No 6193
Wednesday 16 June 2010
Vol cxl No 34
pp. 969–1008
The Council begs leave to report to the University as follows:
1. The composition and duties of the Audit Committee are set out in Statutes and Ordinances (p. 977). The current constitution is set out in Regulation 1 and is as follows:
1. There shall be a standing committee of the Council, called the Audit Committee, which shall consist of:
(a)a member of the Council in class (e) appointed by the Council to serve as Chairman of the Committee,
(b)two members of the Council appointed by the Council from among its members who are members of the Regent House, provided that neither the Vice-Chancellor, a Pro-Vice-Chancellor, nor the Chairman of a Council of a School shall be eligible to serve,
(c)four persons, not being members of the Regent House or employees of the University, appointed by the Council with regard to their professional expertise and experience in comparable roles in corporate life, including at least two members with experience of finance, accounting, or auditing,
(d)not more than two persons, of whom at least one shall be a member of the Regent House, neither being members of the Council, co-opted by the Committee, provided that it shall not be obligatory for the Committee to co-opt any person or persons.
2. The Council now proposes that an additional co-opted member be provided for, who would be one of the external members of the Council. The purpose of the amendment would be to ensure that when the Chairman of the Committee (who is required to be an external member of the Council) is about to retire, the incoming Chairman could be co-opted to the Committee before the date of change of Chairmanship. A new regulation is also proposed to allow for the election of an Acting Chairman from among the external members where that is necessary. The definition of an external member has also been clarified and included in the regulations.
3. The Council has agreed with the Audit Committee that the requirements for a meeting of the Committee to be quorate should be revised to clarify that decisions may only be made when external members are in the majority. The Council and the Committee are aware that the proposed requirement sets a more exacting test for reaching a quorum than obtains in the current regulation but believe it will give added weight to decisions reached by the Committee and the independence of its oversight over internal control and assurance matters in the University.
4. The Council has also agreed with the Audit Committee that the Chairs of the audit committees of Cambridge University Press and of Cambridge Assessment should be invited to attend meetings of the Audit Committee and that at least twice a year they would be required to report to the Committee on developments in their audit committees. The Council and the Committee believe that this would reflect the new accounting procedures of the University which include both Cambridge University Press and Cambridge Assessment in the University’s consolidated annual accounts and would ensure that the Audit Committee was able to give an informed judgement on the overall effectiveness of the University’s internal control and governance measures.
5. The Council recommends:
That the regulations for the Audit Committee (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 977) be amended as follows:
Regulation 1 (membership).
By amending the membership of the Audit Committee in class (d) and inserting a final paragraph so as to read:
(d)not more than three persons co-opted by the Committee, of whom not more than two may be external members including one member of the Council in class (e) and not more than two may be members of the Regent House who are not members of the Council, provided that it shall not be obligatory for the Committee to co-opt any person or persons.
For the purpose of these regulations, external members are defined as the following members of the Audit Committee:
(i)persons who are members of the Council in class (e);
(ii)persons who are not employees of the University or any of its companies or of a College, and who do not hold College Fellowships which qualify them for membership of the Regent House.
Regulation 5 (quorum).
By amending the regulation so as to read:
5. No decision of the Audit Committee shall have any binding effect unless five members at least are present at a meeting of the Audit Committee, of whom at least one shall be a member in class (b), and unless there are more external than internal members.
New Regulation 6 (Acting Chairman).
By inserting a new Regulation 6 so as to read:
6. In the absence of the Chairman of the Committee, the Audit Committee shall elect an acting Chairman from the external members present.
|
14 June 2010 |
Alison Richard, Vice-Chancellor |
A. M. Donald |
D. Lowry |
|
David Abulafia |
R. J. Dowling |
Debbie Lowther |
|
|
N. Bampos |
David Good |
Mavis McDonald |
|
|
R. J. Barnes |
Christopher Hum |
Rachael Padman |
|
|
T. Chigbo |
F. P. Kelly |
David Simon |
|
|
M. R. Clark |
Vanessa Lawrence |
Joan M. Whitehead |
|
|
M. J. Daunton |
J. F. Li |
The CUC Governance Code of Practice and General Principles (March 2009) recommends that there be an external majority on the Audit Committee, not a external quorum. If the proposed quorum had been in force between October 2007 and May 2010, 47% of the Audit Meetings would have been inquorate (compared with 20% that actually were). A quorum of five, with three being external members, would still assert the independence of oversight of the Audit Committee without increasing the number of meetings that were inquorate.
|
Ross Anderson S. J. Cowley |
The Council begs leave to report to the University as follows:
1. As previously announced, the Council, with the support of the Board of Scrutiny, has asked an advisory group chaired by the Warden of Robinson to conduct a scoping study about a possible revision of the Statutes, and Ordinances. The report of the Advisory Group is in the annex to this Report of the Council. The Council is grateful to Professor Yates and the other members of the Advisory Group, and to those who submitted evidence to it.
