Fly-sheets reprinted

Fly-sheets relating to the ballot on Grace 2 of 17 July 2024 (Chancellor fixed term)

In accordance with the Council’s Notice on Discussions and Fly-sheets (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 116), the two fly‑sheets signed by members of the Regent House received for the ballot on Grace 2 of 17 July 2024 (Chancellor fixed term) are reprinted below. Fly‑sheets are reprinted in the order in which they appeared in the ballot booklet, which was random. For the result of the ballot see p. 106.

Fly-sheet in favour of Grace 2 of 17 July 2024

This Grace’s main proposal is to revise the term of the Chancellor and the High Steward, so that those appointed serve for 10 years instead of for life (retaining the option of stepping down before the end of their term).1

The offices of Chancellor and High Steward are two of the highest positions in the University.2 The duties of the Chancellor are wide-ranging. Although perhaps most well-known for presiding at Honorary Degrees and other important events in the University calendar, the Chancellor is also a public face of the University on the national and international stages. The officeholder also does valuable work behind the scenes, providing advice and acting as a sounding board for the Vice-Chancellor and other senior staff in the University. Finally, the Chancellor holds the role of Visitor at some Cambridge Colleges, usually providing arbitration in internal disputes. This is therefore more than a ceremonial role, with those elected expected to represent, and advance the interests of, the University.

When we invite people to stand for election to these offices, we are asking individuals who are likely to be in demand for their knowledge and skills to make a substantial commitment to the University. We need to ensure that these are attractive positions so that we have the best candidates, from the widest pool, wanting to take on these important but unpaid roles.

A 10-year term allows enough time for the officeholder to make a valuable contribution to the work of the University, and is also sufficient to provide the University with stability. Turnover at least every 10 years will bring new people with fresh perspectives and different talents and experiences to the roles, and this will help to encourage equality, diversity and inclusion. Instead of being a once-in-a-lifetime event, elections will become more routine, and there will be institutional knowledge to support the election and the transition from one officeholder to the next.

For these reasons we urge you to vote in favour of the Grace.

Signed by the following members of the Regent House:

Grace limiting the length of office of Cambridge’s Chancellor

The reasons set out by the Council in its Report (Reporter, 6744, 2023–24, p. 634) for fixing the Chancellor’s term of office do not correspond to the way the Chancellor’s role and functions are currently understood in the University.

The Council desires a ten-year term of office so that officeholders are rotated more regularly. This is a significant departure from established practice. In the last 50 years there have been three officeholders. HRH Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, served the University well as Chancellor for 35 years.

The Council’s justifications for moving away from a lifetime appointment, with suitable safeguards and the possibility of retirement at the officeholder’s choosing, are not to the point.

The Council wishes to encourage ‘a wider field of candidates to stand for election’. A ten-year term will certainly encourage more frequent and contested elections (14 candidates are vying to be elected Chancellor of the University of Oxford at the last count). But experience shows how disruptive such elections can be.

While the Council’s concerns for diversity and representation are welcome, there are other ways of addressing these concerns without making significant changes to the office of Chancellor. In an increasingly politicised higher education sector, we should be cautious of more frequent and possibly more acrimonious elections which may put off as many potential candidates as they attract.

The Council says a fixed term will ensure the ‘more frequent introduction of different skills and experience’ to the office. But it is unclear what skills and experiences are now considered necessary. The University’s Statutes, Ordinances and past practice suggest the role of Chancellor is principally ceremonial and representative. Anyone who seeks that office will be expected to possess a similar set of key skills. By claiming that different skills and experiences might be needed from different officeholders at different times, the Council suggests a broader range of necessary skills and experience which no single individual could possess. This in turn suggests a more active role for the Chancellor than is currently the case. Further details should be provided by the Council before the Regent House is asked to vote for statutory change.

The way in which the office of Chancellor has hitherto been conceived has served the University well for many years. We should be wary of altering a mode of governance that works, and of disturbing the careful balance of responsibilities and duties that currently characterise our common life.

Members of the Regent House are urged to vote ‘No’ in the ballot.

Signed by the following members of the Regent House: