< Previous page ^ Table of Contents Next page >

Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on new arrangements for additional, discretionary pay awards to non-clinical academic and academic-related offices in non-professorial grades and to the holders of analogous unestablished posts: Notice

20 March 2000

The Council and the General Board have considered the remarks made at the Discussion on 18 January 2000 (Reporter, p. 375) and have agreed to reply as follows:

1. As Professor Schofield remarks, this Report should be seen as a step in the process of reforming current arrangements for the recruitment, retention, and reward of non-clinical academic and academic-related staff. Its specific context is the need to put in place arrangements to replace the current discretionary awards scheme necessitated by the introduction of University Senior Lectureships and the modification of the academic-related structure. There are other issues to be addressed, as Professor Schofield points out, the most fundamental of which is the introduction of an appropriate grading methodology for members of staff. Much work has been done in this area and the Council and the General Board have assigned a high priority to introducing an appropriate methodology as soon as possible. Clearly, the Report is based on a number of working assumptions, and further consideration may have to be given to the new arrangements in light of progress made in other matters such as policies concerning the grading and the recruitment and retention of staff.

2. Dr Chippindale's remarks are predicated on the assumption that there is an equivalence between the roles of Curator and University Lecturer. While it is true that Curators undertake teaching - in many cases the regulations for the office allow this - and also research, many making extremely valuable academic contributions, it is undoubtedly the case that the primary purpose of a Curator is to curate. The terms and conditions of a Curator are different from those of a University Lecturer, since a key element of the role is to provide a service. Promotion to a University Senior Lectureship under the new arrangements is restricted to the holders of University Lectureships. To become eligible, it would therefore be necessary for an officer first to obtain appointment to a University Lectureship. In the case of the holders of certain offices, this will raise the issue of how the service provided in the current role could be required of the same person after appointment or promotion to a University Lectureship.

3. Dr Chippindale also raises the question of why some officers are on scales equivalent to the University Lecturer scale, and others not. The Council and the Board do not wish to detail specific cases in this context but they do wish to emphasize that this point is directly connected to the issue of grading and the need to put in place a transparent methodology for grading all offices and posts in the University.

4. Dr Chippindale seeks clarification of the present position with regard to the number of discretionary steps presently available to University offices. This is partly addressed in paragraph 12 of the Report. Under the current arrangements, it is not possible to continue to progress up the scale of stipends; the new arrangements allow for this. The sum of two increments at the top of a scale is equivalent to the amount of a current discretionary payment.

5. Mr Raban queries the attribution of certain offices to Parts A and B of Annex 1 of the Report. In paragraph 33 of the Report it was stated that the Council and the Board recognized that it was most likely that adjustments would be necessary in the course of the implementation of the new arrangements and that it might be the case that some revision of the offices assigned to Parts A and B might be necessary. The Board and the Council, as the case may be, will consider representations made in writing with regard to the assignment of offices to Part A or Part B.

6. With regard to Dr Evans's remarks, the Council and the Board repudiate any imputation that there has been impropriety in the procedural process leading to the approval and the publication of the Report by the central bodies. On the general point which Dr Evans makes and has made in previous Discussions, there is a clear implication that the central bodies should be resisting any movement in the direction of performance-related pay. The Council and the Board acknowledge that this is a controversial issue not only in this University but throughout the HE Sector. Whatever views individual members of the Regent House might have on the matter, it is clear that it would be irresponsible on the part of the University to adopt an unrealistic posture. If the University is to maintain its position in the forefront of the leading research institutions, it must be able to compete with rival institutions; to do this, it must have policies for recruiting and retaining staff which are at least as competitive as those employed elsewhere. Dr Evans asserts that the University is trying to out-pay the private sector. At no time have the central bodies claimed that they wish to do this. The key point is that the University must be able to attract both academic and academic-related staff to maintain its competitive position; flexible policies on recruitment and retention of staff are an essential prerequisite for this.

7. Dr Evans asks why applicants for discretionary pay are to be allowed only three attempts before having to leave off applying for a year. Under the proposed new arrangements, it is possible for a member of staff to apply for the award of an increment or increments. The Council and the Board believe that a balance must be struck between the number of unsuccessful, successive, annual applications that are to be allowed and the administrative demands that the operation of the scheme will impose on Faculties and Departments. It is important that all members of staff develop a realistic sense of their chance of success.

8. The Council and the Board do not wish to reply to the remarks made by Dr Evans which concern the personal Professorships and Readerships exercise since these are not, in their view, relevant to the specific topic of this Discussion. The Board take this opportunity to inform the University that, through the Personnel Committee, they will conduct a review of the personal promotions procedure after three years of operation.

9. In order to implement the new arrangements described in the Report the Council are submitting a Grace to the Regent House (Grace 8, p. 582) for the approval of the recommendations of the Report.


< Previous page ^ Table of Contents Next page >

Cambridge University Reporter, 22 March 2000
Copyright © 2000 The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.