Notices

Calendar

14 June, Friday. Full Term ends.

19 June, Wednesday. Scarlet day. Congregation of the Regent House at 2.45 p.m. (Honorary Degrees).

25 June, Tuesday. Easter Term ends. Discussion by videoconference at 2 p.m. (see below).

26 June, Wednesday. Scarlet day. Congregation of the Regent House at 10 a.m. (General Admission).

27 June, Thursday. Scarlet day. Congregation of the Regent House at 10 a.m. (General Admission).

28 June, Friday. Scarlet day. Congregation of the Regent House at 10 a.m. (General Admission).

29 June, Saturday. Scarlet day. Congregation of the Regent House at 10 a.m. (General Admission).

Discussion on Tuesday, 25 June 2024

The Vice‑Chancellor invites members of the Regent House, University and College employees, registered students and others qualified under the regulations for Discussions (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 111) to attend a Discussion by videoconference on Tuesday, 25 June 2024 at 2 p.m. The following items will be discussed:

1. Report of the Council, dated 21 May 2024, on the demolition of derelict buildings on the North West Cambridge Estate (Reporter, 6742, 2023–24, p. 598).

2. Report of the Council, dated 4 June 2024, on the term of office of the Chancellor and the High Steward (Reporter, 6744, 2023–24, p. 634).

3. Topic of concern to the University: MRC unit funding (p. 660).

4. Report of the Council, dated 7 June 2024, recommending the budget and allocations from the Chest for 2024–25 (p. 670).

5. Report of the General Board, dated 7 June 2024, on the introduction of Clinical Academic (Teaching and Scholarship) offices and posts (p. 683).

6. Report of the General Board, dated 7 June 2024, on the outcomes of the Academic Career Pathways (Research and Teaching) and (Teaching and Scholarship) 2024 exercises (p. 685).

Those wishing to join the Discussion by videoconference should email UniversityDraftsman@admin.cam.ac.uk from their University email account, providing their CRSid (if a member of the collegiate University), by 10 a.m. on the date of the Discussion to receive joining instructions. Alternatively contributors may email their remarks to contact@proctors.cam.ac.uk, copying ReporterEditor@admin.cam.ac.uk, by no later than 10 a.m. on the day of the Discussion for reading out by the Proctors,1 or may ask someone else who is attending to read the remarks on their behalf.

In accordance with the regulations for Discussions, the Chair of the Board of Scrutiny or any ten members of the Regent House2 may request that the Council arrange for one or more of the items listed for discussion to be discussed in person (usually in the Senate-House). Requests should be made to the Registrary, on paper or by email to UniversityDraftsman@admin.cam.ac.uk from addresses within the cam.ac.uk domain, by no later than 9 a.m. on the day of the Discussion. Any changes to the Discussion schedule will be confirmed in the Reporter at the earliest opportunity.

General information on Discussions is provided on the University Governance site at https://www.governance.cam.ac.uk/governance/decision-making/discussions/.

Regent House membership for retired University staff: 15 August deadline

Under Special Ordinance A (i) (e), retired members of University staff who were previously on the Roll can reacquire Regent House membership (including, for example, those currently working as voluntary Directors of Research). To qualify, University staff:

•will have retired or be about to retire from an office or appointment in the University which previously qualified them for membership of the Regent House; and

•will not be eligible for membership of the Regent House in any other category, e.g. as a Fellow of a College; and

•will need to provide to the Registrary by 15 August prior to the promulgation of the Roll each year written confirmation from their Head of institution that they are active participants in the University’s affairs.

A form is available online at https://www.governance.cam.ac.uk/governance/key-bodies/RH-Senate/Documents/RHmembershipforUnivstaff.pdf for return to the Registrary by email to UniversityDraftsman@admin.cam.ac.uk by Thursday, 15 August 2024, for inclusion on the Roll from 6 November 2024.

Topic of concern to the University: MRC unit funding

7 June 2024

The Registrary gives notice that she has received the following request for the discussion of a Topic of concern to the University:

Changes to the system of funding of those research units in the University sponsored by the Medical Research Council

The University has six research units (Biostatistics, Cognition and Brain Sciences, Epidemiology, Metabolic Diseases, Mitochondrial Biology, Toxicology) sponsored by the Medical Research Council (MRC), in which the University employs several hundred academics, researchers, laboratory, technical and administrative staff. Many of the units are long established, with distinguished academic histories. Five were created as departments of the MRC – one over a century ago – and transferred into the University during the last decade. All make leading contributions to biomedical research in Cambridge and all are recognised internationally as pre-eminent academic departments in their fields.

