< Previous page ^ Table of Contents Next page >

Report of Discussion

Tuesday, 28 May 2002. A Discussion was held in the Senate-House of the following Reports:

The Report of the Council and the General Board, dated 13 May 2002 and 24 April 2002, on the introduction of a part-time route to certain research degrees and certificates (p. 762).

Dr G. R. EVANS:

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I am very sorry, I did not submit this speech to nanny so that I could be told whether my remarks were to the point. I expect that sentence would be ruled out of order if that Grace goes through. (Or 'out of context' if Professor Grant is in the chair. Just check back through Professor Grant's printed speeches this year.) What is to stop the Vice-Chancellor creating a deputy out of someone who has declared his hatred of Discussions, who would then be empowered to decide what is 'relevant'?

Unless the amendment proposed by the Proctors and the Board of Scrutiny gets through, there is to be no appeal should there (hypothetically) be arbitrary and irrational and prejudiced rulings from a 'Vice-Chancellor's Deputy'. Even then, is that 'agreement to delete' going to be decided on the spot, holding up the proceedings while everyone then settles the dispute? Or is there going to be the kind of behind-the-scenes post-Discussion battle which led to the omission of my 383 words last time? And will the Reporter record any of that for posterity?

I had better move quickly to a specific reference to the text of the Report, or I shall be declared out of order.

Mr DEPUTY VICE-CHANCELLOR: In this case, yes. Thank you.

There is, as so often, a big general policy change in this Report, holding its tattered fabric together. For full-time students there is a 'residence requirement' and for part-time students merely an 'attendance requirement' (paragraph 7 et al.). Part-time students will have to attend at 'prescribed training programmes' and their attendance 'should be monitored and certified' (paragraph 12). For them, monitored supervision seemingly replaces membership of the community. There are to be 'formal supervision' requirements as part of this 'attendance requirement' (e.g., paragraph 14) and 'progress examinations', approved by Degree Committees, but apparently not necessarily requiring a syllabus or any formal published regulation.

Instead of the ancient mysterious 'Cambridge reality' of membership they are to experience 'immersion'. 'Arrangements must be made for part-time students to be immersed in an active research environment'. Somewhere else.

Under the proposed new Statute B, III, a course of research or study 'in' Cambridge may actually be pursued in 'such other place as the Board and the Degree Committee concerned shall determine' (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 412, Regulation 4). By the time we get to Regulation 20 this phraseology from Regulation 4 has changed. 'Such other place' has become 'at a particular establishment'. So our co-tutelle arrangements may allow a student registered for one of our doctorates to work in the 'other' university, write the single thesis, and get the two degrees? Later on in the Report this 'particular establishment' has become the 'workplace' of an 'employed candidate'.

It will be interesting to see whether the part-time students get roped into the telephoning of alumni to beg for money. The phone calls will be quite expensive from Outer Mongolia. (And how dare they give out my home number to a student who is a complete stranger without my consent? Enquiries about compliance with the Data Protection Act are met by silence.) But I stray. Oh dear. No asides in future.

A Log! With formal scrutiny! This is becoming quite a University of portfolio-like objects. And a Handbook! (The ghost of Oscar Wilde appears, and one's tone takes on the deep thrill of 'A Handbag!'). Jests are irrelevant, I expect. The Grace does not say, and it places no fetter on the discretion of the Vice-Chancellor or his deputy, so it will be quite easy for them to ensure that published speeches are in future so dull that no one will read them. Back to the Handbook. Who is composing this Handbook? On what authority? And when? Will any of it apply to full-time students?

Sorry, another aside, but I think a pertinent one (it is the impertinent ones they are most keen to declare out of order). Pertinent meants relevant, by the way, Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor. Look it up in the Oxford Thesaurus. We know this is difficult for you. You get no training for this task and have to demonstrate no relevant intellectual qualities or skills to enable you to know a hawk from a handsaw.

The point I want to make is germane. (Germane means relevant, Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor.) In a Notice in the same Reporter we are told in connection with the Education Tripos that the 'General Board have accepted the Faculty Board's assurance'; 'the General Board are satisfied that those students completing Part I of the Education Tripos in 2002 are academically capable of taking the one-year part II in the Education Studies Tripos'.

