< Previous page ^ Table of Contents Next page >

Fifth Report of the Board of Scrutiny

The BOARD OF SCRUTINY beg leave to report to the University as follows:

1. Since it last reported to the Regent House a year ago, the Board has met on nine occasions, and has delegated detailed consideration of various issues to subgroups. There have been meetings of members of the Board with the Registrary, the Acting Secretary General, the Treasurer, the Director of Finance, the Director of Estate Management, and the Director of the Wolfson Industrial Liaison Office. We are most grateful to them and to others who have taken the trouble to respond helpfully to our queries.

2. The principal business of the Board has been to examine the Abstract of Accounts, the Allocations Report, and the Annual Reports of the Council and the General Board (hereafter simply Accounts, Allocations, Council, General Board, respectively). Most of this Report is accordingly taken up with detailed comments on these. One general remark, which we have made before but feel the need to make again, is that if these documents are to fulfil their intended function, it is important for obscure jargon to be glossed. Not all members of the Board are sure what an 'outwards-facing business stream' is (Council, ¶15) or what the significance is of FRS 11, FRS 12, and FRS 15 (Accounts, note 1)

Progress on earlier recommendations

3. In its Fourth Report the Board of Scrutiny made ten substantive recommendations. Five of these were accepted by the Council without amendment. We are particularly pleased that the University has agreed to depreciate its buildings in the accounts (Recommendation III of the Fourth Report); and we welcome the General Board's commitment to greater transparency with regard to professorial awards (Recommendation X). We note too the intention of the central bodies to publish a consultative paper on Intellectual Property Rights (Recommendation VII) 'if at all possible by the Easter Term 2000'. Until this paper appears there is little more we can say either about IPR or about the wider review of copyright and declarations of interest which we are promised. Other of the Board's recommendations fared less well, however: this has given us the opportunity to reflect on the reasons for this resistance, and to consider whether to persist with our original views.

Balance of support between Schools

4. The most extreme case, perhaps, is the issue of the overall balance of support between the University's five Schools. We asked in our Third Report, two years ago now, for consideration to be given to this issue, but the General Board rebuffed the recommendation because 'their Annual Report provides the appropriate mechanism for conveying information on the Board's policies regarding the overall balance of support as between the University's various Schools; they do not believe that a separate Report is necessary.' (Reporter, 1998-99, p. 222) We did not consider this answer adequate, and accordingly repeated our recommendation unchanged in our Fourth Report. The General Board once again declined to publish a Report, but this time because it was engaged, through its development of a resource allocation methodology, in addressing just the issue which had concerned us.

5. If the University is to use the disaggregation analysis as a component in its mechanism for allocating resources between its Schools, two issues are crucial: the assumptions on which the analysis is based need to be widely understood and widely accepted within the University; and the mechanism for determining correction factors (optimistically referred to in the consultative document as 'moderation') needs to be transparent. We think it important that when the General Board has something to report on these matters it should do so. We accordingly repeat our recommendation.

Accounts of subsidiaries

6. In our last Report we noted that Cambridge University Press and the Local Examinations Syndicate are subsidiaries of the University for the purposes of FRS 2 (the Financial Reporting Standard on Accounting for Subsidiary Undertakings) and asked the Council to state on which of the allowable exceptions listed in the Statement of Recommended Practice (SORP) they rely in continuing their practice of non-consolidation of the accounts of these two bodies. When we made this recommendation, we recognized that there might indeed be good reasons for non-consolidation that fell within the exceptions permitted by the SORP, and we thought it important for the Council to spell them out.

7. What we were wholly unprepared for was the Council's response that they 'do not consider that UCLES and the CUP are 'subsidiary undertakings' for the purposes of Financial Reporting Standard 2' (Reporter, 1999-2000, p. 226). We find this response quite mystifying. Let us be clear: the issue here is not one of ownership but one of control. The Council appoints the Syndics of both UCLES and the Press. Therefore they are subsidiaries for accounting purposes. Nor do we understand how the Council could think that consolidation 'would infringe formal University requirements expressed in Statutes and Ordinances' (ibid.); unless, that is, it thought that consolidation implied submersion.

8. We were also concerned by the apparent misunderstanding by the Council of our reference to FRS 2 in this context. They 'can see no helpful purpose in compliance with accounting standards applicable to subsidiaries of commercial holding companies for institutions which have separate functions from those of the University and stand in a different relationship to it' (ibid.). To the extent that this is not merely a variant of the oft-repeated claim that 'the Press is special', it appears to be an expression of the view that FRS 2 does not apply to universities. If that is the Council's view, they should take the matter up with the Accounting Standards Board, since the requirement to adhere to FRS 2 is contained in the SORP (with which the Council is in any case committed to complying).

