Skip to main contentCambridge University Reporter

No 6179

Wednesday 17 February 2010

Vol cxl No 20

pp. 545–600

Notices

Calendar

20 February, Saturday. Congregation at 2 p.m. in the Senate-House (see p. 594).

2 March, Tuesday. Discussion at 2 p.m. in the Senate-House.

5 March, Friday. End of third quarter of Lent Term.

12 March, Friday. Full Term ends.

Discussions at 2 p.m.

Congregations

2 March, Tuesday

20 February, Saturday at 2 p.m.

16 March, Tuesday

27 March, Saturday at 11 a.m.

Notice of a benefaction

6 February 2010

The Vice-Chancellor gives notice that she has received with gratitude a generous benefaction of £5m from The Pyewacket Foundation to establish a fund, to be called the J. M. Keynes Fellowships Fund, for the promotion of research into all aspects of finance, financial institutions, and financial markets, and their relationship with micro-economic behaviour and macro-economic performance, including public policy issues relating to financial markets.

The Council is submitting a Grace to the Regent House (Grace 4, p. 593) for the approval of regulations to govern the Fund.

Chair of the Local Examinations Syndicate: Vice-Chancellor’s Deputy appointed

The Vice-Chancellor gives notice that she has appointed Sir Christopher Hum, CAI, under Statute D, III, 7(b), as her deputy to chair the Local Examinations Syndicate (Cambridge Assessment), from 1 October 2010, in succession to Professor A. J. Badger, CL.

Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on disciplinary, dismissal, and grievance procedures: Notice and announcement of ballot

15 February 2010

The Council has considered the remarks made at the Discussion of this Report (Reporter, p. 387), in consultation with the General Board. The Council and the Board welcome the constructive comments made in the Discussion and, on the advice of the Working Party, have sought to take account of them in revising the proposals (as set out in more detail below).

The sections of the Notice set out the following:

Section 1    The response of the Council and the Board to the remarks made in the Discussion (pp. 546–48)

Section 2    The details of the revised proposals (pp. 548–50)

Section 3    The proposed arrangements for voting; formal recommendations (p. 550)

Section 4    Appendix: Revised annexes to the Joint Report; the legislation as it would be following changes (pp. 552–85)

Section 1    The response of the Council and the Board to the remarks made in the Discussion

The Council and the General Board respond to points raised in the Discussion as follows:

(i) The role of the Septemviri and the University Tribunal should be retained

Apprehension was expressed at the exclusion of the University Tribunal and the Septemviri from the current procedures under Statute U in relation to removal from office on disciplinary grounds. To respond to that apprehension, the jurisdiction of those bodies has been reinstated by providing that any disciplinary action authorized by the Vice-Chancellor as possibly leading to removal from office should be heard and determined by the University Tribunal. In the event of removal from office by the Tribunal, an appeal will lie to the Septemviri, as at present. However, where the lesser sanction of a disciplinary warning was imposed, the less formal appeal committee procedure as proposed in the Joint Report would apply, in the same way that it would in the event of a disciplinary warning imposed by the responsible person.

(ii) Legal representation should be permitted as of right in cases of removal from office

The suggestion was made that legal representation at a disciplinary hearing that might lead to removal from office should be allowed as of right, rather than with the consent of the chairman of the disciplinary committee, as had been proposed in the Joint Report. The reinstatement of the University Tribunal and the Septemviri, referred to above, will have that effect. It will also provide for a legally qualified chairman of the deciding body in those circumstances.

(iii) The scope of academic freedom is curtailed by the proposed Code of Practice

The expression ‘within the University’ occurs in paragraph 2 of the proposed Code of Practice for academic freedom, which currently reads as follows:

Those in academic positions will enjoy within the University freedom within the law of thought, conscience, religion, expression, assembly, and association. They will not be hindered or impeded in exercising within the University their civil rights as citizens, including the right to contribute to social change through freely expressing their opinion of state policies and of policies affecting higher education, and will not suffer any penalties simply because of the exercise of such rights

Concern was expressed that the use of that expression would curtail the scope of academic freedom. No such sense was intended. However, for the avoidance of doubt, the words ‘within the University’ have now been removed in both places where they occur in that paragraph.

