Cambridge University Reporter


report of discussion

Tuesday, 9 October 2007

A Discussion was held in the Newton Room of the Pitt Building. Deputy Vice-Chancellor Professor Jeremy Sanders was presiding, with the Senior Proctor, the Junior Proctor, two Pro-Proctors, the Registrary, and twenty other persons present.

The following Reports were discussed:

Report of the General Board, dated 11 July 2007, on the establishment of a Professorship of Cancer Therapeutics (Reporter, 2006-07, p. 886).

No comments were made on this Report.

Report of the General Board, dated 11 July 2007, on the establishment of a Professorship of Immunology and Cell Biology and a Professorship of Experimental Neuroscience (Reporter, 2006-07, p. 887).

No comments were made on this Report.

Second-stage Report of the Council, dated 23 July 2007, on the construction of a new building for the Institute for Manufacturing to be located at West Cambridge (Reporter, 2006-07, p. 911).

No comments were made on this Report.

Joint Report of the Council and the General Board, dated 23 and 11 July 2007, on a Disability Equality Policy (Reporter, 2006-07, p. 913).

Mr N. M. MACLAREN:

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I welcome this Report and must start by declaring an interest. I have been just better than severely deaf since childhood, and this is associated with impaired balance. Please note that my following references to Heads of Institution are general, and I am not referring to my current situation.

I am doubtful that this Report will be turned into effective action - my past experiences with raising such problems are not happy ones. Here, I am not referring to explicit and major problems or actions, but of systematic minor discrimination, often due to carelessness or simple lack of thought. I have no criticism of the Disability Resource Centre, and many of the University's major campaigns (such as wheelchair access, staircase handrails, and hearing aid loops) are very welcome.

Note that many of these actions benefit non-disabled people as well as disabled ones, and are sometimes even cost-neutral over a long period; it is regrettable that the University rarely adopts a policy to introduce even those until forced to by the government. For example, something that has been unsuccessfully requested for at least 30 years, is the installation of double glazing in meeting and lecture rooms adjacent to busy streets. Let us hope that this Report will help to change this inertia.

It is, however, worth pointing out that the management of the University is the main cause of this, and recent changes have made it worse. Progress usually depends entirely on whether a Head of Institution takes an active interest, and this applies whether the Head of Institution can order the improvement or needs to persuade Estate Management to do so. If the Head of Institution decides to take no action or prevaricates, what can be done? The answer seems to be 'essentially nothing'. Will this Report lead to an improvement here? Somehow, I doubt it.

Individual discrimination against the partially deaf has got worse in the past 35 years, too, but it is unfair to blame the University for that. It is a reflection of the way that that type of discrimination has become systematized in the UK over that period, in ways that I could explain but are not directly relevant. Unfortunately, the management structure hinders resolution of these, too, because the Head of Institution is the only person who can take lightweight action, and is often reluctant to do so.

A national example of this is that traditional acting and broadcasting took trouble to make speech audible, and to reduce the volume of extraneous noises - this may be heard by listening to old films, newscasts, and other programmes. Nowadays, the converse is true, and it is common for 'background' music, laughter, etc. to be louder than the 'foreground' speech, and sometimes for speech to be artificially distorted in other ways.

A University example is that the amplification in large lecture rooms is sometimes set up to the volume of very quiet speech, which is much lower than the volume of a clear lecturer using no amplification. Requests to increase the volume to that of a traditional good public speaker have been refused with words like 'Most people can hear it so why should we change it just for you?' But the request was not for it to be increased to a level that would cause anyone else discomfort.

I shall make one last point. Consider the case where a junior officer raises an issue of the above type with his Head of Institution, who does not take appropriate action. What can the officer do if he feels that is unreasonable? The answer appears to be to make a formal complaint to the Director of Personnel or to invoke Statute U. Because the Head of Institution has almost totalitarian powers over the careers of many officers, they dare not risk causing that level of offence.

Professor G. R. EVANS:

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, two preliminary queries:

1. I am not sure why we need a policy statement here. The policy points seem to be legal obligations anyway. There is no need to make them 'policy'. But supposing they were things the University was free to choose to do or not to do. We should be in the interesting position of turning a broad policy statement into an Ordinance by Grace, so that a 'collective responsibility' (6) would be defined for individuals whose relationships to the University under the Statutes are very different (students, University officers, assistant staff, those with relevant special ex officio responsibilities). Surely there is potential here for all sorts of conflict with Statutes and Ordinances?