The MRC recently announced it intends to end long-term funding of research units, in favour of creating temporary Centres of Research Excellence. This will remove the job security of many of the staff presently employed in the MRC‑sponsored units and diminish the academic freedom of the principal investigators. The University has established a project board, reporting to the Planning and Resources Committee, to consider its response to the change. Unless that project board decides to underwrite the posts of those presently employed in the units, redundancies and diminished terms and conditions of employment seem inevitable. Without such a commitment, when a unit closes, the University will deprive itself of superb fundamental research, much of which underpins exceptional clinical research. It also risks the closure of a number of outstanding taught Master’s courses.

The undersigned call for a Discussion on this topic, which points to questions of general principle regarding the employment in the University of researchers and academics supported by external funds.

This request is supported by the 90 members of the Regent House listed in Annex A.

The Council has agreed that this topic will be included on the agenda of the Discussion at 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 25 June 2024 by videoconference (p. 659).

Annex A

Report of the General Board on the establishment of a Professorship of Social Anthropology: Notice in response to Discussion remarks

10 June 2024

The Council has received the remarks made at the Discussion on 28 May 2024 on the above Report (Reporter, 2023–24: 6740, p. 562 and 6744, p. 636). It has consulted with the General Board in preparing this response.

Dr Astle asks whether the Professorship will be held co‑terminously with Professor Leach’s position as Executive Director of the Cambridge Conservation Initiative. He also notes that the Board is proposing to dispense Professor Leach from discharging the duties of the office and asks for confirmation of the period of dispensation under Special Ordinance C (i) 2(b). The Council can confirm that the office is to be held co‑terminously with the Executive Directorship. The Report’s recommendation notes that the Professorship is to be established for the duration of Professor Leach’s appointment to that post, therefore that is also the duration of the dispensation. The Professorship would nevertheless remain subject to other provisions in the University’s Statutes and Ordinances, therefore it would expire on Professor Leach reaching the Employer Justified Retirement Age if she was still in post as Executive Director at that point.

In her remarks, Professor Evans recaps policy in the area of the establishment of personal Professorships. She asks whether the General Board will ‘create Regulations making it clear what the rules are for the creation of Professorships outside the regular run’. The Board has already published information about its policy on personal Professorships (see  Reporter, 6624, 2020–21, p. 729). It does not consider this proposal for a personal Professorship to be a material departure from its existing policy statement. It also does not believe any adjustment is necessary to Special Ordinance C (vii) A. 3 to enable this particular Professorship to be established. The sentence that Professor Evans quotes is about personal Professorships established on promotion. The last sentence of that provision notes the requirements to be met for proposing a Professorship by Grace, including in the case of a Professorship to be established for an individual.

The Council can confirm that the review of established and unestablished posts will take place in 2024–25.

The Council is submitting a Grace (Grace 1, p. 696) for the approval of the recommendation of this Report.

Topic of Concern to the University: Abolition of Forced Retirement and Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on the University’s Retirement Policy and Employer Justified Retirement Age: Notice in response to Discussion remarks

10 June 2024

The Council has received the remarks made at the Discussion on 28 May 2024 on the above Topic of concern and Report and has agreed to reply to them in a single response (Reporter, 2023–24: 6741, p. 576 and p. 578; 6742, p. 595; 6744, p. 637). It has consulted with the General Board in preparing this reply.

Introduction

In 2011 the UK government phased out default retirement ages, after which employers could retain a compulsory retirement age, provided this could be objectively justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (referred to as an Employer Justified Retirement Age). A review at the University of Cambridge at that time resulted in a compulsory retirement age being retained for its University officers from 2012 onwards but abolished for other staff categories. The Report recommends that the Employer Justified Retirement Age (EJRA) should be increased to 69 for academic University officers and the Vice-Chancellor and Pro-Vice-Chancellors, and recommends the removal of the EJRA for academic-related University officers.

The Council acknowledges that the EJRA is a contentious issue at the University, giving rise to strongly held opinions both in support of and against default retirement ages. There were opposing views at the Discussion, with some supportive of the Review Group recommendations (including members of the Group)1 and others arguing for the abolition of the EJRA for both academic and academic‑related University officers. These differing views were also reflected in the Council’s consideration of the Review Group’s proposals, with four members of the Council signing a note of partial dissent appended to the Report. Given the volume of remarks, it is not possible to respond to every point; however the Council has set out its response to the key themes that emerged below.