(iv) Further consideration should be given to the proposed Guidance on what constitutes gross misconduct

In the proposed Guidance on what constitutes gross misconduct at Annex D to the Joint Report, the inappropriate expression ‘, constituting grounds for removal from office without notice,’ has now been removed from the introductory passage:

Gross misconduct, constituting grounds for removal from office without notice, may include the following:

The illustrative list that follows was included for consistency with ACAS guidance that examples should be given of behaviour which is capable of justifying the termination of a contract of employment without giving contractual notice of termination.

(v) The timing of decisions relating to employment beyond the normal retiring age is unsatisfactory

The Code of Practice for the retirement of University officers and for the continuation of employment beyond the normal retirement age was criticized because it provides for decisions to be made eighteen months before the due date for retirement, but then six months later the Human Resources Division is required to tell the officer concerned what they have to do if they want to continue working after that date. In fact the Code reflects current practice in the matter, the intention of which is to enable those officers nearing the retirement age, as well as their Faculties and Departments, to plan ahead. The subsequent procedure in the last year of service is the result of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, with which the University must of course comply. A Government review of the retirement age legislation is currently under way and the proposed Code will be reconsidered when the outcome of that review is known.

(vi) How should a University officer deal with (a) a perceived improper instruction from a superior or (b) a grievance against a senior committee of the University or the University Council itself?

(a) The precise answer will depend on the circumstances of the matter. In certain cases, special remedies may be available. In general, however, the appropriate first step is likely to be for the officer to take the matter up informally at a meeting with her or his Head of Department, following that up in writing, as appropriate, as the first step of the Grievance Procedure. But the complaint may relate to the Head of Department, in which case the first step should be by e-mail, or otherwise in a brief written note, to the Head of the relevant School (or Registrary, as appropriate) saying that there is a problem relating to the Head of Department which requires discussion. Further advice will then be given with a view to the resolution of the matter in a fair and independent way.

(b) It is unlikely that an officer will have a grievance, in the technical employment sense, against a senior committee of the University or the University Council. (If such a grievance does in fact arise then the Grievance Procedure should be followed.) More probably the officer will consider that the body concerned has engaged in some action contrary to the Statutes or Ordinances of the University (in which case an application to the Vice-Chancellor under Statute K, 5 or an application to the Commissary under Statute D, V is likely to be the appropriate course); or that, while accepting that the Council or the body concerned has acted within its powers, the officer disagrees (perhaps strongly) with the action taken. In the latter case, the officer’s recourse should be to seek change through the democratic process of the University.

(vii) The overlap of Statute U/Statute D, IA disciplinary procedures and Statute B, VI disciplinary procedures is unsatisfactory

The acts of a University officer may represent an offence not only in the employment context (to which Statute U/Statute D, IA applies), but also in the context of the University’s discipline of its members. The example given in the Joint Report was of a University Lecturer who had engaged in multiple acts of plagiarism; such a person might appropriately face proceedings under Statute D, IA for removal from office and also proceedings under Statute B, VI for deprivation of degree. Complications may also arise in cases involving several defendants within the jurisdiction of Statute B, VI, some only of whom are University officers who may also in consequence face possible employment consequences. With those, admittedly very rare, cases in mind, the Council and the General Board agreed to recommend the preservation of the two distinct processes.

(viii) Training is desirable for those participating in the mediation process

The Council and the General Board agree and will ensure that training is provided.

(ix) How do the proposals relate to the position of College teaching staff or University unestablished staff?

The current proposals deal only with University officers. As explained in the Joint Report, if the proposals are approved, the Council and the General Board intend to consult further with a view to the implementation of a similar principle in relation to processes applying to other categories of University staff. The employment of College staff is a matter for individual Colleges and beyond the scope of the Joint Report.

(x) For all categories of staff (unestablished, assistant, academic-related, academic, etc.), and since 2004, (a) how many appeals against dismissal have been heard; (b) how many of those appeals have succeeded; (c) how many post-dismissal compensation settlements have been reached; and (d) how many of these settlements were subject to confidentiality agreements?

