Previous page

Table of Contents

Next page

Fly-sheets reprinted

The following fly-sheets etc., are reprinted in accordance with the Council's Notice on Discussions and Fly-sheets (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 119).

REPORT OF THE GENERAL BOARD ON THE RECRUITMENT, REWARD, AND RETENTION OF ACADEMIC AND ACADEMIC-RELATED OFFICERS

Votes are to be taken by ballot on Graces 7-10 of 25 November 1998 and on the amendments of these Graces that have been proposed. These Graces are for the approval of the recommendations contained in the Report, dated 3 June 1998, of the General Board on the recruitment, reward, and retention of academic and academic-related officers.

The General Board's Report was published on 17 June (Reporter, 1997-98, p. 804). It was discussed on 7 July (ibid., p. 926) and on 21 October the Council published a Notice containing the General Board's response to points made in the Discussion (Reporter, 1998-99, p. 54). Graces for the approval of the recommendations of the Report were submitted to the Regent House on 25 November (ibid., p. 188). A number of requests for voting and proposals for amendment of the Graces have since been received; details of these were given in a Notice published in the Reporter on 13 January (ibid., p. 254).

Members of the Regent House are now invited to vote on the following issues:

Grace 7

This Grace is for the approval of Recommendation I of the General Board's Report, which is concerned with recruitment incentive payments to University officers in non-professorial grades.

This recommendation reads:

That the maximum level of payment that may be made under the present policy for awarding recruitment incentive payments to University officers in non-professorial grades be increased to £12,548, and that the payment be indexed so as to remain at 42 per cent of the maximum of the Cambridge University Lecturer scale.

A ballot has been requested on this Grace.

Grace 8

This Grace is for the approval of Recommendations II and III of the General Board's Report, which are concerned with the revision of the scheme of supplementary payments for Professors and of the corresponding arrangements for the holders of academic-related offices in professorial grades.

Recommendation II reads:

That the current scheme of supplementary payments for Professors be discontinued and replaced by the scheme described in paragraphs 29-40 of this Report.

Recommendation III reads:

That the holders of academic-related offices in professorial grades cease to be eligible for consideration for supplementary payments and that a systematic periodic review be instituted of the stipends of the holders of such offices, as described in paragraphs 41-44 of this Report.

A ballot has been requested on this Grace, and the following amendment has been proposed:

It is proposed that Recommendation II be amended by adding the following proviso:

… provided that

Grace 9

This Grace is for the approval of Recommendations IV and V of the General Board's Report, which are concerned with the introduction of the office of University Senior Lecturer and arrangements for promotion to that office, together with consequential changes in the stipend structure of academic-related offices.

Recommendation IV reads:

That the office of Senior Lecturer be introduced in the Cambridge structure of academic offices, and that promotional criteria, procedure, and other arrangements for appointments to the office be approved as described in paragraphs 47-60 of this Report, subject to a further Report proposing the necessary amendments of Statutes and Ordinances.

Recommendation V reads:

That, subject to the approval of Recommendation IV, consequential changes in the stipend structure of academic-related offices, as described in paragraph 63 of this Report, be approved from the date on which the statutory changes take effect.

The following amendments of this Grace have been proposed:

Amendment A

That Recommendation IV be amended so as to read:

(a) That the office of Senior Lecturer be introduced in the Cambridge structure of academic offices only after further discussion about (i) the relationship between the career path which leads to this office and that which leads to a Readership or a Professorship, and (ii) the reasonable career expectations of University officers.

(b) That promotional criteria, procedure, and other arrangements for appointments to Senior Lectureships be reconsidered alongside the procedures (now under revision) for appointments to Readerships and Professorships, so that the same standards of fairness may be required for all promotions.

Amendment B

That Recommendation IV be amended by adding the following provisions:

(a) That the General Board consider holding seminars open to all members of the Regent House without delay so that members of the Regent House may have direct input into the discussion of the matters referred to in Amendment A above.

(b) That the General Board institute a file in which members of the Regent House may place contributions to the discussion, such contributions to be made available for inspection by members of the Regent House (without attribution to their authors) both in hard copy in the Old Schools and on the World Wide Web or by other electronic means.

(c) That the General Board publish a further Report to the Regent House on revised criteria, procedure, and other arrangements for appointments to Senior Lectureships, Readerships, and Professorships before proceeding with their proposals.

Amendment C

That Recommendation IV be amended so as to read:

That approval be given in principle for the introduction of the title of Senior Lecturer within the Cambridge system, that the criteria for conferring that title be those outlined in paragraphs 49-51 of the General Board's Report, and that the salary structure be that outlined in paragraph 62; but that conferment of the title be not considered as promotion to a separate office requiring a new contract, and that the mechanisms by which the title is conferred be the subject of a further Report to the Regent House.

Amendment D

That the proposed arrangements for appointments to Senior Lectureships, as specified in Recommendation IV, be amended as follows:

Paragraph 55 of the Report currently provides that College teaching undertaken by University officers should not be taken into account as part of the evidence for promotion to Senior Lectureships. It is proposed that College teaching (including direction of studies) should be taken into account for this purpose.

Amendment E

That the proposed arrangements for appointments to Senior Lectureships, as specified in Recommendation IV, be amended as follows:

Paragraph 49 of the Report lists the criteria on which candidates for Senior Lectureships are to be assessed. Criterion (a) reads:

Sustained excellence in teaching (in contributions to the development of courses, and in at least one of lecturing, conducting seminars, and supervision of postgraduate students).

It is proposed that that this criterion be amended so as to read:

Sustained excellence in teaching (in contributions to the development of courses, and in at least one of lecturing, conducting seminars, and supervision and direction of studies of students).

Grace 10

This Grace is for the approval of Recommendation VI of the General Board's Report, which is concerned with arrangements for discretionary payments to University officers in non-professorial grades.

This recommendation reads:

That the current discretionary payments scheme for University officers in non-professorial grades be replaced by new arrangements as described in paragraph 65 of this Report, the details of those changes, including transitional arrangements, to be brought forward for approval by the Regent House in due course.

A ballot has been requested on this Grace.

The following members of the Regent House have requested ballots on Graces 7 and 10, and have proposed Amendment C of Grace 9:

The following members of the Regent House have proposed the amendment of Grace 8:

The following members of the Regent House have proposed Amendments A and B of Grace 9:

The following members of the Regent House have proposed Amendments D and E of Grace 9:

Recruitment, reward, and retention of academic and academic-related officers Graces 7-10 of 25 November 1998

Graces 7-10 of 25 November 1998 (Reporter, 1998-99, p. 188) propose acceptance of Recommendations I-VI of the General Board's Report on the recruitment, reward, and retention of academic and academic-related officers, dated 3 June 1998 (Reporter, 1997-98, p. 804). These proposals, made after extensive consultation, are intended to improve the University's ability to attract and reward outstandingly able and dedicated academic and academic-related staff. Given the persistent decline in relative salary levels in higher education, and the greater flexibility of other universities' salary structures, some such changes are clearly and urgently needed if Cambridge is to continue to recruit and retain staff of its present high calibre. Those making University appointments are well aware how hard it is fast becoming to do this at all levels, in most subjects, and in all parts of the University.

Recent improvements in the criteria and funding of the University's procedures for personal promotion to Readerships and Professorships, although important, offer only a partial solution to these problems for academic staff. Below the professorial level, the existing discretionary payments scheme is a wholly inadequate way of rewarding outstanding contributions made chiefly in teaching, administration, and other non-research aspects of the University's work; while the inflexibility of our professorial salaries makes it increasingly hard to interest the best external candidates even from within the UK, or to make sure of retaining those already here who could command far higher salaries elsewhere. There is a limit, which we are now reaching, to how much less the most able people in any subject are willing to be paid for the privilege of working in Cambridge.

