Skip to main contentCambridge University Reporter

No 6216

Wednesday 2 March 2011

Vol cxli No 20

pp. 569–584

Notices

Calendar

5 March, Saturday. End of third quarter of Lent Term.

6 March, Sunday. Preacher before the University at 11.15 a.m., Dr C. J. Pickstock, of Emmanuel College.

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

18 March, Friday. Full Term ends.

22 March, Tuesday. Discussion at 2 p.m. in the Senate-House.

25 March, Friday. Lent Term ends.

26 March, Saturday. Congregation of the Regent House at 11 a.m.

Discussions at 2 p.m.

8 March

22 March

Congregations

26 March, Saturday at 11 a.m.

Notice of a Discussion on Tuesday, 8 March 2011

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 March 2011, at 2 p.m., for the discussion of the following topic of concern to the University:

The failure to allow Discussion of Council’s case for charging the maximum undergraduate tuition fee from 2012/13.

Please note that it is intended to publish an audio recording of this Discussion on the Reporter website.

Notice of a benefaction

28 February 2011

The Vice-Chancellor gives notice that he has received with gratitude notice of a generous benefaction of £30,000 annually from Mrs D. Norman in memory of her husband Richard Norman, formerly of King’s College, to support postgraduate scholarships relating to research in the area of electrical engineering in the Department of Engineering. The terms of the donation allow the spending of both income and capital of the benefaction.

The Council are submitting a Grace to the Regent House (Grace 1, p. 582) for the approval of regulations to govern the fund.

Dates of Discussions for 2011–12: Notice

The Vice-Chancellor gives notice that Discussions will be held on the following days in the academical year 2011–12:

DISCUSSIONS

(on Tuesdays at 2 p.m.)

Michaelmas Term 2011

Lent Term 2012

Easter Term 2012

Long Vacation 2012

11 October

24 January

1 May

10 July

25 October

7 February

15 May

8 November

21 February

29 May

22 November

6 March

12 June

6 December

20 March

Report of the Council on an initiated Grace (USS consultation, consultative voting): Notice

28 February 2011

The Council has considered the remarks made at the Discussion on 8 February 2011 of its Report dated 17 January 2011 (Reporter, 2010–11, p. 520).

The Council has noted the approval given by the Vice-President of Cambridge UCU to the process adopted by the Council, and that he also praised the efficient organization and conduct of the voting by the Secretariat and Press staff.

Mr Beckles made comments about the arrangements for voting and suggested that a vote could have been held in the Senate-House at the end of the Discussion. As well as giving the opportunity to far fewer members of the Regent House to vote, it would also have disenfranchised those members of USS who are not members of the Regent House. The Council continues to believe that a postal vote was the right option.

The Presiding Officer for voting is the Vice-Chancellor; the Vice-Chancellor currently delegates this duty to the Administrative Secretary under Statute D. This delegation is complete. It is important to recognize that the duties of the Presiding Officer are limited to receiving and counting the votes, and to announcing results. The proposition for voting is the responsibility of the Council, not the Presiding Officer. Mr Beckles suggested that the number of spoilt papers returned should be announced. On this occasion, the figure has been given already (8, Reporter, 2010–11, p. 420). There is no compelling case for the number of spoilt papers to be returned in STV voting in the Regent House (which this vote was not – it was a vote among University-employed members of the USS). Indeed only a few spoiled papers tend to be returned in voting of the Regent House. It is difficult, in STV, to distinguish entirely between papers spoilt originally, and those which become spoilt or invalid later. If, as is hoped, electronic voting can be introduced for elections and voting on propositions in the Regent House, there will be no such thing as a spoilt paper. Under the Single Transferable Vote Regulations (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 117, Regulation 5) the number of valid votes is needed to work out the ‘quota’ required and is always published. Mr Beckles referred also to the use of a ‘re-open nominations’ category in some elections (not in the University). This is not a normal feature of elections, the purpose of which is to choose between candidates (or in the case of the University, also propositions).

The recommendation of the Council’s Report requires approval by Grace under the provisions of the Statute, and the Council therefore puts forward a Grace (Grace 2 of 2 March 2011).

Review of decisions of the Applications Committee: Notice

28 February 2011

The Council gives Notice that, following a recommendation by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, it has amended the procedure applying to review of decisions of the Applications Committee (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 113) so as to make clear the grounds on which that Committee might decline to accept a reviewer’s recommendation (Regulation 5). The opportunity has been taken to make other amendments to the procedure, including consideration of additional material (Regulation 2) and procedure to be followed by the reviewer (Regulation 4). The revised procedure is set out in the accompanying Appendix.

APPENDIX

Review of decisions of the Applications Committee of the Council: procedure

1. A student, or her or his Tutor with the student’s consent, may seek review of a decision in relation to that student made by the Applications Committee.

2. A request for review shall be made in writing, stating the grounds of review, normally within three weeks of written notification of the Committee’s decision (unless, in exceptional circumstances, the Registrary or a deputy permits a longer period). If the request includes, in the opinion of the Chair of the Committee, relevant additional information not previously available, the Committee will reconsider its decision at its next meeting following receipt of the request. If no such additional information is included or if, on reconsideration, the decision is reaffirmed by the Committee, the procedure described in the following paragraphs shall apply.

3. The Registrary or a deputy will appoint a reviewer chosen from a panel of potential reviewers maintained by the Council. Exceptionally, a panel of three reviewers may be appointed. If so, references below to ‘the reviewer’ shall be construed accordingly.

4. The reviewer will consider the request, the documentation available to the Committee (less any confidential medical information), the Ordinances which apply to the Committee’s decision, and the Committee’s Notes of Guidance. He or she will obtain an opinion from the Committee, seek such other information as he or she may require and, at her or his discretion, may hold a hearing (but there is no obligation to hold a hearing). The reviewer will issue an adjudication in writing as soon as possible, stating findings of fact, conclusions, and, if any, recommendations, for consideration by the Committee. The reviewer shall be concerned with determining whether there is evidence of: inadequate consideration of the matter by the Committee; the Committee having made a decision, to the detriment of the student, which is inconsistent with the relevant Ordinances or its own Notes of Guidance; or material circumstances of which the Committee was unaware and which were of such a nature as, had the Committee been so aware, to have been likely to cause the Committee to have reached a different decision.

5. The Committee shall normally accept the recommendation of the reviewer. If, exceptionally, the reviewer’s recommendation is not accepted, a written explanation shall be provided to the reviewer, the student, and her or his Tutor and shall be submitted to the Council. The Committee may decide not to accept a recommendation in any instance in which: (i) the reviewer has sought to make a decision replacing that of the Committee; (ii) the reviewer’s recommendation is inconsistent with the Ordinances governing Allowances; or (iii) the reviewer’s recommendation is such that, were it to be accepted, it would set a precedent which would not be in the interests of the proper conduct of Committee’s business or in the wider interests of the University. The Council (or an officer appointed by it) should be satisfied that the Committee’s written explanation is consistent with one or more of these instances.

6. The conclusion of the Committee’s consideration of any recommendation of a review is the normal final point of decision within the University. Any subsequent review would normally be by the national Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, or exceptionally, if relevant, some other University review (for example by the Commissary under Statute D, V and the rules of procedure (p. 102)) or under Statute K, 5.

7. A reviewer may summarily dismiss an application which seems to her or him to be vexatious or frivolous.