|Previous page||Table of Contents||Next page|
2. This Report reviews the present arrangements for recruiting and rewarding staff and highlights the difficulties that face the University in devising effective arrangements, given that the majority of its staff are very able, and that its resources are finite.
3. Over the last ten years, since the introduction of selective pay systems in the higher education sector, attempts have been made to adapt policies to provide for recognition of contribution and achievement on a selective basis. There has been extensive consultation within the University on several occasions during this period, particularly in relation to the reform of promotion arrangements for academic staff.
4. In this Report the General Board seek the approval of the Regent House for a range of proposals which are to be viewed as part of an evolving process of reform and a stage in a strategy for improving the University's competitive ability to attract and retain staff of the highest calibre; the Board's intention is to introduce greater coherence into present policies concerned with the recruitment, reward, and retention of academic and academic-related staff.
5. This Report reviews and proposes changes in existing policies concerning staff under the headings 'Recruitment' and 'Reward and retention'. Staff in professorial and non-professorial grades are dealt with separately in each section. The Report also addresses the consequential implications of the changes proposed for the academic-related structure and for the discretionary pay arrangements for staff in non-professorial grades.
1 For a list of the principal Reports and Notices which are cited in the present Report, see Annex 1.
7. The Board's thinking, as outlined in their Notice of 3 December 1997, should be seen as part of a wider consideration of the University's policies and arrangements for recruiting and rewarding academic staff. Although the arrangements for promotion to senior academic offices have been the subject of considerable interest and debate in the University and have taken up much of the time of the Board in recent years, much thought has also been given to ways in which the present arrangements for attracting, rewarding, and retaining academic staff can be improved. If the University is to maintain its standing as a world-class institution and to compete effectively, not only with leading universities in the United Kingdom but also with institutions of similar standing abroad, in recruiting staff of the highest calibre it is vital that the University's recruitment policies should be competitive and that it should be able to retain staff by providing an effective reward for their commitment, contribution, and achievement. The Board believe that it is now timely to bring forward proposals which will improve present policies for recruiting and rewarding staff who are making significant contributions to the work of the University, and to make the present arrangements more coherent within a strategic policy for academic and academic-related staff.
8. Over the last decade the University has been adapting systems and structures which were previously focused on rewarding research, so as to provide some means of recognizing teaching and general contribution. At Cambridge the office of University Lecturer was for many years widely regarded as the career grade for academic staff, and only a small number of promotions to personal Readerships and Professorships were approved each year. The structure of academic offices at Cambridge differs from the structure at most other universities in that it has no grade of Senior Lecturer, and indeed has no clear promotional means of rewarding an officer's contribution in teaching, examining, and administration.
9. In 1987 the Twenty-third Report from Committee A of the universities' national negotiating machinery acknowledged the vital contribution that the universities make to the scientific, economic, and cultural life of the nation, and introduced a number of changes in the national structure that were thought to be necessary if universities were to be able to recruit and retain staff with the ability to sustain that contribution. The changes that were introduced had as their aims the need to make the salary structure more flexible; to make it easier for highly talented academics to progress to the higher posts, and to reduce the blockage at the top of the lecturer scale; to cope with the different levels of salary required in recruiting to different disciplines, some of which had to compete with strong outside demand; and to enable individual universities to use their strained resources to best advantage. Following the Twenty-third Report from Committee A, more selective systems of pay were introduced in universities, and targeted pay became a feature of national pay awards. Cambridge introduced discretionary payments for University officers in non-professorial grades, supplementary payments for Professors, and schemes for recruitment incentive payments. The central bodies became committed to funding more annual promotions. However, such changes were accompanied by a concern that universities' resources could not sustain, and would never be likely to sustain, general increases in pay which applied as they had previously to all staff, and which would provide reasonable comparability with other professions and public sector organizations. University pay has continued to decline in real terms and in relation to comparable professions. In Cambridge, it is recognized that this has created an acute problem. The majority of University Lecturers here are at the top of the scale; most are very able and of high calibre. The difficulty for the central bodies lies in devising and introducing arrangements that will provide suitable and adequate reward, within finite resources, without creating inequities. The General Board are of the view that, while there may be other universities at which this is a problem, the problem is especially acute at Cambridge.