The Review Group has been clear there was no perfect solution that would satisfy all. Instead, it has aimed to strike a balance that, using the words of Professor Penty (Chair of the Review Group), mitigates age discrimination against those approaching retirement and allows a steady flow of vacancies to those earlier in their careers. Voters in the ballot must weigh up the Report’s recommendations and decide whether they support its proposals to achieve that balance. The Council urges those who have a vote to use it, so that the outcome is clear and has legitimacy.

Key themes

Abolition of the EJRA should be on the ballot paper

Several speakers, including those who signed the request for the discussion of the Topic of concern, recommend that the Council include abolition of the EJRA on the ballot paper in the forthcoming vote.

The Council does not feel able to support this proposal. To do so would suggest that the Council agrees that the abolition of the EJRA is an acceptable alternative to its Report’s recommendations. The analysis in the Review Group’s report2 does not support the view that abolition of the EJRA is the best outcome for the University as a whole, taking into account the impact on all those who are currently academics or plan to be in the future. Abolishing the EJRA would have a negative impact on vacancies and opportunities for earlier career academics. Further, the EJRA is (to paraphrase some of the speakers) the price that Cambridge academics pay for the high level of academic freedom and autonomy they enjoy, in the absence of significant performance review. It would be highly problematic to abolish the EJRA without introducing career-long performance management reviews for all staff and without the introduction of further changes to the University’s Statutes and Ordinances, to ensure that it was possible to dismiss officers for underperformance where appropriate at the conclusion of a performance review. Such changes would require a significant new piece of work and certainly could not be put into effect by 1 September 2024.

The EJRA does not achieve intergenerational fairness and career progression

Professors Baron-Cohen and Baert challenge the Review Group’s conclusion that the EJRA supports intergenerational fairness and career progression on the basis that the data analysis is flawed (see further below). The Council supports Professor Penty’s view (as Chair of the Retirement Policy and EJRA Review Group and speaker at the Discussion) that one of the key reasons for the Review Group’s recommendations is that approximately half of vacancies for academic University officer posts at the University are created through the EJRA.3

This creates vacancies for those earlier in their careers who are seeking the stability of their first academic position. It also permits new research fields to be opened up with each new appointment. Raising the EJRA to 69 and permitting more than one extension is an appropriate balance between mitigating the impact on those subject to a retirement age and achieving the Aims of the Retirement Policy that the EJRA supports.

In contrast, and to answer Professor Baert’s point, the EJRA does not create vacancies to any great extent for academic‑related University officers. Many of the Aims of the Retirement Policy (for instance, academic autonomy and freedom) do not apply to them in the same way as they do to academic University officers. Hence, it is not appropriate, and unlikely to be objectively justifiable, to continue to maintain an EJRA for this group.

Professor Rau suggests that active senior academics will leave well in advance of the EJRA. However, the Council notes that the internal HR data shows that a significant proportion wait until the end of the academic year in which they reach 67 to vacate their office. The average age of academic University officers on appointment is 40.4, whilst the average age on retirement is 66.

The EJRA does not lead to Cambridge promoting its own junior academics

Professors Baert, Linton and Rau refer to the fact that the EJRA does not lead to Cambridge promoting its own junior academics (many appointees being external). Professor Evans and Dr Astle also suggest that the number of vacancies created by it will have a negligible effect in resolving precarity of employment for thousands of researchers at the University.

The Council notes that whilst more academic offices are filled by external candidates, not insignificant numbers are filled by internal candidates. Such opportunities to enter the academic career pathway at a critical stage in a career would be reduced significantly if the EJRA were abolished. The University’s commitment to intergenerational fairness should also be wider than just providing internal vacancies.

Dr Astle suggests that a wholesale reform of the national system for funding higher education is needed to resolve the issues of precarious employment as an alternative to the EJRA. Professor Ansari and Mr Haynes make similar points. The Council is mindful that such reform could be a long way off, but acknowledges it should continue to press for sector-wide improvements and look for ways in which it can address concerns about casualisation at an institutional level. Some speakers suggest that additional academic offices should be created; however Dr Läubli questions the feasibility of that, pointing to static student numbers at Cambridge, which limit the potential for revenues capable of funding additional offices. Dr Holmes refers to the relative wealth of US universities, which are able to provide financial incentives to academics to vacate their posts and observes that Cambridge is not in such a position.