Hence the General Board's proposals, the most significant of which are to introduce a Senior Lecturer grade, and to revise the scheme of supplementary payments to Professors, with consequential changes for those in corresponding academic-related posts. In a package as inevitably complex as this, there is of course endless scope for arguing over details, as the many amendments to the General Board's proposals show. We think however that this is not the right way to settle fine points of important and urgent reforms, already much revised as a result of the very extensive consultations carried out by the General Board. The Regent House cannot realistically re-do all the detailed work of the Board, which is itself composed of representatives of all Schools in the University, and should not try to do so. The role of the Regent House is to decide key issues of policy put to it by the central bodies. On this issue, because we think the General Board's policy is right, we urge all members of the Regent House to vote for all the Graces 7-10 of 25 November 1998.

Recruitment, reward, and retention of academic and academic-related officers Grace 8 of 25 November 1998 Supplementary payments for Professors etc

The issues here are clear. Oxford requires special salary arrangements for selected Professors to be made by a committee. There is no reason why we should allow this discretion to the Vice-Chancellor, who is a single individual, on mere 'advice', however much we may value his judgement. It is important that an eye is kept by the community on the numbers of such special cases and the reasons why they are taken to be special.

In times when we are being told that there is not enough money to raise salaries adequately across the board or to promote all who deserve it, it seems inappropriate for some to receive large additions to their salaries without the Regent House's knowledge. For every Professor paid an extra £10,000, someone else could have a Chair or two could have Readerships.

To argue that there are individuals so desirable to Cambridge that they may name their price is gravely to undervalue those who are already here.

We urge you to vote in favour of the publication of the names of such individuals and the salary level at which they are placed so that the Regent House may be satisfied that they are genuinely so exceptional as to deserve special treatment.

Recruitment, reward, and retention of academic and academic-related officers Grace 8 of 25 November 1998 Supplementary payments for Professors and the Savings Exercise

This is a vote not just about the proposals but about the cuts which have been presented as the price for them. These cuts are being imposed unnecessarily and arbitrarily. The words are not ours but those of the Price Waterhouse Professor of Financial Accounting in the Discussion on 19 January. Since it has not been published at the time of writing, we quote from Professor Whittington's text: 'With regard to the necessity of the cuts, the University's recently published Abstract of Accounts (Reporter, Special No 9, p. 7) shows a surplus for the year 1997-98 of £10.7 million. This is whittled down to a 'bottom line' of only £0.9 million, but this is after transfers to reserves which, for the most part, are what, in company accounts, would be regarded as retained profits rather than expenses. For example, the £7.5 million increase in Departmental reserves (Abstract of Accounts, p. 28) cannot sensibly be regarded as a cost to the University. Thus the University's most recently published operating statements show a healthy surplus. Moreover, the balance sheet (Abstract of Accounts, p. 8) shows healthy reserves (in excess of £100 million). There is therefore no urgent need for expenditure cuts which might damage the effective operation of Faculties.' He goes on to criticise the way the savings targets have been allocated on the basis of an arbitrary part of total expenditure (viz. salaries), compounded by what he roundly calls 'a misuse of the Disaggregation Analysis'. The result is that what the Council described as a 'modest savings exercise [which] represents only approximately 1 per cent of annual expenditure [and] which can be achieved without damage to the University' has been turned into a demand for cuts of 3 per cent or more in some Schools.

The savings exercise was largely meant to fund two schemes - the introduction of Senior Lectureships and the creation of five Grades of Professorships. Both are controversial, but at least the first one was preceded by wide and detailed consultation and has won a measure of support. The second was not - no one was asked about the important question of non-disclosure of awards, their number, the magnitude of the financial differentials, the effect on morale, or anything else. The contrast between the care taken to ensure that appointments to Senior Lectureships and Readerships should be 'seen to be open and fair', and the vagueness and secrecy surrounding appointments (with vastly bigger salary implications) to the new Grades of Professor, could hardly be starker. It is beyond belief that the central bodies should be introducing for Professors the same sort of mechanism that made the system of discretionary awards for Lecturers (which they now rightly propose to abolish) so demoralising and unpopular.

A joint notice of the Council and the General Board has defended their proposals by emphasising long-term strategy and playing down the relevance of the RAE (Reporter, p. 178, §4). The General Board, on the other hand, had previously made it brutally clear that they are concerned with buying in talent for the next RAE (Reporter, p. 54, §§1 and 3). They want to repeat the 'panic professorships' tactic whose dubious value was exposed in the last Report of the Board of Scrutiny (Reporter, 1997-98, pp. 821-2). The difference is that this time it is to be paid for by cuts which have been condemned as unnecessary and arbitrary by the University's own leading expert on financial accounting. The upshot is that Departments whose staff by their collective talents and energy earned grades 5 or 5* in the last RAE (and the resulting financial reward for the University) are now to be punished in order to fund a doubtful tactic for the next one. We urge you to reject this ill-considered proposal with its damaging costs, by voting against Grace 8 in any form.

Recruitment, reward, and retention of academic and academic-related officers Grace 9 of 25 November 1998 Office of Senior Lecturer

Amendments A and B

This ballot occasions no delay; it merely seeks to afford the Regent House an opportunity to consider the way forward. A round of appointments to Senior Lectureships cannot begin in any case until there has been a Report to the University about the text of the Statutes which will be needed for the creation of a new University office.

It is the view of the undersigned that the Regent House needs first to take a view on the desirability of the introduction of Senior Lectureships at this critical juncture when so much remains unresolved about the career prospects of the University's academic staff.

Senior Lectureships are intended to reward a category of academic staff who have contributed principally in teaching and administration. The General Board has asserted that most Lecturers should be promoted to this grade. There is as yet no evidence on this point. But of the 200 applicants for Readerships and Chairs this year the vast majority were rated at a level which shows them to be strong if not overwhelming candidates for Readerships or Chairs. So, arguably, many if not most UTOs should be promoted to one of those grades rather than to a Senior Lectureship.

The creation of Senior Lectureships will instantly devalue the University Lectureship and make it unclear which path should be attempted by those who believe themselves to have made a contribution in research which they believe to entitle them to consideration for a Readership or a Chair.

There is also the question of the knock-on effects of the cost of Senior Lectureships for the numbers of Readerships and Professorships which can be created in any year.

It is for this reason that we urge you to vote in favour of further discussion about the relationship of this career path to that which leads to a Readership or Professorship and the reasonable career expectations of University officers.

There is a promise in the Annual Report of the General Board (Reporter, Special No. 8), that procedures for the promotion of Lecturers to Senior Lectureships will be modelled on those for promotion to Readerships and Chairs. But those procedures are themselves up for ballot. There can only be confusion and unfairness if this decision is rushed through without proper consideration and in terms which restrict the possibilities of thinking the procedures through carefully in a co-ordinated way.

It is for this reason that we urge you to vote in favour of the proposal that promotional criteria, procedure, and other arrangements for appointments to Senior Lectureships be reconsidered alongside the procedures (now under revision) for appointment to Readerships and Professorships, so that the same standards of fairness may be required for all promotions.

The third principle for which we urge your support is that there be further consultation by means other than the slow and crude questionnaires of limited scope, of which we have returned two in recent years. It is unsatisfactory that matters of such importance to so many of us should be decided by the dozen members of the General Board when in an electronic age (and also by the old-fashioned method of brainstorming face to face) it would be so simple a matter for those whose interests are affected to exchange ideas with the General Board and the Work and Stipends Committee.

