Report of Discussion: 30 April 2024

A Discussion was convened by videoconference. Deputy Vice-Chancellor Dr Jessica Gardner, SE, was presiding, with the Registrary’s deputy, the Senior Proctor, the Deputy Junior Proctor and fourteen other persons present.

Remarks were made as follows:

Topic of concern to the University: Change to the Pro‑Vice‑Chancellorships

(Reporter, 6736, 2023–24, p. 470).

Dr D. R. H. Jones (Christ’s College), read by Dr Astle:

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the Council’s response of 17 April (Reporter, 6736, 2023–24, p. 471) mentions two matters – (i) external candidates, and (ii) changes in portfolios. I would like to comment on (i).

The Council was already aware that many members of the Regent House had concerns about the office of Pro‑Vice‑Chancellor – the proposal to increase the number of PVCs from five to six was contested, and the ballot held between 15 and 24 January 2024 went against the Council’s proposal. There was a large turnout (1,173). One of the fly‑sheet comments said:

The University, governed by the Regent House, is a direct democracy. The gradual increase in the number of senior administrative officers raises concern about the development of governance by a parallel administrative bureaucracy rather than by the Regent House, which the administration is meant to serve.1

The Council later (12 February) minuted that:

Members also suggested that the outcome of the ballot showed that the existing communication mechanisms between the Council, the Regent House and the student body were insufficient. They noted that the Governance and Compliance Division was working with the Office for External Affairs and Communications to consider how to address this and to improve participation in the University’s governance processes.2

I find this minute deeply disturbing. It displays an arrogance that the Council are right and the Regent House are wrong. In a true democracy, if you lose a vote, you accept the result in good faith. You do not change the ‘rules’ so you can win next time.

Against this backdrop, two vacancies for a PVC were coming up, and the Council decided (on 24 January) to seek applications from external candidates as well as from internal candidates, in order to appoint ‘the best candidate for the role’. There is no prohibition on external candidates in the ‘rules’, and at first sight this proposal seems fair (to candidates) and sensible (to help get a strong field). The vacancies were advertised on 28 March, two months after the decision was taken. Only now is the matter being discussed, five days after the closing date for applications.

It is perfectly possible that an external candidate will be appointed to both positions – the PVC (Research), and the PVC (Resources and Operations). In fact, as matters currently stand, there would be nothing to prevent all our PVCs being external appointments.

The fear is that external PVCs would not respect our democratic constitution, and would be subsumed into the ‘parallel administrative bureaucracy’. This must not be allowed to happen. External PVCs must be appointed for their strength of character, independence of mind, and political courage. We should not be appointing external PVCs unless the people who are involved in the selection process can assure the Regent House that they will address these concerns effectively. But I do not know to what extent that is feasible for the current appointments.

Dr W. J. Astle (MRC Biostatisics Unit):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, this Discussion on a Topic of concern to the University has been called in response to the decision of the Council to consider applications for appointments to the office of Pro-Vice-Chancellor from outside the University. The Council’s decision was made at its meeting of 22 January 2024 ‘in order to diversify expertise within the Senior Leadership Team’ and ‘to facilitate the widest and strongest field [of applicants]’.1 At the meeting, the Registrary explained to the Council that external recruitment was possible on either ‘a combined academic-related and academic basis’ or on an ‘academic‑related basis only’. Advertisements published on 28 March invited candidates for Pro-Vice-Chancellorships covering ‘Research’ or ‘Resources and Operations’ to submit their applications by 23 April.2

The Council published a Notice in response to the request for this Discussion, in which it explains that it ‘discussed recruitment to these vacancies in January 2024’ noting ‘the evolution of the Pro‑Vice‑Chancellorships since they were first established on the recommendation of the Wass Syndicate’.3 The way in which the Council believes the offices to have changed and the relevance of this to its January decision needs explanation because this aspect of its discussion went unrecorded in the minutes of its meeting.1

The Wass Syndicate proposed that a single office of Pro‑Vice-Chancellor be established and that the holder of the office ‘would be chosen from among the Heads of Houses’.4 Provision for a Pro-Vice-Chancellor was not included in the ‘core recommendations’ of the Syndicate that were approved in principle by the University in Graces of 25 April 19905 and later given effect in part by the amendments to the Statutes proposed in the First Report of the Statutes and Ordinances Revision Syndicate: Office of Vice‑Chancellor.6, 7 However, a Grace was published shortly afterwards to allow the University to decide whether an office of a Pro-Vice-Chancellor should be established.8

Simultaneous with the ballot on that Grace, members of the Regent House were invited to express their views ‘on a proposal which would allow up to three Pro‑Vice‑Chancellors to be appointed’ as well as whether ‘it might be desirable to allow the possibility of appointing other members of the University who possess suitable abilities and relevant experience’.9 The first proposal was soundly rejected. Views on the second proposal were sought through the question: ‘Should tenure of the office of Pro-Vice-Chancellor be restricted to Heads of Colleges?’.