Forcing arbitrary retirement at 67 or 69 stops innovation

Professors Baron-Cohen and Baert question the assertion that the EJRA supports innovation, with Professor Baert suggesting that it ‘seems to rest on the prejudicial premise that ‘older’ people are unable to generate innovative research’. The Council notes that the Review Group was very clear in its report that people are capable of innovation after 67 and that the Retirement Policy Aim of innovation concerns refreshing the academy with new people rather than younger people. New appointments enable departments to move into new areas of research, which is critical to the long-term research competitiveness of the University.

Dr Holmes and others refer to the fact that many retired academics are still research-active. The Report’s more generous provision for extensions would facilitate the continuation of innovation for these academics (see below). Successors also produce their own innovations and it is important to maintain a pipeline.

Top talent won’t join Cambridge knowing they’ll be forced out at 67 or 69

A number of speakers including Professors Ansari, Crowcroft, Foley and Baron‑Cohen warned of the risk of losing experienced and productive staff members or failing to attract top talent due to the EJRA.

The Council acknowledges that the EJRA can be a reason for some staff leaving ahead of the EJRA and notes that a small number of applicants had withdrawn at the shortlisting or offer stage from professorial appointments as a result of the EJRA.

However, it is also apparent that there is a potential loss of talent if academic vacancies are significantly reduced through the abolition of the EJRA. Notably one of the speakers at the Discussion, Dr Crisp, highlights that he would have left the University had it not been clear, with the benefit of succession planning, that an established post was likely to be advertised during his second term. He cites the uncertainty and challenges facing researchers on fixed‑term contracts, which would become worse if the availability of established posts were reduced.

Speaker Dr Joy highlights that competition for those aspiring to secure their first academic job is now unprecedented and poses the question, how many brilliant young scholars would have made an exceptional contribution to the University, had they been able to secure that first job, but defeated by the odds, chose another path instead?

Professor Guillén i Fàbregas suggests abolishing the EJRA for research-active staff but retaining it for others. The Council’s view is that this would be impossible to administer fairly or consistently. Further, the impact of having a retirement age is mitigated to an extent by the extensions process, which is frequently granted for research purposes. The Council also notes that where University officers in their sixties apply for grants that run past their retirement date, employment extensions can be granted pending a successful funding application.

The EJRA is irrelevant to academic freedom

Professor Baert questions the link between academic freedom and autonomy and the EJRA. Mr Haynes argues that the abolition of the EJRA would not justify a change to the standard of tenure granted to established posts under the Schedule to Statute C or the introduction of performance management of academic staff. Yet for the Council and for some other speakers, there is a clear connection between academic freedom and the EJRA. Professors Padfield and Flewitt and Drs Läubli and Holmes identify the EJRA as a trade‑off against the independence and academic freedom enjoyed by established academics and the extraordinary protections from dismissal under the Schedule to Statute C. Further, Dr Crisp argues that the uncertainty felt by researchers who are struggling to find a permanent post at the University stifles academic freedom. Further, the Council considers that the abolition of the EJRA would require forms of performance assessment that may impede academic freedom.4

The EJRA is not significantly improving equality and diversity at the University and it singles out persons on the basis of one characteristic (age)

The Council acknowledges that improving equality and diversity is not an Aim of the existing or proposed new Retirement Policy. However, the Council believes equality and diversity are nonetheless matters that needed to be considered as part of the review of the Retirement Policy and therefore asked the Review Group to consider the impacts, particularly for the purpose of the University’s equality impact assessment processes.5

Generally speaking, female staff survey respondents tend to be more supportive of retaining the EJRA for academic University officers than abolishing it, although a sizeable proportion want to abolish it. Further analysis reveals that support by women for abolition generally increases with age, although there was marked support for retention in the 55–59 age bracket.

As Dr Joy and Ms Hockaday point out, whilst the EJRA is by no means the only relevant factor in promoting equality and diversity, internal HR data shows that the EJRA creates the conditions and opportunities for the academic community at the University to slowly become more diverse through opening up vacancies that would not otherwise have been available. This attracts more women and BAME appointees to University offices. Ms Hockaday suggests that there are better ways to tackle the impact on women than removing the EJRA.

Professors Ansari and Baron‑Cohen speak of the unfairness and futility of forcing staff out of post due to their age, regardless of their ability or willingness to contribute, whilst other speakers such as Professor Roulet refer to the need to share life-changing opportunities with new generations of academics.

