Skip to main contentCambridge University Reporter

No 6344

Thursday 24 April 2014

Vol cxliv No 27

pp. 457–494

Reports

Report of the Council on the period of office of a Pro-Vice-Chancellor and the conferment of the title of Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor

The Council begs leave to report to the University as follows:

1. By Grace 5 of 26 February 2003, the Regent House approved proposals, which were subsequently approved by Her Majesty in Council, to enable the expansion of the team of Pro-Vice-Chancellors, to establish a Nominating Committee to make recommendations to the Council for the appointment and reappointment of Pro-Vice-Chancellors, and to limit to six years the total period for which any person could hold office as Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Reporter; 5890, 2001–02, p. 945; 5933, 2002–03, p. 1246).

2. During discussions over the course of meetings in 2013, the Nominating Committee for Pro-Vice-Chancellors commented on the maximum period of office of six years, noting that it did not allow for currently unforeseen circumstances, where an exception to the general rule might be to the University’s benefit. The Nominating Committee also considered that, although it would not be appropriate to establish a separate office of Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor, the title of Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor should be conferred on one of those appointed to the office, in recognition of that individual’s responsibility for leading and co-ordinating the work of the team of Pro-Vice-Chancellors.

3. At its meeting in November, the Council considered and endorsed proposed amendments to the provisions in Statute and Ordinance, to implement the Nominating Committee’s proposals that the title of Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor be introduced (together with a pensionable payment in addition to the stipend paid to the person holding that title), and that a Pro-Vice-Chancellor could hold office for a total period of eight years in ‘exceptional circumstances’. It is the Council’s view that such exceptional circumstances would normally revolve around the need to retain experienced leadership, prompted by, for example, an unanticipated turnover in the team of Pro-Vice-Chancellors owing to resignation or retirement, or to provide continuity on the appointment of a new Vice-Chancellor, or to see a major project through to completion where a change in leadership would be deleterious. The proposed amendments also included additional wording to clarify that the limit on the length of time for which a person may hold office as Pro-Vice-Chancellor applies to the aggregate of periods of appointment in the course of a lifetime, not just to single consecutive periods of appointment.

4. The Council recommends:

I. That the period of office of a Pro-Vice-Chancellor be amended to enable a person to hold such office in exceptional circumstances for a total period of eight years, as described in paragraph 3 of this Report.

II. That the arrangements for the conferment of the title of Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor upon one of the Pro-Vice-Chancellors, together with a pensionable payment associated with the holding of that title, be implemented, as described in paragraph 3 of this Report.

III. That, if Recommendation I is approved, subject to the approval of Her Majesty in Council, the Statutes of the University be amended as set out below and that these amendments be submitted under the Common Seal of the University to Her Majesty in Council for approval:

By amending Section 16 of Statute C III (New Statutes and Special Ordinances supplement, p. 17) so as to read:

16. Each appointment or reappointment to an office of Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall be made by the Council after consultation with the General Board, on the recommendation of a Nominating Committee constituted by Ordinance. A Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall hold office for not more than three years at a time and shall be eligible for reappointment, provided that no person shall hold the office of Pro-Vice-Chancellor for a total period of more than six, or in exceptional circumstances eight, years, whether consecutively or otherwise.

IV. That, if Recommendation II is approved, the following changes to Ordinance be approved:

By inserting the following as new Regulation 11 of the regulations for Payments additional to Stipend (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 686):1

11. The Council shall have the power to authorize pensionable payments additional to stipend to the Pro-Vice-Chancellor on whom the Vice-Chancellor confers the title of Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor under Regulation 1 of the regulations for Pro-Vice-Chancellors.

By amending Regulation 1 of the regulations for the Pro-Vice-Chancellors (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 690) so as to read:

1. The maximum number of offices of Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall be five. Although there shall not be an office of Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor may, after consultation with all of those appointed to the office of Pro-Vice-Chancellor, confer the title of Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor on one of those appointed to the office of Pro-Vice-Chancellor, who shall take responsibility for leading and co-ordinating the work of the Pro-Vice-Chancellors.