To which the possible answers were:

1. ‘Office of Pro-Vice-Chancellor to be restricted to Heads of Colleges’;

2. ‘Office of Pro-Vice-Chancellor to be open to any member of the Regent House without restriction’.

Option 1 received 603 votes and option 2 received 688 votes. Neither option contemplated an external appointment.10 Nor did the only member of the University to make remarks in the subsequent Discussion on the Report that introduced the Statutes necessary to create the office of Pro-Vice-Chancellor. Mr T. N. Milner expressed his hope

that restrictions will not be imposed so as to make [the office] not only for members of the Regent House, but for all senior members of this University.11, 12

The Council responded that it did not propose ‘any formal restriction on eligibility for the office’, but it thought it

likely that an appointment to the office of Pro‑Vice‑Chancellor will be made from among the existing members of the Regent House; this was implicit in the questions on which the Regent House was invited to vote in the ballot.13

So, what is the evolved role of a Pro-Vice-Chancellor? According to the Statutes the Pro-Vice-Chancellors ‘report to the Council through the Vice-Chancellor’ and ‘perform such duties as may be prescribed by Statute or Ordinance and such other duties as may be determined by the Council or the Vice-Chancellor’.14 When the office was created in 1992 the Council believed

that in due course it will be desirable to make Ordinances setting out the duties of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor, but… that it would be premature to attempt to do so now.11

Although no such Ordinances have been made, the Council sketched out its view of the role of the office in its 2002 Report on governance:

The Council see Pro-Vice-Chancellors – in future as at present – not as line managers in particular areas of administration, but as providing academic leadership in policy development and in the interpretation and monitoring of practice.15

It also published something like a generic job specification in a Notice of 27 October 2003.16 In this it explained that applicants should ‘hold an academic office in the University or a College’, and be ‘able to demonstrate the respect of the Cambridge academic community’. Pro‑Vice-Chancellors were expected ‘to drive strategy and policy development and to support the Vice-Chancellor in providing academic leadership to the University and its management and direction’.

Those appointed to the Pro-Vice-Chancellorships recently advertised will also be expected to provide academic leadership. One (Resources and Operations) ‘for the University’s ambitious transformation programmes’ and the other (Research) ‘in areas that range from bolstering the University’s research income and guiding its research policies to enhancing a culture of research integrity and collaboration’.2, 17, 18 The Council believes ‘success’ in REF2029 is ‘vital to maintaining the University’s standing as a leading UK research‑intensive university’.2, 17 By ‘growing research income’ the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research) will ensure ‘that the University of Cambridge maintains its international reputation for research excellence’. Whether growing income will necessarily sustain ‘excellence’ or even a reputation for ‘excellence’ seems doubtful, but it will certainly lead to an increase in the number of staff employed in the University on fixed-term contracts and on insecure permanent contracts ‘supported by limited funding for a specific purpose’. Isn’t this going to rub up against the new Pro-Vice-Chancellor’s responsibility ‘for sustaining and enhancing a supportive research culture’?

Many of the pathologies of ‘research culture’ are direct products of an overly competitive academic employment market, insecure employment practices and a pyramidal academic career structure. Broadening the base of the pyramid at Cambridge is not going to help.

The brochures describing the vacant Pro‑Vice‑Chancellorships – partly reproduced in the Reporter three weeks after they were published in the vacation by the recruitment agency Saxton Bampfylde – bake in various assumptions about University policy that the Regent House might very well reject if it were given the chance. They also contain a constitutional inaccuracy: the Council and General Board are wrongly described as being with the Regent House ‘at the head of the University’s governance structure’. The Council prospectively delegates to one appointee (Research) the power to ‘lead the development and implementation of strategy and policy’, while it expects the other (Resources and Operations) to ‘play a key role in shaping the direction of the University’, although the source of authority for that goes unexplained.17, 18 When the Council drafts those overdue Ordinances setting out the powers and duties of the Pro‑Vice-Chancellors will it please include a requirement for a Report and Discussion on the remit and specific duties of each new appointment, before the post is advertised.