2. The Grace resembles the ones for accepting tenders for building projects, on which I have spoken several times in the past. The Regent House agrees in principle and then others take over and exercise what may be a wide discretion. The proposal is:

II. That the Council and the General Board be given authority to approve such activity plans as they consider necessary in the interests of efficient operation of the policy or to reflect future changes in legislation.

So this is the last time the Regent House has an opportunity to discuss a matter of considerable potential importance.

My final question is whether it may not be a dangerous precedent to set policy by Grace and then allow bodies or individuals (remember the new Statute K, 9) to do as they think fit. 'Will it work?' is the important question, as we have just heard, and our excellent staff who are there to support disabled students and staff seem to have only a bit part in this Report.

Dr D. R. DE LACEY:

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I was amused by the wording 'approach to equality, which supports and encourages all under-represented groups'. Can we expect to see an increase in the lunar green-cheese contingent in the Department of Astronomy? Wording is important. But I wish to comment on a far more serious aspect of the issue.

'Under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 (DDA) the University is required to have in place a similar policy statement on disability equality.' One might have thought that 'obeying the law' would be adequate. But being aware of many problems in this area while I was still in the University's employ, I decided to do a little quiet canvassing. Regents may be interested in two candid views which through fear of reprisals are unlikely to be voiced publicly: 'disabled access in large parts of the University is an absolute disgrace ... even when measures to remedy this are requested, response, if any, is extremely slow' and, looking forward to such a policy, 'I very much hope that a disabled person applying for a job would not be quietly rejected [as now] on the grounds (never uttered out loud, of course) of the expense involved in making the necessary adaptations'.

Whatever policy we have had heretofore has clearly been ineffective. But the issues behind those views will not be resolved by improving policy wording, any more than by law, unless application of the policy can change attitudes. That is the challenge and it is by that rather than the wording of the policy that we should be judged. It is not enough to say that certain people have special or particular responsibilities. They too, surely, should be monitored to assess their progress. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Twelfth Report of the Board of Scrutiny, dated 12 July 2007 (Reporter, 2006-07, p. 914).

Mr N. J. A. DOWNER:

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I am here today as the outgoing Chairman of the Board of Scrutiny to introduce its Twelfth Report for discussion.

As in previous years, the Board is grateful to many people throughout the University who have helped with its enquiries. As Chairman last year, I attended those meetings recorded in paragraph 3 of our Report and am delighted to be able to record that, in the vast majority of cases, my colleagues and I received nothing but willing co-operation and generous assistance from everyone involved.

As ever, the Board has tried to be constructive in its observations. It welcomes the positive response of the Council to the Twelfth Report in its Notice of 1 October. In consequence, I would like to focus today on four main items: finance, governance, CamSIS, and pay and grading.

In finance, good progress has been made in the last two to three years, culminating in full consolidation of the financial statements of the University, its subsidiary undertakings, and related entities such as the Cambridge University Press and the statement this year by the Independent Auditors that a 'true and fair view' of the accounts has been achieved. Congratulations are due to the Council, the Director of Finance, and his staff. Having said that, and acknowledging the difficulty of presenting complex and detailed information in a readily comprehensible manner, the Board has found that underlying trends are still not all easily discerned from materials not always consistently presented. The Board hopes that efforts will continue to be made to achieve a more accessible presentation.

There does appear to be a downturn in the overall financial situation resulting from the delays in the implementation of full Economic Costing. In paragraph 11, the Board notes sharply reduced forecasts for the years 2007-08 (down £17m compared to earlier forecasts) and 2008-09 (down £13m). There still remains a great deal to do if long-term financial stability is to be achieved.

As regards governance, the Board believes that, as long as the University retains its reputation for excellence, it should be able to retain control over the governance agenda; in particular it should be able to impress upon regulators that it is what works that matters. We cannot of course be impervious to outside pressure for change and the Board welcomes the Green Paper on 'Developing governance by building on good practice' as a positive step in advancing debate.

In paragraph 31, the Board notes with implicit approval the comments of the Wilson Report that 'the Regent House should act as a forum for addressing the major strategic issues which face the University and for reflecting the main body of academic opinion. It is not clear from the record of Regent House's proceedings that it is performing these functions as well as it may or as its members would wish'.

The Board further believes that if progress on governance is to be achieved, it will be necessary to re-engage with the Regent House and re-involve it in the decision-making process. This may well require a review of how the Regent House conducts its business and whether its current composition accurately reflects the needs of the University. Appropriately, the debate is beginning. It is up to members of the Regent House to ensure they get the governance they deserve. The Board looks forward to the Council's Report in the Michaelmas Term.

I would now like to turn to CamSIS. The Board acknowledges that CamSIS is probably the most complex systems implementation project yet undertaken and that certain difficulties were perhaps inevitable. That said, the Board is disappointed by the problems that have arisen, be these high profile delays in publishing student numbers, issues with the Higher Education Statistical Agency (which mercifully appear to have had no material financial impact), or the arguably more serious usability issues.

The Council points out in its Notice and the Board has already acknowledged that the failure of a key supplier aggravated an already difficult situation. The Board notes however that the Council does not address the usability problems severely criticized by the project's own consultants, which have put the credibility of the project at risk. CamSIS is seen almost universally by its users as unfriendly and the hearts and minds of those working at the coalface will be lost if substantial remedial action is not taken soon.

The Board concluded that there has been inadequate resourcing and an overall failure of project management. It further appears that MISD breached its own internal governance guidelines. This said, the Board is aware that the change in senior personnel provides an opportunity to get a grip on this project and turn it round. In paragraph 48, we recommend that the newly appointed Registrary and the Head of MISD review the governance and implementation aspects of CamSIS. We hope that the situation can be remedied and look forward to the report, now promised in the Council's Notice, of those officers before the end of the Michaelmas Term.

I would now like to address the pay and grading process. The University has been working on the single spine since 2005. A total of 8,600 posts were assimilated, of which 3,700 were subject to a matching process. The Board wishes to acknowledge the extremely hard work put in by all those concerned. Sadly, the process has not been perceived as successful by many staff, and morale has been adversely affected. In paragraphs 54-67, the Board notes problems with communication, inconsistency of approach in the PD33s, and the matching process. The Board also remains concerned that costs may well exceed the original estimates. It welcomes the Council's acceptance that communication in general is an issue for the University and is being addressed and that in future, staff will receive full information on any process where a response is required.

The Board accepts the Council's point in its Notice that grading should be done by a small number of analysts in order to ensure consistency in outcomes. However it is concerned at the length of time it currently takes to create PD33s for new posts whose gradings match the funds available, and considers that training those writing the PD33s in HERA process, while keeping the grading done centrally, would shorten the process.

The Board had hoped to determine whether the exercise has resulted in a fair and uniform system within the University and that the outcome had not selectively advantaged or disadvantaged any particular group of staff. It has however been unable to obtain timely data on the effects of moderation or certain data on red- and green-circling. These will not be published until final project completion.

The Board notes the remarks of the Council that information will be published in accordance with the timescale already agreed. The Board would be grateful for an explicit statement of what information the Council intends to publish and the timescale which has been 'already agreed'. The Board will continue to press for the information it has sought from the Personnel Division on moderation and red- and green- circling. It also reiterates its Recommendation 12 that the detailed data referred to in our Report be published as soon as possible and annually thereafter.

Professor G. R. EVANS:

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I would like to draw attention to the importance of the section of the Board's Report which relates to governance. A recognition of its importance echoes in the remarks of the Council in its Notice in the Reporter of 3 October.

Cambridge is soon to face an 'Assurance Visit' from HEFCE, which, in view of what has happened in Oxford since its own recent visit, is something Cambridge will need to prepare for with a certain vigilance. As we welcome the new Registrary we are sure that he is noticing much that is different from anything he has met before in a distinguished career in university administration. As the Board puts it in its paragraph 25: 'The Lambert Review noted that 'Oxford and Cambridge work largely outside the governance systems which apply to most universities'.'

The Board has rightly chosen to put up a polite 'No trespassing' sign: '26. Whilst the University cannot be impervious to outside pressures for change, the Board believes that, as long as the University retains its reputation for leadership and excellence, such pressures should not become overwhelming and that the University should be able to retain control over its governance agenda.'

This is timely. While the story of Oxford's debates, culminating in its resounding 'no' vote to having a majority of externals on its Council, is probably well known to those concerned with the future of Cambridge governance, not everyone may know what happened next. HEFCE did not accept the democratic vote of Congregation. It wrote to Oxford in January and the correspondence has continued since, with HEFCE trying to insist on a majority of externals: 'The main difference of interest to the HEFCE is that there is still not an external majority on Council.'