9. The lay reader may be tempted to dismiss this as an arcane dispute about accounting practice with little relevance to the way the University is run. That would be a mistake. The Press is permitted by Statute to enter into contracts in the name of the University. Its liabilities are therefore presumably liabilities of the University. Both it and UCLES are international businesses with annual turnovers of £102m and £94m respectively. It is not apparent from their published accounts to what extent they are exposed to foreign currency risk. And both appear to have reported operating losses in their most recent published accounts, i.e. losses when non-operating activities such as investments are excluded. The manner in which they are managed is therefore of central concern to the University. The Council need to ensure that this central point is not obfuscated by erroneous arguments as to the nature of their relationship with the University. In particular, the accounts of the Press and the accompanying Report do not give any hint of what proportion of its income results from activities which at the time they were undertaken were thought to be commercially viable and what proportion from activities judged worthy of subsidy. Without this information it is hard for members of the Regent House to reach as clear a view as they might wish of the overall financial position of the University.

Amalgamated Fund

10. In our last Report we queried the fact that much more income is retained within the Amalgamated Fund than is needed in order to preserve the real capital value of its units. What we suggested was that the proportion of its endowment fund that it is prudent for the University to spend each year is largely independent of the income of the fund (which is determined largely by the investment decisions of the public limited companies in which the fund invests) but should be set at whatever level is likely in the long term to preserve its inflation-adjusted value. In response the Council decided to authorize a special dividend of £3.7m, which was paid in January 2000. We welcome this, but note that it is actually rather modest in relation to the size of the Fund (around 0.5 per cent of the capital value).

11. The Council also report (Reporter, 1999-2000, p. 227) that they have advised the Investments Committee 'to look to a slightly reduced income reserve' capable of continuing to make distributions at the current level even if the income stream dried up totally for a period 'within the range of six to nine months'. The reference here to an income reserve is bound to puzzle readers of the Abstract of Accounts, where undistributed income is shown as being added each year to the capital of the Fund. Only those privileged to see the Investments Committee's Annual Report to the Finance Committee, where undistributed income is accounted in the more traditional manner as an income reserve (of £21.5m), will understand the point at issue.

12. But even once this obscurity is clarified, the Council's advice to its Investments Committee to aim for a certain duration of income reserve is bizarre. The best sense we can make of it is that the Council has allowed its policy in relation to the University's own unencumbered holdings of Amalgamated Fund units to be dictated by the different requirements of the Trust Funds which hold units in the same fund, some of which may indeed be constrained in ways that prevent them from spending capital. If that is the explanation, then the solution is surely not to let the tail wag the dog but to distribute the income to unit-holders in full and let them determine separately, according to their differing objectives and constraints, what portion of that income it is prudent for them to spend.

13. The University's current practice on this point, whereby the Investment Committee determines what proportion of the income of the Fund should be distributed, is in any case contrary to the SORP, which states that 'income from … endowment asset investments … should be brought into the income and expenditure account in full'. It is, of course, true that the distributed income on each Amalgamated Fund unit is 'brought into the income and expenditure account in full', but that could be adequate as a defence of the current practice only if the decision on how much income to distribute was taken at arm's length to the University. Plainly, it is not.

14. If the University brings its accounts into line with the SORP, that will, of course, leave the important issue of the prudent level of spending from endowment income still to be addressed. But that can, and should, be done in the open, by means of explicit transfers to or from reserves. To do otherwise is to confuse accounting for the past with budgeting for the future.

College Accounts

15. There are times when the independence of the Colleges can seem to the naive observer to act as a block on sensible reforms: measures which require the agreement of all can be prevented by the intransigence of one. But the veto of the Colleges does not apply to everything that affects them: we sought in our last Report to remind them that the University is already empowered by Statute G, III, 2(i) to require them to publish accounts in a form which it specifies on the recommendation of the Finance Committee of the Council. The process of consultation with Colleges on the form the Colleges wish to adopt continues. But we still regard it as essential that the eventual form conforms with the SORP for Higher and Further Education Institutions. This does not, of course, mean that the form should conform only to this standard: there is nothing to preclude the Colleges agreeing to further or more detailed disclosures than the SORP requires. The College fee settlement provides the impetus for this issue to be addressed, but the truth is that it was already urgent. The University's image is heavily entangled with the public perception of Colleges as secretive, unaccountable, and obscenely rich. The most significant single thing the Colleges could do to correct that perception is to publish the information on their finances that the SORP lays down. We are content at this stage to await the outcome of the Colleges' deliberations. But if the form of accounts they propose does not at least conform to this standard, we hope the Finance Committee will invoke the University's powers under statute G, III, 2(i) to impose it.