2. The Council has considered the Advisory Group’s report, and accepts its conclusions (with one procedural change: see paragraph 7 below).
3. The Council therefore proposes that approval be given to its decision to initiate a process of technical review of the Statutes, and (as necessary) Ordinances, on the lines set out in the Advisory Group’s report (with the above change).
4. The Council emphasizes that the revision process would be a technical process of simplification and clarification, and not a process of policy or governance review. Any such policy or governance matters arising in the course of the technical review would be referred to the relevant University body for consideration.
5. No matters of continuing significance in the present Statutes would be removed from the control of the Regent House. Simplification would mean that some detailed material at present contained in the Statutes would in future be in Ordinances, amendments to which would require the approval of the Regent House, but would not require the approval of the Privy Council.
6. The Council is pleased to announce that if the recommendation in this Report is approved, Professor Yates has agreed to chair the Technical Advisory Group to oversee the process of technical revision. The Council will announce the names of other members as soon as possible. The Administrative Secretary, and Secretariat colleagues, as necessary, would support the process by preparing drafts.
7. The procedural change referred to in paragraph 2 is that the Council considers that all proposed amendments to Statute arising from the technical review process should be put forward (after consultation and consideration by the Council) through the process of Report to the University, followed by Discussion, Notice in reply, and Grace. (The Advisory Group had suggested that in straightforward cases the machinery of Notice and Grace might be used, but the Council considers that it would be better for the fuller process of Report, Discussion, Notice in reply, and Grace to be followed in all cases.)
8. The Council will ask the Technical Advisory Group, if the recommendation of the Report is approved, to produce all proposals for revision of Statutes if possible by Easter 2012.
9. Some suggestions made in evidence to the scoping study suggested free-standing amendments of Ordinances. These will be put forward separately by Grace, as soon as convenient, to save time.
10. The Council therefore recommends:
That general approval be given to the Council’s decision to establish a technical review process for revision of the Statutes, and as necessary Ordinances, on the lines set out in the Council’s Report, dated 14 June 2010.
|
14 June 2010 |
Alison Richard, Vice-Chancellor |
M. J. Daunton |
J. F. Li |
|
David Abulafia |
A. M. Donald |
D. Lowry |
|
|
N. Bampos |
R. J. Dowling |
Debbie Lowther |
|
|
R. J. Barnes |
David Good |
Mavis McDonald |
|
|
T. Chigbo |
Christopher Hum |
Rachael Padman |
|
|
M. R. Clark |
F. P. Kelly |
David Simon |
|
|
S. J. Cowley |
Vanessa Lawrence |
Joan M. Whitehead |
This report to the University Council sets out the Advisory Group’s conclusions and recommendations. The principal conclusion is that there would be benefit in adopting simpler and more clearly expressed Statutes and transferring some detailed provision (if still needed) to the Ordinances. A process of technical editing to this end should be initiated; this process should be authorised by the Regent House on the recommendation of the Council. Changes should be made through the ordinary legislative machinery after suitable processes and consultation. A summary of recommendations is given in paragraph 14.
1. The Advisory Group was established by the Council in the Michaelmas Term 2009, and consists of Professor David Yates (chair), Professor Sir John Baker, Professor Catherine Barnard, Professor Dame Sandra Dawson (on leave in the Lent and Easter Terms 2010) and Professor Paul Luzio, with the Administrative Secretary. The Group held two meetings, and also considered business by circulation.
2. The Group considered a substantial volume of written information (listed in the Appendix), including:
(a) Statutes recently adopted (with Privy Council approval) by the University of Oxford, the University of Essex and City University; in each case these were simpler and very substantially less in volume than their predecessors, or the present Cambridge Statutes: Privy Council policy now concentrates on approval of statutes concerning the composition of executive governing bodies (University Councils) and the principles of academic freedom; this leaves universities relatively free to simplify statutory provision about other matters.
(b) Suggestions previously made in recent reports of the Board of Scrutiny, some being points of detail, some already addressed, and others more general.
(c) Submissions made in response to a Notice in the University Reporter and to specific enquiries within the University to individuals and to University authorities (about 25 submissions were received, for which the Advisory Group is particularly grateful). A list of these submissions is given in the Appendix. Many of these submissions were related to detailed points which should be treated individually through ordinary processes, but there are suggestions of more general import.
(d) A request by the University Council that consideration should be given to
Statute F, I, 2 (about alterations to University buildings). If the review process is initiated, this Statute will be included in it.