Information in this form has only been collected since 2009. A further analysis has also been undertaken. For the period December 2008 to mid-December 2009 the answers to the above questions are as follows:

(a) Four appeals by staff against dismissal were heard by the University.

(b) None of those appeals succeeded.

(c) Four post-dismissal compensation settlements have been reached.

(d) All of those settlements included confidentiality clauses, in accordance with standard practice.

(xi) The use of confidentiality terms in compromise agreements directly conflicts with the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. HEFCE has issued guidance to all higher education institutions in a circular letter dated 4 March 2009 advising that compromise agreements which include confidentiality clauses should be the exception rather than the norm

The use of compromise agreements themselves are a recognized standard practice in the termination of employment and offer advantages both to employee and employer. Confidentiality agreements cannot override the provisions of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. The Council and the General Board consistently have regard to HEFCE guidance. The relatively recent guidance relating to confidentiality clauses is no exception in that regard.

(xii) The power of the responsible person to delegate to any person, in the proposed Regulation 2 for removal from office, discipline, and grievances, should be limited as to the class of persons to whom delegation might be made

The ability to delegate is a necessary one. On balance the Council and the General Board believe that there are sufficient checks and balances in the processes proposed in the Joint Report not to require a limit to be set on the choice of the responsible person in selecting a delegate.

(xiii) Some of the drafting is unintelligible, especially Statute D, IA, 11

Some complexity is inevitable, and that is especially true of Statute D, IA, 11. That section is to make provision for University officers who have a contract of employment directly related to the office and also for those holding an unrelated contract of employment. The wording of the section adopted external legal advice.

(xiv) Further consideration should be given to the position of Senior Language Teaching Officers in the Department of East Asian Studies

The General Board are willing to consider any proposal put forward by the Faculty Board of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies for the inclusion of such officers in Schedule J.


Section 2    The details of the revised proposals

The following amendments to implement those changes have therefore been made to the recommendations of the Joint Report:

Statute B, VI:

In the proposed new section 7, add the words ‘under this Chapter’ after ‘charge or charges’.

In the proposed new section 8, replace the words ‘determination of charges by the Tribunal’ by ‘determination by the Tribunal of charges preferred under this Chapter’.

In the proposed new section 14, add the words ‘against decisions made under this Chapter’ after ‘determination of appeals’.

Replace the reference to ‘section 3’ in section 28 (to be renumbered as section 40) by ‘section 5’.

Statute D, IA:

Add a new section 9 to this proposed new Statute as follows:

'Ordinances made under this Chapter may provide for the adjudication of matters by the University Tribunal established under Statute B, VI and may provide for the determination of appeals by the Septemviri established under Statute B, VI.'

Renumber the following sections accordingly.

Regulations for the Initiation of proceedings before the University Tribunal, the Court of Discipline, or the Summary Court (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 200):

Amend Regulations 1 and 2 to read:

‘1. Proceedings before the University Tribunal may be conducted under either Statute B, VI or Statute D, IA. Proceedings before the Court of Discipline or the Summary Court shall be conducted under Statute B, VI.

2. (a) If a disciplinary matter under Statute D, IA concerning a University officer is to be determined by the University Tribunal, the case shall be presented either by the responsible person or by another person authorized for the purpose by the responsible person.

(b) If in response to a complaint made under Statute B, VI, 40, or on the direction of the Vice-Chancellor under Statute B, VI, 5, the University Advocate determines that proceedings shall be brought against a member of the University before the University Tribunal or the Court of Discipline or the Summary Court, the case shall be presented either by the Advocate or by the complainant, as may be decided by the Advocate; provided that, if a charge arises from a complaint made by the Proctors, the Advocate shall be responsible for presenting the case on behalf of the University.’

In Regulation 3, replace the words ‘Statute B, VI, 28’ by the words ‘Statute B, VI, 40’.

Regulations for the Appointment of members of the University Tribunal (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 201):

In Regulation 1, replace the words ‘Statute U, III, 5’ by the words ‘Statute B, VI, 2’.