The Regent House ought to have access to the thinking of the General Board at least at 'Green Paper' stage, so that we can avoid the need for the calling of further ballots. We therefore urge you to vote in favour of the new methods of consultation proposed in Amendments A and B and the principle that we should be invited to participate fully in the discussion of the ways in which our professional achievements are to be judged.

Recruitment, reward, and retention of academic and academic-related officers Grace 9 of 25 November 1998 Senior Lectureships

Amendment C

The purpose of Amendment C is to establish three principles, that University Lecturers should have continuity of terms of service, that the normal career expectation for committed University Lecturers should be progression to a higher level of remuneration than at present, and that the mechanisms for career progression for University Lecturers should be straightforward and efficient.

We share the belief of the General Board that there is a need to improve the remuneration of a large majority of University Lecturers in Cambridge. We also recognise that there is a substantial body of opinion which considers that the seniority, contribution, and achievements of many Cambridge University Lecturers is misunderstood by the outside world as a result of the title of University Lecturer. However, we disagree with the General Board concerning whether measures to tackle these issues require the establishment of a separate office in the Statutes. Our reasoning is that the duties of the 'promoted' University Lecturers should remain unchanged, therefore there is no need to redefine these and no need to vary their conditions of service other than stipends. The General Board have stated that this option was considered in their deliberations but that their reasons for preferring a separate office were set out in paragraph 48 of their Report (Reporter, 1997-98, p. 810). Careful reading of this paragraph produces only one statement which could be taken to be a reason for their view, which is that the Board believe that the arrangements should be as far as possible analogous to those for Readerships. The two positions, however, are not analogous. Firstly, the expectation is that relatively few individuals will be promoted to Readerships or personal Chairs, while the majority of Lecturers are expected to reach the grade of Senior Lecturer. We believe that progression should be regarded as the norm, and that the grades of Lecturer and Senior Lecturer should be regarded as the 'career grade' for academics at Cambridge and not as two separate offices. Secondly, the office of Reader has distinct duties; there will also remain a salary differential between Senior Lecturers and Readers.

We also believe that the mechanism by which individuals progress to Senior Lecturer needs some further thought. We argue that the procedures should not be too onerous in terms of time, either on the individuals applying for promotion or on the committees who have to sift through the applications. We believe that Faculty Appointments Committees are the appropriate bodies but consider that they have many onerous duties already and that the documentation must be kept within reasonable bounds. Because the details are too complex for a practical amendment, we would ask that the General Board bring forward new detailed proposals for effecting those principles which are espoused in Amendment C and advocated in this fly-sheet.

While supporting the establishment of the Senior Lecturer grade we believe that the scheme proposed by the General Board for its implementation is unnecessarily cumbersome and onerous in its scope and administration and fails to establish clearly the objective of giving better recognition and reward to the large majority of University Lecturers who are currently giving excellent service to the University. Amendment C argues for a fairer and more efficient way of effecting similar rewards to those University Lecturers. We urge all members of the Regent House to vote in favour of Amendment C of Grace 9.

Recruitment, reward, and retention of academic and academic-related officers Grace 9 of 25 November 1998 Office of Senior Lecturer

Amendments D and E

The General Board are proposing the establishment of a post of Senior Lecturer for which the promotion criteria include lecturing and administration but exclude Supervision and Direction of Studies. We believe that College Supervision and Direction of Studies should be included in the criteria. The Quality Assurance Agency repeatedly emphasises the importance of these duties when evaluating Teaching Quality in University Departments.

Unless amended to take Supervision and Direction of Studies into account, approval of this proposal will deal a severe blow to teaching at Cambridge.

We the undersigned urge you to vote in favour of amendments D and E of Grace 9.

Recruitment, reward, and retention of academic and academic-related officers Grace 9 of 25 November 1998 College teaching

Amendments D and E

The General Board propose in their Report (Reporter, 1997-98, p. 804) the establishment of a post of Senior Lecturer. The postal ballot held in October-November 1998 determined not to establish a Syndicate to look into issues of promotion more generally. The criteria for promotion to Senior Lecturer are to be fixed by this ballot.

The General Board's proposed criteria are flawed in that they exclude undergraduate Supervision and Direction of Studies, instead concentrating on large-group teaching, University administration, and research.

So keen are the General Board to push their viewpoint that their Notice (Reporter, 1997-98, p. 471; see paragraph 10) stretches numeracy to new degrees when it claims: 'The majority [258 people] of the respondents [562 people] to the consultative questionnaire took the view that College teaching should be excluded from the assessment …'. This so-called majority is only 46% of the respondents, and the questionnaire itself was biased by being circulated to less than half the Regent House, even though it affects the whole University.

The Board's criteria will be a disaster for teaching quality in Cambridge: University Teaching Officers will increasingly decide neither to direct studies nor to supervise. The College supervision system will be put under ever-increasing strain and, in the fullness of time, the General Board will have to report, no doubt with regret, that 'owing to the failure of the College supervision system, UTOs will, in future, be obliged to do small-group teaching as part of their University duties'.

A tendency to promote only staff who eschew College teaching (after all they have more time for research) leads to a situation such as that in Computer Science. In the Computer Laboratory around half the UTOs take no part in College-organised teaching. As a result only a minority of Colleges have a UTO as Director of Studies.

If the proposal is unamended these difficulties will spread to many more subjects.

External bodies do not see the boundaries between the University and the Colleges. Excellence in teaching in all its forms merits promotion. It is nonsense to suggest (Reporter, 1997-98, p. 804; see paragraph 55 of the General Board's Report) that '… because College teaching itself is rewarded by Colleges, … [it is] not … appropriate for College teaching … to be taken into account [for University promotion]'. Only the University can confer the titles earned by promotion and there is no reward that a College can offer that in any way equates to the increased academic prestige afforded by University promotion.

Attenuation of College teaching will lead to adverse Subject Reviews by the Quality Assurance Agency. Many Departments scored highly in recent assessment exercises precisely because of College teaching.

It might once have been possible to argue that it was not appropriate to reward College teaching, funded by LEA money, with University promotion, funded by HEFCE money. The Government have quashed this anomaly from October 1999. We should follow suit.

We, the undersigned, strongly urge you to vote in favour of Amendments D and E of Grace 9.

Recruitment, reward, and retention of academic and academic-related officers Graces 7-10 of 25 November 1998

Statement on behalf of the General Board

The level of pay in the University is low. It is also uncompetitive. These facts have for some time been causing the University difficulties in recruiting new and retaining existing staff. Over the last two years the General Board have devoted much time and effort to developing a strategy to address these difficulties. This Report and Graces 7-10 are the result.

The aim is to improve the position of all academic and academic-related staff. The proposal is to achieve this for non-professorial staff by introducing a system of additional increments instead of the current discretionary payments scheme, whose operation is widely regarded as invidious (Grace 10); by introducing a further opportunity for promotion, in the form of a Senior Lectureship (Grace 9); and by increasing the maximum recruitment incentive payment which can be offered (Grace 7). The Report also seeks to improve the University's ability to attract and to retain leading Professors by proposing a more extensive scheme of supplementary payments for Professors (Grace 8). In each case parallel arrangements are proposed for academic-related staff.

The proposed scheme of supplementary payments for Professors has attracted some comment. While this is an important element in the Board's overall strategy, it none the less represents only modest innovation with respect to the scheme which currently operates. Under the present scheme, for example, awards are made by the Vice-Chancellor on the advice of a committee. The main change now proposed is to the level of payments. But the intention is that only a small number of supplementary payments at higher levels should be made (see paragraph 29 of the Report). A further change is that Professors would have to apply for these payments. To the Board this seems fair, since other staff are expected to apply for additional increments or for promotion.