3. Concurrently with the Group’s work, the University has been considering the future of Statute U (about the discipline, grievance and dismissal of academic staff). Voting on the most recent proposals concluded on 7 May 2010.
4. The present Cambridge University Statutes are derived from the ‘New Statutes’ of 1926, and have been successively revised in various respects by the University, with the approval of the Privy Council, under the provisions of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act 1923, and also through the imposition of Statute U and related provisions by decision of the University Commissioners under the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988.
5. The essential structure of the present Statutes is logical, clear and thematic, but some individual Statutes have become complex in content and structure, and the corpus as a whole can be difficult to navigate. Difficulty in navigating the Statutes is compounded as the Statutes are supplemented by extensive provision in the Ordinances of the University, and by various other provisions of differing status (codes of practice, guidance, handbooks etc., some approved by the Regent House, some not, some collated with the Statutes and Ordinances, others not). There is a need for improved navigation throughout, and for the status of individual elements to be clear.
6. The hierarchy of provision should be evident. Subject to the provisions of the general law, University Statutes have primacy. Amendments to the Statutes are normally made by the Regent House and then approved (or not) by the Privy Council. Ordinances are regulations made under the provisions of the Statutes, and consistent with them, approved only by the Regent House (or in some limited fields the Senate) without Privy Council approval, but some Ordinances in academic areas are now made by the General Board under its own statutory authority. There are also Orders (Graces of the Regent House which are not in the form of regulations, but are freestanding resolutions, some of which are of continuing effect (such as a decision to take a particular action, or to approve a particular code of practice e.g. about harassment, or dignity at study or at work)). Ordinances and Orders, however made, must be consistent with the Statutes. Other actions, for example the issue of a code of practice, or guidance, or a handbook, must be consistent with the provisions of the Statutes, Ordinances, and Orders.
7. The Group’s general conclusion is that greater clarity and simplification could beneficially be achieved, particularly within the Statutes, without (unless separately authorised) making policy changes or changes of University governance. Policy and governance changes are not the province of the Advisory Group. There is a significant element of material in some Statutes which does not need to be in the Statutes at all, but could have the status of Ordinances (e.g. about the detailed procedures for elections to Professorships). Simplification by placing detail in the Ordinances rather than the Statutes has twin advantages: (a) the detailed provisions no longer need to be approved by the Privy Council, though they still properly require approval by the Regent House, and this removes a time-consuming and in modern circumstances unnecessary process; and (b) the revised Statutes can be expressed more simply and clearly.
8. The Group therefore recommends that a process of revision of the Statutes should be initiated with the aims of improving simplification, clarity and navigation, and to transfer detail to the Ordinances. (Some of the detailed material transferred would itself require clarification and simplification.) This process would not be a process of revision of policy, or of governance. If policy questions arose, they would be referred to the relevant University body for consideration in the normal way.
9. The Group considers that it is important that the status of particular University legislation, policies or procedures should be clear both at point of approval or publication, and also on a continuing basis to the users of the legislation. The formal position of the Statutes and Ordinances is summarised in paragraph 6, but in more detail the Group suggests that the following should be adopted:
(a) Statutes made by the University under the 1923 Act subject to the approval of the Privy Council after due process. These are absolutely binding (unless inconsistent with national, European or international law).
(b) Ordinances, made by the Regent House, or in limited fields, by the Senate. These must be consistent with the provisions of the Statutes which in case of conflict override them.
(c) Instruments which are at present Ordinances made by the General Board about academic areas defined by Statute. It would be clearer if the terminology ‘Ordinance’ was not used for these instruments but for them to be referred to as regulations (or rules, or measures). These must also be consistent with the provisions of the Statutes, and the Ordinances proper.
(d) Orders, Graces of the Regent House (or the Senate), some of continuing effect but not incorporated in the Ordinances. These are also binding, must be consistent with the Statutes, which in case of conflict override them, and, when of continuing effect, should be collated with the Ordinances in published volumes or web formats.
(e) Policies or procedures authorised by Statute or Ordinance. For example codes of practice or procedure, such as those for student complaints or review procedures, where an Ordinance places an obligation on the Council to prepare a procedure. These should be collated with the Ordinances, and must be consistent with the provisions of the Statutes and Ordinances.
(f) Other guidance, codes of practice etc., which are not approved by the Regent House, or which are not made under the direct provisions of the Statutes or Ordinances. These must be consistent with the provisions of the Statutes and Ordinances, however, and primacy of the Statutes and Ordinances should be made clear on the face of such documents.
