Notices

Calendar

29 November, Friday. End of third quarter of Michaelmas Term.

30 November, Saturday. Congregation of the Regent House at 2 p.m. (see p. 136).

3 December, Tuesday. Discussion of the Regent House at 2 p.m. (see below).

6 December, Friday. Full Term ends.

19 December, Thursday. Michaelmas Term ends.

Discussions at 2 p.m.	Congregations
3 December	30 November, Saturday at 2 p.m.

Notice of a Discussion on Tuesday, 3 December 2013

The Vice-Chancellor invites those qualified under the regulations for Discussions (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 103) to attend a Discussion in the Senate-House, on Tuesday, 3 December 2013, at 2 p.m., for the discussion of:

1. First-stage Report of the Council, dated 15 November 2013, on the project to expand the Addenbrooke’s Clinical Research Centre at Addenbrooke’s Hospital (Reporter, 6326, 2013–14, p. 109).

The Report published in this issue (on p. 133) will be discussed at an extra Discussion on Tuesday, 14 January 2014.

Notice in response to the Eighteenth Report of the Board of Scrutiny, 2012–13

25 November 2013

This Notice is the Council’s reply to the Board of Scrutiny’s Eighteenth Report (Reporter, 6316, 2012–13, p. 753) and the Discussion of it held on 8 October 2013 (Reporter, 6321, 2013–14, p. 36). The Council welcomes the Board of Scrutiny’s constructive approach to its work and wishes to respond as follows to the recommendations made in its Report.

1. The Board again recommends that the total return objectives of the Cambridge University Endowment Fund be reviewed and that more realistic and achievable targets be set.

The Investment Board considers the risk profile carefully at each of its meetings. Asset allocation targets for subsequent periods are approved. Portfolio risk constraints such as manager concentration, liquidity, currency exposure, and capital commitments are monitored closely by the Investment Board.

The portfolio is constructed and managed appropriately for a long-term endowment and is not structured to take on unnecessary risks in pursuit of a short-term target. The Council, on the advice of its Investment Board, remains of the view that consistency and patience are important in achieving an investment objective, and is pleased to note that for the five years since management arrangements for the Cambridge University Endowment Fund (CUEF) were revised the investment performance has exceeded the long-term objective by 0.2% on an annualized basis.

2. The Board recommends that there be much greater transparency in matters relating to the management of the Cambridge University Endowment Fund.

3. The Board recommends that the Annual Report distributed to all investors in the Cambridge University Endowment Fund be published in the Reporter.

The Council intends to publish the CUEF Annual Report to the wider University community in the Financial Management Information edition of the Reporter from January 2014.

4. The Board recommends that the University engages proactively with the Universities Superannuation Scheme to ensure that the scheme remains sustainable without undue risk to the University.

The Pensions Working Group of the Finance Committee keeps the position of the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) under close review. There is active participation in the Employers Pensions Forum and its USS sub-group, which were established by Universities UK (UUK), the Universities and Colleges Employers Association, and GuildHE to discuss current and longer term pensions issues. The Council shares the Board’s wish that the Scheme remains sustainable without placing undue risk on the University and will be seeking to promote policies for adoption by USS that achieve these objectives.

5. The Board recommends that the Council ensures that there is better co-ordination between projects.

The Board refers in its Report to one example of the need for better co-ordination, that of the move of IT infrastructure from the Arup Building on the New Museums site. The need to relocate IT infrastructure to a purpose-built Data Centre on the West Cambridge site1 on a compressed time-scale was the result of a combination of factors, most of which were unavoidable. In the event, the transition has been implemented successfully and on schedule under the auspices of the IT Systems Transition Project Board. The need for better communication between Estate Management and Information Services was noted by the Project Board at its final meeting and the relevant directors agreed to put the necessary mechanisms in place. A full cost report is now in preparation and will be brought to the Planning and Resources Committee before the end of the Michaelmas Term. However, it is likely that the additional costs of temporary provision will be less than originally anticipated.

6. The Board recommends that the University ensures that its implementation of the open access scheme does not disadvantage any particular subject areas.

The Council welcomes the Board’s support for the University’s approach to open access, which is based on upholding academic freedom in the choice of research outputs. The University is keenly aware of the concerns amongst some scholarly communities about the potential for particular subject areas or career stages to be disadvantaged by publication fees, and is committed to ensuring a fair allocation of resources.

The Council has already noted Professor Evans’ concerns about open access, raised in her remarks on the Annual Report of the General Board2 and will continue to monitor the situation. As noted in the Council’s Report on the financial position and budget of the University3, the University’s research strategy and the investment in the Research Strategy Office enables the University to respond to large, collaborative, strategic bids for research funding.

7. The Board recommends that the Council pays particular attention to the direction, budget, and location of Cambridge in America and any other regional development bodies that may be established, and ensures that reporting lines are clear.

The budget for Cambridge in America is agreed annually through the University’s planning round, including the contribution from the Chest. The University is represented at senior levels, including the Vice-Chancellor, on the Board of Cambridge in America (CAm), and is similarly involved in the current search for the organization’s new Executive Director. There is joint agreement between the University, the Board, and the Colleges that the new Executive Director and the staff in CAm will work closely with the Executive Director of Development and Alumni Relations and her staff. The new arrangements will include the setting of a strategy and priorities for CAm to benefit the wider interests of Collegiate Cambridge. There are no plans to establish other regional development bodies at present but should that be the case proposals would include clarity about legal structures and reporting lines.