10. In recent years, the attention of the central bodies has focused in particular on the reform of promotion arrangements. There has been extensive consultation within the University. In 1992, the Board initiated a review of academic offices and pay in the University. The review originated in an attempt on the part of the Board to develop a strategy for dealing with the discretionary element in national pay awards for non-clinical academic and academic-related staff. The principal aims of the review were to promote an awareness in the University of the Cambridge structure of offices and pay and the problems related to it, and to provide an opportunity both for individual officers and for academic authorities to comment on a number of possible suggestions for altering the structure. A 'Green Paper' was subsequently prepared which formed the basis of consultation within the University. The main concern of this Green Paper was to consider whether the structure and the arrangements for rewarding staff at Cambridge were adequate compared with those at other universities. The paper was circulated for comment to the holders of all academic offices and to all Faculty Boards and comparable authorities. A Discussion was also held to give members of the Regent House an opportunity to comment. With regard to promotion arrangements, two suggestions emerged from this consultation. The first led to a widening of the criteria for promotion to a personal Readership or Professorship, so as to take account of an officer's contribution in areas other than research. Although research achievement remained the paramount consideration in the assessment of cases for such promotion, account was also to be taken of teaching and general contribution, particularly in deciding between cases where, in a highly competitive exercise, marginal considerations might be significant in reaching a decision. The second suggestion led to a sustained increase in the annual number of promotions to Readerships, the aim being, subject to availability of funds and the quality of the field each year, to bring the Cambridge ratio of University Lecturers (excluding University Assistant Lecturers) to Readers approximately into line with the ratio of Lecturers to Senior Lecturers/Readers in the national system.
11. In December 1995 the General Board published a Notice in which they set out the results of a further review of the criteria and procedural arrangements for the consideration of promotions to personal Professorships and Readerships. It was announced that there would be extensive consultation and that the Board's further consideration would be influenced by the results of this. A questionnaire based on the issues highlighted in the December 1995 Notice was circulated to all academic officers, and Faculty Boards and comparable authorities were also invited to comment. (The questionnaire was reproduced as an Appendix to the Board's Notice on promotion procedures in the University, published on 14 February 1996.) A Discussion was held in March 1996 to give members of the Regent House an opportunity to comment. Revised procedures to be used in connexion with promotions to personal Professorships and Readerships, set out in a Notice dated 22 July 1996, were subsequently brought forward for approval by the Regent House and a Discussion was held on 15 October 1996. The arrangements were approved, subject to the inclusion of an additional criterion for promotion, viz. an effective contribution to teaching (where applicable). The first such annual promotions exercise is currently under way; the Board intend to review those arrangements and to report on them in the light of the experience of operating them.
12. The topics listed in paragraph 6 above were approved as the subject of a further consultative exercise. In a Notice dated 11 June 1997 the Board reported on the progress they had made and announced that the consultative procedure to be used in this exercise was to be similar to that used in the review of promotion arrangements relating to personal Professorships and Readerships: a questionnaire would be circulated to all academic officers, and the views of Faculty Boards and other relevant authorities would be sought. A Discussion was held in July 1997. The Board subsequently published a Notice on 3 December 1997 in which they set out their thinking, based on the consensus of views which had emerged from the consultative exercise, and explained the basis on which detailed proposals would be brought forward in due course. A further opportunity was given to members of the Regent House to comment on the outline proposals at a Discussion held on 20 January 1998 and, in a further Notice dated 2 March 1998, the Council and the Board stated that they would bring forward detailed proposals for approval by the Regent House when they were clear what their priorities should be within the resources available to the University, it being made clear that the cost of implementing the proposals could not be exempted from prioritization with other items such as pay increases for all categories of staff, and promotions for all categories of staff.
13. The account given above reflects the issues which have occupied the attention of the central bodies in the last few years, and the importance that they have attached to consultation. Promotion, however, is one means of rewarding staff for their contribution and achievement; another means is the award of additional payments such as discretionary and supplementary payments. These were introduced in the course of 1989-90, following the approval of the Board's 1989 Report on the introduction of supplementary payments for Professors (see also the Joint Report of the Council and the General Board, published in October 1990, on the implementation in Cambridge of the proposals of the Twenty-fifth Report of Committee A, Reporter, 1990-91, p. 95). The role of additional payments in remuneration policy is addressed in paragraphs 23-44 below.
