Cambridge University Reporter


Report of the Council on voting arrangements: Notice

22 May 2006

The Council have considered the remarks made at the Discussion held on 7 February 2006 (Reporter, p. 408) of their Report on voting arrangements, dated 28 November 2005 (Reporter, p. 190). The Discussion was introduced by the President of Lucy Cavendish, a member of the Council, who had chaired the earlier Review Committee.

Professor R. J. Anderson drew attention to the need for the processes of the academic self-government of the University to develop and adapt, for example as different media and methods of communications become current, and as the circumstances of individual members of the Regent House, and the size of the Regent House, change. The Council strongly agree: these are indeed important points which should be further considered with a view to ensuring as best possible the good academic self-government of the University. The Council would be pleased to receive suggestions from members of the Regent House and expect to make proposals in due course.

However, the particular proposals in the Report under consideration are not directly addressed to these points, but to matters more immediately related to the process of voting in the Regent House.

The Council are grateful to the Vice-President of the Cambridge AUT, for his remarks and for the Association's support for the proposed changes to voting arrangements. The Vice-President also asked that an Ordinance be adopted to regulate the submission of controversial business for formal approval during the summer. The Council cannot recommend that such an Ordinance be made, because there are circumstances in which it may be necessary for the University to take action, by the submission and approval of a Grace, even on a controversial matter, during the summer, especially when external requirements must be complied with.

The Council fully recognize, however, that when University policy is being developed, whenever possible, major controversial developments should not be put forward for formal final decision in the Long Vacation, unless this is the culmination of a thorough process of consultation and discussion. The Council would expect that if such matters were announced in the Long Vacation the arrangements adopted would be such that voting could take place in the following Michaelmas Term. As was the case with the recent announcements about IPR, arrangements can be made for the Council's recommendations to be announced in the Long Vacation, but for the formal submission of Graces (which trigger the time period in which amendments or opposition can be registered) to be later, so that those processes can take place in term. The Council believe that these arrangements are the optimal way of maintaining the University's flexibility to act urgently when necessary, and with due deliberation in normal circumstances.

Most other speakers in the Discussion spoke about continued use of the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system, and alternatives to it, a topic on which the Council have no immediate proposal to make, for the reasons fully explained in the Review Committee's report, and in the Council's own Report. The actual proposals in the Report are not dependent on whether or not STV is continued for some or all voting.

Professor G. R. Evans suggested that there was a difference between the Vice-Chancellor's deputy as administrative presiding officer in voting, and somebody who was a recipient of delegation. There is no confusion: appointment by the Vice-Chancellor of a deputy under Statute D, III, 7(b) carries with it delegation of the relevant duty.

Dr J. S. Sanders referred to non-receipt of a ballot paper by three people in the case of a recent ballot. The Council have been informed that unfortunately this matter was only drawn to the attention of the Registrary after it was too late to issue duplicate ballot papers. Satisfactory arrangements are in fact in place to issue duplicate papers if necessary (and if requested in good time); the original papers issued are not counted, if subsequently returned.

The Council believe that the remarks made in this Discussion about the actual proposals set out in the Report justify the Council in putting forward the proposed amendments of Ordinance for approval. The Council are therefore submitting a Grace (Grace 1, p. 653) for the approval of those amendments of Ordinance.

Correction to Report

It is regretted that the name of Mr Ben Wheeler was omitted in error from the list of signatories to the published Report (p. 190).