The Council notes that achieving intergenerational fairness necessarily requires balancing the interests of staff groups of different ages and sharing the University’s resources across the generations. The Council considers that the Report’s recommendations strike an acceptable balance between these matters (a sentiment shared by Professor Roulet, Drs Joy, Läubli and Moghaddam, Ms Hockaday and others).

Recent case law concerning the University of Oxford

Professor Gay,6 Mr Haynes and others draw comparisons with the situation at the University of Oxford.

Recent case law concerning Oxford employees has demonstrated that it is difficult to predict with absolute certainty how an Employment Tribunal may respond to EJRAs. For instance, the Employment Appeal Tribunal recently upheld two opposing decisions relating to the same EJRA at Oxford.7 Employment Tribunal decisions are highly fact‑sensitive, dependent upon the evidence presented by the parties, and also for the purposes of assessing the legitimacy of an EJRA, upon the particular circumstances of the institutions in which, and jobs to which, the EJRA applies.

The Council also notes that there are several key points of difference between the situation at Cambridge and Oxford. In particular, the aims of their retirement policies, on which they rely to justify their respective EJRAs, are different. It is also of note that in the Field-Johnson case,8 the Tribunal observed that nine in ten professor-level vacancies would have arisen irrespective of the EJRA applied by Oxford at the time; therefore the Tribunal did not consider that sufficient vacancies were generated by Oxford’s EJRA to justify its application. In contrast, almost half of established academic vacancies arise through the EJRA at Cambridge, comparing favourably to Oxford.

It is also noteworthy that recent cases concerning Oxford employees relate to the EJRA the University of Oxford operated prior to revisions in 2022. Despite the Employment Tribunal cases, Oxford continues to operate an EJRA.

The relationship between academics and the University post-retirement

A number of speakers (Professors Beard, Luzio and Flewitt, Drs Joy and Moghaddam and others) highlight the importance of offering opportunities to engage in the intellectual life of the University post‑retirement, even if not through formal employment, so that retirement is less of a cliff‑edge.

Professor Beard calls for a wider look at the whole question of retirement and its processes and the role that the retired might play. Professor Foley suggests a tailoring and tapering of a career.

The Council notes that Professor Munir has committed to ensuring that further work is undertaken not only to simplify the extension and grant funding processes but also to identify appropriate ways in which retired colleagues can continue to contribute more broadly to academic life, including in voluntary capacities, whilst not undermining the EJRA.

The interaction between the EJRA and the University’s distinction between established and unestablished staff

Professor Evans refers to a point raised in the notice of partial dissent by some Council members around the problematic nature of removing the EJRA from academic-related staff while some academic-related staff remain established.

The Council notes that there will be a separate review of established and unestablished posts in 2024–25 to consider, amongst other things, the position of academic-related University officers in relation to the Schedule to Statute C.

Paper authored by Linton and others

Some speakers (including Professors Baert, Linton, Rau and Gay) refer to a recently published paper on the arXiv economics server authored by Linton et al.9

Professor Baron-Cohen suggests that this paper demonstrates flaws in the analysis conducted by the Review Group and shows that the EJRA does not achieve meaningful effects on vacancies. Dr Holmes casts doubt on the alternative calculations and suggests that some assertions in this paper are incorrect.

The Council accepts that there are difficulties in attempting to conclusively demonstrate the effect of Cambridge’s EJRA on vacancies. In part these arise from a high degree of volatility in the data compounded by the small sample sizes inherent in comparing a single institution with only 22 others. Nevertheless, any attempt to predict the effect of abolishing the EJRA on Cambridge academic faculty hiring must make a number of assumptions and estimates, not least concerning the future retirement patterns of academic staff at Cambridge should there be no compulsory retirement. The Council remains of the view that the detailed methodology used by the Review Group, which draws on actual retirement experience at Cambridge and elsewhere, and which is backed up by an independent peer review, remains a robust attempt at such a prediction.

Transparency of reporting

Mr Haynes contends that the data and analysis used in the EJRA Report is neither fully open, nor completely available for all and that the limitations on full disclosure or transparency unavoidably means that staff are asked to accept conclusions without the ability to follow the model choices, analysis steps or reproduce results. Professor Baert suggests that there is insufficient breakdown of the staff survey results.