14. Throughout the last decade there has been a rapid increase in the extent to which publicly funded organizations have become subject to external scrutiny. This has led to requirements for universities to be more openly accountable. Research Assessment Exercises and Teaching Quality Assessment visitations have highlighted the need for transparent systems for assessing and rewarding the contributions that staff make in teaching and research. The University's performance in these exercises has been consistently of the highest standard and has confirmed the University's pre-eminence as an institution dedicated both to education and to research. For these achievements the University is indebted to its staff, who are its most valuable resource, and the Board recognize the importance of providing reward in terms of both recognition and remuneration. The Board are also concerned to ensure fairness in all arrangements concerned with promotion and the award of performance-related payments; the importance of transparency in this regard has much influenced the Board's approach to the reforms already made and those now proposed.
15. The Board have also been concerned to review their policies for recruiting staff. The existing policies were introduced in the late 1980s at the same time as arrangements for discretionary and supplementary payments. In the course of their review the Board have been exercised by the question whether the current arrangements are sufficient to ensure that the University can attract staff of the highest calibre in an increasingly competitive environment.
16. The following sections of this Report set out in detail, under the headings 'Recruitment' and 'Reward and retention', proposals for the reform of current policies and arrangements.
18. In paragraph 6 of their 1989 Report on the introduction of supplementary payments for Professors (Reporter, 1988-89, p. 756) the Board stated that 'an effective and equitable means of assisting recruitment would be to provide, in appropriate cases, a single recruitment incentive payment'. The paragraph continues:
This payment would not form part of an individual's stipend, which on appointment would, without exception, continue to be the Cambridge standard professorial stipend. It is proposed that the Vice-Chancellor should decide what level of payment, if any, should be made in each case. The Vice-Chancellor would be assisted by the deliberations of the Board of Electors and could take other advice as appropriate. The Board propose that the award of a recruitment incentive payment should be conditional on the Professor concerned completing at least three years of service in the University and that the payment should be refundable if the Professor resigned from the University before the end of that period.
This policy, which was approved by Grace 17 of 2 August 1989, applied also to Professors whose duties involve clinical responsibilities, although their pay is determined through a different national pay arrangement. It was also agreed that recruitment incentive payments could, in appropriate cases, be made to newly appointed academic-related staff whose stipends are equivalent to or above the standard Cambridge professorial stipend.
19. This policy continues to provide a useful means of inducing those elected to Professorships and to senior academic-related offices to accept appointment. However, by itself it cannot be relied on to secure the appointment of leading academics. The Board believe that, in the light of experience and the need to ensure that the University is competitive in attracting eminent academics, some modification of the scheme is now necessary. The Board see no reason at present to propose any modification of the policy for the award of recruitment incentive payments; however, they believe that a change should now be made in the present policy for awarding supplementary payments to the holders of non-clinical Professorships and academic-related offices, so as to allow such payments to be awarded to officers on appointment rather than requiring a qualifying period of three years' service before an award can be made. The Board believe that this change is essential if the University is to compete successfully alongside other higher education institutions in attracting leading academics to established Professorships.
20. In this connexion, it is worth drawing attention to the three Reports published in 1997 which introduced a revised scheme of payments for Heads of Departments, covering all academic institutions in the University. Payments to Heads of Departments are now determined according to this revised scheme, the level of payment being a percentage of the Cambridge professorial stipend. The range is as follows: 5 per cent (£2,064), 7.5 per cent (£3,097), 10 per cent (£4,129), 20 per cent (£8,257), 25 per cent (£10,322), and 30 per cent (£12,386). In the case of certain large scientific Departments it is now possible for the Vice-Chancellor to offer a level of remuneration substantially above the standard professorial stipend, if the person elected to a Professorship is willing to serve as Head of the Department. These changes have also resulted in increases in the levels of stipend associated with senior academic-related offices (see the first of the three Reports referred to).
22. In addition, the Board operate a scheme of recruitment incentive payments for academic and academic-related officers in non-professorial grades; this was introduced in 1990 and was described in paragraph 4(d) of the Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on the implementation in Cambridge of the proposals of the Twenty-fifth Report of Committee A. The Board have recently reviewed this scheme; they believe that, like the professorial scheme referred to above, it works reasonably well and provides a useful means of inducing individuals to accept appointment at Cambridge. However, the current maximum payment of £10,000 was set at the time of the scheme's inception in 1990 and has not been increased since. The Board propose that the maximum level of payment that can be made under this scheme should be indexed to the top point of the Cambridge University Lecturer scale and should be increased annually in line with percentage increases of national pay awards. The maximum level of the payment when the scheme was introduced was 42 per cent of the highest step of the University Lecturer scale; at current rates this would now be £12,548.
