Reporter 11/12/02: Fly-sheets reprinted

Fly-sheets reprinted

The following fly-sheets, etc., are reprinted in accordance with the Council's Notice on Discussions and fly-sheets (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 117).

The Conduct of Discussions: Grace 1 of 15 May 2002 and Amendments

The Board [of Scrutiny] ... agrees with the recommendation that Professor Shattock made in his CAPSA report, which was that the University should establish standing orders for Discussions designed to encourage the discussion of issues and processes but protect individual University officers from abuse.

Despite this, however, the Board believes that the Council was unwise to attempt to deal with the problem without consultation and by means of the Notice and Grace published in the Reporter of 15 May 2002. The intention of the Notice was to announce to the University that the person presiding at a Discussion had authority to rule out of order all remarks made and that such remarks would not then be published. The Grace did not, as such, empower the person presiding to make such a ruling, but required the Registrary to implement such rulings when reporting Discussions. The Board believes that any power to rule comments out of order at Discussions is one that should be prescribed and limited by Ordinances (Board of Scrutiny Report, 55, Reporter, 7 August, 2002; http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2001-02/weekly/5895/20.html)

The signatories believe that the conduct of Discussions is a matter of such importance to the future freedoms of our direct democracy that it needs proper consideration, consultation and debate and a Report to the University. If you believe so too, vote Non Placet to all the options before you. The conduct of Discussions will then have to form the subject of a proper Report.

ANDREW AITCHISON	D. N. DUMVILLE	J. A. LAIDLAW	O. J. PADEL
M. M. CHAUDHRI	G. R. EVANS	D. R. J. LAMING	JON PEATFIELD
G. Z. CHEN	DEBBIE FINUCANE	JAMES LEACH	R. RODD
M. R. CLARK	ROGER GRIFFIN	E. S. LEEDHAM-GREEN	JOHN D. SMITH
R. A. COX	N. J. HOLMES	ALAN MACFARLANE	R. J. STIBBS
J. L. DAWSON	R. HUNT	M. E. MCINTYRE	J. H. SWENSON-WRIGHT
D. R. DE LACEY	EIVIND KAHRS	N. M. MACLAREN	ROGER L. TAPP
N. R. M. DE LANGE	ABRAHAM KARPAS	FRANCESCA ORSINI	KARIN TYBJERG
J. P. DOUGHERTY	PETER KORNICKI

Conduct of Discussions: Grace 1 of 15 May 2002

Discussions have a useful role in our democratic procedures. But at present they are notoriously being abused by some speakers, in ways indicated in the amended versions of Regulation 5 now before the Regent House. The University's reputation as a community of scholars is suffering in consequence. A change to the Ordinances to signal that the University expects speakers to keep to the point and to avoid defamatory remarks, and to provide for the possibility of terminating discussion of a particular topic, is accordingly appropriate. Omission from the record of remarks which are ruled out of order or breach procedural rulings by the person presiding (see the Council's proposed amendment to Regulation 6) is then an obvious consequence.

The involvement of the Proctors suggested in the amendments proposed by Proctors and members of the Board of Scrutiny may perhaps have been conceived in an attempt to bolster the authority of the person presiding. We agree with the Council's objection to that proposal: the Vice-Chancellor or other person presiding at a Discussion should not be subject to rulings by others. The amendment to Regulation 6 proposed by Proctors and members of the Board of Scrutiny would have the similar effect of weakening the Registrary's power to omit defamatory remarks (by making it subject to the agreement of the author or - in the last resort - the Proctors), and is also to be resisted.

We therefore urge you to vote for option (c) (approval of Grace 1 of 15 May 2002 as amended by Amendment 2) in the postal ballot.

N. C. DENYER	PETER LINEHAN	DAVID MCMULLEN	M. SCHOFIELD
PETER GODDARD	D. MACDONALD	SARA OWEN	R. WARDY
D.A. GOOD	JAMES MATHESON	G. A. REID	JAMES WARREN
GORDON JOHNSON	M. D. MCLEOD

Conduct of Discussions: Grace 1 of 15 May 2002

We believe that the Council has acted correctly in attempting to address the problem of irrelevant and or defamatory speeches at Discussions and we support their resolve to act. It was, however, both disappointing and surprising that the Council sought to submit a Grace concerning the Conduct of Business by the Regent House without first offering members of the Regent House and the Senate and others who are entitled to participate in Discussions the chance to comment at a Discussion.

