< Previous page ^ Table of Contents Next page >

Report of the Council on the structure of academic offices in the University, promotions procedures, and related matters

The COUNCIL beg leave to report to the University as follows:

1. It is by now widely known that over the last four years Dr G.R. Evans has been making representations about the University's procedures for promotions to academic offices. Dr Evans has proposed amendments of the general procedures; she has also argued that her own case has not been fairly considered, both because of the nature of the procedures and as a result of their application in her case.

2. In January 1998 the Council, conscious of their responsibilities as a good employer on behalf of the Regent House and mindful also of both the financial cost and the opportunity cost involved in replying to Dr Evans's representations, authorized the Registrary to represent them in mediation with Dr Evans. Sir Brian Neill, a former Lord Justice of Appeal, agreed to act as mediator, and this was acceptable both to Dr Evans and to the Council. The Council subsequently considered a memorandum prepared by Sir Brian ('Memorandum of terms of proposed settlement') at three of their ordinary meetings and at one special meeting in the Lent Term 1998. The memorandum is reproduced below in Annex 1 to this Report.

3. In their discussions the Council were mindful that the 1998 promotions round was being held under new procedures and that the General Board had indicated in their Notice of 3 December 1997 (Reporter, p. 246) their intention to report to the University proposing the establishment of an office of Senior Lecturer within the structure of academic offices. The Council were also mindful that the memorandum made provision for consideration of the cases of other unspecified individuals who might claim to be aggrieved as a result of previous unsuccessful applications for promotion. In the absence of any detailed knowledge of the potential number of such complaints and because of the developments that had already taken place, or were planned, in the promotions procedures and in the structure of academic offices, the Council concluded, for these and other reasons, that they were not able to accept the detailed terms of the settlement as proposed by Sir Brian.

4. At their meeting on 16 March 1998 the Council authorized the Registrary to continue discussions with Dr Evans during the Easter Vacation on the basis of separate proposals for the establishment of (a) an ad hoc Syndicate to consider the structure of academic offices in the University and (b) an independent panel to review Dr Evans's application for promotion.

5. In relation to the proposed independent panel the Council accept that under Nolan-type principles it is necessary for a procedure not only to be fair but also to be seen to be fair by an independent observer. It is in respect of this latter consideration, and in view of the special circumstances of Dr Evans's case, that the Council accept that it would be appropriate for her application for promotion to be reviewed by an independent panel operating outside the procedures approved by Grace, but within the contemporary Cambridge context.

6. The Council understand that the General Board intend to report during the Easter Term 1998 not only on the proposed establishment of an office of Senior Lecturer but also on several related issues concerning the structure of academic offices in the University. While there has been extensive consultation by the Board, the University will not previously have had an opportunity to consider as a package all the changes which will be proposed. The Council therefore believe that they should recommend the establishment of a Syndicate for this purpose, which might also consider any further desirable procedural changes in the academic promotions procedures in the light of experience of the 1998 round. They note that the establishment of such a Syndicate will not necessarily lead to any delay in the implementation of the proposals to be put forward by the General Board; the latter are likely to involve amendments of Statute, which could in any case not take effect until October 1999 at the earliest.

7. While these matters were under consideration by the Council, the Registrary received, for submission to the Regent House under the provisions of Statute A, VIII, 7, a Grace initiated by seventy-six members of the Regent House proposing the establishment of a Syndicate to consider the structure of academic offices and promotions procedures in the University; this Grace is reproduced below in Annex 2 to this Report, together with the names of those initiating it. The Council have considered the terms of this Grace; they note that the proposal for a Syndicate is very similar to their own proposal, as outlined in paragraph 6 above and as set out in detail in Recommendation V below. They have therefore agreed not to authorize the Grace for submission to the Regent House in the form in which it has been proposed; they invite the Regent House to approve this decision (see Recommendation VII below) on the ground that the Grace is subsumed into the Council's own proposal.