10. It is inevitable as internal University policy and practice change, and the requirements of international, European and national legislation and policy shift, that any of the types of instrument set out in paragraph 9 can become out of date and inconsistent with binding external requirements or internal practice. It is important that there is continuing revision of University legislation and of the formal instruments, so that they can be kept up to date. In relation to the Statutes, it will be easier to keep provision up to date if the Statutes are simplified. In relation to the new Ordinances it will be easier to achieve prompt updating because under the arrangements proposed above amendments can be made quickly, with the authority of the Regent House, but without the necessity of Privy Council approval.
11. The Group recommends that steps be taken to improve the navigation of the Statutes and Ordinances and other instruments. Specific suggestions are: collation so far as possible of all material of legislative importance in the published volumes of the Statutes and Ordinances (in printed and web versions) so that as complete a picture as possible of the University provision is made; preparation of explanatory notes to be published with each Statute, about the purpose and effect of the Statute, and where desirable similar notes about Ordinances; cross references between Statutes, Ordinances and other material; simpler citation within the Statutes (use of Arabic rather than Roman numerals in chapter titles, for example); improved indexing; use of sub-headings, particularly in Statutes. The Group also suggests publication of material in smaller volumes than at present, such as:
Volume 1 Statutes and Ordinances not included in 2 or 3 below.
Volume 2 Ordinances and regulations about examinations, courses etc.
Volume 3 Ordinances about specific Trust Funds.
12. It can be difficult for University officers and others unfamiliar with the Statutes and Ordinances and with the University’s internal procedures for legislation to come to terms with that part of the valued system of academic self-government of the University. The Group recommends that an authoritative handbook should be prepared about the constitution of the University and its legislative processes, with other necessary information, to help academic and administrative officers in their work, and in particular to guide officers who are not familiar with Cambridge procedures and conventions.
13. The Advisory Group therefore recommends that the Council should report to the Regent House seeking approval of the proposal to establish a technical review process. Its objective will be the simplification and clarification of the Statutes. The process should be monitored by a technical advisory group appointed by the Council, which would consider drafts of simplification of the Statutes, and Ordinances as necessary. It would publish consultation papers including exposure drafts and in the light of comments made on these would submit proposals for formal legislation to the Council for approval through the normal processes of Report, Discussion and Grace (and submission to the Privy Council if approved) or exceptionally, in absolutely straightforward cases, by Notice and Grace (and submission to the Privy Council).1 If, in the course of the work of revision, questions of policy or governance arose, these would be referred to the Council (or other appropriate policy body) for consideration, and any resulting substantive proposals for change would be submitted through the normal machinery.
14. This paragraph summarises the Advisory Group’s recommendations:
(a) A process of technical review of the Statutes, and Ordinances as necessary, should be initiated with the aim of simplifying and clarifying the University’s statutory provision. Much detailed material now contained in the Statutes should be transferred to the Ordinances.
(b) The navigation of the Statutes and Ordinances, and other material issued with authority, should be improved, through proper and clear indexing and the collation so far as possible of all such material in the published volumes and website.
(c) The status of all legislation should be explicit, and should recognise the primacy (under the law) of the Statutes, then the Ordinances and other material. The legal status of material should be stated at the point of publication or approval.
(d) The corpus of Statutes, Ordinances and other material, once revised, should be kept under continual review.
(e) The collated corpus of Statutes, Ordinances and other material should, when issued in printed form, in future appear in three volumes, not one large volume (one general, the second concerned with examinations and courses, and the third with Trust Funds).
(f) The present Ordinances made by the General Board on its own authority should be redesignated as regulations (or under some other terminology) to avoid confusion with Ordinances approved by the Regent House (or the Senate).
(g) A handbook about the constitution of the University and its legislative processes, with other necessary information, should be prepared to help academic and administrative officers in their work, and in particular to guide officers who are not familiar with Cambridge procedures and conventions.
(h) The review process should be conducted following submission of a Report to the Regent House by the Council, seeking approval of the proposal to establish a process, the process itself to be conducted with the technical advisory group appointed by the Council to consider drafts of revised Statutes, and Ordinances, to publish consultation papers, including exposure drafts, and then to make proposals for formal changes to be implemented through the normal processes of the University. The process would not include revision of policy matters, or governance.