The original Grace as unamended raised two concerns. The first was that the relevant regulations did not and would not specify the precise powers of the person chairing a Discussion to make rulings regarding defamatory or irrelevant speeches. The Council have addressed this point in their amended Grace.

The second concern was that the Vice-Chancellor or a Deputy Vice-Chancellor chairing a Discussion would be liable to be accused of bias if he or she made such rulings during the discussion of a matter in which he or she was involved in an executive capacity. In proposing a role for the Proctors, the first amendment submitted did not assume any special wisdom or skill on the part of the Proctorial Body. It reasoned that the Proctors are historically those charged with seeing that the formal public functions of the University are conducted properly and that discipline is maintained. They are in office for only one year and are non-executive officers nominated by the Colleges. As such their independence is clear and their public endorsement of a ruling made by the person presiding at a Discussion would have made it difficult for an aggrieved speaker to accuse the Vice-Chancellor or his deputy of unfair bias or 'censorship' by the executive.

We recognize that the scheme proposed in the first amendment is not ideal, but refer again to the decision of the Council not to give notice of their proposal or allow a Discussion before it was Graced. We believe that the chairing of Discussions by the Vice-Chancellor is essentially an historic legacy from the days before the office became full-time and was detached from bi-annual rotation amongst Heads of House. Ideally we would like to see the Council promote a further Grace, establishing a panel of non-executive and legally-qualified persons to chair Discussions. To do so would protect both the Vice-Chancellor and the University from damaging accusations by speakers while affirming the University's commitment to freedom of expression within acceptable and proper limits.

MICHAEL AITKEN	FRANK H. KING	JENNIFER RIGBY	IAN M. THOMPSON
DAVID J. CHIVERS	M. R. MANNING	DAVID L. SMITH	M. J. TILBY
STEPHEN J. COWLEY	OLIVER RACKHAM	J. R. SPENCER	B. J. USCINSKI
VEDIA IZZET	J. D. RAY	R. J. STIBBS

Conduct of Discussions: Grace 1 of 15 May 2002

The Council are in no doubt as to the importance of Discussions in the University's democratic procedures. Until recently the procedures governing the actual conduct of Discussions have worked well. The Council agree with the argument in the fly-sheets signed by N. C. Denyer and others and M. Aitken and others that is necessary now to have some further explicit regulation to prevent abuse of traditional academic freedoms. The proposed Grace as further amended by Council does precisely that. I urge members of the Regent House to vote for option (c).

GORDON JOHNSON

on behalf of the Council

Report of the Council on the Principal Administrative Officers: Grace 7 of 24 July 2002

What is this ballot about?

The Grace for which approval is sought radically revises the roles of the Secretary General and the Treasurer, in effect turning them into Pro-Vice-Chancellors, with special responsibility for policy advice. The majority of their former duties are now to be performed by the Academic Secretary and the Director of Finance.

If policy advice is to become a full-time role, then surely these posts ought to be advertised and competed for and our current Secretary General and Treasurer invited to demonstrate against all comers they are indeed the right people to be directing, respectively, the educational and financial policy-making of the University of Cambridge for the next decade.

One may feel concern for these two colleagues, whose alternative is redundancy. But the signatories do not see why they should be given special treatment when other employees of the University are not protected from the consequences of a changed need for their services. To vote 'non placet' is to vote for fair and equal treatment of all our staff.

This would also appear to be a temporary arrangement ('the Council would intend that the new arrangements, and the office(s) concerned, should be reviewed when any of the Principal Administrative Offices next falls vacant', Reporter, 5880, Wednesday, 27 March 2002, p. 643). As such it should have no place in our Statutes. Professor A. W. F. Edwards' trenchant criticisms of the constitutional unsatisfactoriness of this proposal have not been addressed (Reporter, 24 July 2002, p. 1250). He argued that 'it would ... not be appropriate for the Statutes of the University to be changed to accommodate particular circumstances of a transitory nature'. The signatories agree, and if you do too we urge you to vote Non Placet.

