Skip to main contentCambridge University Reporter

No 6170

Wednesday 2 December 2009

Vol cxl No 11

pp. 229–252



4 December, Friday. Full Term ends.

8 December, Tuesday. Discussion at 2 p.m. in the Senate-House (see below).

19 December, Saturday. Michaelmas Term ends.

5 January, Tuesday. Lent Term begins.

6 January, Wednesday. First ordinary number of the Reporter in the Lent Term.

12 January, Tuesday. Full Term begins.

Notice of a Discussion on Tuesday, 8 December 2009

The Vice-Chancellor invites those qualified under the regulations for Discussions (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 107) to attend a Discussion in the Senate-House, on Tuesday, 8 December 2009, at 2 p.m., for the discussion of the Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on the introduction of a degree of Doctor of Education (the Ed.D.) (Reporter, p. 281). Πα βω και κινω ταν γαν

Nomination of members of the Council in class (e) (External Members): Election of members of Nominating Committee

25 November 2009

The following persons have been elected to serve as members of the Nominating Committee for members of the Council in class (e):

In class (c) (current members of the Council) until 30 September 2013:

Professor Athene Margaret Donald, R

In class (d) (members of the Senate) until 30 September 2013:

Dr Colin John Burrow, CAI

Mr Jack Lang, EM

Details of the poll and of the transfer of votes under the Single Transferable Vote Regulations for members in class (d) are as follows:

Number of valid votes cast: 1,037

Quota: 346

First count

Transfer of Dr Burrow’s

Second count


Dr Burrow




First Elected

Mr Lang




Second Elected

Mr Maclaren







Fourteenth Report of the Board of Scrutiny: Notice by the Council

30 November 2009

This Notice sets out the Council’s comments on the Fourteenth Report of the Board of Scrutiny (Reporter, 2008–09, p. 976) and is in reply also to the Discussion of that Report held on 13 October 2009 (Reporter, p. 80).

The Council welcomes the Report, and agrees with the view of the outgoing Chairman of the Board, expressed at the Discussion, that there has been a continuing constructive dialogue between the Board and the Council and the administration. In this regard, the Council wishes to record that during 2009 it was suggested to it that it should meet the incoming and outgoing chairs of the Board to discuss future Reports. The Council consulted the Board about this suggestion, which at that stage had not been endorsed. The Board’s view was that such an arrangement would risk compromising the Board’s position, reporting as it does to the Regent House, rather than to the Council. The Council agrees with this opinion, which respects the proper functions and responsibilities, and independence of reporting, of the Board. The resulting decision not to hold the series of such formal meetings does not, however, overturn the existing arrangements whereby officers meet the Board, and the informal arrangements whereby the Board checks its draft Report for factual accuracy with officers before publication.

On the overridingly important matter of the University’s financial position, especially in the years from 2011, the Council agrees with the emphasis given by the outgoing Chairman of the Board at the Discussion. The Council is developing medium- and long-term financial strategies, assisted by the Finance Committee, and is, as observed by the Board, arranging for particular attention to be given to pensions matters, both in respect of the Cambridge contributory pension scheme, and nationally in respect of USS.

The Council notes the comments of the outgoing Chairman of the Board about the proposed reform of Statute U. The Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on disciplinary, dismissal, and grievance procedures has now been published (Reporter, p. 131); the proposals would make no change to the academic freedom currently enjoyed by University officers. The Code of Practice for academic freedom in Annex C of the published Report makes plain (Reporter, p. 152) that the principles of academic freedom in the proposals extend to all University officers.

Reference was made in the Discussion to the General Board’s review of teaching and learning support services. A separate Discussion has already taken place about this matter, and a Notice in reply was published on 26 November (Reporter, p. 256). Reports (or Notices and Graces) will be brought forward by the Board as and when they are needed, when amendments of Ordinance (or Statutes) are required. As at present, no such need has arisen in relation to the review.

The Council comments below on the specific recommendations of the Board’s Report:

1. The Board recommends that the IO (Investment Office) publish its annual report to investors more widely for the general University reader.

The Council has invited the Chief Investment Officer to consider this helpful suggestion, in the context of developing arrangements for the Cambridge University Endowment Fund.

2. The Board recommends a robust and activist approach to confronting the problems likely to beset the future of the defined benefit pension schemes in which University employees are registered.

The Council, and its Finance Committee, fully understand the importance of the future of pension schemes, which must be affordable, and must meet the needs of the employer and members, contributing and pensioners. The Finance Committee has a Pensions Working Group that has been charged with bringing forward proposals to the Committee to ensure that the University’s Assistant Staff Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS) remains an affordable and sustainable scheme into the future. It is expected that the Finance Committee will consider a report from the Pensions Working Group at its meeting in January 2010. With regard to the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS), which is a national scheme, under the aegis of the Employers’ Pensions Forum, established jointly by Universities UK and UCEA (the Universities and Colleges Employers Association), discussions are taking place between the University and College Union (UCU) – which under USS’s rules represents all the members of the scheme – and the employers under the independent chairmanship of Sir Andrew Cubie. Those discussions are working towards a timetable whereby proposals with regard to the future sustainability and affordability of USS would be brought forward by April 2010 so that any changes in the scheme that might be agreed would be implemented for October of that year, after the statutory consultation with members.