14 April 2014

L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor

Andy Hopper

Susan Oosthuizen

N. Bampos

Richard Jones

Rachael Padman

Jeremy Caddick

Fiona Karet

John Shakeshaft

Stephen J. Cowley

Mark Lewisohn

Jean Thomas

Athene Donald

Rebecca Lingwood

I. H. White

I. M. Le M. Du Quesnay

Mavis McDonald

A. D. Yates

David Good

Rosalyn Old

Footnotes

  • 1Current Regulation 11 is a temporary regulation that will be removed from the 2014 edition of the Statutes and Ordinances.


Report of the Council on revised committee arrangements for estates strategy and buildings

The Council begs leave to report to the University as follows:

1. In this Report, the Council proposes revised committee arrangements for overseeing the development of the University’s estate and of major building projects within that estate. The Council wishes to establish a new committee to provide oversight of strategic considerations for the development of the University’s estate, which would report to the Planning and Resources Committee. As a consequence, it also proposes a revised role for the Buildings Committee and its operation. If approved, the new arrangements would come into force with effect from 1 October 2014.

2. The creation of a Buildings Committee was proposed by a Consultative Report of the Council published on 10 March 2004 (Reporter, 5955, 2003–04, p. 537). The same Consultative Report proposed changes to the responsibilities of the Finance Committee, the Planning and Resources Committee, and to the latter’s membership. The Buildings Committee was the successor to the Buildings Sub-Committee of the Finance Committee and became a joint Committee of the General Board and the Council. The legislative changes to enact these changes of responsibility were approved by Grace 1 of 9 February 2005.

3. The current terms of reference of the Buildings Committee (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 1008) were established by the Regent House by Grace 5 of 15 February 2012 as:

(a)within the terms of sites and buildings approved by the Council, the Finance Committee, and the General Board from time to time:

(i)to consider and give technical approvals for building proposals submitted to them in accordance with regulations for sites and buildings approved by the Council, the Finance Committee, and the General Board;

(ii)to consider and give such approvals as it thinks fit for the delegation of responsibility for maintenance and building work; and

(iii)to oversee applications for planning approvals on University land;

(b)to maintain general oversight over the technical aspects of the erection of any new building or the alteration of any existing building;

(c)to advise on the annual budget needed in the Building Maintenance Fund;

(d)to perform such other duties as the Council and General Board may from time to time direct.”

Formation of an Estates Strategy Committee

4. It is notable that the terms of reference for the Buildings Committee do not include responsibility for advising on a strategy for the estate and its management. That responsibility is in principle a matter for the Planning and Resources Committee, advising the General Board and the Council, and ultimately making recommendations to the Regent House. The Planning and Resources Committee has developed a system for the approval of new major capital projects (usually buildings or refurbishments) and more recently a capital plan that forecasts the impact of known and registered needs so that priorities can be assigned and cash flow on major projects predicted. While this provides an important component of resource planning and integrates with the planning round, it does not derive from or inform a wider strategic understanding of the estate and its potential for development.

5. There are currently a number of major developments (in contrast to individual capital projects) in planning or discussion across the holdings of University. These include the North West Cambridge development, a new master plan for West Cambridge to maximize that site’s future development potential, the development of the New Museums site, the development of the Old Press/Mill Lane site, the next iteration of a master plan for the Cambridge Biomedical campus (in which the University is one party amongst several with complementary but sometimes conflicting interests), and the future redevelopment of the Downing site. There are groups with senior academics and professional support involved for most of these developments, but ensuring that academic, operational, environmental, transport, and planning ambitions can be co-ordinated across the developments relies on informal discussions and understandings in ways which do not currently serve the University optimally. Now that a Director of Estate Strategy has been appointed to improve this situation professionally, it is proposed that a revised committee structure is also introduced to provide advice, support, and governance as part of a more holistic approach to estate strategy and planning.