At the time of the Wass reforms the Council met every two weeks during full term.19 This year the Council is trialling a meeting schedule in which it meets twice during term and three times out of term.20 Can meeting so infrequently be reconciled with the necessity for regular decision making by the democratically accountable ‘principal executive and policy-making body of the University’?21 If decision making is being delegated to the ‘Senior Leadership Team’, how are these unelected decision makers accountable to the University? Before the Council selects, perhaps on technocratic grounds, a new Pro-Vice-Chancellor for the ‘team’, the Regent House ought to be given the chance to approve or reject its decision to consider making an appointment from outside the University.

Before finishing, I would like to raise a procedural point regarding the attempt by the Council over the Christmas vacation to add an additional office of Pro-Vice-Chancellor. After Grace 1 of 15 December 202322 was submitted to the Regent House with the intention of establishing ‘an office of Pro-Vice-Chancellor with responsibility for sustainability for a maximum of six years’, I wrote to the Vice-Chancellor asking that she withdraw it on the grounds it was technically deficient, because it failed to establish an office and contravened Statute C III 1514 which requires that ‘the maximum number of offices of Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall be determined by Ordinance’. The Registrary replied explaining why in her opinion my argument was wrong. She later explained that her response

was not sent as a delegate of the Vice‑Chancellor under Statute C III 7 but in my capacity as Registrary, in which role I advise the VC frequently on many matters.

Despite writing a second time, I have received no response from the Vice-Chancellor. Several emeritus University Officers tell me that it is a long-standing constitutional convention that the Vice-Chancellor gives her reasons if she fails to exercise her power to withdraw a Grace following a request to do so by a member of the Regent House. Will the Council say whether this convention is extant?

Dr S. J. Cowley (Faculty of Mathematics):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I am a member of the Board of Scrutiny, but I speak in a personal capacity.

While I welcome the opportunity to participate today, I did not sign the request for the Discussion since, for better or for worse, the Council possesses the power to change the titles of PVCs and to open up their appointment to external candidates.

The task to hand is to appoint the best persons possible to the roles of the Pro‑Vice‑Chancellorships irrespective of whether they are internal or external, or of the wording of the titles, as long as the responsibilities are clear and the titles are not misleading. The latter point is important since, as I wrote to the then Vice‑Chancellor last time one of these posts came up in 2018, ‘Names and titles do matter, e.g. at least one Director recruited into the UAS thought that he was going to ‘direct’; he had a rude awakening’. Consequently, in 2018 the initially proposed title of ‘Academic Strategy and Planning’, which was ambiguous, was refined.

I am going to focus on the PVC ‘Resources and Operations’ (in passing noting that I agree with Graham Allen that ‘Operations’ is potentially ambiguous), since this is one of the three most important posts in the leadership of the University. Further, if there is to be a Senior PVC (and, for what it is worth, I opposed the creation of that title), then the PVC for ‘Money’ should be that person.

The further particulars for the post were, as far as I can tell, only available from the head-hunters’ website. Why? This is a University post, so they should have been, and should still be, available from a University site. Based on the aforementioned experience last time this post came up, I had low expectations of the further particulars, but I am happy to say that I was wrong. They are on the whole excellent, if one ignores the typos, e.g. in the Foreword, PVC (Resource and Planning) morphs into PVC (Resources and Operations) in the next paragraph (does no one proofread any more). However, I am concerned that the job description is somewhat over-ambitious and the required superperson may not exist. A few comments:

•When recruiting a College Bursar, I am told that the most important character trait to check is whether or not they can say ‘no’. This also applies to the PVC for Money, so I hope that, in confirming that the applicants can develop and implement ‘a robust approach to prioritisation of resource across all areas of the University’s activities’ (my emphasis), the Nominating Committee will also confirm that ‘no’ is in their vocabulary.

•The person specification lists the following key skills: a ‘thorough understanding of financial management and the ability to deliver results in an environment where authority is derived from influence and persuasion’ (my emphasis) and a ‘thoughtful, considerate, committed and resilient approach’. This is crucial. As I noted in the Discussion of the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 July 2023,

the Academic University adjusted operating deficit is £72m... which, to my surprise, includes the £39m ‘Add‑back’ uplift from CUPA…, without which the Academic University deficit would be £111m. … from my time on the Council, the hope was at least breakeven for the Academic University.1

This deficit is not going to be eliminated by increases in revenue (a pie‑in‑the‑sky argument from 2020), so there are going to have to be reductions in expenditure. The PVC is going to have to persuade the Heads of the Schools, the Heads of the UAS, the UIS, CUDAR, and the University Library, and many others, to hang together rather to hang apart, and to find those cuts. This is not going to be easy, and the PVC will need to be trusted, so I might add ‘honest broker’ to the job description.

