No 6404
Wednesday 18 November 2015
Vol cxlvi No 9
pp. 158–168
24 November, Tuesday. Discussion at 2 p.m. in the Senate-House (see below).
28 November, Saturday. Congregation of the Regent House at 2 p.m.
29 November, Sunday. End of third quarter of Michaelmas Term.
4 December, Friday. Full Term ends.
|
Discussions (at 2 p.m.) |
Congregations |
|
24 November |
28 November, Saturday at 2 p.m. |
|
8 December |
The Vice-Chancellor invites those qualified under the regulations for Discussions (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 107) to attend a Discussion in the Senate-House on Tuesday, 24 November 2015, at 2 p.m. for the discussion of:
1. Report of the General Board, dated 4 November 2015, on the establishment of certain Professorships (Reporter, 6403, 2015–16, p. 124).
2. Report of the General Board, dated 4 November 2015, on the introduction of a Joint Tripos in History and Politics, and a Joint Tripos in History and Modern Languages (Reporter, 6403, 2015–16, p. 126).
The Vice-Chancellor announces that he has received the following nominations, in accordance with Statute A VII 3, for election to the Board of Scrutiny in the classes shown below, and that it has been certified to him that the candidates have consented to be so nominated:
Dr Stephen Roger Kell, CHR, nominated by Professor N. J. Gay, CHR, and Professor J. A. Crowcroft, W.
Dr Tariq Masood, nominated by Dr P. R. H. Desnerck and Dr A. Komashie.
Dr Carmel Mary Mceniery, CHU, nominated by Professor I. B. Wilkinson, TH, and Dr A. P. Davenport, CTH.
Dr David Stanley Secher, CAI, nominated by Lord Grabiner, Master of Clare College, and Mr P. C. Warren, CL.
It is necessary to hold an election to select one from among the two candidates in class (c)(i). The person elected will serve with immediate effect until 1 October 2017. The election will be conducted by ballot under the Single Transferable Vote regulations and in accordance with the timetable published in the Notice of 7 October 2015 (Reporter, 6398, 2015–16, p. 25). Voters will receive an email alert shortly after 10 a.m. on Monday, 23 November 2015 to confirm that voting has opened; those voting on paper should receive their ballot papers by the same date.
No other candidates having been nominated in class (c)(ii), the Vice-Chancellor declares that Dr McEniery and Dr Secher are elected to the Board of Scrutiny for four years from 1 October 2015.
The Vice-Chancellor announces that he has received the following nomination for election to the Nominating Committee for External Members of the Council in class (c) (members elected by the Regent House from among those who at the time of election are current members of Council in classes (a), (b), and (c)), and that it has been certified to him that the candidate has consented to be so nominated:
Dr Rachael Padman, N, nominated by Dr S. Watts, N, and Dr J. M. Riley, G.
No other candidates having been nominated, the Vice-Chancellor declares that Dr Padman is elected to the Nominating Committee for four years from 1 October 2015. As no candidates have been nominated for the remaining vacancies, one in class (c) and one in class (d), a further election shall be announced.
The Court of Discipline met on 28 September 2015 to consider a charge brought by the University Advocate on a complaint by the Junior Proctor against an undergraduate member of the University. The Court consisted of: Dr D. M. Fox, JN (Chair); Ms N. Blanning, JN; Dr J. M. Evans, CAI; Mr A. D. Lemons, HH; and Dr K. C. Plaisted-Grant, JN. Ms C. Benton acted as Clerk to the Court. On the application of the Defendant, the Court consisted of senior members only and sat in camera.
The Defendant was charged with an offence contrary to Regulation 6 of the General Regulations for Discipline, namely that they had used unfair means in a University examination by making use of their phone, during a toilet break, to log on to certain CamTools pages containing notes relevant to the examination. The Defendant pleaded guilty. The University Advocate outlined the circumstances of the case and the Defendant’s representative presented the Defendant’s case. Witnesses were called and cross-examined.
The Court accepted the guilty plea and made clear to the Defendant the serious nature of the offence. In determining its sentence, it considered the evidence presented in mitigation concerning the Defendant’s character, their admission of guilt and subsequent remorse, and their personal circumstances. It ordered that the Defendant’s mark for the relevant examination paper be reduced to zero, noting that a more severe penalty was not warranted in this case because of the lack of clear evidence of premeditation.