8. The Registrary has also received a request, signed by nineteen members of the Regent House, for a Discussion of these matters as a topic of concern to the University. Details of the request, together with the names of those supporting it, are set out in Annex 3 to this Report. The Council have agreed to include this topic among the matters for consideration at the Discussion to be held on 12 May.

 9. Accordingly, the Council recommend:

 I. That a panel be established to consider Dr Evans's application for promotion in the light of the contemporary Cambridge context, and to make a recommendation accordingly to the General Board before the end of the Easter Term 1998.

 II. That the panel comprise (a) an external chairman to be appointed by the Council with the agreement of Dr Evans, and (b) four other members, in a range of subjects, qualified by experience and personal attainment, such four members to be appointed by the Council and to include at least two chosen from a list of at least four names proposed by Dr Evans and also to include at least one external member proposed by the Council.

 III. That, in addition to the specific provisions as to procedure contained in Recommendation IV below, the Chairman of the panel be invited to attend as an observer the final meeting of the General Board's Committee on personal Professorships and Readerships in the 1998 promotions round.

 IV. That Dr Evans be permitted to withdraw her current application and be invited to resubmit it to the panel in accordance with the instructions contained in the General Board's booklet 'Procedure for the consideration of the establishment of personal Professorships and Readerships with effect from 1 October 1998' (the 'Yellow Book'); that the panel evaluate her application against the criteria for promotion required to be used by the General Board's Committee on personal Professorships and Readerships and in the light of reports from referees, two such referees to be nominated by Dr Evans and not more than three to be nominated by the panel; that a positive recommendation for promotion to either a Professorship or a Readership should require Dr Evans's application to be evaluated as meeting at least the relevant minimum level of attainment of successful candidates in either the 1997 or the 1998 promotions round, whichever is the lower; that the panel should have access to the papers considered by the General Board's Committee in respect of successful candidates in the 1997 and 1998 promotions rounds and borderline unsuccessful candidates in the same rounds, and at their own discretion should choose individual comparators from the successful candidates for the purpose of making their evaluation.

 V. That a Syndicate be established to consider, in the light of the needs of the University for the recruitment and retention of academic staff and of the relevant Report of the General Board to be published in the Easter Term 1998, the structure of academic offices in the University and their scales of stipends, and procedures for promotion; that the Syndicate have power to seek evidence from members of the Regent House and/or from expert witnesses of its own choosing as the Syndicate shall determine; and that the Syndicate be required to report to the University in the first instance not later than the end of the Michaelmas Term 1998.

 VI. That the membership of the Syndicate be as follows, individual members to be appointed by Grace:

(a) a Chairman not being a member of the Regent House;
(b) two other persons not being members of the Regent House;
(c) not less than four nor more than eight other persons.

 VII. That approval be given to the Council's decision to submit a Grace to the Regent House for the approval of Recommendations V and VI above, in place of the Grace set out in Annex 2 to this Report.

27 April 1998

ALEC N. BROERS, Vice-Chancellor BRIAN F. G. JOHNSON ONORA O'NEILL
MARTIN BOBROW JOHN A. LEAKE SANDRA RABAN
TERENCE ENGLISH ANNE LONSDALE M. SCHOFIELD
A. L. R. FINDLAY C. T. MORLEY DAVID M. THOMPSON
DAVID HARRISON
ANNEX 1

MEMORANDUM PREPARED BY SIR BRIAN NEILL

Terms of proposed settlement

 1. Four main areas of difficulty were identified:

(a) Dr Evans's concerns about her personal position and prospects in the University.
(b) Dr Evans's concerns about the position and prospects of other academics both in the University and elsewhere.
(c) The University's concerns about the current legal proceedings.
(d) The University's concerns about the tactics which Dr Evans employs in pursuit of (a) and (b).

