Previous page
Table of Contents
|
Previous page
|
Table of Contents
|
Next page
|
The Council have considered the remarks made at the Discussion of these Reports on 15 January 2002 (Reporter, 2001-02, pp. 454 and 460) and have invited the response of the General Board to the remarks on the Board's Annual Report. With regard to the remarks that concern their own Annual Report the Council have agreed to comment as follows:
The Council approved the wide circulation of a consultation paper on the Governance of the University. Seminars were held at various sites during February and March and an interactive website was set up. The Council agreed that the remarks referring to governance issues in this Discussion should be considered together with the comments received during the consultation period. Following detailed consideration of all the comments, the Council published a Report setting out recommendations on the way ahead (Reporter, 2001-02, p. 945).
The Council's Report on changes to the Unified Administrative Service included provision for quality control, and the Registrary has subsequently outlined to the Council procedures to implement this.
In their response to the remarks made at the Discussion of their First Report on the Unified Administrative Service the Council stressed that they are and always have been clear that in its overall direction the University must continue to be academic-led. The provision of administrative services should be at the highest levels of professional expertise and effectiveness and the Council recognize that this requires there to be a clear policy towards professional and career development for administrative staff. They note that the development and application of such policies will be helped by the additional resources in the Personnel Division and the organizational changes in the Unified Administrative Service. The Registrary has prepared a development plan for the Unified Administrative Service which was considered initially by the Council at their meeting on 25 March 2002.
Comment was also made that although many Faculties and Departments have administrative staff who are formally part of the Academic Division, many others continue to have such staff on the establishment of the Faculty or Department. The Council note that many members of the academic staff are also engaged in administrative tasks. These members provide invaluable support to Faculties, Schools, and Departments. The Registrary, as the principal administrative officer, has been discussing with the Chairmen of the Councils of the Schools how career development opportunities can be expanded for all administrative staff.
The reports by Professors Shattock and Finkelstein on CAPSA have been published as has the Council's action plan in response to the recommendations in the two reports. The Council will continue to inform the University of the progress in implementing the proposals in the action plan and will comment further on these matters in their next Annual Report.
The Council have agreed to report on the ruling from the European Court of Justice in their next Annual Report.
Dr G. R. Evans referred to industrial and commercial use of laboratories and the effect this might have on VAT returns. The Council has been informed that before a zero rating certificate is issued, a discussion is held with the relevant Department to ensure that the building qualifies for zero rating for VAT and that future plans are not compromised. In addition, the Research Policy Committee of the General Board is to prepare draft guidelines for Departments, including guidance about VAT, about embedded laboratories.
In response to the remarks made by Dr Evans about unfairness and inequality of treatment the Council would like to draw attention to the work that has already been done across a wide range of matters in harmonizing terms and conditions, introducing a Code of Practice for contract research staff, undertaking the Equality Audit, and in relation to the Part-time Working and Fixed-term Directives that make inequality of treatment unlawful. The Council acknowledge that more needs to be done, for example, to ensure that procedures are transparent, that pay systems are not discriminatory, and that individuals are better equipped to undertake staff management responsibilities.
With regard to the Stress at Work policy, this was drafted by a working party established by the Occupational Health Committee in 1998. The policy recognizes that the most effective way of tackling harmful, excessive work-place stress is to prevent it at source. Notwithstanding that, experience since September 2000 when the Staff Counsellor started has shown that there is considerable demand for her services from members of staff.
The Council intend to review the operation of the guidelines and will, at that stage, consider what further work is necessary.
The Business Committee has been meeting weekly where necessary since 21 January 2002 to consider the wording of Notices and Reports.
In the Action plan published as an Appendix to their Notice in response to the remarks made at the Discussion of CAPSA and its implementation (Reporter, 2001-02, p. 502) the Council agreed to consider a draft strategy for internal communications at their meeting of 25 March.
As part of this strategy the Council have agreed that the Agendas and Minutes of meetings of the central bodies would be made available on-line within the cam.ac.uk domain at http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/cam-only/committee/.
The General Board have commented on the remarks that concern their Report as follows:
Dr Evans raised the question of the Centre's policy on interdisciplinary scholars. CRASSH's policy on interdisciplinarity is stated on its website:
The projects, themes, and conferences supported by CRASSH will usually, though not invariably, be interdisciplinary in nature. The Centre does not set out to sponsor activities that might more logically be supported by individual Faculties or Departments. The work of individual scholars coming as Visiting Fellows to the Centre need not in itself be of an interdisciplinary kind; what is required is that it be of the highest quality, and directly relevant to the Centre's current programme of activities.
In line with that policy, the Centre is currently developing six projects which cross existing academic boundaries, involving collaborations between academics from Faculties and Departments across the University.
The Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on a full Human Resources Strategy was published on 15 May 2002 and discussed on 28 May 2002 (Reporter, 2001-02, pp. 773 and 879). A Notice in response to the remarks made at that Discussion together with a Grace for the approval of the Strategy will be published shortly. As the University had not approved the full strategy by 1 June, the Council and the General Board agreed that the strategy contained in the draft Report should be submitted in order to ensure that funding for the further two years is secured. If necessary, an amended version will be provided subsequently to the funding council.
Dr Evans made reference in her remarks to a 'gagging clause' in contracts of employment. Contracts contain a confidentiality provision, included on legal advice, concerning the disclosure and use of information in relation to the business of the University or of any member of the University for third party or personal use. The clause makes it quite clear that the provision is subject to an individual's rights under section 43 of the Education (No2) Act 1986 and any subsequent legislation.
Regarding the suggestion that the Personnel Division should make an annual report to the University, the Board believe that it is important that the Personnel Committee should present an annual account of its work. The present arrangement is for the Committee to do this through the Annual Reports of the Council and the General Board and there is no reason to suppose that this is unsatisfactory.
The senior promotions procedures are currently the subject of a review being undertaken through the Personnel Committee, in the light of the responses of Faculty Boards and other authorities and individual members of the University, to the consultation document circulated in the Michaelmas Term and the Notice (Reporter, 2001-02, p. 106) inviting comments. The General Board expect to report to the University, setting out proposed revised arrangements, in due course, and they do not consider it productive to engage in an extended debate about the existing arrangements which, in their view, operate well. In response to Dr Laming's question, the Board repeat their rejection of the assertion that the procedures are rife with bias. They regret the introduction into his remarks at the Discussion of confidential information relating to the consideration of an individual candidate in the 2001 personal promotions exercise.
The Council are submitting a Grace to the Regent House (Grace 6, p. 30) for the approval of their Annual Report.
|
Previous page
|
Table of Contents
|
Next page
|
Cambridge University Reporter, 2 October 2002
Copyright © 2002 The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars
of the University of Cambridge.