where asterisked, they relate to the Strategy.

As the year-end target of 29% of teaching staff in the leadership pathway has already been exceeded, is the target ambitious enough? Given the turnover of staff, the target is stretching. 26-27% has been steadily achieved in recent years. By the end of 2016/17, 27% had been achieved, but with great variability between faculties. There remained work to do. One single staff member change can have significant impact at faculty level. The Leadership category reflects not only excellent teaching, but also sharing good practice and research; excellent teaching is delivered by many more than 29% of teaching staff.

How was 29% set? It is an ambitious target, and a stretch on recent years’ achievements.

The Board noted the BSC. The Principal’s response to points raised in a recent letter from the outgoing CEO of the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) was discussed. The target audience for the letter was governing bodies of Colleges in financial difficulty, or at risk of becoming so. The College was not of concern to the ESFA.

Was the absence of International activity in the College profile a positive or negative factor? Peter Lauener viewed international work as high risk. Its absence in the College portfolio was therefore a strength.

The Board received the report. Governors noted the four news highlights: Beacon Award, runner-up Student of the Year, ISO 14001 and attaining 6th place in the national survey on employer satisfaction. Governors reported that the Principal’s interim updates circulated between meetings were valuable in keeping them abreast of developments in the College and sector.

5. College Self Assessment Report 2016-17 and draft Quality Improvement Plan 2017-18

The Vice Principal, Curriculum & Quality drew attention to the detailed discussion reported in the Curriculum & Quality Committee minutes. Internal and external moderation was now complete. Judgements made internally had been confirmed in external moderation. Governors welcomed the new format and infographics, as being clear, accessible and useful. Governors considered a presentation which covered the following points:

What progress did we make in 2016-17?

Page 3: CORPORATION BOARD - abingdon-witney.ac.uk€¦ · QIP; differentiation in ... Project ICE (inspire, challenge, engage) is encouraging creativity and the sharing of best ... 6. Management

Corporation Board 2017-18 Page 9

Key highlights

What we still need to work on

How are we going to effect improvement?

Proposed Curriculum SAR grades

Proposed Summary Judgements In discussion:

What is the marking turn-round target? What defines a “prompt” turn-round? Prompt is defined by the College as within two weeks. 80% of students’ work is marked in a timely manner, which meets Ofsted minimum thresholds. An improvement and visible tracking system for English and Maths helps staff and students to monitor performance. Attendance has improved since the new tracking system was introduced.

Project ICE (inspire, challenge, engage) is encouraging creativity and the sharing of best practice. Are less able, and less creative teachers open to improvement? Is their attitude based in cynicism, or a lack of creativity? Naturally motivation will vary within a group of teachers. The College has invested in technology to allow teachers to video their lessons as a tool for professional reflection. It is to be expected that truly inspiring teaching will be achieved by only some of the entire cohort of teachers. Yes, but the College hopes that those joining the teaching staff love their subject and want to inspire. The College does not want clones, but is ambitious that all teachers inspire their students?

How is the impact of Project ICE measured? Indicators include student feedback and peer observers judging ICE.

Could governors see the material now used with adult students on the risks of radicalism and extremism? Yes, they can be made available on the Governor Portal. They have been discussed with the Designated Governor for Personal Development, Behaviour and Welfare.

Would there be any benefit to grading English separately from maths for 16-18 and 19+? The College has achieved national average in both 16-18 and 19+ at GCSE. If that is so, why is 16-18 English and Maths graded at 3? The national average is very low, hence level 3. Does that mean that levels 2 and 1 are unattainable for English & maths at GCSE? If the College achieved 30%, which is significantly above national average, that would be graded as a 2. Our job is to support students to achieve a grade of C or above. Should English and maths be separated? Given current data, the results would not differ. Separate teams deliver to 16-18 and 19+ student groups studying for GCSE English and Maths. Functional Skills English and maths are, by contrast, embedded in the Curriculum areas. The Ofsted Chief Inspector’s Annual Report 2016-17 includes a comment that the national policy on English and maths is possibly not the best it could be.

Why, given the data, has Accounting been graded 1? The national pass rate for the new AAT qualification has dropped significantly. The grade reflects teaching and learning, and quality in the whole curriculum area. The judgement that the College is grade 1 in this curriculum area was verified by external moderators. The CEO of AAT has written to Colleges apologising for the negative impact of the changed qualifications.

Has the College made any progress since Ofsted reported in March? The College did not judge that it had addressed the reason behind Ofsted not grading High Level Needs as Outstanding. Is the College overall now “very” good? For 16-18 students, apart from GCSE achievement and possibly destinations, the College is outstanding, though that is not so yet for 19+ students. By December 2018, what is expected? That High Needs and 16-19 study programmes will both be outstanding. In December 2016 the College was “on the cusp” of outstanding. Much has been done since. Yet we are still on the cusp. Why is that? Ofsted’s inspection regime has changed.