None of these proposals has been devised with the short-term interests of the RAE in mind. Instead they recognize the importance of rewarding all staff properly, in the interests of the University as well as of members of staff themselves.

Interim reports of the Board's deliberations have appeared in the Reporter over the course of the last year. All of them have been discussed, and the General Board have taken the opportunity to adopt some of the proposals made in Discussions. University officers have also been consulted individually by means of a questionnaire, as have Faculties and Departments, about the proposal for a new grade of Senior Lecturer and the criteria on which it should be awarded.

There comes a time when deliberation and consultation must give way to action. The recent failure of a proposal that a Syndicate should go over all these matters once again may suggest that the Regent House thinks as much. The Board therefore see no merit in the proposals for further discussion or reflection put forward in amendments A and B to Grace 9.

Grace 9 seeks approval for the criteria and procedure for appointment to the office of Senior Lecturer set out in paragraphs 47-60 of the Report. These are necessarily matters of detail and, if the scheme is approved, will naturally be kept under review in the light of experience in operating it. This applies, for example, to the issues identified in amendments D and E to Grace 9: it is rational that promotion to a Senior Lectureship in the University should be on grounds of work done for the University rather than any other body. None the less, with impending changes to the funding of Colleges, it will clearly be important to keep the question of rewarding College teaching under review. The Board will do this. So far as amendment C is concerned, the normal practice of the University is that offices which are of central importance are established by Statute, and the proposal is simply to adhere to normal practice; the procedure set out in the Report is intended to be a straightforward one, to be operated by Faculty Appointments Committees within allocations made to the Councils of the Schools, and without intervention by the central bodies.

The Board therefore urge members of the Regent House to vote for Graces 7-10 in their unamended form.

D.E.L. JOHNSTON
on behalf of the General Board

REPORT OF THE GENERAL BOARD ON THE PROCEDURE FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PERSONAL PROFESSORSHIPS AND READERSHIPS IN 1999 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS

Votes are to be taken by ballot on Graces 7 and 8 of 9 December 1998 and on the amendments of these Graces that have been proposed. These Graces are for the approval of the recommendations contained in the Report, dated 21 October 1998, of the General Board on the procedure for the consideration of applications for the establishment of personal Professorships and Readerships in 1999 and subsequent years.

The General Board's Report was published on 30 October (Reporter, p. 106). It was discussed on 10 November (ibid., p. 167); on 9 December the Council published a Notice containing the General Board's response to points made in the Discussion (ibid., p. 222), and Graces for the approval of the recommendations of the Report were submitted to the Regent House at the same time (ibid., p. 244). A number of proposals for amendment of the Graces have since been received; details of these were given in a Notice published in the Reporter on 13 January (ibid., p. 256).

Members of the Regent House are now invited to vote on the following issues:

Grace 7

This Grace is for the approval of Recommendation I of the General Board's Report, which reads:

That approval be given to the procedure proposed by the General Board in their Report, and in the Annex to the Report, for the consideration of applications for promotion to personal Professorships and Readerships in 1999 and future years.

It has been proposed that this recommendation be amended so as to read:

That approval be given to the procedure proposed by the General Board in their Report, and in the Annex to the Report, for the consideration of applications for promotion to personal Professorships and Readerships in 1999 and future years, subject to the following amendments, each of which is to be the subject of a separate vote:

Appeal

1. That an appeals procedure be created which will be effective in correcting errors in specific cases. This is to replace the appeal procedure proposed by the General Board, which is merely a review, so as to embody independence from the promotions committees. An appeal committee should adopt a judicial and impartial attitude, and should have a composition which reflects the need for an understanding of procedural lawfulness as well as expertise in the area of each candidate's work.

2. That, if Amendment 1 on appeals is approved, further proposals be put before the Regent House by Report to ensure full discussion of the principles and procedures it is to embody.

Feedback

3. That feedback at each stage be given in the terms required by Mr Justice Sedley's judgement (Reporter, 1997-98, p. 75), so as to demonstrate that proper care has been taken and to enable a candidate to know what he or she needs to do to improve the chance of promotion.

4. That feedback be written and ratified by the promotions committees and not by their officers.

References

5. That candidates be given the option of having a fresh file of references created for them in each year in which they apply, to prevent a single unfavourable reference blocking promotion indefinitely.

6. That evidence from referees be obtained with due rigour, with referees (i) being given reasonable time to reply, (ii) being required to state on what evidence they base their comments and to give proofs to support any critical assertion, and (iii) being required to state the precise match between their area of expertise and that of the candidate.

7. That conflict in the evidence obtained from referees be required to be resolved, with no candidate being denied promotion on the basis of criticism unless that criticism is fully substantiated.

The forming of the collective judgement

8. That the legally important distinction between 'advice' (referees) and 'decision-making' (committees) be clarified and a procedure established to ensure that evaluations are made by the committees themselves on the basis of (i) a recent reading of the candidate's work by at least two of their members, (ii) the full documentation provided by the candidate, and (iii) an assessment of the reliability of the references, all these points to be covered in the minutes and the feedback.

9. That the normative mode of arriving at a collective judgement be clarified (as not merely a 'collective activity' (see paragraph 5.2 on p. 15 of the Annex to the General Board's Report)), with members of committees required to record their evaluations individually according to the principles of collective decision-making laid down in R.v. Higher Education Funding Council for England ex parte Institute of Dental Surgery.

10. That General Board members be not permitted to vote on committees because, in their capacity as General Board members, they do not have the expertise relevant to the making of an academic judgement in the area in question.

11. That no business be transacted at any meeting of a promotions committee unless all members are present.

Interdisciplinary and disciplinary subject differentiation

12. That subject-committees be required to frame definitions of the standard criteria in a manner appropriate to their discipline, as RAE panels are required to do by the Higher Education Funding Council, those definitions to be published in advance.

13. That provision be made for the assessment of the work of interdisciplinary candidates as an intellectual whole, with opportunity for the candidate to require assessment by a committee with relevant breadth of expertise.

Interviews

14. That candidates be given an opportunity to be interviewed if they so wish, in accordance with the natural justice principle of the right of an applicant to be heard.

Confidentiality

15. That candidates continue to be given the list of referees consulted.

16. That the General Board be required to give further consideration to the question of confidentiality and to put detailed proposals before the Regent House by Report.

Protection against the appearance of bias

17. That the declaration of an interest prejudicial to impartial consideration of a case automatically exclude the individual from participation in the decision-making in that case. That all members of a promotions committee be required to declare any interest that they may have, and that candidates be allowed to know on request what declarations of interest have been made in their own cases.

18. That candidates be permitted to request that their applications be considered outside the Faculty on whose establishment they serve if they believe that they cannot have fair consideration in that Faculty.

19. That serving members of the Council and the General Board be not permitted to serve on promotions committees or appeal committees.

Default consideration

20. That a University Lecturer applying for a Professorship be also eligible for consideration for a Readership by default in the same round, with promotions committees constituted so as to make that possible.

Back-dating of appointments

21. That, if necessary, promotions in the next round be made retrospectively so that candidates do not suffer disadvantage as a result of the delay in improving the present procedures.

Members of the Regent House are invited to vote on Grace 7 and on the amendments proposed; the ballot paper gives voters an opportunity to vote for or against each amendment.