24. The Board recognize the seriousness of these concerns and are keenly aware of the difficulty of devising and implementing universally acceptable solutions; however, they are in no doubt that remuneration policies must be competitive if the University is to attract and retain staff of the highest calibre. If the University ceases to be competitive not only with other institutions in the UK but with leading institutions abroad, its international reputation and standing will decline. The proposals described below have been formulated with this consideration very much in mind.
9. The Board propose that supplementary payments should be made available selectively to reward achievement and to retain Professors who are making an outstanding contribution to the work of the University and to the furtherance of its aims. These payments would be pensionable and would be made for periods of five years at a time. Professors would become eligible to receive a payment when they had completed the first three years of their tenure of a Professorship.
10. The Board have considered various procedures for determining such payments to Professors and they have concluded that the most appropriate method would be for the Vice-Chancellor to consider the cases of all Professors annually and to decide what awards should be made. The Vice-Chancellor should have discretion to call upon a small advisory body for advice; such a body could include eminent academics from outside Cambridge. The Board consider that initially there should be two levels of payments, namely £4,000 and £8,000. It is for further consideration at a later date whether the Vice-Chancellor should have discretion to vary these levels in relation to special circumstances.
11. The Board propose that all awards should be strictly confidential. They take the view that the names of those who are awarded discretionary payments should not be published in the Reporter nor made available for consultation by members of the University. The Board are well aware that it is inevitable, given the high level of ability and commitment that exists among the professoriate in Cambridge, that many who make a meritorious contribution to the work of the University will not be awarded such a payment. They have agreed that any Professor who does not wish to be considered for an award should be at liberty to inform the Vice-Chancellor accordingly.
26. The Board also considered whether academic-related staff should be eligible for such awards. They concluded that, in view of the importance of maintaining the academic vitality of the University, the paramount purpose of the scheme should be to reward Professors and to retain them in Cambridge. However, they recognized that there might exceptionally be a case for making a supplementary payment to a member of the academic-related staff, to retain an officer who is making an exceptional contribution or because of the highly specialized skills of the person concerned; they therefore recommended that the Vice-Chancellor should be free, exceptionally, to make such an award on the same basis as to a Professor.
27. The Board have become aware in recent years that other leading research institutions when recruiting Professors are offering salaries at considerably higher levels than the standard Cambridge stipend. The Board believe that reform of the present arrangements for rewarding Professors is now essential if the University is to be able to attract and retain eminent scholars, and to maintain its pre-eminent international reputation. The benefits of working in Cambridge (for example, the facilities and amenities available) no longer outweigh the now comparatively disadvantageous level of the Cambridge professorial stipend. Level of stipend affects pension entitlement, and negotiations with individuals who have been elected to Professorships have in a number of cases revealed particular concern on this point.
28. The Board have accordingly agreed to propose that the current supplementary payments scheme should be revised as follows:
30. This scheme would not apply to holders of clinical Professorships, who are eligible for merit and distinction awards under NHS arrangements.
33. Each applicant would submit a personal statement of not more than two pages, an updated curriculum vitae of not more than two pages, a list of publications over the last five years, and the names of two referees, at least one of whom should be external. The Vice-Chancellor would be free to call on one additional referee. Referees, whether nominated by applicants or called upon by the Vice-Chancellor, should not themselves be eligible for an award. In considering an application the Vice-Chancellor would take into account the information contained in the annual reports provided by the applicant under Statute D, II, 12 over the period being assessed.
34. Professors already in receipt of an award under the existing scheme would be free to apply for a higher award under the new arrangements.
42. Under the present regulations it is necessary for increases in certain stipends to be approved by the Regent House; the Board propose that under the revised arrangements the Regent House should delegate to the competent authority power to decide increases resulting from a review, on the understanding that increases would correspond to steps within the framework of professorial remuneration set out in Annex 2. Increases would be permanent for the holder of the office, but the level of stipend associated with the office would be reviewed when the office next fell vacant.
46. The Board now seek the approval of the Regent House for the introduction of an office of University Senior Lecturer in the Cambridge structure of academic offices, and for the following arrangements for the consideration of cases for promotion from University Lectureships to University Senior Lectureships.