•Given the unsatisfactory state of both the University’s finances and the change programmes, the new appointment needs to get up to speed exceptionally quickly both with the University’s processes but also with its culture; we do not need another ‘bull in a china shop’. I trust that the Nominating Committee appreciates that this is going to be very difficult for an external with no knowledge of the University.

•When a VC or a Registrary is recruited, the applicants meet a wide range of members of the University; in my experience of the appointment of a VC that can work very well. Given the importance of this post, might the same happen here? Moreover, the membership of the Nominating Committee should be published (as it was in 2018), since the special edition of the Reporter, Members of University Bodies / Representatives of the University, is out of date.

To return to the sharp point of this topic of Discussion, the Council’s pre-emptive response notes that the vacancy in 2018 was advertised as open to externals. However, that response fails to quote the advert in full which stated that ‘preference will be given to individuals with a strong connection to the collegiate University’. My memory is that there was much debate in Council as to whether to widen the appointment in 2018 and, as a member of the Council, I observed that the February 2002 Governance Consultation Paper2 specifically stated that ‘The Pro‑Vice‑Chancellors would be appointed from inside the University…’. Moreover, as Dr Astle has observed, when the office of PVC was created, the Council noted that it was implicit in the question on which the Regent House voted that PVCs would be appointed from existing members of the Regent House.

In 2018 I was persuaded, after addition of the ‘preference’ codicil, to open the field to externals since, as I wrote to the then VC, ‘the bottom line is that the field looks weaker than in the recent past’. However, constitutionally, this is somewhat unsatisfactory because, even if the provisions in S&O are not specific about internal versus external, Regulations should mirror the spirit of commitments made in Notices/Reports (even if dating back to 2002 or earlier). Decisions that do not do so, potentially eke away at the trust that the Regent House has in the Council and the Senior Officers, and that trust is currently not at an all-time high.

Further, I agree with Graham Allen that the office of PVC is an academic post (that PVCs can apply for study leave makes it, to my mind, a slam dunk case that it is academic). Moreover, the further particulars for the PVC (Resources and Operations) repeatedly refer to providing academic leadership and an academic lead. Hence, I was confused as to why the Council were advised on 22 January 2024 that recruitment could be on a combined academic-related and academic basis or on an academic‑related basis only. I endorse Mr Allen’s concerns about the appointment of a PVC on any type of academic‑related basis. Such an appointment would not be in the spirit of commitments made in previous Notices/Reports, and might be open to formal challenge. If the Council wishes to evolve in that direction, then there should be a Report, Discussion, Notice and Grace to that effect. Might the Council care to enlighten the Regent House as to why the academic‑related proposal was contemplated?

If I was being Machiavellian I might be able to envisage a reason. However, reassigning the Office as academic-related is not the way to go about it. The University needs the best person, and if the best person does not fit the standard profile, then the Regent House should be asked to approve the appointment with an upfront argument, rather than by a loophole being exploited. The use of loopholes does not endear trust. Years ago, if there were N Regulations, then often the Nth Regulation provided an escape clause so that if a good reason was given in writing (so that there was a paper trail) then one or more of the earlier Regulations could be side-stepped. Such provisions were useful, as long as they were not abused. The University needs to return to a level of trust so that such clauses can be used. The shenanigans over the Christmas vacation concerning an additional office of Pro-Vice-Chancellor, some of which are referred to by Dr Astle, did not help matters here.

This speech has gone through a number of iterations and I have exorcised some comments as impolitic or, if the chance presented itself, best said in person. There is also much else that I might have added but I will finish on process.

It has been known for the best part of a year that the Office of PVC (Research) was going to become vacant. It could not be advertised until HMG had announced the new BBSRC Executive Chair, but surely preparations could have proceeded behind the scenes with an advert soon after 19 December 2023? Similarly, the University has known for the best part of three years that David Cardwell’s term would end on 31 July 2024. Why is the advert for the PVC for Money so late? If an external has to give three months, or probably much more, notice, what happens on 1 August? If a Head of School or Department were to be appointed, then who is going to stand in for them? The Chairs of Finance and the Planning and Resources Committees rotated at the start of the academic year, and the state of the change programmes was known well before that, so surely there was a good idea of the scope of the new role of the PVC for Money by then. Given that this is one of the three most important leadership roles in the University, why is the advert so late? It would be impolite to suggest incompetence; maybe it is pressure of work (but the pandemic is well over); if I was being Machiavellian, it would look like a put‑up job. Why?

