No 6302
Wednesday 20 March 2013
Vol cxliii No 25
pp. 411–435
The Council and the General Board beg leave to report to the University as follows:
1. In December 2010 the Council appointed a committee to undertake a review of IT infrastructure and support (Reporter, 6228, 2010–11, p. 901). The Review Committee submitted a report to the Council and the Board in the Michaelmas Term 2012 which was published on 24 October (Reporter, 6282, 2012–13, p. 57) and the subject of a Discussion on 20 November (Reporter, 6287, 2012–13, p. 179). The report was circulated for comment to the Councils of the Schools, and other authorities, and was also discussed at a series of informal consultation meetings led by internal members of the Review Committee. Following the consultation period the Review Committee considered the comments and agreed a further report setting out its response to those comments, which was submitted to the Council and the Board (attached as the Appendix at http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2012-13/weekly/6302/Appendix-IT-Response.pdf). An updated version of the Review Committee's first report, incorporating the changes proposed in the Appendix is available at http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2012-13/weekly/6302/Revised-IT-Review-Report.pdf. The Council is very grateful to the members of the Review Committee and to all who contributed to the consultation process, which was open, thorough and transparent.
2. The Council and the Board have endorsed the broad thrust of the Review Committee's recommendations. This Report seeks approval for the structural changes and associated regulations to implement the principal recommendations made by the Review Committee viz:
• the merger of the currently separate organizations – the University Computing Service (UCS) and the Management Information Services Division (MISD) of the University Offices – to form a new institution entitled University Information Services (UIS), under the supervision of the Council;
• the establishment of a new University office of Director of Information Services, reporting to the Vice-Chancellor, to head the new institution;
• the replacement of the current Information Strategy and Services Syndicate (ISSS) by an Information Services Committee (ISC), responsible for strategy development, the delivery of central IT services and financial planning and accountability.
3. The Council and the Board agreed that the case for change is well set out in Principles A1–A9 in the report of the Review Committee. In summary, the changes are being proposed to ensure that the University has IT services and support commensurate with its international standing, which provide value for money based on minimum standards for staff and students and which are responsive to user needs. The timescale for effecting change may be considered by some as challenging. Nevertheless, the Council is concerned by the risk of a prolonged period of uncertainty, not only for the staff of the two existing institutions, but for the continued delivery of systems and services on which the University's teaching, research and core operations, including compliance requirements, critically depend. They consider that that risk will be managed most effectively by proceeding with the integration of the two institutions as quickly as possible. The Council recognizes that the proposals in this Report are of great importance and significance for the University and therefore deserve the active engagement of, and endorsement by, the Regent House. Accordingly, the Council has agreed that the recommendations should be put immediately to a ballot following Discussion (see the Council's Notice on the proposed ballot timetable, p. 412).
4. The Council and the Board consider that the reports of the Review Committee set out the background to their recommendations in detail and, in general, they do not consider it necessary to add further to the arguments made in the Review Committee's reports except in three respects: staff; governance; and implementation.
The Council reiterates the undertaking by the Review Committee that the merger will not lead to redundancies among the current staff of the UCS or MISD. Nevertheless it is important that staff fully understand the consequences of change and are reassured that their current terms and conditions of service will not suffer detriment. Accordingly, a period of consultation with staff, extending over 90 days, will commence with the publication of this Report.
Secondly, subject to the approval of the merger it will be important for the Head of UIS, the new institution, to be in post no later than 1 October 2013 and for the person so appointed to be able to put a senior management team in place and resolve any remaining anxieties and uncertainties on the part of staff at all levels of the organization. Initially, the two existing organizations will work in parallel, with both reporting to the new Director. A new organization plan will be developed in consultation with staff and with guidance from an implementation group (see below). Overall, the process of integration may take up to three years to complete. The Council is clear that this process should be led by someone who is familiar with the workings and requirements of the Collegiate University, as well as the University's major IT systems and networks. These requirements could not be met through an external appointment. The Council and the Board have agreed that it would be appropriate to appoint an interim Director, for a period of three years from the effective date of the merger, by a process for which only the current Directors of UCS and MISD would be eligible. In accordance with the commitment not to make redundancies the Council propose the establishment of two new offices, one for each of the current Directors, on equivalent terms to their existing grades which the Council will assign to an appropriate institution in due course. Subject to the approval of the recommendations of this Report, both would be consulted to establish their views as to the roles and responsibilities of the protected post. Following the internal appointment process the successful candidate would be seconded to the interim Directorship; at the end of the three-year period the substantive office of Director of Information Services would be filled by open competition. The seconded Director could either apply or, again, discuss their remit in the protected post. Either way the two individuals' current terms and conditions would be preserved.
The Council and the Board have carefully considered the Review Committee's recommendation for the establishment of a high level Committee, replacing the current Information Strategy and Services Syndicate that, while broadly representative of the various stakeholders, would have the clear authority to set and deliver strategy, manage central budgets, and oversee the performance of the UIS. The Council has considered in particular whether retaining a Syndicate, which would report directly to the Regent House, might be more appropriate given the importance of IT provision to the University as a whole. While acknowledging the contributions made by the ISSS and its officers, the Council is clear that the provision of information services, including the delivery of the University's regulatory reporting requirements, requires a direct link to the central bodies, particularly the Council, not only to maintain good communication, but to ensure that risks are appropriately highlighted and managed and that, in an emergency, decisive action can be taken. A Syndicate which would be organizationally separate and with only an indirect relationship to the Council, e.g. through cross membership, would not meet those requirements. It is proposed therefore that the body be a committee that would report to both the Council and the General Board.
This structure has implications for the Director's accountability, since if a Syndicate model was adopted, it would be normal for the Director of Information Services to report to the Chair of the Syndicate rather than to the Vice-Chancellor (as proposed in the report). However, the Chair of a Syndicate would be appointed on the basis of academic and strategic IT expertise for a fixed period; he or she would not be expected to have staff management (including, potentially, performance management) experience. This reporting model is not consistent with the required professional and effective line management needed for this position. Although the demands on the Vice-Chancellor are already considerable, he is willing to assume line management responsibility for the Director in view of the critical importance of IT both in facilitating the University's academic mission and in fulfilling statutory reporting requirements. The Council and the Board accordingly propose that the Director should be accountable directly to the Vice-Chancellor.
The Council and the Board have noted the structure of sub-committees outlined in the reports of the Review Committee. They have agreed that the detailed arrangements should not be prescribed by regulation but should be for the ISC to decide, starting from the comprehensive framework set out by the Review Committee. They share the Review Committee's view that there should be greater opportunity for user input and that an obligation to take user views into account would be a duty of the new Committee. Equally importantly, the sub-committee structure should embody clarity and where necessary provide speed in decision-making, and proportionate control at each level.