Grace 8

This Grace is for the approval of Recommendation II of the General Board's Report, which reads:

That the General Board be given authority to make such changes in the procedure as they consider necessary from time to time for the proper management of the promotions exercise.

It has been proposed that this recommendation be amended so as to read:

That the General Board be required to seek the approval of the Regent House for any change in the promotions procedure that they wish to make, so that control of procedures for promotion may remain in the hands of the Regent House and the Regent House may continue to set the pace and direction of reform.

The amendments specified above have been proposed by the following members of the Regent House (not all those listed below support every amendment, but each of the amendments is supported by at least ten of the signatories):

Statement by the Council and the General Board

The fly-sheets signed by Dr Dawe and others rely on minutes and other documents relating to the 1998 Personal Promotions procedure which were disclosed to Dr G. R. Evans in strict confidence in connection with an application to the Employment Tribunal made by her against the University. Dr Evans withdrew her application in December 1998. At a Special Meeting on 20 January 1999 the General Board were advised that draft fly-sheets relying on the disclosed material were in circulation in the University. The General Board expressed their regret that the material had been published in this way without their express permission and agreed that confidentiality should not be waived in respect of any material disclosed to Dr Evans in connection with the Employment Tribunal which was not already in the public domain by 20 January 1999.

The Council at their meeting on 25 January 1999 endorsed the General Board's position. However, given that the material was already known to some members of the Regent House, they authorised the Registrary to publish the fly-sheets in the normal way.

Promotions to personal Professorships and Readerships Grace 7 and 8 of 9 December 1998

One of the duties of the General Board is to make arrangements for proposing personal promotions to the offices of Reader and Professor. In recent years this process has been much developed, and, in particular, more reliance placed on Committees set up on a strictly controlled model in each Faculty or similar body. It is clear that the details of such a procedure will need to change over time in the light of experience. We believe that the General Board should be trusted to manage these processes properly, and that the Board should only need to consult the Regent House if quite radical change is proposed. We therefore urge members of the Regent House to vote in favour of both Graces unamended. We do not believe that the correct method of evolution of practice is for the Regent House to vote on detailed amendments proposed by small groups of people. We urge members of the Regent House to reject each and every amendment that has been proposed, and to do so by a sufficiently large majority that a general opinion of this mode of proceeding is made evident.

Promotions to personal Professorships and Readerships Graces 7 and 8 of 9 December 1998

The University has been debating its system for personal promotions for some years; and the Regent House has succeeded in prodding the General Board into working out a more open and accountable approach. A new system was duly approved by the Regent House after an extensive consultation exercise, and was implemented for the first time in the promotions round conducted in 1997-98. By and large it appears to have worked well; scrutiny by members of the Regent House has revealed nothing which suggests anything other than that those serving on the Committees discharged their duties scrupulously and with the utmost care.

The Report whose recommendations are now Graced proposes modifications in the light of experience to the scheme agreed by the Regent House for the 1997-98 round. None of the modifications represents a radical departure from the provisions of that scheme. The General Board have given conscientious and detailed consideration to objections raised during the Discussion of the Report (see Reporter, pp. 222-6). Not everyone who agrees with the general thrust of the recommendations will agree with the Board's replies on all points (many of which can however only be described as points of detail). But in our view the overall package presented by the General Board offers a sensible way forward, in substance (Grace 7) and in procedure (Grace 8), for 1999 and future years.

This is therefore the moment for the Regent House to agree that it has now got a scheme it is prepared to live with. The main objectives of the movement for change in the procedures have been achieved. Continuation of the debate is likely to generate more heat than light. There is a widespread desire to get on with the 1999 exercise, so that the distinction of colleagues may be given timely recognition, and so that the University may thereby be assisted to retain outstanding academic staff for the forthcoming RAE. The timetable for the 1999 round is already tight: Faculty Committees will have to meet in late June or early July. Approval of amendments to the Graces will make it unworkable. We therefore urge you to cast your vote against all the amendments proposed and for Graces 7 and 8 as originally formulated.

Promotions to personal Professorships and Readerships Graces 7 and 8 of 9 December 1998

Grace 7 of 9 December proposes acceptance of the procedure proposed by the General Board for the consideration of applications for personal Professorships and Readerships in 1999 and subsequent years. The briefest inspection of the proposed timetable makes clear that there is no time for further amendments: it can be predicted with certainty that any successful amendment to Grace 7 will make cancellation of the 1999 promotions round inevitable. In our view, to cancel the annual promotions round twenty-four months before a Research Assessment Exercise would be an error of policy, best described as a major folly. We therefore urge you to vote against all the amendments to Grace 7 and in favour of the unamended Grace.

Grace 8 of 9 December concerns discussion and approval of modifications to the procedure in subsequent years. We make no recommendation regarding Grace 8.

Promotions to personal Professorships and Readerships Grace 7 of 9 December 1998

Amendments 1-21: procedural reforms

The undersigned members of the Regent House urge the careful reading of the points below. Candidates for Senior Lectureships are likely to be affected by what is decided now about the procedures for appointment to Readerships and Chairs.

The question in each case is what will happen if the amendment is not passed.

Appeal: Amendments 1 and 2

Candidates who are not satisfied with the evaluations given to them by their Faculties or with the outcome of the process at the final stage want to be able to point to any procedural error or to any misunderstanding or failure of fairness in judging their work and be sure that there will be a careful re-examination of the case so that they can have a fair chance of promotion.

Unless we set up a more thorough and careful appeal procedure there will continue to be a single Appeal Committee (four scientists and one philosopher this year) which spends a single day dealing with all the appeals from across the University.

Most importantly, it will go on being instructed to look only at whether there were any obvious procedural defaults and it will make no attempt to consider the evaluations again.¹ Candidates will not have the evidence of the carelessness which is apparent everywhere in the record of the conduct of the process this year and they will not be able to explain why they believe themselves to have been given evaluations which do not do them justice. The decisions of the Faculty Committees will remain almost unreviewable and will continue in most cases to determine the final outcome.

The published procedures promise appeal at the final stage as well as at the Faculty stage. But this is of limited value as long as we do not take a hard look at the system and give each appellant an appropriately composed and genuinely independent appeal committee, with proper time taken for a hearing, as we do for graduate students making an appeal.

Feedback: Amendments 3 and 4

The General Board's Committee minuted its intention that its feedback be 'sufficient', 'intelligible', and 'full', and promised that it would above all make it clear to the candidate what had to be done to improve the chance of promotion in the future.²

The feedback provided this year fell short of these requirements of Mr Justice Sedley's judgement. It did not demonstrate that proper care had been taken in a matter of considerable importance to each candidate as he said it must in law. It was brief and scrappy, and in some cases it misrepresented what the documentation showed to the point where it constituted negligent mis-statement in law. Instead of being given clear guidance on how to improve their chances of promotion, candidates were misled and unnecessarily discouraged.

The General Board's Committee had a duty to give the feedback itself.³ But the feedback was not written or ratified by the General Board's Committee but by the officers (see the fly-sheet on Grace 8).

Unless feedback is brought into line with what we have been promised and is genuinely the work of a careful and caring General Board Committee individual careers will be blighted.

References: Amendments 5-7

The problem with which these amendments are designed to deal is that the committees are being instructed to take the references at face value. That means that the referees are not being treated as mere advisers, but are in effect making the decisions about who is to get promotion. The evaluation process throughout the procedure was not the forming of an academic or expert judgement by the committees, but a mere uncritical adoption of referees' comments. At least one Faculty Committee commented on this problem in its report to the Secretary General and expressed concern that although it could see that referees were giving implausible ratings to candidates it believed itself to have been instructed not to allow for that. That was against the requirement in the Notice of 7 August 1996, that the General Board's Committee should form 'their own views' on the basis of the advice the referees were giving.⁴ But no time appears to have been taken by the General Board's Committee in any attempt to deal with contradictions in what the referees said.