In preparing this speech, I contemplated broken crockery in that the planning round and capital plan are shadows of their former selves, that the RAM is no more despite the continuing need to prioritise ‘resource across all areas of the University’s activities’ and to distribute equitably financial resource (including cross-subsidies if the University is to remain inclusive), and that non-academic staff numbers have rocketed. I had a sense of déjà vu, since the first task I had when I joined the Board of Scrutiny in 2001 was to read the Shattock and Finkelstein reports on the omnishambles that was CAPSA. So, a quote from the Shattock report (with my emphasis): ‘Many universities now allocate a fixed budget to the Registrar for central administrative purposes and leave him/her the task of managing the staffing establishment for the central administration within it’.

I also reread my comments made when Phase 1 of the North West Cambridge Development was discussed as a Topic of concern on 1 November 2015 (during which I apologised to the Regent House for ‘being naïve, and believing the spin’). I said then that ‘my experience suggests that the problem with appointments extends far beyond NWC’; it appears that it may still do.

Mr G. P. Allen (Wolfson College) read by the Senior Proctor:

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I supported the request for a Discussion on a Topic of concern in order for the Regent House to be informed of the Council’s thinking about the evolution of the role of Pro-Vice-Chancellors as well as the current exercise to recruit two PVCs. I am not opposed to the appointment of an external candidate provided the Nominating Committee fully considers the ability of such a candidate to satisfy the demanding requirements of either job – any mistake could prove embarrassing and expensive for the individual and the University. The PVC (Resources and Operations) will be responsible for recurrent expenditure of almost £1.5bn in the Academic University and eliminating a significant annual deficit, while the PVC (Research) will oversee research income of almost £600m a year, and be responsible for ensuring an outstanding performance by the University in the next Research Excellence Framework (REF) to secure the continuation of at least the current £140m a year of Quality Related (QR) income.

Information about the current recruitments seems to have trickled out over the Easter Vacation: first an Advance Notice appeared on the Reporter website on 28 March 2024 which stated that the vacancies were ‘open to external and internal candidates’ and invited ‘expressions of interest’ to the Vice-Chancellor by 23 April 2024; subsequently the recruitment firm Saxton Bampfylde posted further particulars of the two appointments on its website, with a revised closing date for applications of 25 April 2024, and, on page 19, raising the possibility of ‘offering a fixed-term Personal Professorship to be coterminous with the PVC term’; finally on 17 April 2024 the Council published revised advertisements for the two roles and a Notice ‘Office of Pro-Vice‑Chancellor: Council response to the Topic of concern’.1

In its Report on governance of 17 June 2002, in the context of a proposal to enhance the role of PVCs and increase their number of from two to five, the then Council commented as follows:

The Council see Pro-Vice-Chancellors – in future as at present – not as line managers in particular areas of administration, but as providing academic leadership in policy development and in the interpretation and monitoring of practice.2

Pro-Vice-Chancellors were included in the Schedule of offices whose holders may apply for study leave on the same conditions as are laid down in Special Ordinance C (i) for University officers specified in the Schedule to Special Ordinance C (i) 1.3 This arrangement was confirmed by the Council in a Notice dated 19 January 2023,4 which clarified the entitlement to leave of PVCs and Heads of Schools; so as recently as last year the Council seemed clear that PVCs are academics.

However, Minute C.891 of the Council meeting on 22 January 2024 records that

...Council members had recently raised whether appointments to the office of Pro-Vice-Chancellor, which had customarily been from inside the University, could and should be open to external applicants in the future in order to diversify expertise within the Senior Leadership Team.

The Registrary explained that there were two options for how future vacancies could be opened to external candidates, both of which maintained, unchanged, the terms and conditions of appointment, as set out in Statutes and Ordinances. These options were (1) recruitment on a combined academic-related and academic basis and (2) recruitment on an academic-related basis only. She noted that the Council need not choose between the options at this point. Instead, if an external were to be the preferred candidate for appointment, the Council could decide on the most suitable option for that individual.5

Accordingly it would seem to be the case that the Council is contemplating a shift from the position established in 2002 that academic leadership should be provided by academic PVCs who are research active and treated as equivalent to Professors and other officers with a statutory entitlement to study leave. Will the Council clarify what is meant by the option to appoint a PVC on an academic-related basis (but only for an external candidate) and what the implications of such an appointment would be for the structure of the Unified Administrative Service and the responsibilities of its directors? On the face of it there would seem to be a blurring of the line between the ministers and the civil service.