10 May 2010
Section 1 List of papers considered by the Advisory Group
SCOP.1 |
Background note |
SCOP.2 |
The 1923 Act etc. |
SCOP.3 |
The contents of the present Statutes, and Ordinances |
SCOP.4 |
Note on Statute U |
SCOP.5 |
Present Statutes of the University of Oxford |
SCOP.6 (a) |
Present Charter and Statutes of City University |
SCOP.6 (b) |
Present Charter and Statutes of the University of Essex |
SCOP.7 |
Board of Scrutiny: summary of successive comments made by the Board of Scrutiny |
SCOP.8 |
Suggestions made by University Officers and others |
SCOP.9 |
Tentative review process |
Section 2 Submissions made to the Group
University Council
The Secretary and Secretariat Colleagues
University Draftsman
Academic Division Officers
Academic Secretary
UAS: other comments
Estate Management and Building Service
Individuals invited to comment
Professor A. W. F. Edwards
University authorities, and their officers, in response to the Notice
Buildings Committee
Arts and Humanities, School of
Clinical Medicine, School of
Biological Sciences, School of
Clinical Medicine, School of
Graduate School of Life Sciences
Engineering, Faculty Board of
Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, Faculty Board of
Surgery, Department of
Veterinary Medicine, Department of
Theatre Syndicate
Other comments received in response to the Notice
Professor John Bell
Dr S. J. Cowley
Dr Matthew Dyson
Professor G. R. Evans
Dr N. M. Maclaren
Dr Jonathan Reeve
1Note: The Council intends that all amendments of the Statute be put forward by Report (see paragraph 7 of the Council’s Report (p. 992)).
The General Board beg leave to report to the University as follows:
1. The Centre for Applied Research in Educational Technologies (CARET) was established in July 2000 (Reporter, 1999–2000, p. 820) to assist Departments and Faculties in understanding how existing educational technologies could be deployed, and new systems and applications developed. In the Michaelmas Term 2007, the General Board set up a committee to review teaching and learning support services in the University (Reporter, 2007–08, p. 526). The scope of the review principally concerned activities currently supported by the University Library (UL), the University Computing Service, the Language Centre, CARET, and Faculty and Departmental Libraries, as well as the coordination of pedagogic support. The report of the review was the subject of a Discussion on a topic of concern on 7 July 2009 (Reporter, 2008–09, p. 988). The Board’s response to that Discussion was published together with the report in November 2009 (Reporter, 2009–10, pp. 256 and 260).
2. A central recommendation of the review was that the University Library should become responsible for the provision and dissemination of electronic materials for teaching and learning across the University and that there should be a rolling development programme of pedagogic support and innovation implemented by the UL but developed through a new Teaching and Learning Services Steering Group to be a joint sub-committee of the General Board’s Education Committee, determining academic policy, and the Information Strategy and Services Syndicate, setting IT strategy. The General Board have agreed to set up this new committee with effect from the beginning of the next academical year. Amongst the other recommendations the Review Committee proposed that the governance structure of CARET should be changed, along with its basis of funding, to ensure the longer term future of the Centre; and that CARET should be placed, along with permanent core funding,1 within the UL. The Library Syndicate and the CARET Committee of Management endorsed this recommendation, which is also supported by the University Librarian and the Director of CARET. The General Board have now agreed to proceed with this recommendation.
3. Within the UL, CARET’s primary role would be to provide a focus for support of innovation in teaching and learning including the investigation and development of new technologies, advice on pedagogical issues, and engagement with the academic community to support new teaching methods. CARET would also fulfil a key role in the UL programme of pedagogic support and innovation to be steered by the Teaching and Learning Services Steering Group. CARET will also be an important constituent of the internal and external partnerships planned by the UL as part of its Strategic Plan. The CARET Committee of Management has played a key role in its development and this structure will remain in place. It would fit within the current University Library governance structure with the CARET Committee of Management performing an analogous role to the current Sub-syndicates for the four dependent Libraries. The Library Syndicate supervises the management of dependent libraries through the Sub-syndicates and it is proposed that it should supervise the management of CARET, through the CARET Committee of Management with appropriate cross membership between the two bodies. The General Board consider that this development should not detract in any way from the UL’s role as a scholarly resource for academic staff and students primarily but not exclusively in the arts, humanities, and social sciences. Rather it is a necessary and logical extension of the Library’s central role as an information provider harnessing modern technology, in a way appropriate to its standing both nationally and internationally.
4. Pending the formation of the Teaching and Learning Services Steering Group, the Librarian and the Director of CARET have begun to consider the framework within which the UL and CARET will work together to develop pedagogical support across the University. In the meantime, CARET staff and relevant UL staff are already working together on the Arcadia project, which aims to increase the library’s capability to provide users, especially undergraduates, with networked services. The University Librarian and the Director of CARET are preparing a joint submission to the 2010–11 Planning Round. In addition, the UL has recently sought and obtained external funding to build a digital library infrastructure which will result in scholarly content that supports teaching and learning being made available via CamTools.
5. The opportunity is also taken to revise the regulations for the University Library that concern residence and the office of Deputy Librarian, to bring them into line with current arrangements.