6. The Council therefore proposes that a new Estates Strategy Committee is formed, chaired by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Planning and Resources), which would be a sub-committee of the Planning and Resources Committee. The new Committee would have strategic oversight over both the operational and non-operational estates. The powers and oversight exercised by the Finance Committee in determining disposals, transfers, and leases under the terms of Regulation 6(a) of the Ordinance on Financial Matters (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 1007) would remain unchanged. The new Committee would comprise the following members:

(a)The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Planning and Resources), Chair;

(b)The Pro-Vice-Chancellor with responsibility for environmental policy;

(c)The Regius Professor of Physic;

(d)Two Heads of School, appointed by the General Board of the Faculties;

(e)Two members of the Council, appointed by the Council;

(f)The Chair or Deputy Chair of the West and North West Cambridge Estates Syndicate;

(g)The Chair of the Buildings Committee.

The Committee would also work closely with Cambridge University Press and Cambridge Assessment with respect to their estate plans and developments within the delegated powers provided to each under Statute J and the Sites and Buildings Regulations respectively. The Chief Executive Officers (or their senior representatives) of both organizations would be invited to attend meetings of the new Committee. The Committee would be serviced by the Estates Management Division of the Unified Administrative Service and the Director of Estate Strategy and the Registrary would attend meetings. To ensure effective communication with all Schools, access to the papers for the Committee would be provided to all School offices.

7. The terms of reference of the new Estates Strategy Committee would be, subject to the provisions of the Statutes and Ordinances and the Sites and Buildings Regulations (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 1020):

(a)To prepare a long-term estates strategy for approval by the General Board and the Council on the recommendation of the Planning and Resources Committee. The Committee would be charged with the periodic review of the Strategy, which would include within it the whole of both the operational and non-operational estates, including the land and property holdings for which the West and North West Cambridge Estates Syndicate is responsible, and would take into account the needs and opportunities arising from the estate plans of Cambridge University Press and Cambridge Assessment;

(b)To recommend principles and policies for transport, environmental, architectural, and spatial design across the University estate;

(c)To recommend investments or disinvestments in the land and property holdings of the University in pursuance of the agreed long-term estate strategy for the University;

(d)To maintain oversight over proposed developments on the University estate to ensure their consistency with the agreed long-term estate strategy and the agreed principles and policies for all aspects of planning and design;

(e)To establish and consider reports from groups with responsibility for promoting and overseeing the development of particular sites and master plans within the University’s estate;

(f)To carry out such other functions as may be assigned to the Committee by the General Board and the Council.

The Buildings Committee

8. The Buildings Committee continues to fulfil an important remit with regard to advising on and approving technical matters and in monitoring progress against programme and budget for approved major capital projects. The University has benefited greatly from the expert advice of its external members and Chair. It will continue to do so within the new structure proposed in this Report. The Buildings Committee will continue to report separately to the Planning and Resources Committee as a joint Committee of the General Board and the Council but its membership will be reduced and its procedures streamlined to ensure that it can discharge its terms of reference efficiently and with the greatest effect.

9. No changes are proposed to the terms of reference of the Buildings Committee but its membership would be revised as follows:

(a)Chair (a person with relevant expertise who is not a member of the Regent House), appointed by the Council;

(b)Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Planning and Resources);

(c)Two Heads of School, one of whom would be either the Head of the School of Arts and Humanities or the Head of the School of the Humanities and Social Sciences, appointed by the General Board of the Faculties;

(d)The Professor of Architecture;

(e)One member of the Regent House, appointed by the Council;

(f)Three persons with relevant expertise who are not members of the Regent House, appointed by the Council.

All Heads of School would receive papers for the Committee and would have the right of attendance, subject to the agreement of the Chair, for specific items affecting their School.

10. The revised composition reflects the wish to streamline the operation of the Committee without losing the contribution and advice of external members and the knowledge of senior members of the University who can be representative of user interests. The membership also provides for cross-representation with the new Estates Strategy Committee.

11. At present, the Minor Works Sub-Committee reports to the Buildings Committee. It is proposed that this Sub-Committee be effectively combined with the Resource Management Committee’s Space Management Advisory Group, to create instead a new sub-committee of the Resource Management Committee, to be known as the Space Management and Minor Works Committee. The new Sub-Committee would maintain a line of reporting for information purposes to the Buildings Committee. The new Sub-Committee would fulfil the remit of both the Space Management Advisory Group and the Minor Works Sub-Committee.

12. The Sites and Buildings Regulations would be amended by Notice to reflect the revised committee structure contemplated by this Report.