Subject to the approval of this Report's recommendations, it will be necessary to put a structure in place to take forward and manage the process of implementation and to ensure continuity of services with the two Directors, and their staff, between the publication of the Report and 1 October 2013, when the new organization would be created and the Information Services Committee would take on its full role.
The principal activities for such an implementation group would be:
(a)to agree an implementation plan for the recommendations of the review (including those which do not require legislation);
(b)to secure and manage a budget for the transitional period;
(c)to ensure good communication both within the new institution and across the Collegiate University; and
(d)to support the interim Director in carrying forward restructuring and the change management process, and effecting the necessary cultural change to unify the two separate organisations.
The Council recognizes that a significant budget in the region of £2 million will be required to support the change process; this will be a charge on the Strategic Planning Reserve Fund over a period of two years.
8. The Council and the General Board accordingly recommend with effect from 1 October 2013:
I. That the University Information Services be constituted as an institution under the supervision of the Council, replacing the University Computing Service and the Management Information Services Division of the University Offices and that the office of Director of Information Services be established; and that regulations for the University Information Services set out in Annex I to this Report be approved, the regulations for the University Computing Service rescinded, and references to the Management Information Services Division deleted from the regulations for the Unified Administrative Service (Staff of the University Offices).
II. That the Information Strategy and Services Syndicate be suppressed and replaced by an Information Services Committee, reporting jointly to the Council and the General Board, and that regulations for the Information Services Committee set out in Annex II to this Report be approved.
III. That two University Offices of Director be established, with responsibilities and duties to be determined by the Council, for Mr P. Dampier and Dr I. Lewis.
|
18 March 2013 |
L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor |
Andy Hopper (25 March 2013) |
Susan Oosthuizen |
|
N. Bampos |
Fiona Karet |
Rachael Padman |
|
|
Charles Bell |
F. P. Kelly |
Shirley Pearce |
|
|
Jeremy Caddick |
Robert Lethbridge |
John Shakeshaft |
|
|
Athene Donald |
Mark Lewisohn |
I. H. White |
|
|
Nicholas Gay |
Rebecca Lingwood |
A. D. Yates |
|
|
David Good |
Mavis McDonald |
|
18 March 2013 |
L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor |
Martin Daunton |
Robert Kennicutt |
|
Philip Allmendinger |
Simon Franklin |
Patrick Maxwell |
|
|
N. Bampos |
C. A. Gilligan |
Rachael Padman |
|
|
H. A. Chase |
David Good |
John Rallison |
|
|
Sarah Coakley |
Sadie Jarrett |
Amanda Talhat |
We agree that the time has come for the merger of the UCS and the MISD, for the appointment of a Director of Information Services (DIS), and for a single University Committee of the Council (the ISC) that is both responsible for IT policy and strategy, and for holding the IT purse strings. However, the proposals in this Report are significantly flawed.
The successor to the current Syndicate must have the necessary standing, the necessary financial control over the IT budget, the necessary University and Collegiate representation and, crucially, the necessary technical expertise. With the present proposed membership and terms of reference, the ISC will doubtless be heavy with 'men of standing', but there is no guarantee that they will also be persons who will be competent overseers of Information Services (IS).
Reporting to the Vice-Chancellor (VC) looks, superficially, attractive, but the VC may not always be someone with any significant interest in the development of IS or the time to give it any priority. Following the model of the Head of Schools, the DIS might be responsible to the ISC and the Vice-Chancellor.
The timetable for "merger" is imprudent. The cultures of the UCS and the MISD differ significantly: the University needs to keep the best of both. This will not be achieved by a shot-gun marriage with the appointment of one of the current Directors as the interim DIS. If the aim is to create a new service with its own culture the University needs a merger of the two organisations, not a takeover of one by the other. The need to make clear progress towards the goal of a unified service needs to be balanced against the significant risk inevitable in simultaneously merging two important but disparate organisations at the same time as they are moving house; a move that includes the transfer of key network infrastructure equipment on which the University crucially depends.
The decision timetable that was originally proposed to the Council rode roughshod over the University's accepted Governance procedures. The revised timetable is better, but still does not allow for consideration of Discussion remarks at a Council Meeting, which in a matter of this importance is inappropriate. What is needed is the correct fix not another quick fix, especially given that the current proposals are the third attempt in a decade to get the governance of IS right. We live in hope, if not expectation, that the process of Discussion will effect as much improvement to the current proposals as the consultation did for the Review Panel's revised Report. Then we might get the IS this University deserves.
|
18 March 2013 |
Stephen J. Cowley |
I. M. Le M. Du Quesnay |
Members of the Council
We too agree that the time has come for the merger of the UCS and the MISD, for the appointment of a Director of Information Services, and for a single University body that is both responsible for IT policy and strategy, and for holding the IT purse strings. However, we are concerned with the proposed means of achieving this outcome. After the considerable investment of time and effort in reaching where we are now, we find it surprising that the Council would wish to rush at the last moment and put at risk the successful achievement of the outcome envisaged by this Report.
In particular, we are unconvinced that the rapid timetable proposed by this Report is realistic, or even necessary. Moreover, at the same time that it is proposed that the formal merger would take place, the UCS will be undertaking a complete relocation of critical server equipment, and both the UCS and the MISD staff will themselves be moving while annual preparations are being made for the start of term and the arrival of a new cohort of students. Given the risks that the relocation unavoidably presents, requiring a simultaneous implementation of the merger seems to be an unwise additional pressure. We are also equally concerned that the transition arrangements proposed – to select just one of the current Directors to implement the merger – will not best achieve the intended outcomes; retaining both in post and appointing a neutral specialist to oversee the smooth integration of the two services would seem a preferable interim solution.
In the finalization of the Report's proposals as well as in the implementation of them, we believe that it is more important to do things correctly than to do them quickly.
|
18 March 2013 |
Rosalyn Old |
Sam Wakeford |
Members of the Council
Appendix - IT Review - Outcome of the Consultation
Revised IT Review Panel Report
The University Information Services shall be an institution independent of any Faculty or Department, but under the supervision of the Council, and under the general control of the Information Services Committee.
1. There shall be a University office of Director of Information Services, who will be Head of the institution, and shall be accountable to the Vice-Chancellor for the satisfactory performance of the duties in Regulation 3.
2. Appointments and reappointments to the University office of Director of Information Services shall be made by an Appointments Committee consisting of
(a)the Vice-Chancellor;
(b)three members appointed by the Information Services Committee;
(c)two members appointed by the Council;
(d)two members appointed by the General Board;
(e)the Registrary.