Oxford already has four, so is it conceivable that Cambridge will be left in peace after the Assurance visit with two, or even four? I note a certain ambiguity in the Council's Notice:

The Council is pleased to note … the Board's opinion in favour of a maximum of four external, independent, members of the Council. The Council notes the Board's statement that it does not believe that this will have a significant effect on the overall balance of the Council (paragraph 29).

It is one thing to be in favour of no more than four and another to be in favour of actually having four. I think the Board was saying the former rather than the latter but the Council favours the latter. When Oxford was coaxed into having four a few years ago, it rather hoped that would satisfy HEFCE. It was wrong.

HEFCE to Oxford again: 'even though the University is an independent body we have the right to expect that our interests will be considered given the large amounts of public money invested in the University over many years', and: 'We do not prescribe that the University has to follow the CUC model but we do put to the University that it has to explain to us how its corporate governance arrangements meet requirements for effectiveness and scrutiny given the very limited involvement of external individuals in its corporate governance.'

HEFCE has now presented Oxford with eight questions which it has to answer. They are to form the subject of a review or report by the Audit and Scrutiny Committee (a single body in Oxford, with only a few members directly elected by Congregation).

(Readers of the Reporter may like to look at Robin Briggs' article in the Oxford Magazine of Noughth Week,1 conveniently to hand in the West Room in the University Library.)

The eight questions HEFCE wants Oxford's Audit and Scrutiny Committee to find answers to are:

I. Explain and describe the University's governance arrangements including the role of Congregation.

II. Compare the University's governance arrangements with the CUC Guidelines.

III. Compare the University's governance arrangements with those of Russell Group and overseas peer institutions.

IV. Explain how the University's procedures deviate from those set out in the CUC Guidelines and used by other institutions.

V. Take each difference and explain how the Oxford way is effective (discussing benefits and problems associated with the differences) taking individual evidence as needed, including from HEFCE.

VI. Explain how the University ensures that debate and decision making in Council are adequately informed and refreshed by outside ideas and by individuals with a breadth of experience and expertise from outside the University sector with a broad experience of society, business and the professions.

VII. Explain the governance arrangements for the receipt and use of substantial sums of public money and how these arrangements provide adequate and broad oversight that can be relied upon by third parties.

VIII. Make recommendations for areas in which change is needed to improve and modernise governance arrangements in the University.

It may be wise for Cambridge to prepare its answers to these questions in advance of the Assurance visit, to avoid being pursued for answers to them afterwards, if it is to retain the freedom to proceed in the spirit of the Board of Scrutiny's remarks:

The Board welcomes the emphasis on governance being driven by purpose and effective policy, rather than by structural change for its own sake. It agrees … that the main objective of the University must be to achieve a system of governance which it can demonstrate to outside bodies as being fit for the purpose of excellence in the University's own circumstances, rather than merely complying with a general identikit.

Oxford's Vice-Chancellor said in his annual oration on 2 October:2

I wish to place in context the governance component of the recently concluded HEFCE Evaluation of Risk Control and Governance at Oxford. That audit was performed early in 2006 and its finalisation held over until Congregation's consideration of the White Paper on University Governance had been completed. In its final report, issued in July 2007, HEFCE reiterated concerns it had earlier expressed about elements of Oxford's governance that differ from the CUC Guide, most particularly how Oxford meets requirements for 'independent scrutiny of outside investors' interests'. In that context, HEFCE's position is that governing body 'membership should be largely non-executive, external and without potential conflicts of interests.' Arising from its audit work, HEFCE requested that the University conduct a review to evaluate Oxford's governance arrangements in relation to current standards. HEFCE also requested that independent advice be sought for such a review. Council subsequently agreed with HEFCE that Council's Audit and Scrutiny Committee would conduct the review. Further, Council agreed that the Committee would be chaired for that purpose by one of its lay members, Mr Nigel Turnbull, who has extensive governance experience. [Though not of governance as Oxbridge understands it.] Council preferred this arrangement to the alternative proposal of having an independent outside party undertake the work. The Audit and Scrutiny Committee anticipates reporting within a year.

I invite Cambridge readers of this speech when it is printed to study all this very closely. HEFCE has 'agreed', not with Congregation, the legislative governing body which must, under the statutes, approve any legislative change affecting Oxford governance, but with its Council, the mere 'executive' governing body, the terms of a deal in which HEFCE seeks to require the University not to take that resounding 'no' vote as the end of the matter, but to return to this vexed question of the majority of externals and deliver what HEFCE wants through a 'review'. I find this chilling. There is no constitutional provision for a review of this kind and Oxford's direct democracy will have to press assiduously to be allowed an insight into the way it is conducted.