Page 4: CORPORATION BOARD - abingdon-witney.ac.uk€¦ · QIP; differentiation in ... Project ICE (inspire, challenge, engage) is encouraging creativity and the sharing of best ... 6. Management

Corporation Board 2017-18 Page 10

To what extent do we accept that Ofsted is capricious? How much is the judgement internally driven? The 2014/15 and 2016/17 Common Inspection Frameworks (CIF) differ. The only audience for this document, other than governors, is Ofsted. The SAR covers 70% of what the College does. The College does not slavishly follow Ofsted. The College knew aspects of the Adult Education work needed to be improved when it was brought into the College. Granular work goes on at Curriculum level to form the judgements. The direction of travel is positive on many of the measures presented. The CIF is likely to change by 2019, when the next inspection is due.

Given the specialisation in Special Needs work, and the distinctiveness of the College because of that, should the College have anticipated better what Ofsted was looking for? In 2014/15, the College was judged based on students with Special Educational Needs in a discrete curriculum area; in 2016/17 the focus was on students with High Level Needs throughout the College. Ofsted wanted to see longitudinal data on careers progression on leaving the College.

The Board approved the judgements proposed for the SAR, and the areas for quality improvement identified. Members recognised and applauded all that had been achieved, and continued to aspire to achieve “outstanding” from Ofsted.

Action By Whom Deadline

Add adult education prevent material to the Governor portal

Vice Principal, Student Engagement, Clerk

As soon as possible

Submit SAR to Ofsted Vice Principal, Curriculum & Quality As soon as possible

REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE MATTERS 6. Management Accounts to 31 October 2017 The Finance Director introduced the report. The Finance & General Purposes Committee had seen data to 30 September 2017. He drew attention to the apparent underspend on the year to date Income & Expenditure account, explained as a timing matter. Student numbers submitted to the ESFA in a key report in November indicated approximately 30 more 16-18 students than in 2016/17. The lagged funding method meant that income for 2018/19 was expected to be £8.1million, rather than £8.0million as a result. That all student loans had been taken up was good; the College would submit a request for further funding in January 2018 when the portal re-opened, which would take the income to well above target. These enhanced income streams would help to offset under recruitment on HE (an exposure of approximately £100,000). Whilst Apprenticeship Levy income broadly reflected the national trend in underperformance, non-levy income for January 2018 – March 2019 was expected to be £750,000, which would offset the underperformance.

Should the College concentrate more on non-levy work? The Deputy Principal would use a “Keeping in Touch” day in December to work with the finance team on reforecasting levy and non-levy income. A high level reforecast would be ready for January 2018.

The adverse figure for payroll YTD reflected higher than projected absenteeism, and the cost of cover staff.

Is absenteeism significant? Some managers are expected to be off work for a significant period.

The Board noted the report. 7. Agri-tech Capital Project Governors noted the reasons for an increase in costs of £0.3million beyond the budget approved July 2017 of £1.4million (including a £0.4million contribution from the College). The

Page 5: CORPORATION BOARD - abingdon-witney.ac.uk€¦ · QIP; differentiation in ... Project ICE (inspire, challenge, engage) is encouraging creativity and the sharing of best ... 6. Management

Corporation Board 2017-18 Page 11

plan to fund the difference was noted, and that there was no adverse impact on ESFA financial health grade.

Are SMT members confident of District Council Planning approval? Full advantage had been taken of pre-application consultations. Plans had been revised. The application would be submitted in January 2018.

Is there an adverse impact on bank covenants? No, there was not.

Where does this take the College in terms of unique offering? The Principal reprised discussion which had taken place in July 2018. The development allowed the College to offer courses which reflected the growing use of technology in agriculture. The Head of Faculty had visited a number of larger land-based Colleges, all out of the College catchment, prior to initial scoping.

If this additional funding were provided, what does it prevent the College from doing, in relation to future LEP offers? That was impossible to judge. Recent tranches of investment had been used at the Witney and Abingdon Campuses. Common Leys Campus was ripe for investment. The College has an effective relationship with the LEP. In the past, the LEP has accepted the argument that prior investment could be incorporated into capital bids.

If the Board’s capital expenditure on the project were to increase significantly, there is a risk to financial stability. All recent capital projects have come in on budget and on time. If costs come in from the tender significantly above budget, the project would be scaled back. The Curriculum plan would be adversely impacted if the additional £0.3million was not approved. At present, the costs are those provided by cost consultants. On tendering, actual costs for the Advanced Skills Centre were 10% below the cost consultants’ figures.

