Previous page
Table of Contents
| Previous page |
Table of Contents |
Next page |
The Vice-Chancellor gives notice that he has received proposals for the amendment of Graces 7 and 8 of 9 December 1998 (Reporter, p. 244). These Graces are for the approval of the recommendations of the General Board's Report dated 21 October 1998 (Reporter, p. 106).
This Grace is for the approval of Recommendation I, which reads:
That approval be given to the procedure proposed by the General Board in their Report, and in the Annex to the Report, for the consideration of applications for promotion to personal Professorships and Readerships in 1999 and future years.
It is proposed that this recommendation be amended so as to read:
That approval be given to the procedure proposed by the General Board in their Report, and in the Annex to the Report, for the consideration of applications for promotion to personal Professorships and Readerships in 1999 and future years, subject to the following amendments, each of which is to be the subject of a separate vote:
1(a). That an appeals procedure be created which will be effective in correcting errors in specific cases. This is to replace the appeal procedure proposed by the General Board, which is merely a review, so as to embody independence from the promotions committees. An appeal committee should adopt a judicial and impartial attitude, and should have a composition which reflects the need for an understanding of procedural lawfulness as well as expertise in the area of each candidate's work.
1(b). That, if Amendment 1(a) on appeals is approved, further proposals be put before the Regent House by Report to ensure full discussion of the principles and procedures it is to embody.
1(c). That feedback at each stage be given in the terms required by Mr Justice Sedley's judgement (Reporter, 1997-98, p. 75), so as to demonstrate that proper care has been taken and to enable a candidate to know what he or she needs to do to improve the chance of promotion.
1(d). That feedback be written and ratified by the promotions committees and not by their officers.
1(e). That candidates be given the option of having a fresh file of references created for them in each year in which they apply, to prevent a single unfavourable reference blocking promotion indefinitely.
1(f). That evidence from referees be obtained with due rigour, with referees (i) being given reasonable time to reply, (ii) being required to state on what evidence they base their comments and to give proofs to support any critical assertion, and (iii) being required to state the precise match between their area of expertise and that of the candidate.
1(g). That conflict in the evidence obtained from referees be required to be resolved, with no candidate being denied promotion on the basis of criticism unless that criticism is fully substantiated.
1(h). That the legally important distinction between 'advice' (referees) and 'decision-making' (committees) be clarified and a procedure established to ensure that evaluations are made by the committees themselves on the basis of (i) a recent reading of the candidate's work by at least two of their members, (ii) the full documentation provided by the candidate, and (iii) an assessment of the reliability of the references, all these points to be covered in the minutes and the feedback.
1(i). That the normative mode of arriving at a collective judgement be clarified (as not merely a 'collective activity' (see paragraph 5.2 on p. 15 of the Annex to the General Board's Report)), with members of committees required to record their evaluations individually according to the principles of collective decision-making laid down in R.v. Higher Education Funding Council for England ex parte Institute of Dental Surgery.
1(j). That General Board members be not permitted to vote on committees because, in their capacity as General Board members, they do not have the expertise relevant to the making of an academic judgement in the area in question.
1(k). That no business be transacted at any meeting of a promotions committee unless all members are present.
1(l). That subject-committees be required to frame definitions of the standard criteria in a manner appropriate to their discipline, as RAE panels are required to do by the Higher Education Funding Council, those definitions to be published in advance.
1(m). That provision be made for the assessment of the work of interdisciplinary candidates as an intellectual whole, with opportunity for the candidate to require assessment by a committee with relevant breadth of expertise.
1(n). That candidates be given an opportunity to be interviewed if they so wish, in accordance with the natural justice principle of the right of an applicant to be heard.
1(o). That candidates continue to be given the list of referees consulted.
1(p). That the General Board be required to give further consideration to the question of confidentiality and to put detailed proposals before the Regent House by Report.
1(q). That the declaration of an interest prejudicial to impartial consideration of a case automatically exclude the individual from participation in the decision-making in that case. That all members of a promotions committee be required to declare any interest that they may have, and that candidates be allowed to know on request what declarations of interest have been made in their own cases.
1(r). That candidates be permitted to request that their applications be considered outside the Faculty on whose establishment they serve if they believe that they cannot have fair consideration in that Faculty.
1(s). That serving members of the Council and the General Board be not permitted to serve on promotions committees or appeal committees.
1(t). That a University Lecturer applying for a Professorship be also eligible for consideration for a Readership by default in the same round, with promotions committees constituted so as to make that possible.
1(u). That, if necessary, promotions in the next round be made retrospectively so that candidates do not suffer disadvantage as a result of the delay in improving the present procedures.
This Grace is for the approval of Recommendation II, which reads:
That the General Board be given authority to make such changes in the procedure as they consider necessary from time to time for the proper management of the promotions exercise.
It is proposed that this recommendation be amended so as to read:
That the General Board be required to seek the approval of the Regent House for any change in the promotions procedure that they wish to make, so that control of procedures for promotion may remain in the hands of the Regent House and the Regent House may continue to set the pace and direction of reform.
The amendments specified above are proposed by the following members of the Regent House (not all those listed below support every amendment, but each of the amendments is supported by at least ten of the signatories):
| A. R. H. BAKER | D. N. DUMVILLE | A. E. HILL | B. SHACHAR-HILL |
| S. L. BLUNDEN | G. R. EVANS | D. R. J. LAMING | C. B. THOMAS |
| R. D. DAWE | ROGER GRIFFIN | CHRISTEL LANE | P. WOUDHUYSEN |
| N. R. M. DE LANGE | J. R. HARVEY |
In accordance with Regulation 9 of the regulations for Graces of the Regent House (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 115), votes will be taken by postal ballot on the proposals listed above.
In connection with this ballot the Registrary will arrange for the printing and circulation of any fly-sheet, signed by ten or more members of the Regent House, which reaches him by 1 p.m. on Wednesday, 27 January. Fly-sheets must bear, in addition to the signatures, the names and initials (in block capitals) of the signatories (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 119). Voting papers and fly-sheets will be distributed to all members of the Regent House on or before Tuesday, 9 February; the last date for the return of voting papers will be Friday, 19 February.
| Previous page |
Table of Contents |
Next page |
Cambridge University Reporter, 13 January 1999
Copyright © 1999 The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.