A second key aspect of the Board of Scrutiny's remarks on governance I know will be of interest to Oxford readers too, and especially for this reason. This is the call to improve the way the Regent House 'works' by giving it more opportunity to participate in the forming of policy: '31. The Board notes with interest the comments of the Wilson Report on the operation of the Regent House: 'the Regent House should also act as a forum for addressing the major strategic issues which face the University and for reflecting the main body of academic opinion. It is not clear from the record of Regent House's proceedings that it is performing these functions as well as it may or as its members would wish'', and: '32. The Board agrees with the recommendation of the Wilson Report that 'more use of green and white papers for issues of major importance in the business of the University, and of the internet and other channels of communication as well''.

Direct democracy is a 'use it or lose it' privilege, and the best way to demonstrate to HEFCE that Oxford and Cambridge have excellent structures for calling to account is to show that Congregation and the Regent House respectively are on the ball and actively involved in decision-making processes.

Finally, reform of the Unified Administrative Service. '20. … The Board has noted in previous Reports that the University's administration has been expanding at a faster rate than the University as a whole for several years. This has prompted questions within the University as to whether the administration is in control of its size and shape and whether it offers value for money. There is also a perceived absence of accountability to key stakeholders within the University.'

There are proposals, to which the Board refers in this section of its Report as: '(22)… intended to provide clearer leadership in the administrative domain and more emphasis on transparency, efficiency, accountability and value for money'. The Board 'recommends that all formal annual or similar reports be made available to members of the Regent House'.

Unless the Regent House and Congregation are able to keep an eye on what is done in their name, they cannot easily ensure that it is done well. It would be a pity if Cambridge's governance was vulnerable to criticism because of administrative failings the Regent House could know nothing of. Maintaining that reputation for excellence may depend on getting this right.

1 Oxford Magazine, No. 267, Noughth Week, Michaelmas Term 2007, pp. 8-10.

2 http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/2007-8/supps/3_4818.pdf

Dr S. J. COWLEY:

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I am a member of Council, but I speak in a personal capacity.

In debates over governance we must remember that the University is in receipt of substantial sums of public money through the HEFCE, the Research Councils, and other routes. Taxpayers need to be reassured that these funds are being spent wisely. In particular, as a University we need to convince the HEFCE that our arrangements 'provide adequate and broad oversight that can be relied upon by third parties'.

My belief is that our current governance arrangements by and large succeed in this. Inter alia, the Board of Scrutiny (together with the Audit Committee) keeps the central bodies (including Council) on their toes. The Board is composed of internal members of the University who offer their time freely and who, by being in the University all day and every day, are in touch with developments in the University and, possibly most importantly, can pick up the gossip. The Board's reports are not necessarily easy reading for those in the central bodies, and I have not noticed punches being pulled (indeed maybe internal punches are the hardest). The University is bold to risk washing its dirty linen in public, and by doing so the Board plays an important role both in providing robust accountability to third parties, and in demonstrating that internal self-governance is effective.

Having said that, and judging by events in Oxford, the HEFCE views it as desirable that debate and decision making is 'adequately informed and refreshed by individuals with a breadth of experience and expertise from outside the University sector with broad experience of society, business and the professions'. Such contributions can be, and in Cambridge have been, valuable. Cambridge's Council currently has two external members, and the Board of Scrutiny favours a maximum number of four external independent members.

In a worst case scenario the HEFCE may attempt to force a majority of external members, as laid out in the guidance produced by the Committee of University Chairmen (membership of which is only open to the lay chairs of governing bodies, and as such excludes Oxbridge). The question would then arise how such external members would be appointed. Nominations by a Council with an external majority, even with the long stop of appointment by Grace, might not be sufficient to deter the development of a self-propagating oligarchy. Moreover, the use of the long stop (as recently happened at Oxford) is messy, and does not necessarily reassure third parties. If the number of externals on Council were to increase, would it not be better if there was a nominating committee, the membership of which was distinct from Council, and which was directly elected by the Regent House (say, at the same time as elections to the Board of Scrutiny).

Dr D. R. DE LACEY:

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, there are many areas where the Board deserves our congratulations on the tenacious and independent way in which it has pursued its brief. I hope they may be taken as read.