At what level would an overspend be brought back to the Board? The Board would be consulted if projected costs escalated a further £50,000 to £1.75 million. The standard project management approach taken by the College is to value-engineer within the approved budget,

What does the Faculty contribution model data for this Faculty look like? Would the investment be transformative on a campus which has not had such investment for a number of years? There is still work to do on the contribution model. The College receives an uplift for land-based students. Management accounts indicated year to date the faculty making 51% over a projected 48% contribution. With the Agri-tech project in place, a year-end contribution of £1.2million was projected, against a £1.0 million contribution without the project.

Were opportunities were there for sponsorship/donations in kind being explored? They would be, and had the potential to make marginal contributions. Support in kind was often easier to achieve than capital support.

Was residential accommodation required? None was planned.

Is there demand for the expanded curriculum? The strategic case had been presented in July. The facility allowed for expansion of both research and curriculum pathways.

What succession planning is in place for the Faculty’s key leaders? Senior Management and College Leadership planning is ongoing. The Principal would expect strong internal applicants should the Head of Faculty role become vacant.

Noting the proposed board role in relation to any significant cost escalation, there was unanimous approval of an increase of up to £0.3million investment in the Agri-tech project, to be drawn from reserves. The Board approved a proposal that the Chair and Principal were given delegated authority to sign the funding agreement with Oxfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership (OxLEP).

Page 6: CORPORATION BOARD - abingdon-witney.ac.uk€¦ · QIP; differentiation in ... Project ICE (inspire, challenge, engage) is encouraging creativity and the sharing of best ... 6. Management

Corporation Board 2017-18 Page 12

8. Internal Auditors’ Report 2016/17 The internal auditors’ annual opinion, of “adequate and effective” arrangements to manage the College’s governance, risk management and internal controls, was recommended to the Board by the Audit Committee. The Committee had discussed management response to Auditor recommendations, and noted and effective relationship in which reasoned resistance to some recommendations was accepted by Auditors. The Committee had considered the value for money of some non-quantitative internal audit work during 2016-17. This discussion was reflected in agenda item 11. The Board approved the Report. 9. Audit Committee Annual Report 2016/17 The Board noted the turnover in membership after the academic year-end. The Audit Committee was satisfied that audit expectations set in the funding agency Code of Practice had been met. Areas for improvement had been identified in the course of internal audit work, and appropriate action plans put in place. The Financial Statements Audit had been straightforward, and an unqualified opinion issued. Other areas covered included risk management, value for money, whistleblowing and fraud, solvency of the institution and safeguarding of its assets, committee self-assessment and other sources of assurance. The Board approved the Report.

Action By Whom Deadline

Signed copy to be submitted to ESFA Finance Director By ESFA deadline of 31 December 2017

10. Financial Statements 2016/17 and Letter of Representation Governors noted that nothing of note had changed since the draft seen in October. The Report had now been audited. Governors noted advice, given in absentia by email, by the Chair of the Joint Audit and Finance & General Purposes Committees:

The Financial Statements were recommended as a “true and fair” view of the College’s state of affairs as at 31 July 2017 and the deficit for the year then ended. This is on the basis of the review conducted by the Joint Audit and Finance & General Purposes Committee, and the response of the management team to the items raised as a result of that review.

In relation to the actuarial assumptions around the cost of the LGPS Pension Scheme, a rate of increase in salaries of 4.2% (previously 3.9%), made on the basis that in the current environment of the Government’s stated intention of relaxing public sector pay and easing of austerity, is a prudent assumption. This will need to be reviewed on a regular basis, as more clarity emerges over the long-term rate of increase in salaries.

Governors noted that 4.2% had been suggested by the Actuaries, and that it and the higher charge that generated, as noted in the Financial Statement, had been subject to lengthy discussion, as minuted in the Joint meeting minutes. The Finance Director drew attention to the Statement of Comprehensive Income, which showed the College making a surplus. To an external stakeholder’s view, this tells a positive story. One minor typographical error had been corrected on the version presented for signature. The Financial Statements were approved for signature without further discussion. The Letter of Representation from the College to MHA MacIntyre Hudson was approved subject to one typographical correction, without further discussion. The Board received the

Page 7: CORPORATION BOARD - abingdon-witney.ac.uk€¦ · QIP; differentiation in ... Project ICE (inspire, challenge, engage) is encouraging creativity and the sharing of best ... 6. Management

Corporation Board 2017-18 Page 13

MHA MacIntyre Hudson Management Report, noting that an unqualified opinion had been issued.