The Council’s Notice of 17 April 2024 comments that the PVC for Resources and Operations will, inter alia, ‘integrate academic planning with resource planning’ which many of us would recognise as a key responsibility of previous PVCs for Planning/Resources/Strategy – the portfolios have been revised over time but responsibility for ‘Planning’ has always been there. So can the Council explain: what aspects of the revised PVC portfolio constitute ‘Operations’; and how it will ensure that ‘Planning’ is not lost sight of?

Thirdly, will the Council elaborate on the possibility of offering a personal Professorship coterminous with tenure of a PVCship, which it does not mention in the advert or its Notice of 17 April 2024? There is no requirement for a PVC to hold another University office let alone a Professorship – indeed several, former and current, PVCs were not Professors at the time of their appointment. The establishment of any Professorship for a new PVC would require the approval of the Regent House, by Grace, following the publication of a Report or Notice explaining the background; the Regent House will need to be assured about the maintenance of academic standards, normally achieved through external involvement in the procedure for appointing to personal Professorships. How will the Council (and the General Board) ensure that a preferred candidate for a PVCship also satisfies the criteria for appointment before proposing the establishment of the office?

Finally, Minute 904.1 of the Council meeting of 12 February 2024 records its reflections on the rejection by the Regent House of the establishment of a sixth office of PVC and a recognition of the need to improve communication between the Council, the Regent House and the student body. In the light of that, it would surely have been a step forward for the Council to have published a Notice informing the Regent House of its thinking about PVCs shortly after its discussion on 22 January 2024, instead of burying the announcement of the vacancies on the Reporter website outside Full Term and only publishing a Notice on 17 April after fifty members had called this Discussion on a Topic of concern? Furthermore, it may be wise for the Council to submit a Grace now seeking approval in principle for the establishment of any personal Professorship for a successful candidate who is not already a Professor in the University.

Professor D. A. Cardwell (Department of Engineering and Fitzwilliam College), read by the Senior Proctor:

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I am currently the serving as Pro‑Vice-Chancellor (Strategy and Planning), but I am making these remarks in a personal capacity.

I write in strong support of the approach taken by the University Council in the recruitment of Pro‑Vice‑Chancellors with responsibilities for Research and Resources and Operations, respectively. The duties of the latter, in particular, will overlap extensively with those of my current role, and I feel I have a unique insight into the relevant operational and administrative issues associated with these appointments and how they will need to be taken forward in the best interests of the University.

During my time in office, I have overseen academically- significant areas of change including Financial Transformation (which incorporates Enhanced Financial Transparency (EFT)) and Reshaping our Estate. These initiatives have linked closely with other change programmes led by senior academic colleagues, including Human Resources Transformation, Reimagining Professional Services and the Research Transformation Programmes.

The University is entering a critical period in which it now needs to implement these changes in a coherent, timely and effective way. This, inevitably, means the skill set needed by members of the senior leadership team who will oversee these changes will change subtly, but significantly, to focus on change management, operations and on programme delivery. As a result, I feel it is essential that the University spreads its net as widely as possible, and that opening these appointments to external applicants can only be to our advantage. Of course, this approach does not preclude the appointment of an internal candidate to either Pro-Vice-Chancellor post, but it may well identify an individual or individuals who can bring these unique and much needed skills to the institution.

Finally, the nature of each Pro-Vice-Chancellor appointment for at least the past decade has evolved with successive appointments and the re‑definition of my current role is entirely consistent with this historical approach and with the changing nature of the role(s). Relabelling my position, from ‘Strategy and Planning’ to ‘Resources and Operations’, makes complete sense given the urgent need to implement change across the University, as outlined above, and gives the University the best possible chance of delivering a successful change management programme.

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

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the recent rejection of the proposal to create a sixth Pro-Vice-Chancellor followed the publication of a Report, a Discussion, a Grace and a Ballot. This Discussion has been called on a Topic of concern because the Council has taken some constitutionally significant decisions about Pro-Vice-Chancellors without asking the Regent House for permission. Indeed its Minutes of 24 January 2024 show that it expressly chose options which could be taken forward without changing ‘the terms and conditions of appointment, as set out in Statutes and Ordinances’, which would have required it to seek the consent of the Regent House.

This Discussion is taking place at the earliest opportunity, but after the closing date of 25 April for applications for the two vacant Pro-Vice-Chancellorships. They were simply ‘announced’ in an Advance Notice on the Reporter website on 28 March1 and promptly advertised by the head-hunter Saxton Bampfylde, ‘acting’ it says as ‘employment advisor’ for the University and confusingly giving a closing date of 23 April.2 The warrant for rushing all this through during a vacation is unclear and seems to expose the University to risk, if applicants have relied on the assurances given without reference to the Regent House.