13. The Council recommends:

I. That, with effect from 1 October 2014, an Estates Strategy Committee be established with the membership and terms of reference set out in paragraphs 6 and 7 of this Report.

II. That, with effect from 1 October 2014, the membership of the Buildings Committee and the arrangements for the Minor Works Sub-Committee and Space Management Advisory Group be revised as set out in paragraphs 9 and 11 of this Report.

14 April 2014

L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor

Andy Hopper

Susan Oosthuizen

N. Bampos

Richard Jones

Rachael Padman

Jeremy Caddick

Fiona Karet

John Shakeshaft

Stephen J. Cowley

Mark Lewisohn

Jean Thomas

Athene Donald

Rebecca Lingwood

I. H. White

I. M. Le M. Du Quesnay

Mavis McDonald

A. D. Yates

David Good

Rosalyn Old

First-stage Report of the Council on the replacement and rationalization of facilities covered by the University’s Home Office establishment licence

The Council begs leave to report to the University as follows:

1. In this Report, the Council is seeking approval, in principle, for commencement of a planned strategy to replace and rationalize facilities covered by the University’s Home Office establishment licence.

2. The EU Directive on animal research was embedded into UK legislation as the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (as amended in 2012) on 1 January 2013. Working within this strict legal and ethical framework, the University conducts studies involving animals housed in units regulated under the Home Office establishment licence for basic and translational research aimed at understanding fundamental biological processes and at discovering the aetiology, treatment, and cure of major human and animal health problems. The research covers multiple disciplines and uses a range of sophisticated experimental protocols that require specialized facilities.

3. The facilities in question underpin much of the research activity of the Schools of the Biological Sciences and Clinical Medicine. Work undertaken in these facilities contributes to almost all of the current research themes of the two Schools, and to more than half of the University’s strategic research initiatives. Over a third of the University bioscience publications involve ethically reviewed research that utilize these facilities and the work done within them. In the financial year 2012–13, active research grants benefiting from work undertaken in these facilities had a value of £351 million.

4. The University’s success in basic and translational biology and medicine has meant that the existing model of several smaller units has become inefficient. Moreover, it is not conducive to modern research or, indeed, to the University’s support of the 3Rs principles of refinement, reduction, and replacement. There is a strong scientific, financial, and ethical case, supported by an external review undertaken in 2012, for rationalizing the existing facilities into a smaller number of larger units. This will allow for not only greater academic collaboration but also more efficient use of animal models and other resources. The new facilities will provide state-of-the-art levels of animal welfare.

5. The estimated cost of the total project is £150m, to be funded as part of the University’s strategic capital planning budget. This will allow for the provision of long-term sustainable units that will provide a core resource for the University, in alignment with the strategic vision of both the School of the Biological Sciences and the School of Clinical Medicine. The units will operate under the principles of full Economic Costing to ensure adequate provision of resource and self-funding for future sustainability.

6. The facilities will be constructed at sites which are currently in use for similar activities by the two Schools concerned. Members of the Regent House may consult location plans in person at the Old Schools between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday to Friday, from 25 April to 12 May 2014, by appointment.1 Members wishing to consult the location plans should contact the Old Schools Reception to make an appointment.

The first planning application is expected in May 2014 (subject to programme review) with subsequent applications following in the next 12 months.

7. The Council recommends:

I. That approval in principle is given for the replacement and rationalization of facilities covered by the University’s Home Office Establishment Licence.

II. That the Director of Estates Strategy be authorized to apply for detailed planning approval in due course.

14 April 2014

L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor

Andy Hopper

Susan Oosthuizen

N. Bampos

Richard Jones

Rachael Padman

Jeremy Caddick

Fiona Karet

John Shakeshaft

Stephen J. Cowley

Mark Lewisohn

Jean Thomas

Athene Donald

Rebecca Lingwood

I. H. White

I. M. Le M. Du Quesnay

Mavis McDonald

A. D. Yates

David Good

Rosalyn Old

Footnotes

  • 1No appointments will be available on Monday, 5 May as the University Offices at the Old Schools will be closed, due to the Bank Holiday. 