 2. It was agreed that the first necessity was to try to restore some measure of trust.

 3. In relation to Dr Evans's general concerns under (b) it was provisionally agreed that the following steps should be taken:

 4. It was agreed that one of the first tasks to be undertaken by the Syndicate would be to consider how to deal with past cases (other than the case of Dr Evans herself) where there was a real risk that a member of the academic staff had failed to be promoted by reason of (a) some serious defect in the procedure then in existence relating to promotions, or (b) some other serious unfairness in the treatment of the applicant. It was further agreed that the number of these cases was likely to be small and that it would be for the Syndicate to examine whether it was possible to have a satisfactory system for dealing with them. Furthermore, it was thought probable that the Syndicate would wish to adopt some screening process so that only cases which appeared to give real cause for concern came before the Syndicate. If the Syndicate came to the conclusion in any individual case that a failure to obtain promotion had been due to a serious defect in procedure or to some other serious unfairness it would recommend such remedy as it thought appropriate in the circumstances.

 5. In relation to the other areas of concern it was provisionally agreed that a settlement could be reached on the following lines:

 6. It was further agreed that if any difficulties arose between the University and Dr Evans in the future Dr Evans would discuss them first with the Registrary and would in the first instance address any communications about them to the Registrary personally. This arrangement should be reviewed at the start of the next academic year.

ANNEX 2

The following Grace has been initiated, under the provisions of Statute A, VIII, 7, for submission to the Regent House:

 I. That a Syndicate be appointed to consider the structure of academic offices in the University and the procedures to be employed for promotion within that structure, to invite evidence from members of the Regent House as part of their deliberations, and to report to the University not later than the end of the Lent Term 1999 in the first instance.

 II. That, if Recommendation I is approved, the Council submit a Grace for the terms of reference and membership of the Syndicate.

 This Grace is initiated by the following members of the Regent House:

T. J. L. ALEXANDER B. D. COX J. M. E. HYLAND C. J. C. PHILLIPS
J. E. J. ALTHAM T. W. DAVIES C. V. JEANS DAVID W. PHILLIPSON
R. E. ANSORGE ROGER DAWE G. E. JONES JONATHAN PINES
MARIE AXTON J. L. DAWSON MARA KALNINS R. M. RIDLEY
RICHARD AXTON N. R. M. DE LANGE ABRAHAM KARPAS PETER ROBINSON
R. C. BALL N. DODGSON C. H. KELSEY J. G. ROBSON
DOUGLAS C. BARKER D. N. DUMVILLE GEOFFREY KHAN D. S. SECHER
RICHARD S. K. BARNES J. A. S. DUSINBERRE FRANK H. KING L. B. SHAW-MILLER
N. S. BASKEY A. W. F. EDWARDS JONATHAN KÖHLER JOHN G. SNAITH
W. BLAKEMORE J. A. EMERTON CHRISTEL LANE GISELA STRIKER
R. E. BORCHERDS G. R. EVANS DAVID S. LANE E. V. J. TANNER
GEORGINA BORN P. R. GLAZEBROOK JOHN LENNARD POLLY TAYLOR
DAVID E. BOWYER ROGER GRIFFIN JEFFERY D. LEWINS CHARLES B. THOMAS
DONALD BROOM W. G. GRIFFIN S. LOWE COLM T. WHELAN
I. E. BUCHAN R. HANKA JOHN MARENBON L. R. WICKHAM
R. H. S. CARPENTER R. D. HARDING RONALD L. MARTIN PAUL WINGFIELD
JOHN P. CARR JOE HERBERT JOHN MELROSE M. D. WOOD
J. P. CASEY A. E. HILL W. MILLS R. I. WOODS
ANTHONY CLOSE ROBIN HOLLOWAY T. J. PEDLEY PAUL WOUDHUYSEN
ANNEX 3

The Registrary has received a request for the discussion of the following topic of concern to the University:

 The failure of the Council to agree on behalf of the Regent House the settlement negotiated with Dr G.R. Evans with the assistance of the Rt Hon. Sir Brian Neill, a former Lord Justice of Appeal, acting as mediator, which she has been prepared to sign since February 1998.