6. The General Board accordingly recommend:
That the Centre for Applied Research in Educational Technologies be incorporated within the University Library with effect from 1 August 2010 and that the regulations for the University Library and the Centre for Applied Research in Educational Technologies be amended as set out in the Schedule to this Report.
|
2 June 2010 |
Alison Richard, Vice-Chancellor |
Andrew Gamble |
J. Rallison |
|
N. Bampos |
C. A. Gilligan |
Jeremy Sanders |
|
|
William Brown |
David Good |
Sam Wakeford |
|
|
Philip Ford |
Rachael Padman |
Yang Xia |
|
|
Simon Franklin |
Amended regulations
A. University Library (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 642)
The University Library and the four dependent libraries (the Betty and Gordon Moore Library, the Central Science Library, the Medical Library, and the Squire Law Library) and the Centre for Applied Research in Educational Technologies shall jointly constitute an institution under the supervision of the General Board.
Regulation 5(b).
(b) There shall be a Science Libraries Sub-syndicate, a Medical Library Sub-syndicate, a Law Library Sub-syndicate, and a Committee of Management for the Centre for Applied Research in Educational Technologies. Through the agency of the Sub-syndicates and Committee of Management the Syndicate shall supervise the management of the four dependent libraries, viz. the Betty and Gordon Moore Library, the Central Science Library, the Medical Library, and the Squire Law Library, and the Centre for Applied Research in Educational Technologies.
Regulation 6(a).
(a) The Syndicate shall do all such things as in their opinion are necessary or expedient for the regulation, security, and improvement of the University Library, the dependent libraries, and the Centre for Applied Research in Educational Technologies. They shall exercise a general oversight over all matters relating to the administration, staffing, and financial resources of these libraries and the Centre for Applied Research in Educational Technologies, and shall be empowered to make recommendations to the General Board about the staff, accommodation, and equipment needed for their proper functioning.
Regulation 1: Constitution.
1. The staff of the University Library, including for this purpose the dependent libraries (the Betty and Gordon Moore Library, the Central Science Library, the Medical Library, and the Squire Law Library) and the Centre for Applied Research in Educational Technologies, shall consist of the Librarian, the Deputy Librarian, the Director and Assistant Directors of the Centre for Applied Research in Educational Technologies, the Senior Under-Librarians, the Under-Librarians, the Assistant Under-Librarians, the Assistant Library Officers, the Graduate Trainees, the holders of such other offices as may be established in the Library from time to time, and the University assistants.
Regulation 6: Residence.
6. The Librarian and the Deputy Librarian shall be in residence in the University during term, and shall not be absent for more than two nights in any week during Full Term without obtaining the permission of the Chairman of the Syndicate.
Regulation 7: Deputies.
7. The Syndicate shall have power to appoint the Deputy Librarian to be Acting Librarian during any period of absence from duty of the Librarian, or during any period when there is a vacancy in the office of Librarian.
B. Centre for Applied Research in Educational Technologies (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 634): Regulations 1, 2, and 4
Regulation 1.
1. The Centre for Applied Research in Educational Technologies shall be an institution independent of any Faculty or Department, within the University Library
Regulation 2: Committee of Management.
2. The Centre shall be under the general control of a Committee of Management, which shall consist of:
(a)a member of the Regent House appointed by the Library Syndicate, who shall be Chairman;
(b)the University Librarian;
(c)the Director of the University Computing Service ex officio;
(d) the Director of Continuing Education ex officio;
(e)one member of the Regent House appointed by each of the Councils of the Schools;
(f)not more than two members of the Regent House co-opted by the Committee.
Members in classes (a) and (e) shall be appointed in the Michaelmas Term to serve for four years from 1 January following their appointment. Members in class (f) shall be co-opted in the Michaelmas Term to serve for one year from 1 January following their co-optation.
Regulation 4: Duties.
4. Subject to the powers of the Council, the General Board, and the Library Syndicate, the duties of the Committee of Management shall be:
(a)to determine the general policy of the Centre;
(b)to advise the Director on matters arising from the work of the Centre;
(c)to advise the Library Syndicate on matters relating to the activity of the Centre;
(d)to make an annual report to the Library Syndicate on matters related to the Centre;
(e)to receive reports of the Centre’s activities.
Regulation 1: Director.
1. There shall be a University office of Director of the Centre, which shall be held on such terms and conditions as the General Board may from time to time determine after consultation with the Library Syndicate.
Regulation 2: Duties.
2. The Director shall be the administrative Head of the Centre for Applied Research in Educational Technologies, and shall carry out such duties as may be determined by the General Board after consultation with the Library Syndicate.
Regulation 3: Assistant Directors.
