Report of Discussion

Tuesday, 22 January 2013

A Discussion was held in the Senate-House. Pro-Vice-Chancellor Professor Lynn Gladden was presiding, with the Registrary’s Deputy, the Senior Proctor, and three other persons present.

The following Reports were discussed:

Second-stage Report of the Council, dated 3 December 2012, on the restructuring and rationalization of hospital facilities for the Department of Veterinary Medicine at West Cambridge (Reporter, 6288, 2012–13, p. 206).

No remarks were made on this Report.

Report of the General Board, dated 28 November 2012, on the establishment of two Professorships in the Faculty of Philosophy (Reporter, 6288, 2012–13, p. 207).

No remarks were made on this Report.

Report of the General Board, dated 28 November 2012, on the re-establishment of the Professorship of Aerothermal Technology (Reporter, 6288, 2012–13, p. 208).

No remarks were made on this Report.

Report of the General Board, dated 28 November 2012, on the establishment of two Readerships in Judge Business School (Reporter, 6288, 2012–13, p. 208).

No remarks were made on this Report.

Annual Report of the Council for the academical year 2011–12, dated 26 November 2012 (Reporter, 6289, 2012–13, p. 214).

Professor G. R. Evans (Emeritus Professor of Medieval Theology and Intellectual History) (read by the Senior Proctor):

Madam Deputy Vice-Chancellor, one of the chief difficulties for those servicing committees by way of the preparation of papers and summaries is to ensure that members with responsibilities for making Reports to the University really understand what they are being asked to recommend. The proposals in Reports are rarely altered after Discussions. Notices in response do not commonly accept objections. It is therefore good to read that ‘the submission and presentation of Council business’ is being given serious thought and that the ‘changes have done much to increase the clarity and transparency of Council materials and to focus discussion’. One hopes that members of the Council are able the better to see behind proposals. And please may we have the Council Handbook online in a more usable format; why only a scan?

The Report’s comment on the outcome of the Review of the Unified Administrative Service (UAS) is distinctly economical with the truth and worryingly complacent. Of four conclusions and recommendations, three urge speedy and substantial improvement. ‘The UAS must work to improve its communications with the University’ and to improve ‘administrative support’; ‘current IT management and business systems continue to present barriers to efficient administration both in the UAS and the broader University and these systems must be further improved with some urgency’.1

My main concern is about the onward progression of the Review of the Statutes and Ordinances which is proving to be far from merely ‘technical’. It seems that there will be no further opportunity to discuss the changes until

a final Report seeking approval of the new Statutes will be issued in the Easter Term 2013 and that, if approved by Her Majesty in Council, the revised Statutes and accompanying Special Ordinances will come into effect by early 2014.

The wording seems to leave out Regent House consent at that stage altogether, though I assume that is merely a slip in the wording? Reports are not simply ‘issued’. The Council ‘begs leave to report’ to the Regent House, doesn’t it?

Could we have much more detail in a Notice in the Reporter about the note below?

In response to a request from the HEFCE in August 2011, the University agreed to review its governance arrangements in the light of the changing Higher Education context by the end of the 2013­­–14 academical year and inform the HEFCE of its conclusions. The Audit Committee has asked the Council to consider how such a review might best be conducted and has suggested that it might follow the model of self-reflection which had been adopted for preparation of the quinquennial visit by HEFCE in 2008.

It is good to know that the Woolf Inquiry Report about the Gaddafi affair at the LSE (London School of Economics and Political Science) has sent waves of alarm through the University in the areas listed, namely:

current policies, practices, and governance arrangements concerning the acceptance of benefactions, the admission of postgraduate students, the acceptance of research funding, and the establishment of international partnerships.

We have procedures for the acceptance of benefactions. I have spoken here before about their shortcomings.

It is also pleasing to see that the Review of the University’s subsidiary companies’ governance and risk management procedures is being followed up but I hope a vigilant eye will continue to be kept on all this.

Annual Report of the General Board to the Council for the academical year 2011–12, dated 28 November 2012 (Reporter, 6289, 2012–13, p. 222).

Professor G. R. Evans (Emeritus Professor of Medieval Theology and Intellectual History) (read by the Senior Proctor):

Madam Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the Concordat to support Research Integrity is important but still relatively toothless. It is a work in progress. At present it omits provision to meet the needs of research students who may find themselves in a position where the integrity of their research is compromised within a larger project. The Concordat is almost entirely employee-related. Cambridge could apply some pressure about that as others are doing.

Open Access publishing seems to make it likely that the University will be paying for the publication of articles through Faculty and Schools’ budgets as well as for the licences for e-journals published outside the UK, and thus paying twice for access which it is already expensive to pay for once. Is the ‘Working Group’ keeping its eye on this danger?

Reports and Financial Statements for the year ended 31 July 2012 (Reporter, 6289, 2012–13, p. 227).

No remarks were made on this Report.

Report of the Council, dated 10 December 2012, on the demolition of the former Madingley Cricket Pavilion, Madingley, Cambridgeshire (Reporter, 6290, 2012–13, p. 279).

No remarks were made on this Report.