In Regulation 4, replace the words ‘member of the University is to be charged before’ by the words ‘case is to be determined by’.

Rules of Procedure of the University Tribunal (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 202):

Amend Rules 1 and 2 to read:

‘1. When a disciplinary matter under Statute D, IA concerning a University officer is to be determined by the University Tribunal or a member of the University is to be charged under Statute B, VI before the University Tribunal, the person responsible for presenting the case shall send written notice to the Clerk of the Tribunal of the disciplinary matter for determination by, or of the charge or charges to be brought before, the Tribunal, as the case may be, and the particulars thereof, and shall send with the notice any documents which it is proposed to produce and a list of all witnesses whom it is proposed to call, together with statements of the evidence that they are expected to give.

2. The parties to a hearing by the Tribunal shall be:
(a) the University officer concerned or the person charged, as the case may be;
(b) the person responsible for presenting the case;
(c) any person who may be added as a party by the Tribunal, either on application or of their own motion.’

In Rule 3, replace the words ‘The person charged’ by the words ‘The University officer concerned or the person charged, as the case may be,’.

In Rule 4, omit the words ‘charge or charges, together with the other’.

In Rule 7, replace the words ‘A charge’ by the words ‘A disciplinary matter under Statute D, IA concerning a University officer or a charge under Statute B, VI’.

In Rule 10(a), omit the words ‘under Statute U, III’.

In Rule 12, replace the words ‘Statute U’ by the words ‘Statute B, VI’.

Amend Rules 13 to 15 and add a new Rule 16 to read:

‘13. The Tribunal shall have power to dismiss a charge under Statute B, VI for want of prosecution.

14. The Tribunal shall not find a charge under Statute B, VI proved unless they are satisfied that it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

15. If the Tribunal find a charge under Statute B, VI proved, they shall, after giving the parties an opportunity to address them concerning the penalty to be imposed, determine the appropriate penalty (if any) in accordance with the provisions of Statute B, VI, 10; and the Tribunal shall have power to impose such penalty.

16. After consideration of a disciplinary matter under Statute D, IA concerning a University officer, the Tribunal may remove the officer from his or her office or may direct the responsible person to impose any other lawful disciplinary sanction on the officer.’

Renumber Rules 16 to 19 as Rules 17 to 20 respectively.

Amend Rules 18 to 19 (currently numbered 17 and 18 respectively) to read:

‘18. The Tribunal’s decision shall be recorded in a document signed by the Chairman which shall contain:
(a) the Tribunal’s findings of fact;
(b) the reasons for the Tribunal’s decision;
(c) a statement of the decision of the Tribunal.

19. The Clerk of the Tribunal shall send a copy of the document specified in Regulation 18 to the Vice-Chancellor and to the other parties to the hearing, and shall also send to the University officer concerned or the person charged, as the case may be, information of any right of appeal.’

Regulations for Medical Boards (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 207):

Rescind the regulations.

Regulations for the Septemviri (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 208):

In Regulation 1, replace the words ‘Except as provided by Statute U, V, 3, members’ by the word ‘Members’.

In Regulation 3, replace the words ‘Statute U, V’ by the words ‘Statute D, IA’.

Amend Regulation 5 to read:

‘5. The parties to an appeal shall be:

(a) the appellant;

(b) (i) in the case of an appeal against a decision of the University Tribunal under Statute D, IA, the responsible person;
(ii) in the case of an appeal against a decision of the University Tribunal under Statute B, VI or any other University court, or an appeal arising from proceedings before such a body, the University Advocate or other person who was responsible for presenting the case to the Tribunal or other body;
(iii) in the case of an appeal against a disciplinary decision of any other University authority, the authority concerned;

(c) any other person added as a party by the Septemviri or by the Chairman of the Septemviri, either on application or otherwise.’

In Regulation 12, omit the words ‘and Statute U, V,’.

In Regulation 14, omit the words ‘, or to remit an appeal for further consideration in accordance with the provisions of Statute U, V, 8’.

Regulations for Grievance Committees (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 209):

Rescind the regulations.

