Previous page
Table of Contents
| Previous page |
Table of Contents |
Next page |
The COUNCIL beg leave to report to the University as follows:
1. The Council wish to initiate discussion and consultation within the University about the arrangements for Discussion of Reports and topics of concern. Although changed in some respects, the present arrangements have their origin at a time when it was still possible for many of the relatively small number of resident members of the Senate to meet in person to discuss and decide upon University business.
2. The Council set out in this Report various possibilities, on which the comments of members of the Regent House, and others qualified to speak in Discussions, are requested at the Discussion to take place at 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 13 June 2000 (see the Vice-Chancellor's Notice, p. 710). In the light of the remarks made at this Discussion, the Council will consider whether to make particular proposals, and what further consultation is appropriate.
3. Discussions, which were until recently meetings of the Senate, are now meetings of the Regent House and are for two principal purposes:
| (i) | the discussion of Reports, and |
| (ii) | 'other matters', that is discussion of a topic of concern to the University, discussion of which is requested by ten members of the Regent House. |
The present arrangements for Discussions are regulated by the new Statute A, VIII about conduct of business, which was approved following the recommendations of the Wass Syndicate on Government of the University. Statute A, VIII, 2 refers to meetings of the Regent House, for the discussion of Reports and other matters, and provides that they are to be held in the Senate-House or elsewhere within the precincts of the University. Statute A, VIII, 3 indicates that members of the Senate are to have the right to attend and to speak at Discussions of the Regent House, and permits the University by Ordinance to specify other persons or classes of persons who shall be entitled to speak. It further indicates that, at the Vice-Chancellor's discretion, other persons not so specified may be invited to attend or speak at any particular Discussion. Under Regulation 3 for Discussions (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 112) the following have been specified:
| (a) | Graduates of the University; |
| (b) | Members of Faculties; |
| (c) | Persons in statu pupillari; |
| (d) | Other persons authorized by the Vice-Chancellor to attend a particular Discussion. |
4. Statute A, VIII, 4 requires the Council to ensure that any remarks made at a Discussion are considered by the appropriate University authority. It states that after any necessary consultation the Council should publish such response to the remarks as it sees fit.
5. The regulations for Discussions also provide as follows:
| (a) | Every Report submitted to the University is to be brought forward for consideration by the Regent House at a Discussion (Regulation 1(a)). |
| (b) | Ten members of the Regent House may submit a written request to the Registrary that a topic of concern to the University should be put for-ward for discussion, the Registrary to report the request to the Council, and to include the topic among matters for consideration at an early Discussion (Regulation 1(b)). |
| (c) | When a Discussion is to be held, the Vice-Chancellor is to invite members of the Regent House to attend by means of a Notice in the Reporter (Regulation 2). |
| (d) | The Vice-Chancellor or duly appointed deputy is to preside at the Discussion (Regulation 4). |
| (e) | The person presiding has power to impose a limit on the length of speeches or to terminate the Discussion (Regulation 5). |
| (f) | Remarks made at a Discussion are normally to be published in the Reporter, provided that the Registrary, as editor of the Reporter, has discretion to omit, or with the agreement of the author, to amend any remarks which in his or her opinion are likely to be held to be defamatory. If any remarks are so omitted or amended, the Registrary is required to include a note of the fact with the remarks as published. |
6. In a Notice by the Council published in the Ordinances (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 117) the Council indicate:
| (a) | That the Council are of the view that a Discussion is likely to be more representative of different points of view, and hence more fruitful, if speakers will regard fifteen minutes as the normal maximum duration of a speech. |
| (b) | That the Council consider it inappropriate for a speaker at a Discussion to include in his or her remarks a list of the names of persons who support the speaker's views, and that the Council have requested the Vice-Chancellor or other person presiding at a Discussion to rule out of order any speaker who attempts to read out such a list. |
7. Following the Wass Report, the Regent House is declared by Statute A, III, 1 to be the governing body of the University. It discharges this work primarily as an electing and legislative body. As a legislative body, it for the most part deals responsively with proposals put to it formally, in printed form, through the Council, which is itself declared by Statute A, IV, 1 to be 'the principal executive and policy-making body of the University'. Discussions tend to be set-piece occasions (rather than debates) in which members of the University read prepared speeches, the content of which does not (nor necessarily should it) take account of what other speakers have said.