Financial benefits of College Fellowships

16. Last year we called for the General Board to report on their policy on the financial benefits of College Fellowships. What we had in mind was the difficulty the University has in attracting academic staff of the quality it needs to preserve its academic standing. The scheme for professorial awards is designed to address this difficulty at one end of the scale, but it is just as pressing at the other, and the escalating cost of Cambridge housing continues to exacerbate it. Yet if (to take an obvious example) a Faculty Appointment Committee wishes to offer a University Lectureship to someone currently employed at Oxford, the comparison will be made between an Oxford salary which includes the College stipend and housing allowance, and a Cambridge salary which does not - this even if it is a certainty that the successful candidate will be offered a Fellowship at a particular College desperate for teaching in the subject concerned.

17. In their response to our urgings on this matter the Council and General Board restricted themselves to the rather opaque observation that 'the Colleges have excluded the benefits of College Fellowships from the Memorandum of Agreement with the University [on which more later]' (Reporter, 1999-2000, p. 227). This seems to us to be unduly defeatist, since what is in question is once again a matter on which progress may be possible whether or not all the Colleges agree to it. We urge the central bodies to consider whether it might be in the interest of the University to institute a scheme whereby Colleges could be given the option of bidding for association with University Lectureships in advance, so that the benefits attaching to the Fellowship can be mentioned when the job is advertised. Such a scheme would, it is true, erode both the independence of the Colleges and their powers of patronage, and some would no doubt resist it as a consequence; but if it were designed in a way that left each College free to opt in or not, its introduction would not, so far as we can see, be something a single College could veto.

Abstract of Accounts (Reporter, 1999-2000, Special No. 9)

Impairment review

18. We have already referred with approval to the Council's decision to depreciate the University's buildings in accordance with the SORP. In the context of this accounting policy it is evidently important that unusual impairments in the quality of buildings are identified so that buildings may be revalued to account for them. We therefore welcome the assurances we have been given, not only that there will in future be a written record of the annual review of such impairments, but also that it will be informed by a rolling programme of quinquennial building surveys conducted by external surveyors.

University Companies

19. The Press and UCLES are not the University's only subsidiaries, but while the Council's reason for non-consolidation in the case of the Press and UCLES is that it does not think they are really subsidiaries, its reason in the case of the others is that although they are indeed subsidiaries, they are not big enough to matter (Accounts, note 1(n)). More precisely, it seems to rely on the exemption allowed by the SORP in cases where 'inclusion, of all undertakings taken together, is not material'. Now if Fitzwilliam Museum (Enterprises) Limited, which runs the museum shop, were all the University owned, this might be fair enough. But it is not. The University also owns Lynxvale Limited, through which it undertakes various building projects, Cambridge University Technical Services Limited, which exploits intellectual property generated within the University, and others. The combined turnover of these companies is more than £22m. In our view this is material. Nor is it clear to us that the operations of these companies differ from those of the University any more than do those of (say) the Department of Engineering from those of the Faculty of Philosophy. We recommend that the accounts of all University Companies be consolidated.

Conformity to SORP

20. A recurring theme both here and in our earlier Reports has been our desire that the accounts of the University and associated bodies should conform to appropriate SORPs, and we welcome the progress that has been made towards this goal. But the posts are about to be moved: a new SORP for Further and Higher Education Institutions is due to be implemented soon. This seems a good time, therefore, for the Finance Committee of the Council to review our accounting practices, in consultation with the Audit Committee and the University's auditors, in order to see whether any of them is in danger of violating the new standards.

Register of fixed assets

21. We are concerned by the University's lack of a proper record of what it owns. It is to be hoped that the CAPSA project (see below) will gradually rectify that lack, but this is a serious enough matter to deserve separate attention. We should like to be assured that the Council will take steps to compile a register of significant fixed assets within a realistically urgent timescale.

