No 6299
Wednesday 27 February 2013
Vol cxliii No 22
pp. 379–386
3 March, Sunday. Preacher before the University at 11.15 a.m., The Reverend D. A. S. Fergusson, Professor of Divinity and Principal of New College in the University of Edinburgh (Hulsean Preacher).
5 March, Tuesday. End of third quarter of Lent Term. Discussion at 2 p.m. in the Senate-House (see below).
15 March, Friday. Full Term ends.
Discussions at 2 p.m. |
Congregations |
|
5 March |
23 March, Saturday at 10 a.m. |
|
19 March |
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, 5 March 2013, at 2 p.m. for the discussion of:
1. Report of the General Board, dated 6 February 2013, on the establishment or re-establishment of two Professorships in the Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Reporter, 6297, 2012–13, p. 362).
2. Report of the General Board, dated 6 February 2013, on the establishment of an MRC Research Professorship of Epidemiology (Reporter, 6298, 2012–13, p. 370).
The Council has considered the remarks made at the Discussion on 5 February 2013 (Reporter, 6297, 2012–13, p. 364) about this Report (Reporter, 6294, 2012–13, p. 323). Speakers raised a number of points and questions to which responses have been provided below:
1. The New Museums Site Project Board is working on a master plan for the site and hopes to publish its initial findings later this year.
2. After demolitions and alterations the gross internal area of the Arup Building will be approximately 13,400m2, giving an estimated cost per metre2 that is approximately 20 per cent less than the cost per metre2 based on the gross internal area of the new Chemical Engineering Building.
3. The possibility of demolishing the Arup Building was considered as part of a full appraisal of the options, which included consideration of costs, planning, and conservation issues. The Planning and Resources Committee concluded that the proposed refurbishment was the best option.
4. Officers in the Academic Division will agree, with the relevant parties, alternative arrangements for lectures during the temporary closure of the Babbage Lecture Theatre.
5. As some speakers noted, the timetable governing the works on the Arup Building has been known for some time. However, the process of reaching agreement with all stakeholders on the specification of the Data Centre took much longer than expected, resulting in the initial schedule for the Data Centre being delayed.
6. Concerns were raised at the Discussion about the risk to network services as a result of the relocation of the University Computing Service and the High Performance Computing Service machine rooms. The Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor has constituted a project board to monitor the temporary relocation of network services pending the final move to the new Data Centre to mitigate these risks.
7. Delay to the refurbishment of the Arup Building would have incurred considerable risk to the project, including the inability to secure significant donations towards the cost of the project. A full appraisal of the options was conducted and the additional expenditure that would be caused by the temporary moves was judged by the Planning and Resources Committee to be the best of the alternatives available.
The Council is submitting a Grace for the approval of this Report (Grace 1, p. 384).
In 2008, the Council approved a Statement of Investment Responsibility (Reporter, 6158, 2008-09, p. 1002), commended by the Executive Committee and the Investment Board. Following the annual review of the operation of the policy by the Executive Committee, the Council approved the following revised version which is now published below for the information of the University.
1. The University’s mission is ‘to contribute to society through the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence’. All the resources of the University are ultimately applied to this charitable purpose. Its core values include freedom of thought and expression and freedom from discrimination, as well as concern for sustainability and the relationship with the environment.
2. The University’s investment assets are concentrated in the Cambridge University Endowment Fund (CUEF).
3. Council has established an Investment Board and an Investment Office. The Investment Board advises the Council through the Finance Committee on matters relating to the University’s investments, working closely with the University’s Investment Office. The Board proposes and agrees with the Council investment objectives and an investment strategy appropriate to those objectives, recommends for agreement asset allocation limits, and advises on the appointment of managers for these funds who operate under instruction from the Chief Investment Officer.
4. CUEF, managed by the Investment Office, primarily makes indirect investments. The investment portfolio is allocated between various asset classes (for example publicly-traded equities, bonds, real assets, absolute return (hedge funds), private equity, and bonds). Investments will be made by fund managers specializing in each asset class appointed with a discretionary mandate to outperform within that asset class.
5. Therefore, typically, securities in trading companies will not be managed or held directly by the CUEF, but indirectly through investment in other funds (index funds, exchange traded funds, hedge funds, private equity funds, and partnerships and other vehicles). Of these indirect investments, a large proportion may not be readily marketable.
6. The University holds certain non-operational assets in addition to its investments in the CUEF, including properties not in operational use let for commercial returns and investments in University spin-out companies. The majority of these investments are not held on solely financial investment grounds.
7. The primary fiduciary responsibility of the Council in investing and managing the University’s endowment and other financial investment assets is to maximize the financial return on those resources, taking into account the amount of risk within the University’s established investment policy. However, there are circumstances, described in Charity Commission guidance (see CC14 – Charities and Investment Matters: A guide for trustees, available at http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/publications/cc14.aspx) and founded in judicial decisions, when the University may balance against its primary responsibility considerations of the ethical nature of investments.
8. When investing and managing the non-operational estate, holdings in spin-out companies and similar investments in circumstances where the investment cannot be entirely justified on financial investment grounds alone, the Council is responsible for ensuring that the investment is in the best interests of the University.
9. The Executive Committee of the Council is responsible for keeping the policy on Investment Responsibility under review. Without prejudice to its power to review the policy at any time in so far as it considers it necessary to do so, the Committee will meet for this purpose with the University’s Chief Investment Officer and Director of Finance at least once a year. The CUSU Socially Responsible Investment Officer will be invited to attend these meetings. Any matters relating to the application of the policy should be addressed in writing to the Registrary.