3. There shall be such number of University offices of Assistant Director of the Centre as the General Board may from time to time determine, on the recommendation of the Library Syndicate. The duties of the Assistant Directors shall be to assist the Director in all matters connected with the work of the Centre.
1In 2009–10 this comprised £423,000 allocated from the Chest plus a contribution from the Technology Development Fund (£100,000) towards the cost of CamTools.
The General Board beg leave to report to the University as follows:
1. In their Report on certain fixed-term Professorships and Readerships and future arrangements for awarding the title of Honorary Professor or Reader (Reporter, 2000–01, p. 814), the Board, in accordance with policy and procedure outlined in paragraph 6 of their Notice on appointments to unestablished posts at the level of Professor and Reader (Reporter, 2000–01, p. 552), proposed, inter alia, the establishment of a number of fixed-term Professorships and Readerships, in place of unestablished Research Professorships and Readerships. The Board, in their Notice, also stated their intention to recommend the establishment of fixed-term Professorships on future occasions when an individual had been successful in a prestigious and external competition, for example, Royal Society and MRC Research Professorships. In a further Report, dated 22 January 2003 (Reporter, 2002–03, p. 519), the Board proposed the establishment of fixed-term Professorships for the holders of Wellcome Trust Principal Research Fellowships.
2. The Board have now considered a proposal for the establishment of a Professorship of Cellular Pathophysiology and Clinical Biochemistry for Professor David Ron, currently Professor of Medicine and Julius Raynes Professor of Cell Biology at New York University. The award from the Wellcome Trust is for a period of seven years from the date of appointment, is renewable, and as well as covering the full cost of the appointment provides a programme grant. The Faculty Board of Clinical Medicine have agreed to meet the costs of the Professorship from the expiry of the Wellcome Trust award, for the remainder of Professor Ron’s tenure.
3. The General Board recommend:
That a Professorship of Cellular Pathophysiology and Clinical Biochemistry be established from 1 October 2010 for the tenure of Professor David Ron, placed in Schedule B of the Statutes, and assigned to the Department of Clinical Biochemistry.
|
11 June 2010 |
Alison Richard,Vice-Chancellor |
Simon Franklin |
Rachael Padman |
|
N. Bampos |
Andrew Gamble |
J. Rallison |
|
|
William Brown |
C. A. Gilligan |
Jeremy Sanders |
|
|
H. A. Chase |
David Good |
J. G. P. Sissons |
|
|
Philip Ford |
The General Board beg leave to report to the University as follows:
1. The School of Clinical Medicine pursues its mission of medical education and research in close collaboration with its National Health Service (NHS) partners and identifies research themes, which will link key areas of biomedical science with relevant clinical problems of importance to the health service.
2. Musculoskeletal disorders are one of the most common causes of illness in the UK and, as well as causing pain and suffering, account for a major part of NHS expenditure. Orthopaedic Surgery is a major clinical service within Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust. It includes joint replacement and reconstructive surgery for arthritis and other degenerative conditions of the musculoskeletal tissues, surgery for musculoskeletal trauma, and reconstructive surgery for deformities of the musculoskeletal system. There are major opportunities for research in orthopaedic surgery, ranging from translational medicine for new biomaterials and stem cell therapies, through clinical evaluation of novel implants, to health service research on the impact of new surgical techniques. Recent advances in the fields of materials science offer exciting opportunities for the production and evaluation of novel biomaterials to improve the mechanical properties and biocompatibility of implant materials. Similarly, recent advances in stem cell and regenerative medicine offer novel opportunities for the repair of defective bone and cartilage.
3. The Orthopaedic Research Unit within the Department of Surgery has an active programme of research into the use of biomaterials and tissue engineering to aid repair of musculoskeletal defects. There are well-established collaborative links with the Department of Materials Science and Metallurgy, through which several novel bioactive ceramics and nano-composite materials are being developed and their therapeutic potential assessed. There are also potentially relevant research interests within the Departments of Chemistry, Engineering, and Veterinary Medicine. Orthopaedic surgery forms an important component of the undergraduate curriculum for clinical medicine and all clinical students have a clinical attachment in orthopaedics during Stage 2 of the clinical course. Orthopaedic surgery is also an established area for postgraduate study within the Department of Surgery.
4. In order to take advantage of the research opportunities and to provide leadership in translational and clinical research and teaching in the discipline, the Faculty Board of Clinical Medicine have informed the Board that there is now a strong case for establishing a Professorship at Honorary Consultant level in Orthopaedic Surgery. Leadership in Orthopaedic Surgery was, until recently, provided by Professor Neil Rushton, who retired from his personal Professorship on 31 May 2010. In order to secure a replacement clinical appointment at professorial level, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust has agreed to meet half of the costs of a Professorship in Orthopaedic Surgery. The remainder would be met from savings generated by the retirement of Professor Rushton. The General Board have accepted the Faculty Board’s proposal for the establishment of the Professorship on this basis.