Investment performance

22. Asset allocation within the Amalgamated Fund is determined by the Investments Committee of the Finance Committee; the equity portfolio itself is managed by Foreign & Colonial Management Limited. The effect of stock selection may be gauged by comparing the performance of each component of the Fund with an appropriate index: over the two years to 31 July 1999 the UK equity component gave a total return of 29.8 per cent against a return of 35.2 per cent on the corresponding stock market index, and the overseas equities returned 22.7 per cent against an index return of 28.6 per cent. We note that the combined effect of these shortfalls on the value of the Fund was approximately £25m over the two-year period.

Annual Report of the Council (Reporter, 1999-2000, Special No. 8)

Early Retirement Schemes

23. When we last reported, the University was still in the throes of implementing its two Early Retirement Schemes. The purposes of these two schemes were, let us recall, distinct. The original scheme, which had been adumbrated in the Allocations Report as early as June 1998, had the objective of removing £2.5m from the annual expenditure of the University. Son of Early Retirement Scheme, on the other hand, was conceived at quite short notice last spring: its principal objective, as the Council candidly admits (Allocations, ¶11), was to satisfy the 'significant interest in early retirement across the University from individuals' who had not been allowed to retire in the first scheme because it would not save the University any money. The total capital cost of these two schemes was, we are told, £10.1m.

24. Addressing whether either or both had been worth the cost was not helped by the Council's failure to split this cost between the two. We have since been told that the first scheme cost £6.1m; and that the second cost almost £4.1m, against an original estimate (Reporter, 1998-99, p. 534) of £2m. At first sight, then, the first scheme pays for itself in about three years. However, about half the savings (in General Board institutions at least) were achieved 'without the loss of academic posts and recourse to early retirements, but by making savings in assistant staff and non-pay costs' (General Board, ¶58). This suggests that the payback period for the Early Retirement Scheme is more like five or six years. But by then many of the staff in question would presumably have retired anyway. Hence the desirability of achieving the savings by this means remains moot.

25. So much for the first scheme. What of the second? The General Board claims (ibid.) that it 'allowed institutions to fill posts which became vacant to enable restructuring and strengthen institutions in advance of the next RAE'. The jury on this exercise has not even retired yet, but it will be interesting to see when it eventually reports whether the retirement scheme has achieved what the General Board claims.

College fee settlement

26. The Council refers in its Report (Council, ¶4) to the agreement it has reached with the Colleges on the services they provide in return for the student fees paid to them. This agreement seems to us to be a central document which will inform many of the discussions which will have to take place in Faculties and in Colleges on the ways in which teaching in this University is conducted. We therefore recommend that the agreement be published.

Continuing Education

27. The Council gives prominence to the University's contribution in the field of lifelong learning, but neither the brief section in the Annual Report of the Council nor the longer report of the Board of Continuing Education gives a very detailed picture of this contribution. Saying, for example, that Madingley Hall achieved 14,000 bed-nights makes little sense if one does not know its overall capacity. We are curious, too, to know the purpose of the Department's reserve of £6.5m. The University's contributions to lifelong learning are currently under review, so perhaps we may hope that the reviewers will have felt able to comment on these matters.

CAPSA

28. The project to develop a University-wide commitment accounting software system, now known as CAPSA, has been a matter of interest and concern to us for more than two years now. In May 1998 we wrote that 'the slow pace of progress to date arises almost certainly from an initial underestimate of both the complexity of the project and the number of staff required to support it, compounded by the worrying failure to consult the end-users from the outset' (Reporter, 1997-98, p. 818). The University then called in an external consultant, who reviewed all the work that had been done on the project, organized widespread consultation resulting in the production of a specification for the system, and then recommended an entirely new accounting system. In May 1999 the Council approved the installation of a system supplied by Oracle at a cost of £4.7m (Allocations, ¶28). A year later, the cost has risen to £8.0m, we are now within a few weeks of the intended start date, and many users are only just discovering that the system will not do what they had thought it would: the research grants module does not deal with salary costs; there are difficulties with running the software on operating systems other than Windows; and the requirement for a simple-to-use interface for casual users has been dropped for the time being. This final, and apparently last-minute, change has implications for the time needed for user training and has security implications which we can only presume have been fully addressed by the implementation team. Whether or not the system becomes fully operational on 1 August 2000, it will be important for the Council to report on the cost of the project so far, the expected further costs, and whether the implementation has been managed successfully. In this context we welcome the assurance we have received that the University will not embark on a major student database project until the lessons of CAPSA have been learnt.