48. The Board have also considered whether access to University Senior Lectureships should be possible only through internal promotion, as is the case with personal Readerships. Although the Board accept that there is an argument for establishing Senior Lectureships on the same basis as University Lectureships, so as to facilitate, for example, recruitment of those holding senior academic posts at other institutions, or to allow adjustments to be made from time to time in the balance of the academic establishments of particular institutions, they consider that the arrangements for promotion should as far as possible be analogous to those for promotion to personal Readerships. While it would be possible to regard appointment to a University Senior Lectureship as an extension of an officer's tenure of a University Lectureship, the Board have concluded that, as for Readerships, separate statutory provision should be made for University Senior Lectureships and appointment to the office should be distinct. Access to University Senior Lectureships through promotion should be restricted to the holders of offices whose duties are concerned primarily with both teaching and research. The Board have considered the position of Assistant Directors of Research under the proposed new arrangements. They are of the view that, if an Assistant Director of Research is undertaking a significant teaching commitment comparable to that of a University Lecturer, he or she might be considered for upgrading to a University Lectureship; this would open the possibility of further promotion to a University Senior Lectureship.
(b) Sustained supportiveness and efficiency in undertaking administrative and organizational tasks (including, where appropriate, the management of research groups).
(c) Achievement in research/scholarship.
|(i)||Reasonable doubt about the degree to which the candidate currently meets the relevant criterion.|
|(ii)||Satisfactory evidence in respect of the relevant criterion, but the case is not yet overwhelming.|
|(iii)||Proposal for promotion made on the grounds of very clear evidence being available in respect of the relevant criterion.|
51. All activities relevant to the duties of a University Lecturer would be taken into account, but promotion would not be achievable on the ground of criterion (b) alone. Excellence in respect of any one criterion might compensate for a lower assessment in relation to other criteria.
54. Because of the importance that the Board attach to reporting as soon as possible to the University on the matters within the scope of this Report, and because they are anxious not to delay promotion proposals for consideration by the Regent House, the Board have agreed, as an interim measure, that University Lecturers should be required to demonstrate what impact their teaching has on students, taking into account, on a self-assessment basis, student feedback on the courses that they teach. The Board believe that, initially at least, this will provide a fairer basis on which to proceed than the current arrangements for obtaining students' views and for analysing and acting upon them, which vary widely between different Faculties and Departments. The Board understand that the question of student feedback, in particular the use of questionnaires, in connexion with the promotion of University Lecturers is currently under consideration by the Standing Advisory Committee of the Council on Student Matters and the Education Committee of the General Board. The Board will review their interim proposal in the light of the outcome of that consideration.
57. The Board have considered whether there should be a central Committee of the General Board which would receive proposals from Appointments Committees and make recommendations to the Board, as under the present arrangements for promotions to personal Readerships and Professorships. Given that the purpose of the introduction of a University Senior Lectureship is to provide more explicit recognition to contribution in teaching and to the work of a Faculty or Department in general, the Board are of the view that it would be more appropriate for proposals to be considered by the Councils of the Schools, since they are closer to, and more familiar with, the teaching and other activities of the institutions within their scope and would therefore be in a better position to make judgements in relation to such activities. It is worth pointing out that the Councils of the Schools are already involved in deciding on the award of discretionary payments and in determining (except in the case of University Assistant Lecturers in their final year of tenure) the priority of proposals for upgrading received from Appointments Committees.
58. The Councils of the Schools would be given an annual allocation of funds, as they are now for discretionary payments. They would set up committees, on the same basis as those for discretionary payments, consisting of University officers who are not eligible to be considered under the scheme, and these committees would decide on the awards. The constitution of the committees would be subject to the approval of the General Board.
62. The model that the Board have in mind is a three-point scale, the first point of which would be the present maximum of the Cambridge University Lecturer scale (£29,875), with the addition of a sum equal to the present value of a discretionary payment (£1,738), the next two points being equivalent to the top two points of the national Senior Lecturer scale (£32,238 and £33,202). There would be automatic incremental progression up the scale. This proposal, and its relation to the national scale, are shown in the following table:
|National scale||Cambridge scale (proposed)|
|Lecturer B (maximum)||27,985|
|Senior Lecturer||29,380||University Lecturer (maximum)||29,875|
|31,269||University Senior Lecturer||31,613|
63. Because of the national linkage between academic and academic-related pay structures and because that linkage is closer in the Cambridge structure, the Board have considered the implications of these modifications for the academic-related structure, including the future of the current discretionary pay arrangements for both academic and academic-related staff. The Board have accordingly agreed to translate, on the basis of continuing parity, the changes in the academic structure to the academic-related structure in the following way:
|University Lecturer||29,8751||Offices having the same scale of stipends as University Lecturer2||29,8751|
|University Senior Lecturer||31,613||Further progression based on performance||31,613|
|Reader||35,893||Offices currently on step 263||34,392|
|Offices currently on step 285||38,272|
|Professor (basic stipend)||41,288||Offices currently on step 297||41,288|
64. Although this Report addresses in detail structural changes at the top of the academic-related structure which are necessitated by the modification resulting from the proposed introduction of Senior Lectureships, the Board intend to continue their review of the structure of academic-related offices and pay, and to report in due course on changes considered necessary in less senior grades. The Board will also consider the assimilation of a small number of offices whose current scales of stipends have step 23 or 24 as their maximum.