At least one of the members in class (c) or class (d) shall be not normally resident in the University. Members in classes (b), (c) and (d) shall be appointed in the Michaelmas Term to serve for two years from the 1 January following.
3. The duties and responsibilities of the Director of Information Services shall be as follows:
(a)The Director shall be responsible to the Information Services Committee for all aspects of the work of the University Information Services. He or she shall act as the executive officer of the Committee.
(b)The Director shall perform, in relation to the University Information Services, the duties assigned to the Head of a Department by Statute C, V, 3(b) and (c).
(c)Such teaching as the Director may give on behalf of the University, other than the supervision of Graduate Students, shall be given without additional remuneration as part of the duties of the office.
4. The Director shall conform to such conditions of residence as may be determined by the Information Services Committee with the approval of Council.
5. The Director shall not, without the consent of the Information Services Committee and Council, give instruction on behalf of a College.
6. There shall be such number of offices of Deputy Director, or Assistant Director, of Information Services as the Council may from time to time determine.
7. Appointments and reappointments to a University office of Deputy Director, or Assistant Director, of Information Services shall be made by an Appointments Committee comprising the Director of Information Services as Chairman and three members of the Information Services Committee appointed by that Committee in the Michaelmas Term to serve for two years from 1 January following their appointment.
8. The duties of a Deputy Director, or Assistant Director, shall be determined by the Information Services Committee.
1. The Information Services Committee shall be a Committee of the Council and the General Board, and shall consist of:
(a)the Vice-Chancellor (or a duly appointed deputy) as Chairman;
(b)three persons appointed by the Council after consultation with the General Board;
(c)one person appointed by the Council who is not a member of the Regent House;
(d)three persons appointed from among the Heads of the Schools by the General Board;
(e)two persons appointed by the Colleges' Committee;
(f)one person appointed by the Library Syndicate;
(g)the Registrary;
(h)two members of the University in statu pupillari, co-opted by the Committee, one of whom shall be a graduate student;
(i)one person co-opted by the Committee, although it shall not be obligatory for the Committee to exercise this power.
2. The Director of Information Services shall be the executive officer of the Committee.
3. The appointment of members in classes (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) shall be made in the Michaelmas Term for periods of four years from 1 January following. Two members in class (b), the member in class (c), one member in class (d) and one member in class (e) shall be appointed to serve in a year when the calendar year is odd; one member in class (b), two members in class (d), one member in class (e) and the member in class (f) shall be appointed to serve in a year when the calendar year is even. Co-opted members in classes (h) and (i) shall serve until 31 December of the year following that in which they are co-opted, provided that if a member in class (h) ceases to be in statu pupillari he or she shall thereupon cease to be a member in that class.
4. The Registrary shall appoint the Secretary of the Committee, in consultation with the Chairman.
5. It shall be the duty of the Committee:
(a)to establish and keep under review, subject to the approval of the Council and the General Board and, where appropriate, the Colleges, a strategy for information services, and staffing requirements, across the University and Colleges in support of research, teaching and administration;
(b)to promote the effective and efficient implementation of the information strategy where appropriate throughout the University and the Colleges, to advise on developments in information technology and its implementation, including the sharing of experience and solutions;
(c) to establish mechanisms to ascertain information requirements of users across the University and the Colleges, and ensure that these requirements inform the strategy under (a) above;
(d) to ensure, through the Director of Information Services, that any such information policies, facilities, and services provided by the University Information Services are operating effectively and are fit for purpose, and to approve general principles for the allocation of resources and priorities in the use of information technology facilities;
(e) to review and propose the budget for the University Information Services, on advice from the Director of Information Services;
(f) to be responsible for ensuring that appropriate project and budgetary management and control mechanisms are in place for such major information systems and technology projects as the Council or the General Board may from time to time determine, and to be accountable for the funds allocated for such projects;
(g) to ensure that all centrally provided systems and services provide value for money;
(h) to set, consulting the Councils of the Schools, Colleges and other institutions as necessary, minimum standards of service to be provided;
(i) to be responsible for the regulation and security of the use of information technology facilities within the University, and of such computing facilities in College institutions as may be designated for this purpose from time to time by the appropriate College authorities concerned, and for this purpose to make, or amend, and publish rules, subject to approval by the competent authority, and to impose on a person infringing one or more of those rules either or both of the following penalties:
(i)the suspension of authorization to use computing resources for such a period as the Information Services Committee shall determine;
(ii)a fine not exceeding £175.
(j) to make an annual report to the Council and the General Board and to the Senior Tutors' and Bursars' Committees, that report to include a review of the strategy for information services.
6. The Committee shall establish such sub-committees, or other bodies reporting to it, as it considers necessary effectively to discharge its duties.
The Council and the General Board beg leave to report to the University as follows:
1.1 The Second Joint Report of 25 July 2005 (Reporter, 6002, 2004–05, p. 745) ("SJR") introduced a new single pay spine for non-clinical staff, comprising twelve grades. The new structure was implemented in January 2006 and is the basis of the University's remuneration practices today.
1.2 If the University is to maintain its standing as a world-class institution and to compete effectively with leading universities of similar standing world-wide, it is vital that the University's reward policies are competitive and adequately support the recruitment and retention of staff of the highest calibre. In the six years since the new arrangements following from the SJR were implemented, there have been major changes to the external employment market for academic and non-academic staff. It is therefore considered timely to review the existing pay and reward structure to ensure it remains competitive.
1.3 On 31 October 2012, the Council and the General Board issued a consultative paper (Reporter, 6283, 2012–13, p. 83) to seek the views of the University on proposed changes to the pay and grading structure for non-clinical staff established by the SJR. During Michaelmas Term 2012, the views of Institutions, School Councils, and Faculty Boards were sought on the proposals. Individual submissions were also welcomed. The consultative paper was brought forward for Discussion on 20 November 2012. Professor J. K. M. Sanders (Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Institutional Affairs) presented the Report (read by the Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor). No further comments were made at the Discussion. An Equality Assurance Assessment (as described in Section 8) was undertaken to consider the impact of the proposals and legal advice was sought.
1.4 The responses to the consultation were broadly positive and in support of the proposals in the consultation paper. Having considered the results of the consultation exercise, Equality Assurance Assessment and further legal considerations, the Council and the General Board wish now to present final recommendations to the University. These recommendations contain only minor changes from the consultative paper.
2.1 The Council and General Board propose that the scale of stipends for the University Senior Lectureship should be extended by two contribution points with effect from 1 January 2014, to enable the University to:
• recognize outstanding teaching and other important contributions made by USLs;
• provide an alternative career pathway for those who may not wish to aspire to further promotion; and
• provide an incentive for individuals to develop their teaching and general contribution.