Mr DEPUTY VICE-CHANCELLOR: You are wandering off the issue of a part-time route to certain research degrees and certificates. Can you come back to the topic in question?

… I was about to say before you declare that out of order, Sir, may I take you to the Minutes of the General Board for 24 April when they were discussing the publication of the Report before us. I want to draw attention to the degree of care and attention to the wording we can rely on when the General Board satisfies itself or begins to believe something. Not tangential, I think, for those Minutes tell us how this text we are discussing was approved.

You will read at item 3(b) how various drafts had been looked at since March. 'The Board received a revised draft Joint Report and they signed it'. May we know what then happened to the text? Was it altered after that? On whose authority? By whom? Is it a case of the officers making verbal alterations. We know how important they can be; they can even make something which was relevant irrelevant. Has the Regent House been routinely asked to approve a General Board Report which is not exactly what was signed?

Compare the signing of those contracts many of you are now on after getting your promotions at last (lucky beggars). You are not allowed to change the wording after you have attached your signature, are you? That is surely an extremely apposite point? For that is what is apparently happening on the General Board and happened in the case of this present Report.

I vote we all save up and present the Senate-House with a Roget's Thesaurus and an Oxford Thesaurus, so that they may be consulted when there is a dispute about relevance. But there are going to be no disputes. Just the axe. I expect I had better stop, before I am carried off kicking and screaming for being out of order. Censored! Given a Parental Guidance certificate! Freedom of speech was good while it lasted and so was democracy.

The Report of the Council and the General Board, dated 13 May 2002 and 24 April 2002, on a Human Resources Strategy for the University (p. 773).

Dr G. R. EVANS:

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the Minutes of the General Board for 24 April have this Human Resources Strategy as their item 3(a). You may read there a very sinister development. 'The Board agreed, for their part, to approve the draft Joint Report and they signed it'. So far so good, except for this disturbing habit of 'signing-off' mere drafts. But what is this? 'Minor amendments' (scope undefined) were 'to be agreed by the Vice-Chancellor and the Chairman of the Personnel Committee'. Now I understand, if I do not approve, the capacity in which the Chairman of the Personnel Committee was to act as though he was the General Board; but the Vice-Chancellor? He is Chairman of the General Board, so in that capacity he might conceivably be allowed by the Board to do this. But it could equally easily be implied that he is doing this by virtue of his office. Could this not then be construed as a move towards the awarding of Chief Executive powers to the Vice-Chancellor ahead of those governance 'reforms'?

The Minutes of the Personnel Committee concerning this HR Report (1 May) may also be read on the web at the same address (http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/cam-only/committee/). They are revealing about the true motivation of those feeble attempts at improving our lot we are occasionally offered like sugar plums. On equal pay they speak of 'the development of a fair and equitable reward system thereby enhancing the image of the University as an employer and thus assisting recruitment'. (So all that bad publicity is having an effect then?) Should I be surprised that fair and equal rewards are apparently not seen as a good in themselves? And for those already here?

I invite the Council and General Board to provide the Regent House, in its reply to such of these remarks as are eventually published, with a breakdown of the moneys awarded by HEFCE on the basis of the Human Resources document which it is admitted was rushed to the statutory funding body last summer. I ask them to identify for the Regent House exactly what the money has been spent on, and to reassure us that it is indeed being spent as targetted. Before you open your mouth to declare me out of order, Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I am referring to paragraphs 2-5 of the Report.

We are all beginning to hear alarming reports that there is to be a moratorium on the filling of posts because of the University's deficit (rumours range from £20m to £34m). We bet that will not have any effect on the continuation of secret extra payments to certain favoured individuals. (This is an 'associated' or 'analogous' point, and therefore, by dictionary and thesaurus definition, it is relevant, Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor.) This is a further reason why we have to be told what is being done with the HEFCE money dedicated to Human Resources so far. I should confess that I have already sounded an alarm-bell with HEFCE over this and I trust they are watching with some interest to see what the answer will be. If the Council can give an answer, since CAPSA is still not 'working', and those spending from budgets are still unable to see whether the money they are spending is actually there. I hope more will emerge on all that on June 11.