The Council notes that the data from the HESA report is available to University staff and Regent House members via the Staff Hub.10 The raw data on which this report is based (i.e. personal data relating to individuals) cannot be shared on data protection grounds. The report does, however, set out its methodology and assumptions in full, from page 13 onwards, and its methodology was peer reviewed.

Similarly, the Review Group’s report (which includes internal HR data at Annex E) is available to staff via the Staff Hub, together with results of the surveys of staff, retired academics, departments and Schools. Those survey results are broken down by gender, staff group and other categories. For instance, there is a breakdown of the percentage of those in favour of abolishing or retaining the EJRA according to staff category.

The Council is submitting a Grace (Grace 2, p. 696) for the approval of the recommendations of this Report, on which it has agreed to hold a ballot. The expected timetable for the ballot is set out in paragraph 13 of the Report.11

Report of the Council on a University Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech: Notice in response to Discussion remarks

10 June 2024

The Council has considered the Discussion remarks made on 28 May 2024 concerning the above Report (Reporter, 2023–24: 6741, p. 587 and 6744, p. 655).

Professor Evans rightly draws attention to the fact that the Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech is designed to meet statutory and regulatory requirements and, in so doing, that it amalgamates a number of existing University documents on the topic of freedom of speech.

She refers to a number of expectations of the Office for Students (OfS), including that the Code of Practice should be suitably embedded into existing policies and promoted to all staff and students, that adequate training about freedom of speech and academic freedom is delivered to relevant staff, and that robust internal complaints mechanisms are in place to handle complaints about free speech matters. The Council can confirm that work to prepare for the provisions of the new legislation – including the OfS’s expectations as outlined in its draft regulatory advice – is underway and changes are being implemented to relevant University policies and processes where necessary and appropriate.

Professor Evans furthermore makes reference to the complexities of securing and promoting lawful speech, including how these duties interact with other legal requirements, such as the expression of protected beliefs under equalities legislation and the right to lawfully protest.

The statement at paragraph 5.2 of the proposed Code of Practice about non-disclosure agreements to which Professor Evans refers directly echoes the prohibition on such agreements in these particular circumstances as set out in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 itself, and accordingly does not refer to the use or otherwise of such agreements in other circumstances. Professor Evans also draws attention to the University’s processes to identify and manage risks to freedom of speech or academic freedom arising from the terms of certain overseas funding, noted at paragraph 5.3 of the proposed Code of Practice. These include processes run by the Committee on Benefactions and External and Legal Affairs, due diligence and contractual negotiation carried out within the Research Office, and partnership management by the Strategic Partnerships Office in line with the Principles for Managing International Risks (which amongst other things are designed to safeguard freedom of speech and academic freedom). All of these committees and offices are amongst those making suitable preparations for the various implications of the new legislation.

The Council remains content that the proposed Code in the Annex to its Report meets the necessary statutory requirements and adequately secures and promotes the right to freedom of speech and academic freedom within the law, and accordingly is submitting a Grace (Grace 3, p. 696) for the approval of the recommendations of this Report.

Elections to the Council, the Board of Scrutiny and the Nominating Committee for External Members of the Council

12 June 2024

This Notice sets out information on elections to fill vacancies on the Council, the Board of Scrutiny and the Nominating Committee for External Members of the Council, together with the nomination procedure and election timetable that will apply to all three elections.

Election to the Council

The Vice-Chancellor gives notice that an election is to be held to fill a casual vacancy for a member of the University Council in class (a) (Heads of Colleges) under Statute A IV 2, following the resignation of Professor Pippa Rogerson. The person elected would serve from 16 July 2024 until 31 December 2026, the remainder of Professor Rogerson’s term.

The Council is the principal executive and policy-making body of the University. It has general responsibility for the administration of the University, for defining its mission, for the planning of its work, and for the management of its resources. The Council deals with relations between the University and the Colleges, and conducts negotiations with outside bodies on many matters (other than those relating directly to the educational and research programmes of the University, which are dealt with on its behalf by the General Board of the Faculties). It is responsible for the appointment or nomination of certain members of internal and external bodies, and for many student matters (excluding undergraduate admissions, which is a College concern). Further information about the Council is available to members of the University on the Council website (https://www.governance.cam.ac.uk/committees/council/). Questions about its work can be addressed to the Registrary by emailing Registrary@admin.cam.ac.uk.

The University is committed to equality, which includes supporting and encouraging all under-represented groups, promoting an inclusive culture, and valuing diversity. Nominations from groups that are under-represented on the Council are welcomed.