It is admitted in the minutes and reports of the Committees this year that referees were not given reasonable time to reply and that many consequently wrote exiguous or hasty responses or did not respond at all; that in some instances references were used on the spot, being merely tabled for the committee; that the committees were instructed to take into account only this unexamined and untested evidence, and that it was allowed to override the evidence of all other documentation, including a supportive form PP4.

No one on the committees making decisions about the candidates was required actually to look at candidates' work. The General Board's Committee took it that the possession of knowledge of the candidate's work at first hand by any member of a promotions committee was a borderline disqualification for evaluating that work.⁵

This makes it imperative that we do not move to a system of 'continuous assessment' in which this year's references are allowed to lie in candidates' files indefinitely. The clearing-out of old files was held to be of the first importance at the time of the 'clean break' when the new procedures were introduced, and candidates must be allowed the option of having a fresh start each year if they wish. Oxford allows candidates that choice.

The forming of the collective judgement: Amendments 8-10

If a collective judgement is formed on the 'follow-my-leader' principle, with someone taking the lead and suggesting an evaluation, the result is likely to be different from what will happen if everyone has to work out an evaluation for himself and agree it round the table with everyone contributing. The committees this year did not require their members to fill in individually the forms on which the evaluations were recorded. In the case of the General Board's Committee it is admitted that a policy decision was taken not to record individual evaluations which could be aggregated into a collective judgement.⁶ That meant that, in effect, one person on each committee more or less determined a candidate's chances.

The General Board's Committee minuted that it was acceptable for that to happen even when the evaluator (or 'rapporteur') was not present but had merely sent in comments on paper.⁷

The forming of the comparative judgements between disciplines was done by creating a pseudo-quantitative scheme from evaluations which were intended to be qualitative.

Unless we introduce more rigour into the forming of the 'collective judgement' we are allowing individuals to continue to determine the fate of candidates.

The quorum: Amendment 11

Not all the members of the General Board's Committee were present for all meetings. At one meeting only six out of nine were present. Some deemed themselves to have more important business than the consideration of the candidates for promotion whose professional futures had been entrusted to their care (see the fly-sheet on Grace 8).

We make it a contractual obligation that Tripos Examiners attend all meetings, and we must insist that, with so small a committee as that of the General Board in particular, the quorum be full attendance.

Part of the importance of the failure to insist upon keeping the rule laid down in the Notice on which the Graces rested⁸ is the indication it gives of the low priority given by the Committee to its duty to take proper care over the futures of the candidates it was considering.

Interdisciplinary and disciplinary subject differentiation: Amendments 12 and 13

If a candidate is promoted on the basis of criteria it is important that everyone understands what they mean. It is also important that it is absolutely clear what the candidate's area of work is. It is impossible to say whether work is good of its kind unless it is clear what kind of work it is.

There have been calls from Professor Dumville for fuller definition of the criteria, which at one time the Work and Stipends Committee said in its minutes it intended to explore; and from Dr Evans for definition appropriate to each discipline. She has pointed out (for example in the Discussion of 10 November) that this is a requirement of the HEFCE for the RAE panels and the definitions have to be published in advance of the exercise.

The General Board's proposals do not take into account the principles recommended to HEFCE in the Interdisciplinary Research Briefing it has commissioned in advance of the next RAE (http://www.niss.ac.uk/education/hefc/rae2001/).

The work of interdisciplinary candidates (like that of all candidates) needs to be assessed as an intellectual whole. Interdisciplinary candidates are suffering from the fact that referees admit that they do not understand how to form judgements about them. Interdisciplinary candidates were clearly disadvantaged.⁹ That will continue to affect candidates in more mainstream areas too, if there is not a requirement that there is a clearer focusing of the definitions.

Interviews: Amendment 14

Not everyone will want the opportunity of an interview, and it should be optional. But the General Board's Committee is at present taking an average of seven minutes per candidate, a good deal less on some, and it is not going through its task of evaluating point by point as it has a duty to do.¹⁰ A strong advantage of allowing candidates an interview at the final stage is that it would require the General Board's Committee to focus its mind upon the uniqueness of each case and to take an amount of time over it which reflected respect for the achievement of the University's most senior academic officers.

Confidentiality: Amendments 15 and 16

Candidates cannot frame an appeal on procedural grounds unless they are allowed to see the Committees' records of what they did, and they cannot argue that they should have been given higher evaluations unless they know what criticism they have to meet, and they cannot know that if they do not know who the referees are or (in broad terms) what has been said about them. This is even more important in view of what we now know about the carelessness in the obtaining and handling of references.

If we move back from even the degree of openness we had last year, it will become impossible for candidates to make a case on appeal.

Protection against the appearance of bias: Amendments 17-19

The requirements about declaration of interest were taken lightly this year. Individuals declaring an interest were 'forgiven' and allowed to consider the case regardless. Individuals declaring an interest and withdrawing for one meeting did not withdraw at the next. Candidates were not allowed to know whether an individual they alleged to have an interest prejudicial to impartial consideration of their case had made a declaration or had subsequently sat in judgement on them. Candidates were not allowed to name those they believed to have an interest prejudicial to impartial consideration of their case. All this needs tightening up.

The Appeal Committee made a recommendation that the definition of 'interest' should 'be expanded to include awareness of personal bias.'¹¹

If all this is not tightened up and really made to work, we may as well not have rules about the declaration of interest.

Default consideration: Amendment 20

It is absurd not to allow those applying directly for Chairs to be considered for a Readership if they are unsuccessful in obtaining a Chair. The rule which allows Lecturers to apply directly for Chairs was surely intended to allow them to catch up if local circumstances had denied them fair consideration for promotion in earlier years.

It is not fair or necessary to expect Lecturers to make a choice between application for a Chair, which, if they were successful, would allow them an opportunity to catch up in salary and standing, and application for a Readership, with the inevitable wait of further years before they can hope for a Chair. Two colleagues were allowed to move straight to Chairs this year and the record shows no discussion of any policy decision on the nature of any 'exceptional circumstances' which were 'required' in such cases.

It should be underlined that the tables of evaluations this year clearly show that, even on those crude figures, the majority of those put forward deserved promotion.

Retrospectivity: Amendment 21

It should not need to be stressed that successful candidates in this year's round should have their promotions back-dated to October 1999 if the completion of the process takes us into the next academic year.

1 'The role of the Appeal Committee was not to consider fresh evidence in support of an officer's case unless relating to a default on the part of the Faculty Promotions Committee, nor was the role of the Appeal Committee to re-evaluate an officer's application.' Appeal Committee, Minute 1. The instructions given to the Appeal Committee this year were not given to candidates or to the General Board's Committee. (Text in the public domain because used in the High Court hearing of 20 May. All other documentation cited is in the hands of Dr G.R. Evans and she is urging that it be made available for inspection by members of the Regent House, under whose authority the procedures were conducted; Statute K, 9 appears to give members of the Regent House the right to see it.)

² General Board's Committee meeting, 6 March, Minute 1(d).

³ Reporter, 1995-96, p. 1039.

⁴ Reporter, 1995-96, p. 1038.

⁵ Minutes of 20/21 May (4).