3. As last year, the Board strongly recommends that the University’s Finance Committee proceed as soon as possible with a long-dated issuance in the fixed-interest markets while conditions remain historically favourable.

The funding requirements for the University’s capital programme and North West Cambridge project are being developed and the Finance Committee will consider the financing options, which will include long-term borrowing, during 2009–10.

4. The Board recommends that, notwithstanding the currently low levels of Retail Price Index and other indicators in the UK, the University should use an inflation percentage more representative of long-term averages when modelling future financial outcomes.

The inflation assumptions used will reflect current views of medium- and long-term inflation rates.

5. The Board recommends that in future, should the Council and/or the General Board wish to consult the University in a wholly informal fashion before it has formulated its views to the point where it is able to issue a Report, it makes clear at the very outset of the consultation document the precise status of the document that is being issued, why it is not being issued in the form of a Notice or a Report, which body or bodies of the University are issuing it and how comment is to be fed back to those bodies and within what time frame. Proper published Minutes should also be kept of any open meeting consultations.

The Council seeks to follow good practice in such matters, and as pointed out in the Discussion, has from time to time published in the Reporter, and put up for Discussion, consultative Reports, which are if necessary followed up by further Reports including final proposals submitted for approval by the Regent House.

The Council recognizes, however, that this is not always the best procedure, and that sometimes it is better for there to be more direct consultation in advance of the publication of Reports in the Reporter, for example with bodies such as the Councils of the Schools, Faculty Boards, Departments and other institutions, and individuals. Other mechanisms of consultation may also be appropriate. Often but not always, the outcome of such consultation needs to be followed up by legislation, through the route of Reports, or Notices.

The Board suggests that ‘published Minutes’ should be kept of open meeting consultations. This will be considered, but there may be practical difficulties.

6. The Board recommends that whatever the outcome of the further debates and discussions on the University’s review of its disciplinary, dismissal, and grievance procedures, any binding rules and safeguards arising from those discussions which are not to be contained in Statutes must be promulgated in Ordinances.

As noted above, the Council and the General Board have published a Report on disciplinary, dismissal, and grievance procedures to the University (Reporter, p. 131). The Report proposes that in addition to the draft Ordinances, the Codes of Practice may also only be amended by Grace of the Regent House.

7. The Board recommends that the Annual Report of the UAS for 2008–09 should again include information summarizing total HR pay costs, with expenditure by function clearly labelled with both percentage and sterling value, and providing a comparison with total pay costs for 2007–08.

The Annual Report for the Unified Administrative Service (UAS) for 2008–09 is available at Some information about the HR Division’s costs is provided in the Report and the Registrary has been requested to consider ways in which helpful information on expenditure in the UAS can be developed further in future reports. A financial plan for the UAS is submitted annually as part of the University’s planning round and is subject to similar processes of scrutiny and approval as obtain for Schools and other institutions.

8. The Board recommends that full training in the HERA methodology for those senior Departmental and institutional administrators who have responsibilities for overall resource and planning issues now be made a priority.

HERA training is given as required. It is not directly relevant to the conduct of resource allocation and planning work.

9. The Board repeats its recommendation that the criteria for senior academic promotion be given legislative force through embodiment in Ordinance.

A review of the senior academic promotions procedure is currently being carried out by the General Board. Inclusion of the procedures in Ordinances should be considered as part of the forthcoming review of the Statutes and Ordinances.

10. The Board recommends that a change of name for RSD would now be appropriate.

The Research Services Division of the University Offices (which with that title is established by Ordinance) now has the operating name of ‘Cambridge Research Office’.

11. The Board recommends that reports proposing cross-organizational alterations to the administration of support services, especially when involving the terms and conditions of employment of staff, should be offered to the Regent House as matters of principle before detailed proposals are made.

The Council has published a Notice which includes comments from the General Board that, inter alia, indicate that the Board will report to the Regent House on specific matters requiring any changes in Ordinances arising from the review of teaching and learning support services as necessary (Reporter, p. 256). As noted above, the report to the General Board on the review of teaching and learning support services in the University has now been published (Reporter, p. 260).

12. The Board recommends that the University provide 24-hour staff cover for the computer and telephone network and multiple routes to report faults.

This suggestion has been referred to the Information Strategy and Services Syndicate who are currently considering it.

EU Public Procurement Regulations: Notice

30 November 2009

The Council, on the advice of the Finance Committee, has declared that the University continues to remain outside the scope of the EU Public Procurement Regulations as it is less than 50% publicly funded. The calculation is carried out annually to ensure that it remains possible to make the declaration. It is the Council’s intention that the University’s procurement procedures should continue to follow the good practice set out in the regulations and in the University’s Financial Regulations (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 966, see also