2.2 The revised scale of stipends for the USL is shown in Schedule 1. The extension to the scale provides an opportunity to recognize those who make significant contributions other than through research. An outstanding USL who accumulates two contribution increments will be on Scale point 63, identical to that of a Reader, and this does not preclude subsequent promotion to Reader and Professor. It also creates two distinct career pathways which are not mutually exclusive.
2.3 It is proposed that contribution increments for USLs be awarded against the following criteria:
(a)Outstanding and sustained excellence in teaching; and
(b)Outstanding and sustained general and /or administrative contributions.
2.4 The award of the additional contribution points would be made as part of the Senior Academic Promotions (SAP) exercise. A budget will be set for each exercise and guidance will be drafted for inclusion in the SAP Guidance which is consistent with the existing SAP process and the principles set out above.
2.5 If the proposal above is approved prior to the beginning of the 2014 SAP exercise, guidance would be issued by the General Board to enable the award of the new contribution points to be included, failing which the new increments would be available with effect from the 2015 exercise.
3.1 The Council and General Board propose that, with effect from 1 January 2014, the scale of stipends within each band of Grade 12 be extended to create an overlap between bands and to increase the number of points in the top band, and that point 68 be included in Band 1, as set out in the Annex.
3.2 The changes to the Grade 12 salary scale will assist in the recruitment and retention of outstanding staff, while retaining the four band structure with HERA points boundaries and reducing implementation costs. Successful applicants for a professorship through the SAP exercise are automatically paid at point 68, whereas very few external candidates for professorships have been appointed at that point. In view of the very high standard of internal promotions, it is proposed that point 68 is incorporated into band 1 to provide enhanced opportunities for progression, and minimize inequities between internal and external appointments. A cap of spine point 100 for band 4 was selected following comparison with Russell Group and US competitor salary data. The extended scale would also provide greater transparency in the pay of senior staff by reducing the number of payments additional to stipend.
3.3 Progression within a band will continue to require evidence of a sustained and improving contribution to teaching, administration, and research under the biennial Professorial Pay Review. While the procedure for progression between bands for professorial staff will also remain unchanged, due to the incorporation of point 68 into band 1 and the need to amend the spine points in each band, slightly modified criteria are proposed for progression between bands. These are set out in Schedule 2.
3.4 The relevant criteria considered by the Vice-Chancellor's Advisory Committee for Supplementary Payments for Non-academic Officers at Grade 12 will remain unchanged.
3.5 In order to ensure that individuals benefit financially on progression between bands within the new overlapping band structure, it is proposed that on progression to a higher band, individuals will receive an increase of at least one increment.
3.6 Should the extension of the Grade 12 salary scale be approved, employees will remain on their existing spine point but will have the opportunity to progress further in future Pay Reviews. This approach was selected to support affordable implementation and to ensure a fair and consistent approach. It is not intended that the new structure would form part of the Professorial Pay Review 2012 which is currently in progress.
3.7 It is anticipated that there may be more applications under the Professorial Pay Review in 2014–15 and Contributory Increment Scheme for Grade 12 academic-related staff (2013–14) following the extension of the Grade 12 salary scale, as those individuals currently at the top of their band will have further room for progression. This will need to be taken into account in setting the budget for future Professorial Pay Reviews but the impact is expected to be limited in the short term.
4.1 Those bodies involved in the biennial Market Supplement Review process have expressed concerns with the process. The frequency of reviews has meant that individuals are unable to rely upon the continuous receipt of market supplements, creating insecurity. Furthermore, it can be difficult for departments to provide market data and evidence as part of the review process to support the continuation of a market supplement, especially for academic posts.
4.2 The Remuneration Committee of the Council and the Pay and Reward Working Group have also expressed specific concerns about the extent to which market supplements are linked to individual academic roles. In an academic environment, the 'market' can in some cases effectively be a single individual, and the role therefore cannot be benchmarked for salary purposes. This becomes increasingly challenging as the individual's achievement in the role grows over time and they receive underlying salary increases as a result. As time progresses the case for converting the market supplement into the individual's underlying stipend is strengthened.
4.3 In the light of these concerns, it is proposed that the practice of awarding market supplements be discontinued after 31 December 2013, and that two new forms of payment be introduced as set out in sections 5 and 6 below.
5.1 In view of the difficulties experienced in trying to define the "market" in relation to academic posts, the Council and the General Board recommend that "Advanced Contribution Supplements" ("ACSs") are introduced for academic staff, as the primary means of supplementing the salary of an academic member of staff for retention or recruitment purposes.
5.2 ACSs would be pensionable payments that proleptically reward an expected future level of achievement. ACSs would therefore be awarded on the expectation that an individual will reach a certain level of achievement (normally no more than five years ahead, with a review of progress after three years). An ACS may be awarded for retention or recruitment purposes.
5.3 The decision on whether to award an ACS and its level will be determined as follows:
• in respect of professorial staff, by the Vice-Chancellor in consultation with the relevant Head of the School, the Academic Secretary, the Registrary, and a member of the HR Division, on behalf of the competent authority.
• for non-professorial academic staff, by Heads of Schools, the Registrary, or other head of a non-School institution, as appropriate, in consultation with a member of the HR Division, on behalf of the competent authority.
In all cases the rationale for awarding an ACS and the period within which the future specified level of achievement is expected to be attained ("the ACS Period") must be recorded. The Human Resources Committee will receive periodic updates with statistical information relating to the awards.
5.4 The review and assessment of whether the achievements expected under an ACS have been attained within the ACS Period would, where an ACS has been awarded in the course of recruitment of a new member of staff, be undertaken as part of probationary arrangements for academic officers (Reporter, 5941, 2003–04, p. 206 or the Professorial Pay Review and Annual Reports Exercise (Reporter, 6002, 2004–05, p. 745). It is not expected that an ACS awarded on recruitment would be removed, but the question of whether the person recruited had met the expectations defined on their recruitment would be part of the consideration of whether they had passed their probationary period.
5.5 The review and assessment of whether the achievements expected under an ACS awarded for retention purposes have been attained would, where an ACS has been awarded for retention of an existing member of staff, be considered as part of the normal review and promotions process for the individual's staff category so that
• in respect of professorial and equivalent staff, assessment of whether the expected achievement has been attained will be considered as part of the Professorial Pay Review. Recommendations will be put forward by Heads of Institutions. The relevant School Level Committee will consider those on band 1, and make recommendations to the Vice Chancellor's Advisory Committee. The Vice Chancellor's Advisory Committee will consider all recommendations for the remaining bands;
• in respect of non-professorial academic staff, assessment of whether the expected achievement has been attained will be considered as part of the SAP exercise. Recommendations will be put forward by Heads of Schools, in consultation with Heads of Institutions.