 This request is supported by the following members of the Regent House:

R. C. BALL W. G. GRIFFIN DAVID S. LANE L. B. SHAW-MILLER
N. S. BASKEY R. D. HARDING JOHN LENNARD L. R. WICKHAM
SIMON CONWAY MORRIS C. V. JEANS JEFFERY D. LEWINS PAUL WINGFIELD
J. A. S. DUSINBERRE MARA KALNINS R. M. RIDLEY P. WOUDHUYSEN
G. R. EVANS ABRAHAM KARPAS D. S. SECHER

 The Council have agreed that this topic is to be included among the matters for consideration at the Discussion to be held on Tuesday, 12 May, at 2 p.m.

STATEMENT BY DR G.R. EVANS

1. Many members of the Regent House will now be aware that the Council entered into mediation with me on their behalf in February 1997, Sir Brian Neill, a former Lord Justice of Appeal, acting as mediator. These were the settlement talks for which the record of correspondence shows that I have been asking since before I put in the first application for leave for judicial review. I underline this point, because I am aware that it has been put about the University as a reason for avoiding talks that there was no point in talking to me because I was making unreasonable demands. The settlement proposed could have been arrived at at any time. It took a mere few hours of talks to get there. The University could have been saved months of bad publicity and all the exposure of the continuing litigation if this had been done a year ago.

2. A key feature of Sir Brian Neill's proposals was the return to a pattern of co-operative endeavour to complete the promotions reforms. I have never wished to move away from that method of working, which obtained until late 1996. I should dearly like to go back to it now. I am sure the Syndicate will wish to receive submissions in that spirit.

3. I was, and remain, ready to apologize for any hurt I may inadvertently have caused to any individual in the course of the struggle, for, as Sir Brian Neill pointed out in our talks, even where the battle is of David and Goliath, and David has only a sling and stones, the stones can hurt.

4. The most significant obstacle to the Council's acceptance of the settlement terms appears to be their unwillingness to allow the Syndicate to consider the cases of individuals who may come forward to argue that they have suffered some unusual degree of injustice under the promotions procedures of the past (see Sir Brian Neill's memorandum, paragraph 4). There has been talk of 'opening the floodgates'. But, as I have pointed out more than once, either it will be found that such a class of persons exists, in which case the University has a duty as a good employer to make them some reparation; or it will be found that it does not. I hope members of the Regent House will insist in the forthcoming Discussion that among the terms of reference of that Syndicate will be one which allows for the 'bad old cases' to be looked at, and will press this point through an amendment of the Grace if necessary.

5. I have fought this battle throughout for the general good, and I shall continue to do so as long as it has to remain a battle. I hope the setting up of the Syndicate that I have called for in speech after speech, and to which the President of Wolfson College recently lent his voice, and for which members of the Regent House have now by their many signatures added their own call, may provide us with a way forward towards better employment practices in the University, a proper pattern of career-expectation and reward for its academic staff, and the completion of the procedural reforms for which I and many others have been calling with increasing urgency since the Discussion that we called in November 1994.

6. I am grateful for the Council's recognition in their Report that I cannot now be seen to have fair consideration for promotion within this University through its normal channels. They have undertaken to explore the possibility of setting up an independent panel. I need to put on record some concerns about the true 'independence' of what is proposed.

7. The Regent House should know that at the outset of the talks it was suggested by some members of the Council that I should be removed from my University office and required to enter into a binding undertaking which would have amounted to a gagging clause. As early as 7 August last year the University's solicitor was seeking to prevent my speaking to other University officers except in 'routine' business. The historical record should not omit to mention that, in the year when an Act of Parliament for the protection of whistleblowers is about to be added to the statutory freedom of speech which academic staff enjoy under the Education Reform Act 1988 s.202.

27 April 1998 G.R. EVANS


< Previous page ^ Table of Contents Next page >

Cambridge University Reporter, 30 April 1998
Copyright © 1998 The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.