Regulations for removal from office, discipline, and grievances:

In the proposed new Regulation 15, add at the end the sentence ‘An appeal to the Septemviri shall lie from any decision of the University Tribunal to remove a University officer from her or his office.’

In the proposed new Regulation 16, replace the words ‘a disciplinary committee’ by ‘the University Tribunal’.

Code of Practice for academic freedom:

Omit the words ‘within the University’ at both occurrences in paragraph 2.

Code of Practice for disciplinary action:

Amend paragraph 24 of the proposed new Code, under the heading Removal from office, as follows:

'Where the Vice-Chancellor has authorized disciplinary action to proceed on the basis that removal from office is a possible outcome, the matter will be referred for determination to the University Tribunal.'

Omit paragraphs 25 to 29 of the proposed new Code, under the heading Removal from office.

Add a new paragraph 25 to the proposed new Code, under the heading Appeal, as follows:

‘An appeal from removal from office by the University Tribunal shall lie to the Septemviri and shall be subject to the Regulations for the Septemviri.’

Renumber paragraphs 30 to 35 of the proposed new Code, under the heading Appeal, as paragraphs 26 to 31 respectively.

In paragraph 30 (renumbered 26) of the proposed new Code, under the heading Appeal, replace the words 'An appeal' by 'Any other appeal', and omit the words 'or notice of removal from office'.

Guidance on what constitutes gross misconduct

Omit the words ', constituting grounds for removal from office without notice,' in the first sentence.

The legislation proposed in the Joint Report, amended as described above, is shown in full in the Appendix to this Notice.


Section 3     The proposed arrangements for voting; formal recommendations

Two Graces (Graces 1 and 2, p. 593) are submitted to the Regent House for the approval of the recommendations of the Joint Report, in one of the two forms proposed, amended as described above and further amended by deleting the reference to the Single Transferable Vote regulations (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 117). The Graces will be determined by ballot – voting will be on the timetable set out in the Council’s Notice below (p. 552).

Explanatory note

The effect of voting on the two Graces is as follows:

Approval of Grace 1 and rejection of Grace 2

This accepts the proposals of the Joint Report (as amended above), which make different provisions for Schedule J officers to those for other officers in requiring University approval to a Report declaring a redundancy situation as a pre-condition to removal on grounds of redundancy.

Approval of both Graces

This has the same effect as Approval of Grace 1.

Rejection of Grace 1 and approval of Grace 2

This accepts the proposals of the Joint Report (as amended above), but treats all officers alike and does not make the distinction between Schedule J and non-Schedule J officers referred to above.

Rejection of both Graces

This rejects the proposals in either form.

 

Form of the Graces

The two Graces are in this form:

Grace 1 (includes proposals for different redundancy procedures for University Teaching Officers listed in Schedule J and other University officers).

(i)That, subject to the approval of Her Majesty in Council, the Statutes and Ordinances of the University be amended as indicated in the Appendix to the Council’s Notice dated 15 February 2010 (p. 546), and

(ii)that the amendments of Statute be submitted under the Common Seal of the University to Her Majesty in Council for approval, and

(iii)that the changes to Ordinances be effective from the date of approval of the amending Statute by Her Majesty in Council; but the changes to Ordinances shall not apply, and the former Ordinances shall be effective, in relation to any disciplinary, dismissal, or grievance procedure concerning a University officer where the trigger date for that procedure occurs before the date of approval of the amending Statute by Her Majesty in Council. For that purpose the trigger date shall have the meaning ascribed to that expression in Statute T, 58, and the disciplinary, dismissal, or grievance procedure, as the case may be, shall be taken to extend until the determination of any appeal made under that procedure.

Grace 2 (includes proposals for the same redundancy procedures for all University officers).