There would be no additional review process to consider whether the achievements expected following the award of an ACS had been attained; on expiry of the ACS Period, the ACS would continue in place until it could be considered under the next occurrence of the Professorial Pay Review or the SAP exercise, as appropriate. Thus an ACS period of five years might in practice be six years by the time it could be reviewed as part of the normal promotions or pay review cycle.
5.6 On the expiry of an ACS, following consideration of the evidence submitted in support of the level of achievement reached by the individual under the processes in paragraph 5.5, one of the following outcomes will be determined:
• the individual's base pay is increased to the level of the ACS or higher;
• the individual's base pay is increased to such a level below the ACS as is considered appropriate; or
• in exceptional cases, the individual reverts to their underlying level of base pay, subject to the addition of any increments awarded since the ACS was granted.
5.7 Should the expected level of achievement not be attained, it is not intended that the approving body should be empowered to extend an ACS given for retention beyond five years. The individual will revert to their underlying base pay, or such higher level as may be considered is merited if there are contribution points available. For example if a Reader on spine point 63 is offered a professorship by another University, she/he may be offered an ACS to bring her/his total pay up to the level of a Professor (point 68). If however within the period specified, the individual does not achieve promotion to a professorship, the ACS would be removed and the individual's total pay would revert back to the Reader point 63.
5.8 Individuals in receipt of an ACS are still eligible to apply for contribution points or a change in band or they may be nominated by their Head of Institution during the regular promotions exercises. Any contribution points or band changes awarded will be incorporated into the individual's base pay and the ACS reduced by a corresponding amount so that their overall pay remains the same. Individuals would not experience an increase in the pay they receive until their underlying base pay had fully absorbed their ACS (although any annual uplift in spine salary points will continue to apply). This is based on the understanding that ACSs are awarded in anticipation of future achievements and this would be explained to the employee on the award of a new ACS or on any extension of an existing one.
6.1 The Council and the General Board recommend that the awarding of market supplements is brought to an end and that a new system of "market pay" is introduced. Market pay would be a pensionable payment additional to stipend to reflect the fact that the market rate of pay for the individual concerned was higher than the rate of pay which would otherwise be awarded under the Single Salary Spine.
6.2 It is proposed that for all staff, market supplements are phased out over the academical years 2013–14 and 2014–15 and "market pay" introduced, primarily for academic-related or assistant staff. The term "market pay" would reflect more clearly the reason why an individual's total pay is above the salary scale for their particular grade on the single salary spine. It is possible that market pay could also be awarded to academic staff but an ACS should be regarded as the primary means of supplementing the income of academic staff for recruitment or retention purposes.
6.3 It is proposed that market pay may be used for both recruitment and retention purposes. Appointments requiring a market pay element should be made on a fixed term basis with a defined end point agreed at the outset by the relevant awarding authority (e.g. for academic-related staff brought in for specific projects), or alternatively on an open-ended basis with a market pay element for a fixed period of time. The use of fixed-term contracts and fixed-term market pay awards would enable the University to pay salaries appropriate to the relevant market, but also limit its longer-term financial exposure and better manage employee expectations.
6.4 Market pay would be determined as follows:
• For all staff other than academic staff, the decision to award market pay and its level will be determined by Heads of Schools, the Registrary, or other head of a non-School institution, as appropriate, in consultation with a member of the HR Division, on behalf of the competent authority.
• For academic staff such cases must be approved by the Vice-Chancellor or nominated deputy in consultation with the Head of the School, Academic Secretary, the Registrary, or other head of a non-School institution, as appropriate, and a member of the HR Division, on behalf of the competent authority.
• The HR Committee, or for professorial or equivalent staff the Remuneration Committee of the Council (REMCO), must also approve the award where the market pay exceeds 10% of the lowest salary point of the grade (or in the case of grade 12, the lowest salary point of the relevant band).
In all cases the rationale for awarding market pay and the agreed end date must be recorded (a pro forma will be available for this purpose). The criteria for determining market pay are set out in Schedule 3.
6.5 Individuals in receipt of market pay may apply, or be nominated by their Institution for, contribution points. Any contribution points or band changes awarded will be incorporated into the individual's base pay and the market pay reduced by a corresponding amount so that their overall pay remains the same. Individuals would not experience an increase in the pay they receive until their underlying base pay had fully absorbed their market pay (although any annual uplift in spine salary points will continue to apply).
6.6 At the end of the agreed fixed term any remaining market pay not otherwise assimilated into base pay would come to an end unless an application was made by or on behalf of the individual to the appropriate body in paragraph 6.4 for a new market pay award for a further fixed term.
7.1 The Council and General Board propose that no further market supplements would be awarded after 31 December 2013.
7.2 Over the following two years, all existing market supplements would be reviewed to consider whether they should either be assimilated into base pay, converted into an ACS or market pay, or, if appropriate, removed. No market supplement would be removed and no recipient's pay would be reduced until 31 December 2015. By this date all of the market supplements concerned would have been reviewed under the current system in any case. The process for the review is set out in Schedule 4.
8.1 The General Board and Council are committed to the principles of transparency and fairness in the remuneration of University staff. These principles remain fundamental to the reforms proposed in this paper. The criteria, processes and outcomes of the changes proposed must be seen to be clear and fair. To this end, an Equality Assurance Assessment has been undertaken on the proposals contained in this Report and will be undertaken on the subsequent outcomes. Anonymized results will be presented in the biennial Equal Pay Report and statistical information about staff grades, additional payments, and market pay (or other payments approved in this Report) will continue to be published annually.
8.2 The purpose of the Equality Assurance Assessment (EAA) is to identify any unfair, adverse or disproportionate impact on individuals in respect of all protected characteristics groups covered by equalities legislation, namely Age, Disability, Gender, Gender Reassignment, Pregnancy/Maternity, Religion or Belief, Race, and Sexual Orientation. The EAA identified a number of positive impacts of the proposals, but also recommended that reference is made in all processes identified under the report where individuals are subject to review or assessment (a) to the University's statement of policy on equal opportunities, (b) to the need to allow for the impact of part-time working, periods of maternity leave and disability. The EAA also recommended that any criteria used under the recommendations are drawn up clearly and transparently. The EAA recognized the need to identify and correct any unfair, adverse or disproportionate impact which might have arisen out of the existing market supplement processes on women. The Human Resources Committee is asked to consider this and make recommendations for how any adverse impact identified might be addressed, for example, in the processes for the next Professorial Pay Review or SAP exercise.