Administrative arrangements

29. The management structure at the top of the University's central administration has been changed greatly in the last two years. Directors of Finance and Research Services have been appointed, reporting to the Treasurer; the new Directors of Management Information Systems and Personnel report to the Registrary; the new Director of Health and Safety reports to the Secretary General. We particularly welcome the post in Management Information Systems, which we described as a 'pressing need' in our Second Report (Reporter, 1996-97, p. 859). These new Directorships are all unestablished posts, but no one has seriously suggested to us that they are in any way temporary. We hope, therefore, that the Council will soon propose Graces to establish them, not because it makes any difference to the postholders' job security (it doesn't), but because it regularizes what is plainly intended to be their status. We trust that the Council will accompany its proposal with the Report on changes to the management structure which we would prefer to have read before the new Directors were hired.

Annual Report of the General Board (Reporter, 1999-2000, Special No. 8)

Academic standards

30. A large part of the General Board's Report is inevitably taken up with the need to conform to the changing demands of the Quality Assurance Agency. One issue which seems to us to need clarifying in this context is the wide diversity of classing procedures between University examinations. We recommend that the General Board takes steps to ensure that marking conventions and classing guidelines for all undergraduate examinations are posted on the web.

Reports of External Examiners

31. We note the trouble the General Board takes, through the mechanism of considering the reports of External Examiners, to ensure the integrity of the examining process. We understand that in the Easter Term last year a Part II class-list was published on which, because of an error in programming the Examiners' spreadsheet, about a quarter of the candidates were wrongly classified; and that the error went unnoticed for some days. No one in the central bodies we have spoken to about it has attempted to diminish the seriousness of this mistake. If in the interim any of the wrongly classified students had their job offer revoked or their research student-ship reallocated, they would presumably have been compensated.

32. We mention this error not in order to vilify the Examiners who committed it - it would be foolhardy of anyone involved in examining this term to cast the first stone - but because the General Board has not reported it to the Regent House, despite its evident seriousness. We expect our students to accept the decisions we make as Examiners on their work, and we give them only the most limited scope for appeals. If they are to respect the integrity of this process, it is essential not only that the procedures by which the decisions are reached are open to view but that our failures in implementing the procedures are made public too.

Review of the Natural Sciences Tripos

33. The General Board reports the establishment last year of a Strategic Committee for the Natural Sciences Tripos under the Chairmanship of Sir David Harrison. This Tripos results from a collaboration between a large number of disparate groups within the University, and perhaps it is inevitable that progress in achieving reforms will be slow. We nevertheless encourage the members of this Committee to make what progress they can.

Libraries

34. The Annual Report to the General Board of the Syndicate responsible for supervising the management of the University Library is published elsewhere (Reporter, 1999-2000, Special No. 14), but no mention is made in the General Board's Report of the work of its own Committee on Libraries. Indeed it is striking how little the subject of libraries crops up in any of the General Board's Reports since 1995 (the last time we can find a reference in it to the Committee on Libraries). Perhaps next year's Report will be different. It would be good, for instance, to hear their view on whether enough resources are being allocated to cataloguing to ensure that books acquired by the University Library arrive on the shelves promptly; good, too, to know what they think is the maximum time a visiting scholar arriving in Cambridge should have to wait before being issued with a reader's card.

Role analysis and job evaluation

35. We note the reference to a job evaluation exercise to be undertaken in conjunction with the Hay consultancy. We are concerned that methods and databases developed in the context of industrial firms and local government will not be suitable for setting pay within a university, and may conceal important questions of policy about the differentials between academic pay and administrative pay.

Equal Opportunities

36. We welcome what progress there has been towards achieving the University's goals in connection with its membership of Opportunity Now. In October last year, several members of the Board attended, along with members of the Council, a seminar on Equal Opportunities issues which identified various other areas in which progress might be made. We hope that the recent establishment of a Personnel Committee will facilitate progress, and that the Director of Personnel will be able to arrange for appropriate data to be collected to enable informed analysis of the issues in question.

Governance

General Board

37. In their Report the General Board make the eye-catching statement that they 'have felt able, notwithstanding the statutory requirement for them to meet fortnightly, to implement a monthly cycle of meetings'. We take no view on whether this change in the pattern of its meetings is a good thing, but we are concerned by the attitude to the University's Statutes thus evinced. Since no-one is suggesting that there has been insufficient business for fortnightly meetings, the failure of the General Board to meet fortnightly is a straightforward breach of Statute C, I, 9, as its members are no doubt aware.