(i)That, if Grace 1 is not approved, and subject to the approval of Her Majesty in Council, the Statutes and Ordinances of the University be amended as indicated in the Appendix to the Council’s Notice dated 15 February 2010 (p. 546), but with the words ‘No University officer shall be removed from her or his office by reason of redundancy otherwise than on the authority of a decision by the University’ replacing the words ‘No holder of an office specified in Schedule J shall be removed from her or his office by reason of redundancy otherwise than on the authority of a decision by the University’ at the beginning of Statute D, IA, 2, and

(ii)that the amendments of Statute be submitted under the Common Seal of the University to Her Majesty in Council for approval, and

(iii)that the changes to Ordinances be effective from the date of approval of the amending Statute by Her Majesty in Council; but the changes to Ordinances shall not apply, and the former Ordinances shall be effective, in relation to any disciplinary, dismissal, or grievance procedure concerning a University officer where the trigger date for that procedure occurs before the date of approval of the amending Statute by Her Majesty in Council. For that purpose the trigger date shall have the meaning ascribed to that expression in Statute T, 58, and the disciplinary, dismissal, or grievance procedure, as the case may be, shall be taken to extend until the determination of any appeal made under that procedure.

The Council and the General Board recommend accordingly.

15 February 2010

Alison Richard, Vice-Chancellor

A. M. Donald

Mavis McDonald

N. Bampos

David Good

Rachael Padman

Nigel Brown

Christopher Hum

David Simon

William Brown

Vanessa V. Lawrence

Joan M. Whitehead

M. J. Daunton

Debbie Lowther

5 February 2010

Alison Richard, Vice-Chancellor

Simon Franklin

J. Rallison

N. Bampos

Andrew Gamble

Jeremy Sanders

William Brown

C. A. Gilligan

J. G. P. Sissons

H. A. Chase

Rachael Padman

Yang Xia

Philip Ford

David Good

Note of dissent

We recognize that some reforms are desirable, for example to the grievance process. We accept that the Working Party has sought to take account of some of the comments made in the Discussion and elsewhere. However, while the current regulations are not perfect, they are still better than the new proposals, even after two years of debate. The suggested reforms to the disciplinary, dismissal, and redundancy procedures are complex and sweeping; they will inhibit both academic freedom and the functioning of our future democratic processes. We welcome the chance for the Regent House to vote for the status quo.

15 February 2010

David Abulafia

R. J. Barnes

S. J. Cowley

Ross Anderson

M. R. Clark

R. J. Dowling

Members of the Council

Notice of a ballot

The Council gives notice that votes will be taken by postal ballot on Graces 1 and 2 of 17 February 2010 (Reporter, p. 593) which refer to the Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on disciplinary, dismissal, and grievance procedures, dated 27 October 2009 (Reporter, p. 131), as amended by the Council’s Notice dated 15 February (p. 546).

In connection with this ballot the Registrary will arrange for the printing and circulation of any fly-sheet, signed by ten or more members of the Regent House, which reaches him by 1 p.m. on Friday, 12 March. Fly-sheets must bear, in addition to the signatures, the names and initials (in block capitals) of the signatories (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 112). Voting papers and fly-sheets will be distributed through the University Messenger Service to members of the Regent House on or before Friday, 23 April. The last date for the return of voting papers will be Friday, 7 May 2010.


Section 4: APPENDIX

Revised Annexes to the Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on disciplinary, dismissal, and grievance procedures

ANNEXES A–B

Annexes A–B show the complete text of the amended Statutes and Ordinances: amendments set out in the Joint Report are printed in italic text; the further amendments set out in the Council’s Notice above are printed in bold italic text; text to be removed is scored through.

ANNEX A

Proposed amendments of Statute

ANNEX B

Proposed amendments of Ordinance

ANNEXES C–E

Annexes C–E show the proposed Codes of Practice and Guidance, and the effect of the proposed changes as set out in the Joint Report: the further amendments set out in the Council’s Notice above are printed in italic text; text to be removed is scored through.

ANNEX C

Proposed codes of Practice

ANNEX D

Proposed guidance to be issued by the Council

ANNEX E

The effect of the proposed changes

Retrospectivity concerning the LL.M. Degree: Notice

The Registrary gives notice that, under the provision of Statute T, 48 (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 75: see Reporter, 1984–85, p. 38), the following holder of the LL.B. Degree, who satisfied the Examiners for the LL.B. Examination before 1 October 1982, has now been redesignated as a holder of the LL.M. Degree:

SIDNEY SUSSEX COLLEGE

Evans, Ralph Wyn