ANDREW C. AITCHISON	DEBBIE FINUCANE	J. A. LAIDLAW	R. RODD
J. L. DAWSON	G. R. EVANS	D. R. J. LAMING	R. J. STIBBS
D. R. DE LACEY	ROGER GRIFFIN	ALAN MACFARLANE	ROGER L. TAPP
J. P. DOUGHERTY	R. HUNT	O. J. PADEL	JON WARBRICK
D. N. DUMVILLE	ABRAHAM KARPAS	JON PEATFIELD

Report of the Council on the Principal Administrative Officers: Grace 7 of 24 July

It is not in the interests of the University and its good governance that defective Statutes should be submitted to the Privy Council for approval by Her Majesty in Council.

In their reply¹ the Council (of the Regent House) declined to rectify any of the faults identified by Professor Edwards during the Discussion² on 30 April of the Report on the Principal Administrative Officers³ (except the need to secure the consent of the Officers affected) and have now submitted a Grace for the approval of the proposed Statutes.

The position is even worse now than it was in April. If this Grace is approved the Registrary will be confirmed as 'the principal administrative officer of the University'. But the Council have since proposed, in their Report on Governance,⁴ that the Vice-Chancellor 'shall be the principal academic and administrative officer of the University'.

In order that the Council might have the opportunity to reconsider their proposals, and in the hope of avoiding controversy at the level of the Privy Council, we urge the Regent House to refer the proposals back by not approving Grace 7 of 24 July.

In law the Regent House, not the Council, is the body with responsibility for the Statutes. There is no higher authority in the University. Every member shares in that responsibility. Please vote non placet in the forthcoming ballot.

1. Reporter, 2001-02, p. 1250. 2. Ibid. p. 845. 3. Ibid. p. 643. 4. Ibid. p. 945.

M. ADOMENAS	J. P. DOUGHERTY	W. Y. LIANG	O. RACKHAM
MICHAEL AITKEN	A. W. F. EDWARDS	PETER LINEHAN	PETER ROBINSON
NIGEL F. B. ALLINGTON	G. R. EVANS	I. N. MCCAVE	J. G. ROBSON
J. E. J. ALTHAM	ALAN FINDLAY	A. A. MACINTOSH	M. D. SAYERS
J. H. BAKER	D. M. FOX	M. E. MCINTYRE	M. C. SMITH
R. H. S. CARPENTER	P. H. HAYNES	D. L. MCMULLEN	JOHN M. STEWART
J. P. CASEY	I. HERD	M. R. MANNING	R. J. STIBBS
DAVID J. CHIVERS	E. J. HINCH	PAUL MILLETT	ROGER STRATFORD
M. R. CLARK	N. J. HOLMES	R. C. NOLAN	H. THOMPSON
S. J. COWLEY	PETER JOHNSTONE	B. J. PARKER	IAN M. THOMPSON
J. COX	ABRAHAM KARPAS	F. PENZ	M. J. TILBY
D. R. DE LACEY	FRANK H. KING	DAVID W. PHILLIPSON	B. J. USCINSKI
N. R. M. DE LANGE	E. S. LEEDHAM-GREEN	A. M. PITTS

Report of the Council on the Principal Administrative Officers: Grace 7 of 24 July 2002

The recommendations which form the content of this Grace encapsulate changes in the definition of the roles of the Principal Administrative Officers and some associated implications which are consequential either on the need to clarify reporting arrangements (in the case of the Registrary, as head of the administration), something urged in the Shattock-Finkelstein Report, or on the reorganization of the administrative service (in the case of the Secretary General and the Treasurer), as already approved by the Regent House. We believe that these are eminently sensible measures which will have the effect of making the relevant clauses of Statutes and Ordinances properly reflect the way the University's administrative structures have been developing.

The Registrary already reports to the Vice-Chancellor, as Chairman of the Council (under whose direction the Registrary is placed), under current constitutional provisions. In a world which makes ever-increasing demands of accountability it is important that this duty of reporting be made formally explicit, as the basis of the working relationship between the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrary, and as one of the principal means whereby the Council exercises its responsibility of direction. The offices of Secretary General and Treasurer have been altering in ways explained in the Annexes to the Council's Report (Reporter, 2001-02, p. 644) and in its subsequent Notice (ibid., pp. 1250-1). The recommendations relating to their duties follow an evolution in those offices which has been in process for some time, and give its outcome formal clarity and confirmation. The present Secretary General and the present Treasurer have consented to the proposed changes of Statute.