Paragraph 37 welcomes the beginning of strategic study on the future of NW Cambridge. Yet in meeting after meeting at Local Council level I hear statements that 'The University' has decided this, wishes that, will not accept the other; and on the basis of such claims the City, County, and District Councils are making far-reaching decisions of their own. This matter is urgent, and we are already almost too late. The emerging preferred plan referred to in paragraph 38 has already been approved, though the implications of that are not yet clear. Please in the interim can we make it perfectly plain to the various Councils that the University's plans are far from settled, and that there should therefore be a moratorium on their own planning (which they seem to see as driven by the University)?

CamSIS makes a sorry story, but may I congratulate the Council on its courage (so the interim response to this Report) in doing what it should have done so often in the past, and sacking the consultants in favour of our own IT staff. I trust that the report to which the Council refers will be made public as a matter of course.

Oriental Studies. The Board is right to highlight the catalogue of errors committed; it is unfortunate that this will do nothing to right the wrongs done. Will Council please take the warning note about Sanskrit seriously, and carefully monitor the support now given to it? First impressions suggest this is highly necessary.

Mr N. M. MACLAREN:

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I shall make only one remark on this Report. While I could make a few others, they would add little to what it says, and I urge the Council to implement its conclusions.

The remark on North-West Cambridge in Estate Planning (paragraph 37) makes amusing reading, given what Cambridgeshire County Council have just published. Regrettably, the URL is too horrible to quote here, but it can be found from the current (10/10/2007) agenda of the Environment and Community Services Scrutiny Committee.

Its current Appendix 1 of its TIF proposals says in paragraph 3.81 'Madingley Park & Ride will be expanded to 2,750 spaces to accommodate new demand and services will run via segregated facilities through the University North West development to Huntingdon Road where they will enjoy priority to the city centre'. Paragraphs 3.78 and 3.79 also say that Huntingdon Road will have west-bound car restrictions (and, we can safely assume, goods vehicle ones), and there will be a north-south traffic route running through the site. Figure 3.5 on page 38 shows this scheme clearly.

The proposed congesting charging zone (figure 3.6 on page 40) also includes the University's Park and Cycle scheme, thus rendering it completely futile.

Now, without speaking for anyone else, I know that this document does not reflect the University's position. But could we please hear a little more on what the University's position is, and not from an unreliable third party?

Dr M. R. CLARK (read by Dr N. J. HOLMES):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I would like to comment briefly on aspects of this Report, and also on the accompanying Notice issued by the Council to inform this Discussion. Firstly I wish to declare my interests as both a member of Council and also currently the elected President of Cambridge UCU. The Board of Scrutiny have raised various issues regarding Pay and Grading one of which was that those who prepared their PD33s before the role descriptors were published were disadvantaged in the matching process. As President of Cambridge UCU I would like to support that view and to disagree with the statement in the Council's Notice that it was unlikely that anyone was helped particularly in this way. The matching process was designed to eliminate the need for a full HERA evaluation for the majority of roles and as such it relied on identifying the nearest matching, previously HERA scored, role descriptor, to any given role in the University. Matching panels carried this out by looking for statements in PD33s that appeared to be equivalent to examples within the elements of the role descriptors in the pack supplied to them by the Personnel Division. Clearly if the statements within the PD33s follow a wording that closely matches the wording of the examples used on the descriptors it makes this process of matching much easier. Thus those who prepared their PD33s after the descriptors were available were able to use wording that could be easily matched by the panels. There is nothing wrong with this so long as the statements correctly applied to the role, but it would certainly place those who prepared their PD33s at an earlier stage at a disadvantage. With regard to the Board's recommendation number 11 that Departmental Administrators be offered training in HERA scoring I find the Council's comments in the Notice rather intriguing. We were told in the various Reports on the Pay and Grading process that the whole point of adopting HERA was to allow an objective and robust means of evaluating one role with respect to any other role within the University. As a scientist I am always very wary of anyone who tells me that an objective scoring system can only be relied on if it is carried out by a very small number of highly trained subjects. It seems to me that the Council's Notice indicates that there may be a strong subjective element in how our Personnel Division is applying this so called objective process, and that they fear that this subjectivity might be exposed if Departmental Administrators were to gain a greater understanding of, and training in, the HERA methodology. Finally I too am looking forward to the publication of the detailed statistics that were agreed by ballot of Regent House to be published on an annual basis,1 and I would like to know exactly when the first such annual publication of these statistics will commence?

1 Reporter, 2005-06, pp. 56 and 194.