First-Stage Report of the Council on the construction of a new building and refurbishment works for the Cambridge Judge Business School

The Council begs leave to report to the University as follows:

1. In this Report the Council is seeking approval in principle for the construction of a new building and refurbishment works for the Cambridge Judge Business School, as set out below.

2. The Cambridge Judge Business School (CJBS) urgently needs additional space for executive student teaching and associated offices for academic staff. The CJBS Vision and Business Plan identifies a growth in staff and student numbers (particularly in Executive Education and premium fee programmes) which could not be accommodated within their existing facilities. An area/space analysis has identified a need for 8,875 m2 in gross internal area (GIA) of additional space, this being a 60% increase in the space currently occupied by CJBS. There is also a need to improve the quality of space available, especially for the delivery of Executive Education programmes.

3. The School undertakes both teaching and research to meet the needs of society by creating world-leading knowledge. It shares this knowledge and transfers it to industry through academic research, teaching, collaboration, and entrepreneurship. Since the 2005 Strategic Review, which identified the opportunity to create a world-class research-based business school at the heart of the University, student numbers have increased from 324 to 512 and delegate days on Executive Education programmes from 2,510 to 21,516.

4. Development opportunities at the School’s existing Old Addenbrooke’s site have been identified through preparation of a Master Plan, and a Feasibility Study has been completed to confirm the building size and outline user requirements. The completed Master Plan has identified two distinct locations for this expansion: in the CJBS Forecourt and Keynes House on Trumpington Street and on the site of the existing Bridget’s and Nightingale Hostels on Tennis Court Road. It is now proposed to proceed with the option to undertake redevelopment works on the site of Bridget’s and Nightingale Hostels as the first phase of a two-phase redevelopment of the site.

5. The development proposals require the demolition of both Tennis Court Road hostels and the subsequent construction of a new building and a linking lobby to the School’s existing building. It also includes refurbishment work within the existing Ark building and refurbishment of the existing ground floor reception within the School’s main building. In providing 5,150 m2 GIA of new space this development will meet the brief for the Executive Education business as well as some of the School’s other requirements. Groups that are expected to be located within the new building include Executive Education and Executive MBA (course delivery and support staff).

6. Considerable efficiency benefits are expected in terms of both space utilization and in operational energy performance that is targeted at the BREEAM Excellent standard.

7. The key aims of the project are:

to enable further growth by creating a new building that will facilitate teaching, learning, and research in a pleasant working environment;

to enhance further the collaborative culture of the school by co-locating its principal activities, thus enabling the closer integration of research with executive education programmes, which will be a strong differentiator from its competitors in future years;

to provide flexible space that can be adapted in the future as requirements change and to a specification that matches the expectations of students in the competitive global market in which CJBS operates;

to preserve and complement the special attributes of the Old Addenbrooke’s Hospital architecture and the site as a whole in a sensitive scheme design.

8. The total cost of the development proposals in Tennis Court Road has been estimated at approximately £31.9m. Funding of £1.5m has already been confirmed and a commitment of up to £8m from one benefactor has been earmarked for the project. Additional funding will need to be secured by the Cambridge Judge Business School.

9. A design team has been appointed. Further details relating to the design, maintenance and recurrent costs, with proposals for funding, will be brought to a future meeting of the Planning and Resources Committee and a second-stage Report will be published later this year. Drawings of the proposed development are displayed for the information of the University in the Schools Arcade. A plan showing the location of the proposed new building is shown below.

10. The Council recommends:

I. That approval in principle be given for refurbishment works and the construction of a new building on Tennis Court Road for the Cambridge Judge Business School.