9. The Council and the General Board accordingly recommend:
That with effect from 1 January 2014 the scale of stipends for the University Senior Lectureship be extended by two contribution points as shown in Schedule 1 and that accordingly
(i) Regulation 5(c) of the regulations for Stipends in Chapter XI of Ordinances (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 681) be amended by the substitution of the following in place of the line relating to "University Senior Lecturer":
|
University Senior Lecturer: |
Grade 10 |
Points 59–63 |
(ii) The reference to USLs in Note 4 to Schedule 1 to the regulations for Stipends in Chapter XI of the Ordinances shall be amended to read:
"USLs may progress through service points 1–3 and contribution points 4–5 of Grade 10"
That with effect from 1 January 2014
(i)the scale of stipends within each band of Grade 12 be extended as shown in the Annex, and
(ii)the Academic Band Criteria in Schedule 2 be applied in substitution for those set out in Annex 7 of the SJR and approved by Grace 6 of 27 July 2005 (approved on 5 August 2005) and
(c)of the regulations for Stipends in Chapter XI of Ordinances be amended by the substitution of the following in place of the line relating to "Professor":
|
Professor: |
Grade 12 |
Points 68–100 |
That the table in Schedule 1 to the regulations for Stipends in Chapter XI of Ordinances be amended to reflect the changes in pursuant to Graces I and/or II, if approved.
That with effect from 1 January 2014 the policy of awarding of Advanced Contribution Supplements be approved and that the General Board be authorized to establish an appropriate procedure for the making of such payments on the basis of this Report and that the regulations for Payments Additional to Stipend in Chapter XI of Ordinances (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 684) be amended as follows:
(i) A new Regulation 10 shall be added as follows:
"The General Board shall have the power to establish procedures for, and authorize, additional pensionable payments to be paid as Advanced Contribution Supplements to any University Lecturer, University Senior Lecturer, Reader or Professor. Advanced Contribution Supplements are pensionable payments that proleptically reward an expected future level of achievement."
(ii) Regulation 1 shall be amended by replacing the words "Regulations 2–9" by the words "Regulations 2–10".
That
(i) with effect from 1 January 2014 the policy for awarding market pay be approved, that the Council and the General Board be authorized to establish appropriate procedures to implement such policy on the basis of this Report and that the regulations for Payments Additional to Stipend in Chapter XI of Ordinances be amended by the replacement of Regulation 9 with the following:
"9. The competent authority shall have the power to establish procedures for, and authorize additional pensionable payments as market pay to any member of the University staff in accordance with a policy determined by the University. Market pay is a pensionable payment additional to stipend made for a defined period to reflect the fact that the market rate of pay for the individual concerned is higher than the stipend which would be awarded under the Ordinance relating to Stipends."; and
(ii) no new market supplements shall be awarded under the policy and procedure for the award of market supplements comprised in Grace 7 of 27 July 2005 (approved with amendment on 25 November 2005) after 31 December 2013; and
(iii) the Council and the General Board shall be authorised to put in place arrangements whereby:
(a) in the course of 2014 existing market supplements are reviewed by the competent authority (or such other body as is in each case responsible for considering the award of contribution increments) to determine whether or to what extent any part of the market supplement is to be assimilated into the base pay of the individual concerned;
(b) the balance of all remaining market supplements after completion of the process in (a) will be reviewed by the end of the academic year 2015 with a view to their being withdrawn on or before 31 December 2015 and if appropriate replaced by market pay and/or (if the proposals in recommendation IV are approved) an Advanced Contribution Increment.
|
18 March 2013 |
L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor |
Fiona Karet |
Susan Oosthuizen |
|
N. Bampos |
F. P. Kelly |
Rachael Padman |
|
|
Charles Bell |
Robert Lethbridge |
Shirley Pearce |
|
|
Jeremy Caddick |
Mark Lewisohn |
John Shakeshaft |
|
|
I. M. Le M. Du Quesnay |
Rebecca Lingwood |
Sam Wakeford |
|
|
Nicholas Gay |
Mavis McDonald |
I. H. White |
|
|
David Good |
Rosalyn Old |
A. D. Yates |
|
6 March 2013 |
L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor |
Martin Daunton |
Robert Kennicutt |
|
Philip Allmendinger |
Simon Franklin |
Patrick Maxwell |
|
|
N. Bampos |
C. A. Gilligan |
Rachael Padman |
|
|
H. A. Chase |
David Good |
John Rallison |
|
|
Sarah Coakley |
Sadie Jarrett |
Amanda Talhat |
A Band 1 Professor will normally have a significant national and international reputation in research, and contribute fully to the teaching and administrative work of the University. Progression within this level may also be used to reward exceptional and sustained contributions to the academic work of the University in teaching, administration, and research by those whose individual scholarship is also above the normal expectation for a Cambridge Professor.
A Band 2 award is intended for Professors who, in addition to a distinguished academic record when measured against the overall Cambridge context, are also recognized as research leaders through their membership of an academy (e.g. Royal Society, British Academy) or equivalent distinction. They will be leading international authorities in their particular field. They will have made a very significant and lasting positive mark on the University's work in their subject area directly through their own research or through their role in leading and developing their discipline at Cambridge. They will also contribute fully to the teaching and administration of the University.
A Band 3 award is intended for Professors of very high academic distinction. They will be internationally acknowledged as outstanding, and act as national leaders in their subject areas; they will be regarded as having achieved notable international eminence across the general field. They will also contribute fully to the teaching and administration of the University.
A Band 4 award is intended for Professors of the very highest international academic distinction. Through their membership of international bodies or the holding of international awards, they will be universally acknowledged as world leaders in their subject areas. They will have made a formative and lasting contribution through their research and their overall role across their general field. They will also contribute fully to the teaching and administration of the University.
Market pay provides institutional flexibility, enabling competitive salaries to be paid for recruitment or retention purposes where there are market premia, without distortion of the grading structure or job evaluation methodology.
Before deciding whether market pay should be applied in particular cases, some preliminary matters require consideration:
• determining whether pay is really the issue to be addressed (for example, have advertisements been placed in appropriate media; are other factors affecting retention in a particular Department?);
• whether there are alternative ways of attracting/retaining staff (for example, through provision of facilities, flexible working arrangements);
• whether action in particular cases will create a knock-on effect for other roles (so that more problems are caused than are solved);
• equal pay considerations (including whether there is an implication for specific individuals or groups of staff);
• immigration rule considerations (including whether the successful applicant holds a visa and needs to be paid in the salary range as advertised).
It is essential that the application of market pay is justifiable by reference to objective evidence.