Action By Whom Deadline

Signed copy to be submitted to ESFA Finance Director By ESFA deadline of 31 December 2017

11. Internal Auditors 2018/19 – 2020/21 – recommendation to reappoint or go to tender The proposals made in the paper had been discussed by the Audit Committee. The proposed reduction in Internal Audit days is intended to improve value for money. There was an ambition in the Committee to draw on higher quality input from internal auditors through the provision of consultancy and coaching, which is not delivered in the current arrangements. The Committee judged that seeking out niche specialists, to audit some areas identified by the Board and Senior Managers as being of concern, could yield better value for money. The Board agreed that, if the incumbent Internal Auditors were “best bidders” for the 20-day contract, the continued relationship would be appropriate. They noted comments from the Finance Director and the Clerk that other Colleges in the Thames Valley and in the Association of Colleges Southern Region were adopting this hybrid approach to internal audit. The Board approved:

a) That a tender exercise be undertaken on the basis of 20 days’ audit work b) That a contingency fund is reserved valued the equivalent of 15 days’ at current

charges. This might buy fewer days of niche expert input. c) That the Board delegated to the Audit Committee decisions about use of the

contingency fund.

Action By Whom Deadline

Initiate tendering process Finance Director

Outcome for consideration by the Audit Committee on 1 March 2018, and recommendation to Board on 26 March 2018

Develop approach to identifying Board prioritisation for commissioning of specialist internal audit

Audit Committee

For implementation in 2018/19

12. External Auditors 2018/19 – 2020/21 – recommendation to reappoint of go to tender Further to the paper circulated, the Finance Director read out an email received from Rakesh Shaunak, Partner at MHA MacIntyre Hudson outlining the Company’s approach to objectivity and independence in External Audit service provision. The point had arisen at the Audit Committee meeting, with respect to the rotation of partner/ account manager:

MHA MacIntyre Hudson has a system of regular review of all major audits by both a

quality assurance partner, and a technical partner. These partners are drawn from a

pool of partners. As the Board’s client services and audit partner, Rakesh Shaunak’s

work is subject to review by two other partners, who may vary from year to year. MHA

MacIntyre Hudson believes that this approach gives their clients the benefit of

continuity and fresh perspective on an ongoing basis. The Company has regular

reviews from the Quality Assurance Directorate at the Institute of Chartered

Accountants in England and Wales, and they have been totally satisfied with this

process.

The Board noted its satisfaction with the Financial Statements Auditors’ work. It was possible for a “soft” tender to be undertaken by the Finance Director, benchmarking across the Thames Valley FE Colleges group, and drawing on published ESFA data.

Page 8: CORPORATION BOARD - abingdon-witney.ac.uk€¦ · QIP; differentiation in ... Project ICE (inspire, challenge, engage) is encouraging creativity and the sharing of best ... 6. Management

Corporation Board 2017-18 Page 14

Had the Company served the College “too long”? They had been Financial Statements Auditors since 2009. Governors discussed the point. The Chair of Audit (formerly a Finance & General Purposes Committee member) was confident that the relationship is not “too cosy”. Minutes gave evidence that each party challenged the other appropriately. The Audit Committee valued the well-considered approach to quality assurance provided by the incumbent company. There was genuine value in the Financial Statements Auditor having broad FE sector knowledge. There were issues common to many Colleges, for instance treatment of the pension scheme. In commerce, it was usual to rotate either partner or account manager after nine or ten years. If such a rotation were to take place, it should not be of both simultaneously.

The Board approved the recommendation of the Audit Committee that the current external auditors are appointed for a further three years (1 August 2018 – 31 July 2021), subject to receipt of a competitive quotation.

Action By Whom Deadline

Request quotation for service provision, and benchmark against regional data

Finance Director

Outcome for consideration by the Audit Committee on 1 March 2018

Prepare paper for Audit Committee with draft recommendation to Board

Finance Director

Outcome for consideration by the Audit Committee on 1 March 2018, and recommendation to Board on 26 March 2018

13. High Level Risk Register The Board approved the High Level Risk Register, noting plans for migration to a new approach during 2017/18, with inclusion of new risks (e.g. Brexit) expected.

Was the full register available to Governors? It was available to governors. The Board had asked to see High Level only. The Finance Director would provide it.

Action By Whom Deadline

Send Full Risk Register to the external governor who had requested it.

Finance Director As soon as possible

14. Committee minutes Public minutes were noted as follows: Audit Committee, Joint Audit and Finance & General Purposes Committees, and Finance & General Purposes Committee, all 20 November 2017; Curriculum & Quality Committee, 21 November 2017. Confidential Minutes: Finance & General Purposes Committee, 20 November 2017. 15. Periodic Review of Confidential Items The Board approved the Clerk’s recommendations for release of previously confidential papers, in the interest of transparency and openness. 16. Future Business Items The Board noted proposals for the Board meeting scheduled for 26 March, 2018. 17. Student life: snapshot of recent highlights The meeting concluded with a presentation of images captured which reflect highlights for students from the Autumn Term. Examples were drawn from every Faculty and each main Campus. Governors were pleased to be given further insights into the impact the College has on lives and communities. The meeting closed at 8.05pm.