1 Maximum of scale of stipends.
2 E.g. Assistant Registrary, Assistant Treasurer, Under-Librarian, Secretary of Department (Grade B), Computer Officer, Grade I, etc.
3 E.g. Senior Assistant Registrary, Senior Assistant Treasurer, Senior Under-Librarian, Senior Computer Officer, etc. The stipend of these offices was equivalent to the stipend of a Reader until 1989; parity was then broken. With the introduction of discretionary payments, all Readers received the equivalent of a discretionary payment added to their stipend; academic-related staff were required to apply for such a payment.
4 Discretionary step. The figure of £36,332 is made up of £34,392 (the basic stipend proposed for these offices) plus a discretionary increment amounting to half the difference between £34,392 and £38,272 (the stipend for step 28).
5 E.g. Principal Assistant Registrary, Principal Assistant Treasurer, etc. In 1988 the stipends for all officers at this level were increased by 6 per cent; as a result, discretionary payments were considered inappropriate for such staff. The difference in treatment between these academic-related staff and those on step 26 had the effect of widening the differential in the level of prime stipend.
6 Discretionary step. The figure of £39,780 is made up of £38,272 (the current stipend for these offices) plus a discretionary increment amounting to half the difference between £38,272 and £41,288 (the stipend for step 29).
7 E.g. Deputy Registrary, Deputy Treasurer, etc.
69. In their Notice of 3 December 1997 the General Board reported their thinking on the number of annual promotions and their cost, and on what they considered might be an appropriate steady state regarding the balance of Professorships, Readerships, University Senior Lectureships, and University Lectureships (including University Assistant Lectureships) within the overall academic establishment of the University. The Board were then, and are still, of the view that it would not be desirable to apply a rigidly fixed ratio in determining the annual number of promotions; they believe that promotions should be determined on merit, though affordability must be taken into account in any given year.
70. The Board have taken account of the position at other institutions belonging to the Russell Group, these being the large research-oriented pre-1992 universities. Over the medium term the Board would expect the University to move to a position where the proportion of senior academic offices was comparable with that of institutions in the top quartile of Russell Group institutions. The effect of the annual number of promotions approved each year on the overall academic establishment of the University would be monitored. The Board would expect to maintain the annual rate of promotions to personal Professorships and Readerships established in recent years, though of course it is possible that there will be some variation in the number in particular years. With regard to the number of promotions to University Senior Lectureships, the Board believe that it is essential to achieve a steady state quickly, since in their view a significant proportion of University Lecturers deserve recognition in respect of the excellence of their contribution in teaching, administration, and research.
71. Of the Russell Group institutions, University College London has the most favourable balance in favour of senior posts, as follows: Professors 28 per cent, Senior Lecturers and Senior Researchers 35 per cent, Lecturers 37 per cent. (The average of the Russell Group academic establishments is as follows: Professors 21 per cent; Senior Lecturers and Senior Researchers 32 per cent; Lecturers 47 per cent.) At Cambridge the present establishment of posts supported by the University Education Fund is: Professors 20 per cent, Readers 16 per cent, University Lecturers, University Assistant Lecturers, and Assistant Directors of Research 64 per cent.
72. The Board accordingly recommend:
I. That the maximum level of payment that may be made under the present policy for awarding recruitment incentive payments to University officers in non-professorial grades be increased to £12,548, and that the payment be indexed so as to remain at 42 per cent of the maximum of the Cambridge University Lecturer scale.
II. That the current scheme of supplementary payments for Professors be discontinued and replaced by the scheme described in paragraphs 29-40 of this Report.