Written offers of appointment received by individuals from other potential employers may suggest a prima facie case for application of a market supplement in particular cases. However, generally it is more appropriate to seek a market assessment of roles to determine whether there is any mismatch between market rates of pay for particular types of role and the assignment of roles to grades and pay by job evaluation. Surveys of those in jobs are generally preferable to particular advertisements which may reflect an employer's need to recruit to a particular role at a particular point in time.
In considering cases it will be necessary to establish the appropriate labour market to be taken into account (e.g. local, Russell Group, etc.), excluding organizations from which the University is unlikely to recruit and organizations to which it is unlikely to lose staff. The HR Division can provide information on rates of pay through access to surveys of salaries within the sector (for example, UCEA and Russell Group) and pay data available from external sources such as Incomes Data Services and Hay Group Pay Net.
The phasing out of market supplements would be undertaken in two stages:
1. In the course of 2014, all staff in receipt of a market supplement will be subject to an extraordinary review by the relevant competent authority to determine whether or to what extent any part of the market supplement may be assimilated in to the base pay of the individual concerned. The outcomes of this exercise would be implemented (if necessary retrospectively) with effect from 1 January 2014.
2. For all categories other than staff in Grade 12, this one-off assessment would in fact form part of the normal process taking place in the year 2013–14 to consider the award of contribution increments. For academic staff in Grade 12, an extraordinary professorial pay review, or in the case of academic-related staff in Grade 12, a review by the Vice-Chancellor's Advisory Committee for Supplementary Payments for Non-academic Officers, would be undertaken for staff in receipt of market supplements.
3. For staff at all grades holding market supplements who are subject to assessment under this process, the bodies undertaking the assessment of the individual's performance against the relevant scheme criteria would on this occasion be empowered to award an increase in base pay to the maximum point of the relevant grade or salary band (as required), or award a move to the next band, even if that was more than would normally be available, to reflect the fact that those holding market supplements have tended not to take part in pay reviews. The market supplement would be reduced by the equivalent amount of the increase in base pay, or extinguished, if the amount awarded was equal to or greater than the market supplement. Individuals could make a further application to any review process taking place in the year 2014–15 for which they would ordinarily be eligible, and if successful any further increase in base pay would again be assimilated into any market pay remaining before the individual experienced an increase in actual pay received.
4. To the extent that the whole of the market supplement could not be assimilated into the individual's base pay on the basis of an assessment of their performance, the balance of their market supplement would remain in place and be reviewed in the course of 2015 by a final Exceptional Market Supplement Review Group constituted under the current market supplement process, on the basis that all remaining market supplements would be due or overdue for a review at that point. No further interim reviews would be held until that date. The Exceptional Market Supplement Review Group would review the market supplement and determine whether
• the market supplement would simply cease on 31 December 2015 (with an appropriate tapering arrangement), or whether
• it would be replaced wholly or partly by market pay with effect from 1 January 2016, or
• (in the case of Academic staff) a recommendation would be made to those listed in paragraph 5.3 of this Report that an ACS be awarded with effect from 1 January 2016.
5. All affected employees will be informed in writing of the above exercise and subsequently the outcome of the exercise. The names of the successful applicants will be confidential, however statistical data will be published under the relevant exercises.
|
Note 1: |
An asterisk (*) denotes a contribution point and progress through these is awarded on merit. |
|
Note 2: |
Grade T is for staff who are studying for an approved qualification or undergoing 'in-service' training. |
|
Note 3: |
University Lecturers (ULs) and University Senior Lecturers (USLs) will be appointed to Grades 9 and 10 respectively. |
|
ULs may progress through service points 1–9 of Grade 9. |
|
|
USLs may progress through service points 1–3 and contribution points 4–5 of grade 10. |
|
|
Readers will only be appointed to point 2 in Grade 11 (point 63). |
|
|
Research Associates and Senior Research Associates will be appointed to Grades 7 and 9 respectively. |
|
|
Research Assistants are appointed to Grade 5. |
|
|
The contribution points in Grades 9 and 11 do not apply to ULs and Readers. Contribution point 6 in Grade 10 does not apply to USLs. |
|
|
The professorial minimum will be Point 68 in Grade 12. |
|
|
Note 4: |
For academic staff other than Professors and USLs, contribution will be recognised through the promotions procedure and not by use of contribution points. |
|
Note 5: |
Academic-related professorial-equivalent staff will be appointed on the contribution bands on Grade 12 according to the HERA points boundaries for each level. |
|
Note 6: |
Specific arrangements will apply to progression in service-related points on some grades in compliance with the Memorandum of Understanding. |
|
Note 7: |
Incremental progression through the service related points occurs on the incremental date which will normally be on the anniversary of appointment or 1 April, 1 July or 1 October respectively for staff engaged on terms and conditions for Manual, Clerical/Secretarial and Technical Division appointments. |
The Council begs leave to report to the University as follows:
1. As part of the Registrary's paper of February 2008 on the 'Development of the UAS', the Council approved proposals to develop an enhanced service to students, with a focus on student need. The Council agreed that 'student services' be brought to the fore in the future development of the central administration and support services. Further developments, in particular the transfer to the Academic Division of student-related functions and personnel, were recommended in the Review of the Secretariat and subsequently approved by the Council. In addition, the Disability Resource Centre (DRC) transferred from the Human Resources Division to the Academic Division on 1 January 2012, with line management becoming the responsibility of the Head of Educational and Student Policy. The aim of this transfer was to facilitate the development of closer links between the DRC and academic departments, and to ensure alignment of policy development for disabled students with educational policy.
2. The purpose of this Report is to set out recommendations for the future organization and governance of the University Health Services (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 667). Recommendations have been approved by the University Health Services Management Committee, the General Board and its Education Committee, and the Senior Tutors' Committee and Bursars' Committee, and aim to ensure appropriate integration and coordination of University-wide strategies and polices for student wellbeing, whilst recognizing that student welfare remains primarily the responsibility of the Colleges.
3. The Council's approach has been one where student support is seen in the context of an overall strategic aim of ensuring that students are able to get the most out of the educational provision offered by the Collegiate University, and so to achieve to the best of their abilities. The recommendations will result in a reduction in the number of University health-related committees; improved accountability; and closer coordination of provision across the Collegiate University and with the local NHS.