⁶ General Board's Committee meeting, 6 March, Minute 1(d) and (e). There was in any case much confusion in the minds of the General Board's Committee. The General Board's Committee failed to evaluate collectively even in the terms it laid down for itself in its minutes of 6 March as amended on 21/22 May, 1(c) and 3. There it is stated first that they believed they had to make evaluations (as they did) and then that they merely had to agree collectively to confirm or overturn a Faculty Committee's evaluation. That is not the same exercise.

⁷ General Board's Committee meeting, 6 March, Minute 1(d).

⁸ Reporter, 1995-96, p. 1038.

⁹ GB 98.235, Attachment 3.

¹⁰ 'The General Board's Committee will evaluate applications', Reporter, 1995-96, p. 1039.

¹¹ Recommendations of the Appeal Committee in the Appendix attached to its Minutes, 1.

Promotions to personal Professorships and Readerships Grace 8 of 9 December 1998

Powers of the General Board

There was no need for the document containing the proposed procedures for this year to come to us only in October. We could have had it before us in draft for discussion during the summer, when there would have been time to consider further amendments. The panic decision to suspend the procedures for this year which was taken on 11 November, after the Discussion, was reversed in a second hurried decision in the Notice published on 9 December, thus losing a further month. During that month no moves were made to discuss the important issues raised in the Discussion, or to look at the possibility of adjusting the procedures to take account of them.

The signatories to the amendments gave their names (not without profound concern at the additional delay they were causing) in the recognition that it is not acceptable that a matter of this importance should be Graced so long after the end of Full Term as 18 December when serious concerns expressed in Discussion had been summarily rejected (see the Reporter of 9 December).

A circular was sent out by the Secretary General on 7 January, although neither the General Board nor the Council had met to discuss and take the decision, asserting that 'if the Graces are not approved unamended there will be no 1999 exercise' (GBO.9901.0211). That is misleading. In the weeks while the ballot is conducted there is ample time to plan how to amend the procedures to take in any changes we vote for and to proceed at once with the process when the outcome is known. So long as promotions are ratified by March 2000 there is no constitutional difficulty about their being backdated to October 1999.

If the General Board does not reassure us that it has the will to run the process this year when it so clearly can do so, the Regent House may have reason to suspect that an attempt is being made to influence members of the Regent House to vote against the amendments on a ground which has nothing to do with their merits. That would appear to invalidate the ballot.

This is very important, because if the amendments are defeated the General Board will be able to assert in the subsequent Notice that the community has voted against a more rigorous appeal structure, and against feedback over which more care has been taken, and against the taking of more care with the references, and so on. That will affect Senior Lecturers in the future as well as prospects for promotion to Readerships and Chairs.

Why should the Regent House be reluctant to trust the General Board with sole charge of the procedures for promotion ?

The minutes and reports of the General Board and its Committees this year reveal a level of carelessness with the career prospects of our most senior academic staff which should make us think long and hard before we entrust the General Board with sole charge of the procedures for promotion, and allow them to by-pass the Regent House.

1. The General Board and its Committee have been exceeding their powers.

i. Secret changes or interpretations of the Yellow Book rules have involved major policy decisions which ought to have been referred to the Regent House, but the General Board expressly arrogated to itself authority to decide what it would refer to us for decision.¹

ii. It was decided to waive the rule in the Yellow Book which required all members to be present for all meetings, and only six out of the nine members of the General Board's Promotions Committee were present for one meeting, eight for another.²

iii. It is admitted that a member of the Appeal Committee was appointed although the name did not appear in the Reporter as a member of the panel from which the Committee had to be selected.³

iv. Major policy issues (such as the introduction of the principle of 'continuous assessment') have been tacitly determined by the General Board without reference to the Regent House.

2. The General Board maintains a culture of secrecy in matters where there ought to be transparency.

The promise of transparency and accountability which was made when the new procedures were introduced has not been honoured under the General Board's direction.

i. Candidates were not told of additional procedural rules or allowed access to them until the promotions process was completed. The additional instructions given to Faculty Committees (only) may be consulted in the Old Schools. Candidates are still not allowed to know on what procedural rules the Appeal Committee of the General Board's Committee worked. Only the Yellow Book was made available to them at the time when the consideration of their candidature was going on.

ii. Candidates were allowed to make their appeals in ignorance of the rules which the Appeal Committee was to follow. The Committee itself considered that to be unsatisfactory.⁴

iii. There was admission of secret additional documentation, although there was a strict rule that candidates themselves were not allowed to submit additional material.⁵

There has been a degree of obduracy and unnecessary secrecy which appears to have arisen partly from a natural desire to cover up mistakes and partly from a failure to recognise that it is unacceptable to do behind the scenes anything which can be done in full view. If we allow the General Board to get control for the future, such transparency as we have won will irrevocably become opacity.

3. The General Board has countenanced carelessness and incompetence.

There was carelessness throughout the process as superintended by the General Board.

i. Candidates are not being scrutinised as individuals with unique achievements. 200 candidates applied, of whom the General Board's Committee considered 146. It thus gave on average about seven minutes to each candidate.

41 of the Professorial candidates and 63 of the Readership applicants had 'scores' in which five criteria were evaluated at 4 and the other two at 3 or 4. In the event 20 Chairs were awarded, to the 20 who had clear 4s across the board. 37 Readerships were awarded, although only 30 had clear 4s and 47 had six 4s and one 3. Of the remainder of the 146 candidates considered by the General Board's Committee, the vast majority were deemed to have an 'overwhelming' case on many of the criteria.

The boundary between the successful and the 'failures' is therefore tiny, and a great deal may turn upon a single evaluation.

A great many UTOs have reason to be indignant that they have again been denied a promotion they so clearly deserve, on the basis of the trading of evaluations as though they were hard currency when in fact they were at best approximate and at worst unreliable. The category of those denied by the Faculties the opportunity even to be considered by the General Board's Committee is also entitled to be angry about the inadequacy of rigour in the evaluations.

ii. It is admitted that there were serious inaccuracies and inconsistences in the use of the form giving the evaluations and reasons at the Faculty stage.⁶

It is admitted that there was inconsistency in that the Faculties did not all behave alike in pitching their evaluations.⁷ All that the General Board's Committee did about this was some rough 'scaling'.

iii. The General Board's Committee also failed in its duty of care in comparing candidates across disciplines, in that, when in reality it merely adjusted the 'scores' for broad consistency, it claimed to have formed its own judgement.⁸

iv. Despite repeated assurances that the Yellow Book procedures were being faithfully adhered to, the published rules were broken. It bears repeating that although all members of all committees were required to be present at meetings (as we insist on for Tripos Examiners), three members out of six of the General Board's Promotions Committee, including the Vice-Chancellor, were absent for one meeting and one for another, out of the three meetings of the General Board's Committee.

v. Most serious of all perhaps was the dereliction of duty of the General Board and its Committee in respect of delegation of their responsibilities (cf. Statute K, 9). This was one of the points on which leave for judicial review was given by Mr Justice Sedley.

There was improper delegation in that the Committee on 21/22 May (10) authorised the Secretary to prepare a comprehensive report, on their behalf, for the meeting of the General Board to be held on 3 June and never checked what it contained, although they had earlier found it necessary to make substantial changes to the draft minutes of an earlier meeting.

The General Board therefore accepted and ratified a report which was not the report of the General Board's Committee, containing assurances which the Committee had never seen as to its conduct of its business and feedback details for each candidate.

The General Board itself adopted the recommendations at a few days' notice without checking what its Committee had really done. This was a serious breach of its duty since it was apparent from the record that there had been a high degree of carelessness and the General Board's own minutes acknowledge some concern about the way the procedure had been conducted.