III. That the holders of academic-related offices in professorial grades cease to be eligible for consideration for supplementary payments and that a systematic periodic review be instituted of the stipends of the holders of such offices, as described in paragraphs 41-44 of this Report.
IV. That the office of University Senior Lecturer be introduced in the Cambridge structure of academic offices, and that promotional criteria, procedure, and other arrangements for appointments to the office be approved as described in paragraphs 47-60 of this Report, subject to a further Report proposing the necessary amendments of Statutes and Ordinances.
V. That, subject to the approval of Recommendation IV, consequential changes in the stipend structure of academic-related offices, as described in paragraph 63 of this Report, be approved from the date on which the statutory changes take effect.
VI. That the current discretionary payments scheme for University officers in non-professorial grades be replaced by new arrangements as described in paragraph 65 of this Report, the details of those changes, including transitional arrangements, to be brought forward for approval by the Regent House in due course.
3 June 1998
|ALEC N. BROERS, Vice-Chancellor||JOHN A. LEAKE||MICHAEL PEPPER|
|JOHN E. CARROLL||N. J. MACKINTOSH||ADRIAN POOLE|
|D. A. GOOD||D. H. MELLOR||KATE PRETTY|
|JANE HUMPHRIES||A. C. MINSON||N. O. WEISS|
|D. E. L. JOHNSTON|
This Report will be put forward for consideration at the Discussion to be held on 7 July 1998.
The Council have agreed for their part to endorse the recommendations of the Report in so far as they relate to academic-related staff and other staff in institutions under the supervision of the Council.
The Council also draw the attention of the University to their Notice (p. 786) concerning their Report of 27 April 1998, and to Grace 2 (p. 823), which relates to the establishment of a Syndicate to consider the structure of academic offices in the University, etc, as proposed in that Report. A vote is to be taken by ballot on that Grace in the Michaelmas Term; if the Grace is approved by the Regent House, the General Board's Report, together with any remarks made on it at the Discussion, will be referred to the Syndicate for further consideration.
8 June 1998
|Current step on general scale of University stipends (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 631)||Proposed stipend, based on rates in force at 1 April 1997 (£)||Office|
|67,8802||Secretary and Chief Executive, Local Examinations Syndicate|
|63,164 (152 per cent)||Professorial stipend plus supplementary payment, level 4|
|57,696 (139 per cent)||Professorial stipend plus supplementary payment, level 3|
|32||53,673 (130 per cent)||Professorial stipend plus Schedule 1 payment: Secretary General, Treasurer|
|52,226 (126 per cent)||Professorial stipend plus supplementary payment, level 2|
|31||51,609 (125 per cent)||Professorial stipend plus Schedule 2 payment: Director of EMBS, Director of Continuing Education, Director of Fitzwilliam Museum|
|30||49,545 (120 per cent)||Professorial stipend plus Schedule 3 payment|
|46,758 (113 per cent)||Professorial stipend plus supplementary payment, level 1|
|45,147 (110 per cent)||Professorial stipend plus Schedule 4 payment|
|44,385 (107.5 per cent)||Professorial stipend plus Schedule 5 payment|
|43,352 (106 per cent)||Professorial stipend plus Schedule 6 payment|
|29||41,288 (100 per cent)||Professorial stipend: Deputies to the Principal Officers, Director of the Careers Service, Director of the Hamilton Kerr Institute, Director of Industrial Liaison, Director of the MBA Course|
1 Currently £24,733; the revised stipend is formula-based, viz. a Schedule 1 (Head of Department) payment plus a supplementary payment, level 4. The Council would have discretion to vary the level of stipend according to particular circumstances.
2 Not currently on the general scale of University stipends or formula-based. Because of the commercial nature of the Local Examinations Syndicate, the Council are of the view that the stipend for this office should be determined outside the regular structural framework.
3 Currently £58,234; the revised stipend is formula-based, viz. a professorial stipend plus a Schedule 1 (Head of Department) payment, a Schedule 6 (Head of Department) payment (in respect of managing the Unified Administrative Service), and a payment equivalent to a supplementary payment, level 1.
4 Not currently on the general scale of University stipends or formula-based. The Council believe that the nature of this office is such that the salary should be determined outside the regular structural framework.
1 April 1997
1 April 1997
*Point 19 was deleted with effect from 1 April 1991
National Professorial Minimum £33,882
+May be awarded at any point on the scale. DP = Discretionary Payment (£1,738)
|Previous page||Table of Contents||Next page|