Reporter 13/11/02: Report of the Council on the stipend attaching to the office of Director in the Unified Administrative Service: Notice

Report of the Council on the stipend attaching to the office of Director in the Unified Administrative Service: Notice

11 November 2002

The Council have considered the remarks made by Dr Cowley and Dr Evans at the Discussion on the above Report on 9 July 2002 (see Reporter, 2001-02, pp. 864 and 1226).

The Directors and indeed other senior non-academic officers in the University are appointed for their professional and management expertise. They are normally appointed following competition and following detailed assessment of their experience and qualifications. The only procedural exception has been the appointment of the Academic Secretary which arose out of a restructuring and as such the Council agreed that advertisement was inappropriate. In the case of the Director of the Management Information Services Division the post was advertised but a temporary appointment to an unestablished post has been made at a salary that was not on the proposed scale of stipends.

The Council and the Regent House are properly concerned to ensure that the arrangements for the stipends of Directors are such as to command confidence in the University and to enable the University to recruit individuals of the necessary qualifications and experience. At the same time, the Council are concerned that there should be some flexibility in the arrangements on appointment such that it is possible for individuals to be offered appropriate remuneration in a contractually binding way, quickly and openly, without the need either to seek the approval of the Regent House in each individual case or to seek subsequent ratification from the Regent House. For this reason, the Council considered that it was inappropriate for individual Directorships to be established on specific steps. Equally, the range and duties of the individual Directorships varies and in the view of the Council it would be inappropriate for all Directorships to be established at the same level of stipend. For that reason the Council concluded that they would seek from the Regent House approval for a range of stipends for initial appointments with the decision on the specific point to be offered to individual Directors to be left with the Council to determine in the light of the requirements of the post and prevailing market forces. The range would be fixed by the Regent House by Grace and the point at which individual Directorships were placed in the range would subsequently be published in Statutes and Ordinances in the usual way.

Dr Cowley raises the question of the interpretation of the arrangements for the review of stipends of academic-related staff in the professorial grade in so far as they relate to Directors. Those arrangements were set out in the Report of the General Board on the recruitment, reward, and retention of academic and academic-related officers (Reporter, 1997-98, p. 816) and are reproduced in the appendix below. The arrangements were approved by Grace and have been applied to existing senior non-academic officers both within and outside the Unified Administrative Service for the last three years. The outcome of the review undertaken by both the Council and the General Board has been published by Notice in the Reporter; the latest Notice being published on 6 February 2002 (Reporter, 2001-02, p. 502). In answer to Dr Cowley, the Council inform the Regent House that they have applied the arrangements by reference to percentage increments, as published in Annex 2 to the Report, on the base professorial stipend. The Council believe this to be consistent with the arrangements that were approved in 1998 and with the intention at that time.

With regard to the Directors, these arrangements would mean that an individual Director would be appointed at a step between 31 and 41 on the general scale of stipends. He or she would be eligible for a permanent increase in stipend in each periodic review, this increase being in respect of evidence of outstanding contribution to the work of the University and furtherance of its aims, and development of his or her role as a result of effective commitment and effort. The payment in addition to the initial stipend would be a percentage of the basic professorial stipend (5%, 7.5%, 10%, 13%, 20%, 25%, 26%, 30%, 39%, 53%) as set out in Annex 2 to the General Board's Report which is reproduced here. (The typographical errors in the calculations of the percentages noted by Dr Cowley have been corrected; these errors did not affect the stipends set out in the Annex which were correct.) To illustrate the possible range of payments: for a Director appointed at step 31 (i.e. with a stipend of £48,005, equivalent to the current basic professorial stipend), during his or her period of office the allowable additional payment would be from 5% up to a maximum of 53% of this stipend (resulting in a stipend of £50,405 up to a ceiling of £73,448); for a Director appointed at step 41 (i.e. with a stipend of £73,448) the same allowable additional payment would result in a stipend of £75,848 up to a ceiling of £98,891.

As stated in paragraph 43 of the General Board's Report, in awarding any increase in stipend, account will be taken of the effect on the differential between the stipend of the officer concerned and the stipend of the next most senior office, if that is relevant, and of any factors relating to comparability within the structure as a whole.