8. The following points are among those on which the Council believe members of the Regent House might wish to comment:
| (a) | Is the present eligibility to take part in Discussions appropriate? Should, for example, University staff who are not members of the Regent House or members of the Senate be entitled to speak? |
| (b) | Should the present fifteen minutes maximum length of remarks be shortened, say to five minutes? |
| (c) | Should a representative of the body putting forward a Report, if controversial, be expected to introduce it? Should such a person make a preliminary reply to the remarks at the Discussion itself? |
| (d) | Should the person presiding be formally authorized to restrict remarks more strictly to the topic of the Report, or the topic of concern, than tends currently to be the case? |
| (e) | Should verbatim Reports continue to be published in the Reporter? Is the expense justified? Would electronic publishing be preferable to publication in print? Would a summary of the main relevant points be more satisfactory as a means of indicating to the Regent House the substance of the views expressed? If verbatim Reports are to continue, should irrelevant material be published? |
| (f) | Should remarks of a personal nature be permitted (whether referring to third parties or to the speaker)? Should the person presiding rule them out of order? Should they be included in the report of the proceedings in the Reporter? |
9. The above points are based on the assumption that Discussions should continue in something like their present form. There are other means by which consultation takes place in the University, and there may be further developments. Comments are invited on the following:
| (a) | Consultation papers are already frequently distributed to various authorities in the University (e.g. to Faculty Boards and Departments) and also to Colleges. Such papers are sometimes published for individual comment by members of the University. It is important to have the collective view, arrived at in meetings after appropriate discussion, of bodies with responsibility within the University, such as Faculty Boards. But there may also be a case for wider opportunities for individuals to comment, either by correspondence or electronically. There is a danger, however, that electronic comments, particularly in the form of 'chatroom' comments, can be superficial and unconsidered. There are also resource implications in generating official replies to such comments, especially if replies are to be immediate, rather than at the conclusion of a consultation period. Should certain electronic (or hard copy) comments on proposals be formally published (e.g. if they are signed by more than fifteen members of the Regent House)? |
| (b) | The Council currently present an Annual Report to the University, which is accompanied by an Annual Report of the General Board, and which is put up for Discussion. The Board of Scrutiny is invited to comment on these Reports. The Council are reviewing the timetable of the publication of these Reports to enable better consideration to be given to them after publication. A Discussion may not be the best forum for these Reports to be considered, even if a comment from the Board of Scrutiny is available in time. The Council raise the question, for discussion by the Regent House, whether some special annual meeting, at which there could be a presentation of the Reports, would be appropriate, and to which, in addition to the Regent House, other stake-holders might be invited. |
| (c) | Should Discussions in person be limited to occasions for the discussion of topics of importance to the University (e.g. topics called by the Council, or topics raised by members of the University as topics of concern)? |
| (d) | Should the Discussion of Reports in future be written rather than in person? If so, on publication of a Report a date would be set by which written remarks should be submitted, in a prescribed format, with signatures. These comments would be available for consultation by members of the Regent House, if possible electronically (and would, of course, be circulated to the Council and by it to other bodies concerned). The comments, or a summary or selection of them, could be published in the Reporter. |
10. The Council would welcome other suggestions about Discussions, and about consultation generally within the University.
15 May 2000
| ALEC N. BROERS, Vice-Chancellor A. J. BADGER A. L. R. FINDLAY L. GROO DAVID HARRISON GORDON JOHNSON |
T. JONES DONALD LAMING MELISSA LANE JOHN A. LEAKE A. M. LONSDALE M. D. MACLEOD |
ONORA O'NEILL JEREMY SANDERS M. SARDY DAVID M. THOMPSON R. E. THORNTON |
Formal meetings of its members for discussion are as ancient as the University (de convocacionibus faciendis, 1250). Their continuance reflects the fact that the University was, and remains, a community of scholars who are ultimately responsible for the decisions they take as a body.
From a misapprehension at the beginning of the Report about the constitutional significant of Discussions proceeds the assumption (in the questions suggested for the Discussion of 13 June), that it may be acceptable to the Regent House and the University at large to make changes which would undermine the democratic structure as well as the right of freedom of speech in the University.
There is a reform which needs to be put in hand first, before we consider interfering so radically with our ancient democratic processes. The Council has not been willing to include this in the list. I therefore add it here. Replies to speeches made in Discussions are often much delayed or not forthcoming at all. I propose that we create a Question Time at Discussions on the model of the Parliamentary accountability procedure, at which, with notice, Chairmen of Committees and senior administrative officers, may be required to answer questions put.
|
15 May 2000 |
G.R. Evans |
| Previous page |
Table of Contents |
Next page |
Cambridge University Reporter, 24 May 2000
Copyright © 2000 The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.