No 6425
Wednesday 11 May 2016
Vol cxlvi No 30
pp. 512–516
14 May, Saturday. Easter Term divides. Congregation of the Regent House at 10 a.m. (see p. 515).
15 May, Sunday. Whitsunday. Scarlet Day.
22 May, Sunday. Trinity Sunday. Scarlet Day. Preacher before the University at 11.15 a.m., The Rt Revd Dr Bill Musk, formerly Area Bishop for North Africa and Rector of St George’s, Tunis (Ramsden Preacher).
24 May, Tuesday. Discussion at 2 p.m. in the Senate-House (see below).
1 June, Wednesday. End of third quarter of Easter Term.
|
Discussions at 2 p.m. |
Congregations |
|
24 May |
14 May, Saturday at 10 a.m. |
|
7 June |
15 June, Wednesday at 2.45 p.m. (Honorary Degrees) |
|
5 July |
22 June, Wednesday at 10 a.m. (General Admission) |
|
23 June, Thursday at 10 a.m. (General Admission) |
|
|
24 June, Friday at 10 a.m. (General Admission) |
|
|
25 June, Saturday at 10 a.m. (General Admission) |
|
|
15 July, Friday at 10 a.m. |
|
|
16 July, Saturday at 10 a.m. |
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, 24 May 2016, at 2 p.m. for the discussion of:
1. Report of the General Board, dated 27 April 2016, on the establishment of certain Professorships (Reporter, 6424, 2015–16, p. 504).
2. Report of the General Board, dated 27 April 2016, on the introduction of a Doctor of Business Degree in the Judge Business School (Reporter, 6424, 2015–16, p. 505).
The Vice-Chancellor begs leave to refer to his Notice of 6 April 2016 (Reporter, 6421, 2015–16, p. 442), concerning proposed amending Statutes for Queens' College. He hereby gives notice that in the opinion of the Council the proposed Statutes make no alteration of any Statute which affects the University, and do not require the consent of the University; that the interests of the University are not prejudiced by them, and that the Council has resolved to take no action upon them, provided that the Council will wish to reconsider the proposed Statutes if they have not been submitted to the Privy Council by 11 May 2017.
The Council has considered the remarks made at the Discussion on 1 March 2016 (Reporter, 6418, 2015–16, p. 417) about the above Report (Reporter, 6414, 2015–16, p. 356).
The Council notes Dr Cowley’s points about pay and reward in general, and the specific proposal to raise the threshold above which full committee approval would be required to approve recommendations for market pay. Paragraph 6.4 of the Joint Report dated 6 and 18 March 2013 (Reporter, 6302, 2012–13, p. 423)* established the principle that there were some cases that did not need authorization by a committee. The threshold in 2013* was set at 10% above the lowest point of the Grade or Band in question. In recent years, experience suggests that this threshold is too low to operate efficiently and quickly in the University’s interests in a market for talent which is competitive and fast-moving. The principle of maintaining a threshold is not disputed. The new threshold of 50% or £50k, whichever is the lower, has been recommended based on experience of the few cases that come forward for market pay annually, either at the point of recruitment or retention of key staff. All cases of market pay are now reported to the Human Resources Committee and for those on Grade 12 to the Remuneration Committee of the Council. This enhanced level of reporting goes further than required by the market pay policy that gives effect to the Second Joint Report and adds an important check and balance. The Council agrees that transparency is important. This regime of reporting is complemented by the annual data published on market pay in the Reporter to which Dr Cowley refers. For cases above the threshold, the relevant Committee will still be the determining body; the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Institutional and International Relations consults closely with the Chair of the Remuneration Committee and the Vice-Chancellor for academic cases before making a recommendation, and the Registrary similarly consults the Chair of the Remuneration Committee and the Vice-Chancellor for non-academic cases. The Council believes that these arrangements balance appropriately the delegation of decision-making to senior officers with the sovereignty of the relevant committee for cases where sums above the threshold are involved. In all cases, evidence of need, academic strategy and/or the market for professional talent, and affordability are the key criteria that are applied.
Dr Cowley asked a number of specific questions. The Council would like to assure the Regent House that there is not a general presumption that market pay will be 'standard at the top end' of appointments. However, the Council accepts that there are certain specific disciplines in which cases for market pay are being made for a significant fraction of appointments.
Dr Cowley raises another important point regarding approval of business by circulation. The Council and its subcommittees do make significant use of circulation of business as a means of expediting decisions. One of the aims of the Council and its Remuneration Committee in making these proposals was to focus the Remuneration Committee’s scrutiny on the highest levels of market pay proposals. Routine approval of business by circulation can lead to a culture in which scrutiny is less intense.
As the Report states, a full review of various aspects of the University’s Human Resources strategy, including pay and reward, is underway for consultation and discussion by the Regent House. Dr Cowley's suggestion that 'more opportunity should be made to negotiate remuneration ... before interview and decision' is one which merits further consideration during the review. However, the Council believes that the changes recommended in the Report are unlikely to be affected by these discussions and can usefully be implemented at this time.
The Council is submitting a Grace for the approval of the recommendations of this Report (Grace 1, p. 515).
[ * Correction, 23 May 2016: please note that the reference provided for Paragraph 6.4 and for the threshold date were incorrectly stated and have now been corrected.]