II. That the Director of Estate Strategy be authorized to apply for detailed planning approval in due course.

14 April 2014

L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor

Andy Hopper

Susan Oosthuizen

N. Bampos

Richard Jones

Rachael Padman

Jeremy Caddick

Fiona Karet

John Shakeshaft

Stephen J. Cowley

Mark Lewisohn

Jean Thomas

Athene Donald

Rebecca Lingwood

I. H. White

I. M. Le M. Du Quesnay

Mavis McDonald

A. D. Yates

David Good

Rosalyn Old

Location plan: proposed new building at Tennis Court Road

Report of the Council on space reconfiguration to accommodate the Proctors’ Office in the Old Schools

The Council begs leave to report to the University as follows:

1. The University Proctors currently occupy offices in 1 St Mary’s Passage which are rented at a cost of £17,000 per annum; the current lease is due to expire on 24 March 2014. In line with the objectives of the Estate Strategy to relinquish and reduce the amount of leased property that the University occupies, and to improve communication with the central administrative offices and to provide a more accessible site, it is proposed to relocate the offices to the Old Schools.

2. A ground floor office adjacent to the colonnade (currently allocated to the HR Division) and the lift lobby have been identified as suitable space to accommodate the Proctors.

3. The scheme involves partitioning the lift lobby to form a meeting room and a robing room, alterations to create two new toilets and minor refurbishment of the proposed Proctors’ Office. Improved security works include installation of a video intercom system to provide independent, secure access to the Proctors’ Office and a new card swipe access system to the inner double doors into the lift lobby. The scheme has been carefully designed to have a minimal effect on the building’s features of special interest. The existing access route for wheelchair users would be preserved with a view out of the Medieval North Window, which provides light to the waiting area for the lift. The proposed glazed partition to the meeting room allows views across the Senate House and Lawn.

4. The building work is scheduled to be carried out during July and August 2014 and would be conducted in phases so that the access to the lift can be maintained. The gross internal floor area affected by the proposed alterations is approximately 91 m2. The estimated cost of the project is £142,285, which will be funded from the Minor Works Fund. No significant incremental running costs are anticipated for the new facilities.

5. The application for Listed Building Consent will be submitted during March 2014 and the Building Regulations Approval during April 2014 in order to award a contract so that work can begin no later than early July 2014.

6. Drawings of the proposed scheme are displayed for the information of the University in the Schools Arcade. A plan showing the proposed location of the Proctors’ Office is provided on p. 473 below.

7. The Council recommends:

I. That approval be given for the space reconfiguration for the Proctors’ Office as proposed in this Report.

II. That the Director of Estate Strategy be authorized to apply for Listed Building Consent and Building Regulations Approval in due course.

III. That the Head of Estate Development be authorized to accept a tender, within the available funding, for the proposed works in due course.

31 March 2014

L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor

Andy Hopper

Susan Oosthuizen

N. Bampos

Richard Jones

Flick Osborn

Jeremy Caddick

Fiona Karet

Rachael Padman

Stephen J. Cowley

Mark Lewisohn

John Shakeshaft

Athene Donald

Rebecca Lingwood

Jean Thomas

I. M. Le M. Du Quesnay

Mavis McDonald

I. H. White

David Good

Rosalyn Old

A. D. Yates

Location plan: Proposed Proctors' Office

Report of the General Board on the establishment of a Readership in Probability

The General Board beg leave to report to the University as follows:

1. Probability is a central area of mathematics, to which the Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics attaches a high priority. Within the Department, the Probability group already has an outstanding international reputation which the Department wishes to enhance. In order to provide the necessary critical mass and academic leadership the Department propose the establishment of a Readership.

2. The Council of the School of the Physical Sciences has approved the case made by the Department and recommends the establishment of a single tenure Readership in Probability in the Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics. The costs of the Readership will be met by the suppression of a University Lectureship identified for this purpose and from resources available to the School of the Physical Sciences.

3. The General Board have accepted the Council of the School’s proposal for the establishment of this Readership. The criteria for appointment to a Readership through open competition will be identical to those for appointment through the senior academic promotions procedure. The Appointments Committee will be constituted as specified in the regulations for Readers and Readerships (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 748).

4. The General Board accordingly recommend:

I. That a Readership in Probability be established in the Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics for a single tenure with effect from 1 August 2014.

27 March 2014

L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor

Simon Franklin

Patrick Maxwell

Philip Allmendinger

David Good

Rachael Padman

N. Bampos

Richard Jones

Richard Prager

Sarah Coakley

Robert Kennicutt

John Rallison

M. J. Daunton

Duncan Maskell

Henk-Jaap Wagenaar