HR Report, paragraph 1 and HR Strategy, paragraphs 6 and 10, the 'many initiatives'. I have remarked on 'initiativitis' before. But at least this is an attempt to bring the inititatives together in a co-ordinated way. May we have the Agendas and Minutes of all these groups and committees on the Web, please? We are getting somewhat behind already on that front.

'A notable feature was how frequently the same concerns were raised, suggesting that they were the key issues to be addressed' (HR Strategy, paragraph 7). I single out what is described as 'lack of staff management skills' as the first of the main areas on which I should like to concentrate.

Paragraph 11 of the HR Strategy refers to the need to 'accelerate cultural change'. I invite readers of this speech to stand back and contemplate at large what has been brought about in the University in, let us say, the last five years or so. Has there been change for the better? The present Vice-Chancellor announced when he came into office that he intended to change our culture. The advertisement for his successor which appeared in the THES on Friday says he will be expected to 'promote the University', 'particularly in order to realize the full potential of the University's eight hundredth anniversary in 2009'.

Is the new Vice-Chancellor going to join a happier work-force of Human Resources than we had seven years ago, more fairly rewarded, confident that any problems they meet will be dealt with humanely and competently and speedily, trusting the 'management'? Are those of us who have been here a long time noticing an improvement in staff management skills to go with the far greater personal and apparently unreviewable powers now allowed to Heads of Department and other line managers? I just leave that thought with you. (Or try to. It depends whether today's Chairman thinks what I have just said fitting or proper, which a thesaurus will tell you are more words for relevant, Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor.) But the new Vice-Chancellor is not going to be bothering with all that. 'The University's principal goal is to continue to be at the pinnacle of research-intensive universities world-wide' (and who cares about the careers of the researchers?).

My second main area is the lack of progress on the scandal of the upgrading and additional salary provision for staff other than academic officers. The procedures in use date, I believe, from 1995 and have not been revised. The latest edition of the Assistant Staff Handbook contains no mention of discretionary payments and additional increments or the basis on which they are awarded. Those entering the University's employ are provided with copies of payscales with asterisks denoting discretionary payments, but still no definition.

Paragraph 20 (HR Strategy) speaks of 'rationalizing the various arrangements for regrading and discretionary awards for non-academic staff'. How about building in a promotion scheme for them which would recognize personal achievement? At present the criteria (such as they are) are impossible to apply uniformly or consistently and there is confusion with upgrading ('working over and above the level normally expected for the current job grade'). In practice it all goes on the patronage of the Head of Department (as in so much else). Anyone who attempts to appeal after waiting for months to have an application rejected, will find the case against him being presented by the University at his appeal, I understand.

We now have a Pay and Remuneration Manager. She is learning our ways. She has sent out a (Private and Confidential) memo to Heads of Department about a pilot project for HERA (Higher Education Role Analysis). With it goes an invitation to fill in a questionnaire including questions on 'which types of role and which elements of each role staff consider to be the most important to higher education in the UK'. Should this not be put up for Discussion too? This is about the purpose of the University.

Compare paragraph 23 on promotions for academic staff. 'Detailed drafting is under way with a view to introducing' for next year a new promotions procedure. I am horrified to discover that this has begun out of sight and without consultation about what is needed by Report to the University. Since 1996 I and others have been getting up and making speeches pointing out procedural deficiencies. Nothing has been done. Now they tell us procedural change is going ahead at last. What is it going to cover? What will be the principles? Which of the present deficiencies is it going to address? The Personnel Committee Minutes of 1 May (on the Web) say about this, that 'a single promotion scheme for senior academic offices' is to go to the next meeting of the Personnel Committee. It is intended to put it into operation from October. I do not recall our being given an opportunity to discuss either the policy elements or the detailed proposals in this procedure so important for so many of us. Are those of us still stuck at Lecturer level but applying for Chairs going to have to go through each grade now before we can get our belated Professorships? (Losing tenure and being forced to sign one of those new contracts on the way?)

I shall be pleasantly but extremely suprised if there has been any attention to the kind of procedural muddle and consequence of lack of training which bedevils the present exercises. They are not interested in all that in the Old Schools. They just want it to be less trouble for the untrained committees. Let me give you a vignette (a relevant vignette, Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor). My Faculty promotions committee has now come to the view for the second year running that my research is top-hole on all fronts. It is admitted in my feedback session that every single piece of information available about my teaching is strongly positive. But they left the teaching evaluation completely blank.