The record of what the committees did this year is honest enough to admit that there were serious concerns. That is to their credit. But we did not hear about those concerns in the Report in which the names of those recommended for promotion were published to us, and the new procedures do not as they stand address the core problem: that the committees were careless and did not understand the ground rules of what they were doing.

The reforms so far achieved have been brought about because the Regent House has been able to oversee the changes in the procedures. The General Board is showing itself increasingly unwilling to listen or to be receptive to suggestions made in the proper constitutional forum by members of the Regent House in Discussions, and intended to be helpful to the improvement of the fairness of the procedures. All the suggestions made on 10 November were rejected out of hand and spoken of in the language of 'threat' in the Notice published on 9 December with the Graces on which a vote has now been called. That is not a climate in which the General Board can safely be left to get on indefinitely with the further reform of our procedures for promotion.

In short, the evidence shows that the Regent House would be unwise to allow the General Board complete control of promotions until greater rigour has been achieved in the conduct of the procedures. The General Board manifestly cannot be trusted to refer to the Regent House for decision in the future those matters of policy which it is for the Regent House to decide.

¹ General Board's Committee meeting, 6 March, Minute 1(b).

² General Board's Committee meeting, 6 March, Minute 1(b).

³ Appeal Committee, Minute 1.

⁴ Appeal Committee, Minute 1 and recommendations of the Appeal Committee in the Appendix attached to its Minutes, 8.

⁵ General Board's Committee meeting, 6 March, Minute 6.

⁶ Recommendations of the Appeal Committee in the Appendix attached to its Minutes, 6.

⁷ General Board's Committee meeting, 25 March, Minute 6.

⁸ GB 98.231(20).

Promotions to personal Professorships and Readerships Graces 7 and 8 of 9 December 1998

Statement on behalf of the General Board

The General Board seek approval of the procedure for promotion to Readerships and Professorships in 1999 and subsequent years. Many of the objections put forward in support of the twenty-one amendments proposed by certain members of the Regent House have been aired at length already in the Reporter. The Board responded to these points in detail in their Notice dated 7 December 1998 (Reporter, p. 222). Here it must therefore be sufficient to make the following brief points in reply.

1. The procedure now proposed is in its essentials the same procedure as that used last year; that procedure was of course approved by the Regent House. Over a number of years there has been extensive consultation within the University. The present policy and procedures reflect the consensus which has clearly emerged.

2. The present Report draws on the experience of running the promotions exercise last year under a new procedure for the first time. Revisions suggested for this year's procedure are for the most part no more than clarifications. So, for example, the Board accept that more specific guidance to Faculty Promotions Committees was needed on dealing with interdisciplinary candidates; the revised procedural booklet therefore contains this.

3. The procedure for promotion to the proposed Senior Lectureship will be entirely separate; application for promotion under one procedure will not debar application for promotion under the other. The Board recognize that contribution and achievement in both teaching and research should be properly rewarded; in spite of the proposed introduction of Senior Lectureships, they expect to maintain the annual rate of promotions to personal Professorships and Readerships established in recent years.

4. It is suggested that there is something wrong with the appeals procedure. But it is not the function of appeal to duplicate the role of Promotions Committees, nor is the Appeal Committee in a position to substitute its own judgement on the merits of an application for that of a Faculty Promotions Committee. Mr Justice Turner, in his judgement in the High Court, considered this appeals procedure and found no fault with it. There is nothing unusual about an appeal which is confined to procedural matters and does not review the academic judgement inherent in the decision; within the University this is true, for example, of appeals by graduate students against the outcome of postgraduate examinations.

5. The promotions procedure has to be workable without imposing excessive burdens on those who are involved in it, whether applicants, referees, members of Promotions Committees, or those involved in administering the scheme. This affects all aspects of the procedure, including questions such as feedback. The length of the timetable for the promotions exercise is determined to allow for proper and thorough consideration at each stage, including the appeal stages. It is for this reason that the systematic interviewing of applicants would render the whole procedure unworkable. This point is the more important because the Board seek to maintain an annual cycle of promotions exercises; plainly one annual exercise ought to be completed before the next begins.

6. A series of suggested amendments deals with the workings of Faculty Promotions Committees. The Board reiterate that the procedure must be workable, not a blueprint for a utopian promotions scheme. References are central to the working of the promotions scheme because the referees are chosen, by both the candidates and the Faculty Promotions Committee, as those most qualified to comment with authority and appropriate knowledge on the extent to which an applicant meets the criteria. The Committees involved in the process have a duty to evaluate all the written evidence available to them in terms of the criteria. Committees should try to arrive at a collective view of the strength of an applicant's case for promotion. This process involves discussion and agreement. It must fall to one person to initiate that discussion. It is also sensible that it should be agreed in advance who that person should be; such an arrangement is an intrinsic part of any procedure based on a consistent approach to evaluation. All these features of the Board's procedure assist decision making, equitable treatment of all cases, and the forming of a full and fair view of the merits of each application.

7. Concern has been expressed that the General Board are exercising powers which they do not have, and it has been suggested that the Regent House should determine changes in policy and matters concerning the operation of the scheme. The Board have acted scrupulously in consulting the Regent House on all substantive questions concerning changes in policy and procedure. They will of course continue to do so on questions of policy; changes in procedure will only be proposed after careful monitoring and review of the operation of the existing procedure. There will always be differences of opinion on policy and procedural matters. But once the majority view has been determined the procedures should be allowed to operate. The minority remain entitled to their views, but continuous challenge impedes the ability of all to have their cases for promotion evaluated in a regular and timely fashion in accordance with an agreed procedure.

8. One of the fly-sheets contains a number of assertions about such things as misleading feedback, carelessness in obtaining references, and a casual approach to declarations of interest. These assertions are all unsupported. The Regent House may, however, take comfort from the fact that even that fly-sheet concedes that the Committees kept an honest record and that the General Board were in a position to form a view on the procedures before approving their recommendations for promotion. It is true that unforeseen issues arose and had to be resolved after the publication of the yellow procedural booklet and during the course of the procedure. But this hardly amounts to a culture of secrecy. It is true too that Faculty Promotions Committees did not all act alike in making their evaluations. To redress that imbalance is precisely the function of the General Board's own committee; and the feedback it has provided to Faculty Promotions Committees should help to bring their evaluations closer into alignment in the future.

9. It is simply unrealistic to suppose that a promotions exercise can be held in the near future unless the Graces are passed without amendment. The result of this ballot will be known only on 22 February 1999. If amendments are carried, the new procedural booklet will have to be altered, approved by the General Board, and published to the University. The deadline for applying would have to be pushed back into the Easter Term. The exercise could not then be completed in time to allow appointments to be made retrospective to 1 October 1999 in accordance with the provisions of Statute D, I, 3(a). Amendments 2 and 16 even postulate further Reports to the University, which would plainly occasion yet more delay. The aspiration stated in amendment 21 and elsewhere that applicants should 'not suffer disadvantage as a result of the delay' is therefore at best ingenuous.

10. It is time for this particular debate to be brought to a conclusion and for the General Board to be trusted to get on with the business of operating the policy and procedures proposed in this Report. To that end the Board urge members of the Regent House to give their unequivocal support to the proposals contained in the Report. If the Report's recommendations are approved without amendment, the Board will be in a position to launch the 1999 exercise in accordance with a timetable which will enable further exercises to follow on an annual basis without interruption, and for recommendations on promotion, if approved by the Regent House, to take effect from the beginning of each academical year.

D.E.L. JOHNSTON
on behalf of the General Board

Previous page

Table of Contents

Next page

Cambridge University Reporter, 3 March 1999
Copyright © 1999 The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.