4. The Council recommends:
I. That the Health Services Management Committee be dissolved and the regulations for the University Health Services be rescinded with effect from 1 June 2013, with responsibility for the day-to-day management of the Counselling Service and Dental Service resting with the respective Heads of those Services;
II. That a new University committee (to be called the Committee on Student Health and Wellbeing) be established to take responsibility for the University's contribution to student health and wellbeing, with terms of reference (as set out in Annex I) that recognize the unofficial role that the Health Services Management Committee has assumed for bringing together different student services, and acting as an interface between local GPs, and with the Colleges. To focus the work of the Committee on student health and wellbeing issues in the context of teaching and learning (interpreted broadly), reporting would be to the General Board, through its Education Committee. This is consistent with the Education Committee taking a holistic approach to the student experience. To ensure good communication between the new Committee and the Senior Tutors' Standing Committee on Welfare and Finance, the expectation is that there will be cross membership (as set out in Annex I), and minutes would be routinely exchanged.
III. That the Executive Committee of the University's Counselling Service be retained with its current membership (as set out in Annex II) to ensure appropriate oversight and financial control by College and University stakeholders, formally reporting jointly to the Colleges (jointly through the Senior Tutors' Committee and the Bursars' Committee) and to the new University Student Health and Wellbeing Committee.
IV. That the Advisory Group on Communicable Diseases be retained but as a Joint Advisory Group to advise both the University (through the new Student Health and Wellbeing Committee) and the Colleges through the Standing Committee on Welfare and Finance, to advise on policy and guidelines on communicable diseases, and act as an Incident Management Team.
V. That the HIV and Sexual Health Group be wound up, with student issues becoming the responsibility of the Senior Tutors' Committee, and staff issues becoming the responsibility of the Health and Safety Division, acting as appropriate through the Occupational Health Service.
VI. That, to ensure accountability, responsibility for general oversight of the Counselling Service be retained by the Executive Committee, but appropriate line management put in place by incorporating staff into the UAS. The Head of the Counselling Service and Student Counsellors; together with the Mental Health Advisers should become members of the Academic Division, line managed by the Head of Educational and Student Policy. The Staff Counsellors should become members of the HR Division, reporting to the Director of HR. The Head of the Counselling Service should be available to provide professional support and guidance to staff of the Staff Counselling Service as needed. Planning and budgeting for the University (Student) Counselling Service and administration should be considered as part of the Academic Division's planning round submission, taking into account the five-year financial plan agreed with the Colleges through mechanisms of the UCS Executive Committee and the Bursars' Committee. Planning for staff counselling should fall within the planning submission for the HR Division. Appointments to University offices should be made in accordance with the regulations for the Unified Administrative Service (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 690).
VII. That pending the outcome of the current review of the Dental Service, the staff of the Dental Service should become members of the HR Division, reporting to the Director of HR, and established staff appointed in accordance with the regulations for the Unified Administrative Service.
|
18 March 2013 |
L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor |
Fiona Karet |
Susan Oosthuizen |
|
N. Bampos |
F. P. Kelly |
Rachael Padman |
|
|
Charles Bell |
Robert Lethbridge |
Shirley Pearce |
|
|
Jeremy Caddick |
Mark Lewisohn |
John Shakeshaft |
|
|
I. M. Le M. Du Quesnay |
Rebecca Lingwood |
Sam Wakeford |
|
|
Nicholas Gay |
Mavis McDonald |
I. H. White |
|
|
David Good |
Rosalyn Old |
A. D. Yates |
If Recommendation II is approved, the Committee on Student Health and Wellbeing's terms of reference will be to:
(i)exercise strategic oversight of, and take responsibility for development of University provision of health and wellbeing services to students;
(ii)ensure appropriate coordination of health and wellbeing services for students across the Collegiate University to provide efficient and effective support;
(iii) provide a forum for discussions and exchange of information between the Collegiate University and local NHS providers, including GPs, to ensure appropriate integration and coordination of services;
(iv)provide practical advice to the Education Committee; Board of Examinations; Applications Committee; Board of Graduate Studies; and other committees as required, on development of policy and its implementation.
(a)Chairman appointed by the General Board;
(b)three members appointed by the General Board, one of whom should be a member of the General Board's Education Committee;
(c)up to three Senior Tutors/Graduate Tutors;
(d)a College Bursar;
(e)the Chair of the Executive Committee of the Counselling Service;
(f)two General Practitioners;
(g)a College nurse;
(h)the CUSU/GU Welfare and Rights Officer.
The Director Health and Safety; the Head of the Counselling Service; the Head of the DRC; the Head of the Occupational Health Service; and the Head of the Dental Service will be expected to attend, and an officer from Educational and Student Policy will act as Secretary.
The Executive Committee for the University Counselling Service will report to both the Committee on Student Health and Wellbeing, and to the Colleges through the Bursars' Committee and Senior Tutors' Committee. The Executive Committee will be responsible for ensuring appropriate oversight and financial control by College and University stakeholders under its existing membership, as set out below:
(a)the Vice-Chancellor (or a duly appointed deputy) as Chairman;
(b)three Bursars of Colleges appointed by the Bursars' Committee;
(c)two Senior Tutors of Colleges appointed by the Senior Tutors' Committee;
(d)one person appointed by the Council;
(e)the Head of the Counselling Service;
(f)a Senior Counsellor or Counsellor appointed from among the staff of the Counselling Service by the Committee of Management;
(g)two medical practitioners appointed by the Committee of Management;
(h)two members of the University in statu pupillari, one of whom shall be a graduate student, appointed by the Council.
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, 5850, 2000–01, p. 814), the Board, in accordance with policy and procedure outlined in paragraph 6 of the Notice on appointments to unestablished posts at the level of Professor or Reader (Reporter, 5842, 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 Professorships on future occasions when an individual had been successful in a prestigious external competition, for example, Royal Society and MRC Research Professorships. In a further Report, dated 22 January 2003 (Reporter, 5911, 2002–03, p. 519), the Board proposed the establishment of Professorships for the holders of Wellcome Trust Principal Research Fellowships.
2. The Board have now considered a proposal for the establishment of a Royal Society Research Professorship of Earth Sciences for Professor Eric Wolff FRS. The award from the Royal Society supporting the Professorship is for five years in the first instance with the opportunity to renew the award for a further five years subject to satisfactory progress. The Department of Earth Sciences and the School of the Physical Sciences have agreed to meet the costs of the Professorship from the expiry of the Royal Society award, for the remainder of Professor Wolff's tenure.
3. The General Board recommend:
I. That a Royal Society Research Professorship of Earth Sciences be established from 1 June 2013 for the tenure of Professor Eric Wolff, placed in Schedule B of the Statutes, and assigned to the Department of Earth Sciences.
|
6 February 2013 |
L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor |
Martin Daunton |
Robert Kennicutt |
|
Philip Allmendinger |
Simon Franklin |
Patrick Maxwell |
|
|
N. Bampos |
C. A. Gilligan |
Rachael Padman |
|
|
H. A. Chase |
David Good |
John Rallison |
|
|
Sarah Coakley |