Speaking last term on the Financial Statements,3 Stephen Cowley pointed out that Pro-Vice-Chancellors are not responsible for running parts of the administration. The Statutes and Ordinances have not yet got to grips with making this plain. Statute C III 15–17, tucked in after ‘Removal of the Vice-Chancellor from Office’ and with some Ordinances to follow, merely says that ‘there shall be such number of offices of Pro-Vice-Chancellor as shall be determined by the Council subject to a maximum determined by Ordinance’ and ‘the maximum number of offices of Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall be five’.4

It remains uncertain whether this is to be an academic or an academic-related role. The Council has now raised that question afresh. In 2002, when the proposal for five Pro‑Vice-Chancellorships was put up for Discussion after consultation, the Report said that the then Council

saw Pro-Vice-Chancellors – in future as at present – not as line managers in particular areas of administration, but as providing academic leadership in policy development and in the interpretation and monitoring of practice.5

Nevertheless the present Council’s Minute of 24 January this year says the Council was told that in order not to require change to the Statutes and Ordinances the appointments would need to be made either on ‘a combined academic-related and academic basis’ or on ‘an academic-related basis only’.6 The Statutes and Ordinances fail to define ‘academic-relatedness’.

The Council also decided in January to open the recruitment of Pro-Vice-Chancellors to ‘external candidates’. It suggested that ‘the most suitable option’ among the academic-related possibilities, with or without one somehow also being ‘academic’, might need to be permitted if the preferred candidate proved to be external. For that there is a precedent. When last open for appointment in 2018 the Pro-Vice-Chancellorship for Strategy and Planning was to be ‘open to external and internal candidates’, but with the stipulation, not included in the present calls for nominations and applications, that ‘preference will be given to individuals with a strong connection to the collegiate University’. Moreover, it called for ‘a strong academic voice’.7

Questions of transfer of power away from academic control may arise with the proliferation of senior roles with anything resembling executive responsibilities. That was one of the concerns which recently prompted the Regent House to vote against the addition of a sixth Pro‑Vice‑Chancellor. Although the Vice-Chancellor’s powers are largely undefined and she is not a Chief Executive, the Pro-Vice-Chancellors sound very much like ‘executives’. The Minutes of its meeting on 24 January record that the Council decided to change their titles and responsibilities, with ‘Resources and Operations’ replacing ‘Strategy and Planning’, and ‘Research’ replacing ‘Research and International Partnerships’. The job description now published states that the role of the new Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Resources and Operations) ‘is an exciting opportunity for an individual who wishes to be a visible leader’ and is ‘among other things’, to ‘integrate academic planning with resource planning’. The new Pro‑Vice-Chancellor (Research) ‘will lead the development and implementation of strategy and policy relating to research’ and ‘grow’ the University’s ‘research income’. How much power will these Pro-Vice-Chancellors have?

The two Pro-Vice-Chancellorships have been listed among Cambridge University Vacancies as ‘Professorships/Directorships’.8 The head-hunter’s invitation to apply states that ‘the Council would be open to considering the possibility of offering a fixed-term Personal Professorship, as appropriate, to be coterminous with the PVC term’. An external appointee could not fit the requirement that ‘a person who does not hold an office listed in the Schedule to Special Ordinance C (i) 1 of the Statutes would only be promoted to a personal Professorship on condition that their duties after promotion remain principally those of the office from which they have been promoted’.9 The Schedule includes some ‘Directors’ but it knows nothing of Pro-Vice-Chancellors (though, untidily, they are included among the officeholders entitled to sabbatical leave).10

Is creation of such a Professorship constitutionally possible without a Grace? Statute C XI 2 is clear that ‘Professorships are to be established in institutions under the supervision of the General Board either by Statute’ (a change which would require both a Grace and the permission of the Privy Council), or ‘by Grace of the Regent House’.

One can only request a Report with Recommendations, so that the Regent House may decide whether to approve them before this goes any further. Perhaps it could include some proposed tightening up of imperfect clarities and missing definitions in the Statutes and Ordinances?

Mr R. J. Haynes (University Information Services), read by the Deputy Junior Proctor:

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I am a University Senior Computer Officer based in the University’s Information Services, and a long-standing UCU member.1

With appreciation for helpfully raising this Topic of concern, it is good to mention both University and union here, because together we commit ourselves to matters of concern for building up and sustaining our community. This is just such an area involving the health and wellbeing of our community, and the requirements for those in increasingly senior positions of responsibility to be fully grounded and conversant in the culture and diversity of our very community.