8. The Board recommends that the Council gives further consideration to availability of affordable accommodation for graduate students.

The provision of additional graduate accommodation is a key element of the agreed plans for North West Cambridge. Some 325 places are included in the plans for Phase 1. Charges for that accommodation will be made on the basis of the financial plan for North West Cambridge that the Regent House has approved4. Discussions are continuing with a consortium of Colleges interested in the rental of some or all of this accommodation and with a second consortium for the purchase of some homes for staff and students with partners. In addition the Council understands that some Colleges are taking steps to expand their graduate accommodation on other sites.

9. The Board recommends that the University publishes details of how the cost of an undergraduate education is calculated.

This information is available at http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/cam-only/offices/planning/costUG/.

10. The Board recommends that the Council monitors the reorganization of IT services to ensure that the needs of all users are met, and keeps other central IT providers under review.

A Transition Advisory Group has been constituted under the chairmanship of Professor Ian Leslie to provide advice and support during the period of transition. In addition, the Information Strategy and Services Syndicate (ISSS) and its sub-committees will continue to function until the new Information Services Committee is established during the course of 2014.

11. The Board recommends that the Council ensures that the Data Centre is sufficient for the University’s needs and that sufficient funds are set aside for the commissioning of the ‘fallow hall’.

On current projections there will be sufficient spare capacity within the Data Centre to accommodate the short- to medium-term needs of Departments. The Data Centre Steering Committee will continue to monitor demand and will seek funding for the fourth hall fit-out when appropriate.

12. The Board recommends that a University IT Security Strategy be developed and implemented, and that guidance be provided on the appropriateness of the use of external storage providers.

The Council agrees and notes that the ISSS is in the process of developing an IT Security Strategy that will include policy regarding the use of external storage providers.

13. The Board recommends that the Council takes steps to ensure that the Key Risk Register is managed effectively, and also that consideration is given to how possible inter-dependencies between risks can be taken into account.

The Council and the Audit Committee formally review the Strategic Key Risk Register annually. Risk Management is a standing item on the Audit Committee’s agenda. The Risk Steering Committee is a Committee of the Council and is chaired by the Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor. The Chair of the Audit Committee is a member of the Risk Steering Committee.

The ‘owners’ of the seventeen strategic risks on the Key Risk Register are asked, twice a year, to review and update the risks for which they are responsible. The updated Key Risk Register is then scrutinized by the Risk Steering Committee. The Committee routinely considers whether there are new strategic risks which ought to be added to the Key Risk Register in response to changes within the University and in the wider national and international context. The Committee considers the risks as a gathered portfolio and not just as stand-alone risks. In 2011, the Risk Steering Committee agreed that each individual risk assessment should include a cross-reference to other related risks. This clearly sets out the interrelationship and interdependency of many of the risks and is an explicit recognition that improvement or detriment in one risk area can affect others.

The Key Risk Register is available at: http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/secretariat/risk/register/.

25 November 2013	L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor	Richard Jones	Susan Oosthuizen
	Jeremy Caddick	Fiona Karet	Flick Osborn
	Stephen J. Cowley	F. P. Kelly	Rachael Padman
	Athene Donald	Mark Lewisohn	John Shakeshaft
	I. M. Le M. Du Quesnay	Rebecca Lingwood	Jean Thomas
	Nicholas Gay	Mavis Mcdonald	I. H. White
	David Good	Rosalyn Old	A. D. Yates
	Andy Hopper

Report of the Council on changes to Ordinances arising from the Technical Review of the Statutes: Notice in response to remarks made in Discussion

The Council has received the remarks made at the Discussion on 5 November 2013 (Reporter, 6325, 2013–14, p. 98) concerning the above Report (Reporter, 6322, 2013–14, p. 42).

The Council has noted the comments made by Professor Evans concerning the position at Oxford but does not regard that position as strictly comparable with that of Cambridge.

Turning to Dr Cowley’s second point, concerning the changes to Ordinances that require a Report, the Council observes that there has been no change in the last seven years to the stated policy nor to the process by which items for submission to the Regent House are approved for publication. All such items continue to require the approval of the Council or the Council’s Business Committee (in addition to the approval of other relevant committees) and therefore such decisions rest on the judgement of the members, who of course change over time.

Dr Cowley and Professor Evans have both commented on the proposal to include the University’s Mission Statement in the preamble to the New Statutes. As noted in the Report, the Mission Statement was approved by the University in 2001; it did not then become part of the Statutes. The approval of the proposal before the Regent House would not change the position, as the preamble is not formally part of the Statutes, and therefore the University’s powers would not be affected by its acceptance. However, given the unease expressed about the inclusion of the Mission Statement in the preamble, the Council has agreed to withdraw this recommendation.

The Council is therefore submitting a Grace for the approval of this Report, subject to the deletion of recommendation II in paragraph 4 (Grace 1, p. 136).

25 November 2013	L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor	Fiona Karet	Shirley Pearce
	Jeremy Caddick	Rebecca Lingwood	John Shakeshaft
	Athene Donald	Mavis McDonald	Jean Thomas
	Nicholas Gay	Susan Oosthuizen	I. H. White
	David Good	Flick Osborn	A. D. Yates
	Andy Hopper	Rachael Padman