The Council have agreed that future Notices announcing the results of pay reviews should set out the cumulative total of awards made at each level of enhancement.

The Council accept that it would be appropriate to include an Ordinance setting out the procedure for the review of stipends for Professors and academic-related officers in the professorial grade and will put forward such an Ordinance for consideration by the Regent House in due course.

Accordingly the Council have concluded, following their consideration of the remarks made in the Discussion, that the recommendations in their Report are in the best interests of the University and are consistent with the regulations for the Unified Administrative Service. They have therefore submitted a Grace for the approval of those recommendations (Grace 2, p. 296).

APPENDIX

EXTRACTS FROM THE REPORT OF THE GENERAL BOARD ON THE RECRUITMENT, REWARD, AND RETENTION OF ACADEMIC AND ACADEMIC-RELATED OFFICERS (REPORTER, 1997-98, P. 816)

Arrangements for the holders of academic-related offices in the professorial grade

41. The Board are of the view that the revised arrangements proposed for academic staff are not appropriate for academic-related staff. The criterion used in respect of academic staff is sufficiently flexible to be applicable to academic-related staff, i.e. evidence of outstanding contribution to the work of the University and furtherance of its aims; however, it is also necessary to consider whether the officer has developed his or her role as a result of effective commitment and effort. The Board have concluded that a different approach is necessary in respect of academic-related staff. It is proposed that a systematic periodic review of stipend, as described below, should replace the present arrangements for academic-related staff. The review would be conducted by the Vice-Chancellor, assisted by an Advisory Committee consisting of the two Pro-Vice-Chancellors and one external member.

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.

Level of increase

43. The range of remuneration provided by the recently extended range of payments for Heads of Departments and by the supplementary payments scheme … all of which are now expressed as percentages of the standard professorial stipend, will, in the Board's view, provide a sufficiently extensive and flexible framework for determining the pay of the University's most senior academic and academic-related staff. However, it is also proposed that in awarding any increase in stipend, account should be taken of the effect on the differential between the stipend of the officer concerned and the stipend of the next most senior office, if that is relevant, and of any factors relating to comparability within the structure as a whole.

Systematic periodic review

44. The exercise would be conducted every two years, in parallel with the exercise for academic staff. The Vice-Chancellor would retain in his office curricula vitae and further particulars/role profiles in respect of the holders of all academic-related offices in the professorial grade.

ANNEX 2

Proposed professorial range of the academic and academic-related stipend structure

Current step on general scale of University stipends (Statutes and Ordinances, 1997, p. 631)(2002 steps in parentheses)		Proposed stipend, based on rates in force at 1 April 1997 (£)	Office
		110,119	Vice-Chancellor
		34,261¹	Pro-Vice-Chancellor
		67,880²	Secretary and Chief Executive, Local Examinations Syndicate
	(41)	63,164 (153 per cent)	Professorial stipend plus supplementary payment, level 4 (this percentage figure has been corrected from 152%; the correct additional figure of 53% was given in paragraph 29 of the General Board's Report)
		59,143³	Registrary
	(40)	57,696 (139 per cent)	Professorial stipend plus supplementary payment, level 3
		55,065⁴	Development Director
32	(39)	53,673 (130 per cent)	Professorial stipend plus Schedule 1 payment: Secretary General, Treasurer
	(38)	52,226 (126 per cent)	Professorial stipend plus supplementary payment, level 2
31	(37)	51,609 (125 per cent)	Professorial stipend plus Schedule 2 payment: Director of EMBS, Director of Continuing Education, Director of Fitzwilliam Museum
30	(36)	49,545 (120 per cent)	Professorial stipend plus Schedule 3 payment
	(35)	46,758(113 per cent)	Professorial stipend plus supplementary payment, level 1
	(34)	45,147 (110 per cent)	Professorial stipend plus Schedule 4 payment
	(33)	44,385 (107.5 per cent)	Professorial stipend plus Schedule 5 payment
	(32)	43,352 (105 per cent)	Professorial stipend plus Schedule 6 payment (this percentage figure has been corrected from 6%; the correct additional figure of 5% was given in paragraph 20 of the General Board's Report)
29	(31)	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 The 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.

Table of Contents