Reasons for serving on the Council

The Council of the University of Cambridge is one of the few principal bodies in the higher education sector with a majority of members elected from internal constituencies; most equivalent bodies are made up predominantly of external members. The Council draws its strength from the expertise, engagement, and scrutiny of its members – those elected in its classes of senior members of the collegiate University as well as its external and student members. It is key to the continuing success of the University that elections to the Council attract strong candidates who are willing to share their knowledge and commit their time for the benefit of the University as a whole.

Duties and responsibilities of Council members

The University is both an exempt charity,1 and a corporation established by common law. Council members are therefore both charity trustees of the University and, effectively, its corporate directors. They have associated legal responsibilities and duties, including the promotion of the interests of the University and acting with integrity, care, and prudence. Under regulatory guidance, Council members must be ‘fit and proper persons’.2 It is important for candidates to recognise and accept the obligations that Council membership would confer upon them.

The Handbook for Members of the Council sets out the Council’s primary responsibilities and provides advice and guidance to members of Council on their legal and other responsibilities. Members of the Council are expected to attend all meetings of the Council. Members will not normally be able to take more than one term of leave during their period on the Council and may instead carry forward their leave entitlement. Potential nominees might wish to familiarise themselves with the key aspects of the University’s Statutes and Ordinances (https://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/so/), and the most recent Budget Reports, Annual Reports and Financial Statements.3 A recording of an information session held in October 2022 with the Acting Vice‑Chancellor and other members of the Council on the role of the Council is available at https://www.governance.cam.ac.uk/committees/council/Pages/how-to-stand-for-election-to-Council.aspx.

Further useful information is provided by the Office for Students (https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/regulation/) and the Charity Commission (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-essential-trustee-what-you-need-to-know-cc3). This information includes details of the extent of a charity trustee’s personal liability. Instances of personal liability are rare and unlikely to occur, providing trustees act honestly, prudently, in good faith, in the best interests of the University, and in compliance with legislation and the University’s governing documents.

Election to the Board of Scrutiny

The Vice-Chancellor gives notice of an election to a casual vacancy on the Board of Scrutiny in class (c)(ii) (a member of the Regent House) under Statute A VII, following the death of Dr Saskia Murk‑Jansen. The person elected would serve with immediate effect until 30 September 2027, the remainder of Dr Murk-Jansen’s term.

The Board of Scrutiny consists of:

(a)the Proctors;

(b)the two Pro-Proctors nominated by the Colleges;

(c)eight members of the Regent House elected by the Regent House.

Under the provisions of Statute A VII 4, no person may be a member of the Board of Scrutiny who is a member of the Council, the General Board, or the Finance Committee of the Council, or who holds any of the University offices of Chancellor, Vice‑Chancellor, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, University Advocate, Deputy University Advocate, Registrary, Assistant Registrary, or Secretary of a School. The Statute further prohibits from membership holders of offices with primarily administrative duties designated by Ordinance: Directors and Deputy Directors in the Unified Administrative Service and Assistant Treasurers have been designated as such prohibited offices. A retiring member of the Board who has served for four or more consecutive years is not eligible to serve again as a member in class (c) until one year has elapsed after the end of their previous period of service.

If no nominations are received in accordance with the timetable below, the Council shall be asked whether it wishes to appoint a member to the vacant place or for another election to be held, in accordance with Regulation 3 of the regulations for the election of members of the Board (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 118).

The University is committed to a proactive approach to equality, which includes supporting and encouraging all under‑represented groups, promoting an inclusive culture, and valuing diversity. Nominations from groups that are under‑represented on the Board of Scrutiny are welcomed.

Further information about the Board of Scrutiny can be found in the Statutes and Ordinances as noted above, on the Board’s website (https://www.scrutiny.cam.ac.uk/about), and obtained from Dr Robert Doubleday (email: rvld2@cam.ac.uk), Chair of the Board.

Nominating Committee for External Members of the Council

The Vice‑Chancellor gives notice of an election to fill two vacancies on the above Committee in class (d) (members of the Senate elected by the Regent House), following an election in which there were insufficient candidates to fill all vacancies in this class. Those elected would serve with immediate effect until 30 September 2025.

No person may be a member of the Committee in class (d) who is a member of the Council or who holds any of the University offices of Pro‑Vice‑Chancellor, Registrary, or Director or Deputy Director in the University Offices.