It has been suggested that changes of the kind envisaged in Recommendations II and III - relating to the specification of the secretaryships of the General Board and the Finance Committee - should be governed by Statute as at present, not by Ordinance as proposed. We beg to differ. Statutes articulate the principles by which we are governed and the main offices and structures that function as the vehicles through which we carry out our duties of teaching, research, and administration. Ordinances work out detailed arrangements for their operation. The secretaryships of the General Board and Finance Committee, important functions as they are, are best specified there.

We therefore urge you to vote placet in the postal ballot on Grace 7 of 24 July 2002.

NICHOLAS BULLOCK	MALCOLM GRANT	JOHN A. LEAKE	KATE PRETTY
ANDREW CLIFF	IAN LESLIE	D. MACDONALD	MALCOLM SCHOFIELD
PETER GODDARD	PETER LIPTON	M. D.MACLEOD	S. J. YOUNG
DAVID GOOD	GORDON JOHNSON	JAMES MATHESON

Report of the Council on the Principal Administrative Officers: Grace 7 of 24 July 2002

The flysheet of Dr Aitchison and other signatories

Dr Aitchison and his co-signatories make two points:

(i) The Council propose radical changes to the roles of the Secretary General and the Treasurer. The offices, as newly defined, should be advertised. If Dr Livesey and Mrs Womack are not appointed to the new offices, they should be made redundant. They deserve no special treatment.

(ii) The proposals are for temporary arrangements only; to be reviewed when the present incumbents leave their offices. The Statutes are no place for temporary provisions.

The replies to those points are as follows:

(i) The Council have made clear in paragraph 2 of their Report that the changes represent a clarification of the roles of the offices of Secretary General and Treasurer as they have evolved. That evolution has developed in the best interests of the University and the Council seek now to recognize it in a formal way. There can be no redundancy because there is no office to be discontinued. Were there a statutory office to be discontinued, then that could not be done without the consent of the incumbent - see paragraph 34 of the Schedule to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act 1923. Were matters otherwise and paragraph 34 did not exist, then a University officer cannot be made redundant without the properly elaborate procedures set out in Statute U, II, requiring inter alia the approval of the Regent House. Were there no Statute U, II and matters governed simply by employment law, then the University would be under a clear duty to the officers concerned to act fairly and to seek to redeploy them. But then where should the Council redeploy them other than to their very offices as now defined to reflect the duties that they successfully execute? Leaving aside every other consideration, what is proposed is not special treatment, but simply the fair and lawful treatment to which the officers concerned are entitled.

(ii) Statute T (Temporary Provisions) contains some 53 sections of temporary arrangements, many now spent. The Council do not believe, however, that that would be a proper place for their proposals. What is proposed is not temporary. It will, however, as the Council have said in their Report, be reviewed when any of the Principal Administrative Offices next falls vacant.

The flysheet of Dr Adomenas and other signatories

Dr Adomenas and his co-signatories make three points:

(i) The Council have declined to rectify any of the faults in their Report (save one) identified by Professor Edwards in the Discussion on 30 April 2002.

(ii) The Council propose that the Registrary shall act as the principal administrative officer of the University, yet in their Report on Governance they propose that the Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal academic and administrative officer of the University.

(iii) The Regent House, and not the Council, are the body with responsibility for the Statutes.

The replies to those points are as follows:

(i) The Council respect the views put forward by Professor Edwards in the Discussion. His remark that the Report should have made clear to the Regent House that the officers concerned consent to the proposed changes of Statute was an excellent one and entirely right. But with that exception, for the reasons explained in their Notice, they do not agree with his views.

(ii) Both the consultation paper on Governance, issued in February 2002, and the Report on Governance, issued in June 2002, propose that the Vice-Chancellor should be recognized in the Statutes as the principal academic and administrative officer of the University. The Council have proposed in their present Report, the recommendation of which is now Graced, that the Registrary shall act as the principal administrative officer of the University and as the head of the University's administrative staff, reporting to the Vice-Chancellor in that capacity. They believe that the intention of both of those proposals so far as concerns the relationship of the two offices is clear and unambiguous.

(iii) The Council respectfully agree.

10 October 2002

G. A. REID

on behalf of the Council

Table of Contents