5. The Board are satisfied that an appointment at this level will be likely to attract a strong field of applicants. They are assured that the Faculty Board have undertaken to provide support and facilities for the Professor from within existing resources. The Board have agreed to concur in the view of the Faculty Board that an election to the Professorship should be made by an ad hoc Board of Electors and that candidature should be open to all persons whose work falls within the general field of the title of the Professorship.
6. The General Board recommend:
That a Professorship of Orthopaedic Surgery be established in the University for a single tenure from 1 September 2010, placed in Schedule B of the Statutes, and assigned to the Department of Surgery.
|
11 June 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 |
David Good |
Sam Wakeford |
|
|
Philip Ford |
Rachael Padman |
Yang Xia |
The General Board beg leave to report to the University as follows:
1. The School of Clinical Medicine pursues its mission of medical education and research in close collaboration with its National Health Service (NHS) partners and identifies research themes which will link key areas of biomedical science with relevant clinical problems of importance to the health service. The School endeavours to link these themes to relevant areas of research strength in other Schools of the University, particularly the School of the Biological Sciences.
2. Stem Cell Medicine is an emerging field concerned with the clinical application of stem cells to repair or replace tissues and organs damaged by disease. The last decade has seen major advances in the understanding of stem cell biology, including how stem cells may be isolated and induced to differentiate into tissue and organ specific cells and how adult stem cells may be induced to become pluripotent. Much of this basic biology has been defined in experimental models, but there is increasing understanding of human stem cells and how they may be manipulated in vitro. There are now realistic prospects for the use of stem cell based therapies in a number of areas. In order to take advantage of these opportunities and to provide leadership in translational clinical research and teaching in the field, the Faculty Board of Clinical Medicine believe there is now a strong case for establishing a Professorship of Stem Cell Medicine. The Professorship would allow the Faculty to recruit a scientist to replace Professor Roger Pedersen, who holds a personal Professorship and who is due to retire in September 2011.
3. In the Schools of Clinical Medicine and the Biological Sciences there are existing research strengths in stem cell biology and medicine, which would provide a supportive scientific environment for the Professorship. In the School of the Biological Sciences, the Wellcome Trust Centre for Stem Cell Research, directed by Professor Austin Smith, pursues research in basic stem cell biology. It is closely linked with translational stem cell medicine research in the School of Clinical Medicine on the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, particularly in the Laboratory for Regenerative Medicine. Clinical research programmes relating to stem cell medicine include those of the Department of Surgery, which has a major interest in transplantation; the Department of Haematology, which has a major interest in haematopoietic cell differentiation; the Department of Clinical Neurosciences and the Cambridge Centre for Brain Repair, which have interests in repair in the central nervous system; and the Cancer Research UK Cambridge Research Institute. The strengths in stem cell research in Cambridge have been recognized by the award of the MRC Centre for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, which spans the Schools of Clinical Medicine and the Biological Sciences. There are potentially relevant research interests in other Schools of the University, for example in Technology and the Physical Sciences.
4. The Faculty Board of Clinical Medicine therefore recommend the establishment of a Professorship of Stem Cell Medicine. This has been endorsed by the Council of the School of Clinical Medicine. The Faculty Board and School have proposed that the Professorship be funded by suppressing the University Lectureship left vacant on the retirement of Professor Pedersen from his Professorship in September 2011. The School have confirmed that the cost of a non-clinical Professorship has been included in the current strategic plan. In the event that the person elected is clinically qualified and awarded an Honorary Consultant contract, the additional costs will be met by the School of Clinical Medicine. The General Board have accepted the Faculty Board’s proposal for the establishment of the Professorship on this basis.
5. The Board are satisfied that an appointment at this level will be likely to attract a strong field of applicants. They are assured that the Faculty Board has undertaken to provide the necessary support and facilities for the Professor from within existing resources. The Board have agreed to concur in the view of the Faculty Board that an election to the Professorship should be made by an ad hoc Board of Electors and that candidature should be open to all persons whose work falls within the general field of the title of the Professorship.
6. The General Board recommend:
That a Professorship of Stem Cell Medicine be established in the University for a single tenure from 1 October 2011, placed in Schedule B of the Statutes, and assigned to a Department in the School of Clinical Medicine once the research interests of the person elected to the Professorship are known.
|
11 June 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 |
David Good |
Sam Wakeford |
|
|
Philip Ford |
Rachael Padman |
Yang Xia |