The Committee identifies candidates to serve as external members of the Council and recommends them to the Council for appointment by Grace. The next meeting of the Committee is expected to take place in the Michaelmas Term 2024 on a date yet to be agreed with members. Further information about the Committee is available in the Statutes and Ordinances (p. 119) and from the Registrary (email: Registrary@admin.cam.ac.uk).

Nomination procedure and election timetable

In order to be eligible, candidates for election are asked to send their nominations to the Vice-Chancellor, to be received not later than 12 noon on Friday, 28 June 2024. The Vice-Chancellor asks candidates to address their nominations to the Registrary by email including electronic signatures to registrary@admin.cam.ac.uk. The nomination (which can be made on a form available on the governance site)4 should include (a) a statement signed by two members of the Regent House, nominating the candidate for election and specifying the class in which the candidate is nominated, and (b) a statement signed by the candidate confirming consent to be nominated. The candidate is also required to provide a personal statement by the same date (see below). Two periods of four years should normally be regarded as the maximum length of continuous service for elected members of the Council.

In accordance with the regulations governing the election (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 118), those standing for election should send to the Registrary, by 12 noon on Friday, 28 June 2024, a statement in support of their nomination, which will be provided to voters. Each statement should be no more than 500 words in length and should cover the following points:

•the candidate’s present position in the University;

•previous posts held, whether in Cambridge or in other universities or outside the university system, with dates;

•the candidate’s reasons for standing for election, and the experience and skills they would bring to the role;

•a note of the candidate’s particular interests within the field of University business.

The complete list of nominations will be published in the Reporter on Wednesday, 3 July 2024.

If the election is contested, it will be conducted by ballot under the Single Transferable Vote regulations. Online voting will open at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 10 July and close at 5 p.m. on Monday, 22 July 2024. Hardcopy voting papers and supporting materials will be distributed not later than Wednesday, 10 July to those who opted in November 2023 to vote on paper; the last date for the return of voting papers is 5 p.m. on Monday, 22 July 2024.

Car parking on University central sites

The allocation of car park badges to Departments for 2024–25 shall continue to be issued under the current policy, which relates the number of permits issued to current staff numbers and site capacities. Normally permits are issued from 1 October each year. Details of the criteria for the issue of permits from 1 October 2024 are as follows:

(i)The allocation of badges shall not exceed the ratio of 1.8:1 when measured against the parking capacity of any site. This ratio will be higher where shared permits are issued.

(ii)Allocations will be adjusted where necessary to conform to the above ratio.

(iii)Heads of Departments will be responsible for the issue of badges according to Departmental allocation. It is suggested that the following criteria should normally be applied in the order specified. However, it is recognised that Heads of Departments will use their own judgement in applying the criteria as appropriate:

(a)persons with a Blue badge;

(b)persons with other medical or physical conditions which necessitate that they should park in close proximity to their place of work;

(c)family commitments – a need to attend to dependent family members during the day (e.g. taking/collecting children to/from nursery or school, visiting elderly or hospitalised family members) in areas not immediately accessible by public transport;

(d)unsocial hours of work – a requirement to work unsocial hours on a regular and frequent basis, finishing and/or starting at a time when public transport provision does not provide a viable alternative;

(e)persons having a requirement to use a car for work purposes on a regular basis during the working day as an essential part of their duties;

(f)persons who are prepared to undertake a formal car-sharing arrangement;

(g)inadequate public transport – applicable to staff who reside beyond a distance where they could reasonably be expected to walk or cycle to work, in areas beyond reasonable reach of public transport;1 (Staff applying on this basis should note why they need to drive into Cambridge rather than use the Park & Ride.)

(h)staff who are willing and able to park their vehicle at the University secure park and cycle facility and cycle, walk or take the University shuttle bus service to their place of work (only those staff working on central sites are eligible).

Permits should not be issued to former members of staff or for use other than in connection with current University employment. Undergraduate and postgraduate students are not eligible for a permit except by qualification under (a) or (b) above.

Able-bodied persons who already have adequate parking facilities at a central College should normally be ineligible for a badge. For this purpose the term ‘central College’ excludes those Colleges which are inside the City boundaries but not situated in the central area, i.e. Churchill, Fitzwilliam, Homerton, Hughes Hall, Lucy Cavendish, Murray Edwards, St Edmund’s, and Wolfson. Girton College, which is outside the City boundary, is also excluded.

Further information can be found at https://www.em.admin.cam.ac.uk/what-we-do/estate-operations/facilities-services/car-parking-applications.