Structure

38. Nevertheless, we welcome the General Board's statement that 'high-quality governance and administration can only be achieved if there is clarity about the purposes and roles of both policy-making committees and their administrative support' (General Board, ¶4). We note that the Council expected to publish a Report on issues of governance 'early in 1999-2000' (Council, ¶7). The promised Report seems not to have appeared yet. When it does, we hope that any reforms it proposes will recognize the University's nature as a self-governing body of scholars, and that the welcome concentration on strategy will not lead to a diminution in the role of democratic scrutiny.

Transparency

39. The Higher Education Funding Council for England has published a Guide for Members of Governing Bodies (http://www.niss.ac.uk/education/hefce/pub95/m11_95.html), which states:

The general principle applies that there should be access to information about the proceedings of the governing body for students and staff of the institution. The agenda, draft minutes if cleared by the chairman, and the signed minutes of governing body meetings, together with the papers considered at meetings, should generally be available for inspection by staff and students. There may, however, be matters covered in standing orders where it is necessary to observe confidentiality. Such matters are likely to include items concerning individuals or which have a 'commercial' sensitivity.

It is now so straightforward to convert text documents into an appropriate format for posting on websites that we think this a practicable way of routinely making more open to legitimate scrutiny not just the 'governing body' of the University (which is the Regent House) but a wide variety of other bodies whose decisions regularly affect both the members of that governing body and others who work and study here. We therefore recommend the Council to put in place procedures for posting on suitable websites, for access from all cam.ac.uk web addresses, the agenda and minutes of unreserved business at the Council, the General Board, and Faculty Boards, and committees of these bodies.

Board of Scrutiny

40. In the period since our last Report the workings of the Board have continued to attract comment, good and bad, within the University. In particular, Dr Johnson has reminded us (Reporter, 1998-99, p. 894) that the Wass Syndicate originally envisaged a special role for the members of the Board at Discussions. Now that the Council has placed the arrangements for the conduct of Discussions on the agenda (Reporter, 1999-2000, p. 722), it is perhaps an appropriate time for us to state that we do not feel comfortable with the special role for us envisaged by Wass. The Board sought to articulate its remit in its Second Report (Reporter, 1996-97, p. 861), and the working methods the Board uses in seeking to fulfil its statutory function according to this remit do not sit easily with the idea that its members should speak up on their own account at Discussions with any special frequency: if they did, the Board's collective responsibility might be blurred and the frankness of its exchanges with senior officers compromised.

Recommendations

I. The Board recommend that the Council and the General Board present to the Regent House, by the Easter Term 2001, a Report on their policies regarding the overall balance of support as between the University's various Schools.

II. The Board recommend that the income on investments be shown in the Accounts in a manner which accords with the SORP.

III. The Board recommend that the Council give consideration to ways in which the benefits of College Fellowships could be used more positively to aid recruitment of the University's academic staff.

IV. The Board recommend that the accounts of all University Companies be consolidated with those of the University.

V. The Board recommend that the Council report, by the Lent Term 2001, on issues relating to the conformity of its Accounts, and those of related institutions, to the relevant SORPs.

VI. The Board recommend that the Council arrange for a register of significant fixed assets to be compiled within the next financial year.

VII. The Board recommend that the agreement between the Colleges and the University be published in the Reporter.

VIII. The Board recommend that the Council make an interim Report on the CAPSA project during the Michaelmas Term 2000.

IX. The Board recommend that the Council bring forward a Report proposing Graces to establish those of the recently created Directorships which it considers to be permanent posts.

X. The Board recommend that the General Board take steps to ensure that marking conventions and classing guidelines for all undergraduate examinations are posted on the web.

XI. The Board recommend publication on suitable websites, for access from all cam.ac.uk web addresses, of the agenda and minutes of unreserved business at the Council, the General Board, and Faculty Boards, and committees of these bodies.

8 June 2000
(Amended 21 September 2000)

M. D. POTTER (Chairman)
DAVID HOWARTH
R. H. LACHMANN
SUSAN LINTOTT
FRANK H. KING
CAROLINE A. T. MALONE
OLIVER RACKHAM
S. A. T. REDFERN
D. L. SMITH
A. M. SNODGRASS
R. J. STIBBS


< Previous page ^ Table of Contents Next page >

Cambridge University Reporter, 4 October 2000
Copyright © 2011 The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.