We have recently decided, and rightly, that we can have too many Pro-Vice-Chancellors, and that decision was in part a reminder that we need more involvement across the community for so many fundamental issues, not least in the responsibilities inherent in the substance and surrounding concerns of sustainability. For that challenge, discussions have started to have broader community representation and we believe better funding for the very initiatives already committed in these areas.

The intricacies and complex commitments embedded in the culture of our community, and the sub-cultures in the sub-communities of our great collegiate University, demand we retain the recruitment of any such position as Pro-Vice-Chancellor within those already well steeped and deeply familiar with the place, and fully ready to continue and expand engagement with the rest of our community – with all of us, as fully part of this community, rather than having to move through a long and unnecessary initiation cycle, or moving against the path set by our community. As the apt saying goes, ‘culture eats strategy for breakfast’, and we must respond to the prudent requirements of our collegiate culture and the necessarily developed working practices of our community.

Professor K. Munir (Judge Business School and Homerton College), read by the Deputy Junior Proctor:

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I am currently the serving Pro‑Vice-Chancellor (University Community and Engagement) and work closely with both the PVC for Research and International Partnerships (to be renamed ‘Research’ under the proposal) and PVC for Strategy and Planning (to be renamed ‘Resources and Operations’ under the proposal).

In order to survive and indeed, thrive, any organisation needs to adapt to changes in its environment and develop new capabilities. These capabilities can of course be grown organically or, when more suitable ones are easily available from outside, acquired. The latter does not preclude using internal resources but simply expands the choice we have. It is in this light that the PVC positions need to be seen. The University is currently grappling with the twin challenges of digitisation and a suite of transformational change programmes including in Finance, Human Resources, Research and Professional Services. These are all essential to move the University into the 21st century. And in order to make sure the tens of millions that these will cost are spent well, we need a leader in Resources and Operations who has experience and capabilities in both IT strategy and change management. So, two possible changes need to be considered. First, to handle these challenges in an appropriate manner, these need to be part of a PVC’s portfolio. Second, we need to consider how opening these roles up to talent outside the University might ensure greater choice, raising the probability of finding the best person for the job. In other words, it might be entirely in the University’s interest to adapt the role to the challenges confronting us and open it up to external candidates.

The same is true for the research role. The role requires developing the University’s relationships with research funding councils, government bodies and strategic partners from industry and the charity sector. Research income needs to be grown substantially and the candidate needs to bring skills that allow us to do exactly that. It is again in the University’s interest to open the role up to external candidates so that we consider talent beyond the University.

To sum up, these roles need to adapt to the challenges the University is facing. My own position was renamed and the emphasis changed when I applied, and it might change again. We need to keep changing the configuration of talent in the leadership team if we are to manage a University in highly testing times. And the best way to do that is through building some flexibility into our leadership roles.

Professor R. V. Penty (Department of Engineering and Sidney Sussex College), read by the Deputy Junior Proctor:

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I am currently Head of the School of Technology but I am making these remarks in a personal capacity.

Colleagues have raised concerns that the Council has opened recruitment of Pro-Vice-Chancellors to outside the University.

The University is currently investing in a significant change programme, to modernise our financial tools and approaches, our HR support and our research grant administration. Investment in these programmes is large and the interactions between them is complex. Over the past few years these programmes have progressed, and several are now reaching the stage where they will soon begin to be rolled out to the University. The change programme cannot be allowed to fail and hence the new PVC for Resources and Operations will need to have a proven track record in programme delivery and operations as well change management in a large and complex organisation. These are skills that are rarely, if at all, built up in the academic environment from which Pro‑Vice‑Chancellors have been drawn in the past and so it seems extremely sensible to advertise this post outside Cambridge.

Of course the same cannot be said for the Pro‑Vice‑Chancellor for Research. We have many excellent colleagues who have great experience in leading major research activities and in developing strategy in this area. However this appointment is also vital to the future health of the University. REF will soon be upon us again, and the PVC will need to be able to lead us to further REF success. They will also need to guide the University to help it make the maximum impact on a world that faces an increasing number of difficult challenges as well as defending the right of our researchers to academic freedom at a time when we are all coming under increasing political pressure in that regard. Whilst I am certain we have internal candidates who would do a wonderful job, we need to have the very best appointment to the role. Hence I hope we do not have the arrogance to think that that person could only possibly come from inside Cambridge.