So they had to hold a third meeting, and now I have both a P and an R for teaching apparently because I have been unable to attend two committees while the Vice-Chancellor refuses to deal with my grievance under Statute U. If attendance at committees is a criterion for promotion it should say so. Will paragraph 23's promises resolve this kind of confusion?

My third main theme is the balance between recruitment and retention (HR Strategy, paragraph 14ff.). Most of the initiatives driven through with uncommon speed for Cambridge have benefitted those who do not work here yet. Retention is being neglected. Long-serving staff deserve a fair share of improvement of their lot, financially and in the other ways which are important to contentment in and commitment to the University.

Here is my relevant moment to fill you in on those 383 words missing from last week's Reporter. For they concern a most extraordinary 'retention' strategy. The Council decided one autumn to allow the Secretary General to become the first Director of CMI (now CMI Ltd). Graham Allen was appointed as caretaker and deputy to do his job. Dr Livesey was not in the event appointed as the continuing Director of CMI Ltd. He returned after a year but not to the duties of Secretary General. He continues to draw the Secretary General's salary, which when I was on the Council included a generous secret top-up. His actual duties have been a little unclear, but it is now proposed that we change the Statutes to enable him to provide 'high level advice and support to the Council and the Vice-Chancellor on matters of strategic importance to the University's educational programmes.' We are therefore invited to adapt the office to 'retain' an individual in circumstances on which I am sure I shall not be allowed to say more. Look what happened last time I tried.

Now look at the list in paragraph 16. 'The determination of a basic salary by a common grading methodology' might be fair (though how do they propose to compare my work for the University with that of Professor Schofield, for example, since he sits on all those central bodies and I only get to (try to) make speeches). But it is surely a nonsense if extra sums can be awarded secretly in no properly regulated manner? Who thought 'welcome' was the appropriate adjective to insert before 'flexibility in determining starting salaries' in paragraph 17? And as to 'transparency in criteria and perceived fairness in the operation of processes'; that is a matter I have been seeking to take to the courts (for everyone's sake, and not just my own) (THES, 17 May).

And now other matters. The Code of Practice document for the employment of Contract Research Staff (HR Strategy, paragraph 29). Those governance proposals which would include a wide range of contract research staff as members of the Regent House should also bring the conditions of their employment under the control of the Statutes and Ordinances, surely? Is the footnote to Statute A, III, 7(e)(ii) going to be revised?

This is the first we hear of the proposal to make changes to the Statutes and Ordinances to allow outsiders to be appointed as Senior Lecturers and Readers (HR Strategy, paragraph 17). Are these incomers going to be subjected to the same hurdle-hopping requirements as the internal candidates for these promotions? Or is it going to be like the getting of a Chair, one law for the rich (the 'desirable' outsiders) and another for the poor (the international stars already here). (Appropriate, apt, applicable, akin, allied, associated, to the point, not peripheral, which all mean relevant, Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor.)

I do not know how they have the face to include those remarks on equal opportunity in the light of what was revealed by the Schneider~Ross Report (paragraphs 32-36) and the scandal of the University's treatment of its disabled academic staff and those rare 'birds' its senior women academics. I see that in January 2002 a 'senior academic women's advisory group' was set up (paragraph 32). No one told me. That will be in line with the fate of my offers in previous years to lecture to the Springboard courses designed to encourage women to take a more active part in University life, then. Come on girls, you too can be reviled! Just speak out!

Is appraisal going to turn into assessment (paragraph 38)? There was an undertaking when it was first introduced that it would not. Short memories they have on the central bodies. And as for 'performance review'? (paragraph 41). Is this going to mean our work will be assessed by persons less competent than we are and without of course any training? Will 'remedial action' (paragraph 43) be taken if they disapprove of the way we do things? And what will this consist in? Brain-washing sessions? Yes, I expect, in the new University of Cambridge where arbitrary decisions about relevance can be made without appeal or review and the central bodies have total control over the content of the Reporter, including Reports of Discussions.

Well, Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I have done my best to be relevant, and I am the one who teaches a little mediaeval logic. But you are the examiner. Shall I pass?


< Previous page ^ Table of Contents Next page >

Cambridge University Reporter,
Copyright © 2002 The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.