Notices

Calendar

1 July, Wednesday. Scarlet Day. Congregation of the Regent House at 10 a.m. (General Admission).

2 July, Thursday. Scarlet Day. Congregation of the Regent House at 10 a.m. (General Admission).

3 July, Friday. Scarlet Day. Congregation of the Regent House at 10 a.m. (General Admission).

4 July, Saturday. Scarlet Day. Congregation of the Regent House at 10 a.m. (General Admission).

14 July, Tuesday. Discussion by videoconference at 2 p.m. (see below).

Discussions (Tuesdays at 2 p.m.)	Congregations (at 10 a.m. unless otherwise stated)
14 July	1, 2, 3 and 4 July (General Admission) 23, 24 and 25 July

Discussion on Tuesday, 14 July 2026

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, 2024, p. 111) to attend a Discussion by videoconference on Tuesday, 14 July 2026 at 2 p.m. The following items will be discussed:

1.Report of the Council, dated 23 June 2026, pursuant to Special Ordinance A (ii) 7 (divestment from fossil fuel and arms companies) (Reporter, 6830, 2025–26, p. 572).

2.Report of the Council, dated 30 June 2026, on changes to the senior administrative offices (p. 583).

3.Report of the Council, dated 30 June 2026, on the removal of references to the University Chest in Ordinances (p. 587).

Those wishing to join the Discussion by videoconference should email Discussions@admin.cam.ac.uk 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 Discussions@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 Director of Governance and Compliance, 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.

For general information on Discussions see the Reporter website at https://www.reporter.admin.cam.ac.uk/discussions.

Leslie Stephen Lecture: Change of date

The Vice-Chancellor gives notice that Professor Lyndal Roper is no longer able to lecture on Thursday, 29 October 2026 as previously announced (Reporter, 6801, 2025–26, p. 78). Following approval of Grace 2 of 7 May 2026 (Reporter, 6823, 2025–26, p. 456) this lecture is now due to be given on Monday, 1 February 2027 at 5.30 p.m. Further details will be published later.

Health-related policies

11 June 2026

The Council and the General Board have approved revised versions of the Sickness Absence Policy (renamed the Health and Attendance Policy), the Managing Stress and Promoting Wellbeing at Work Policy (renamed the Work‑related Stress Policy) and the Disability and Employment Policy. The revised policies place a stronger emphasis on early intervention and provide enhanced guidance to support managers in addressing health-related absence and are online at https://www.hr.admin.cam.ac.uk/policies-procedures-z.

Consultation on proposals for changes to senior administrative offices: Notice in response to Discussion remarks and other feedback

25 June 2026

The Council has received the remarks made at the Discussion on 26 May 2026 on its consultation report proposing changes to the distribution of the duties currently assigned to the Registrary and the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) (Reporter, 2025–26: 6823, p. 447; 6827, p. 516). It has also received 11 contributions by email, a summary of the discussion at the all-staff meeting on 11 May 2026, and the remarks made at the Discussion on 2 June 2026 (Reporter, 6828, 2025–26, p. 475). This response aims to address the main points raised about the report from all four sources. It wishes to thank all those who took the time to share their thoughts on the proposals.

The majority of contributors supported the three-pillar model in which there would be three senior administrators of equal standing – the Registrary, the Chief Operating Officer (COO) and the Academic Secretary – all reporting to the Vice‑Chancellor as Chair of the Council and the General Board. The plan to integrate operations functions under the COO was generally welcomed. Several contributors raised concerns about diminishing the role of the Academic Secretary, weakening the advocacy for academic priorities by subordinating the role to one otherwise focused on governance and regulatory matters. Further, commentators noted that the three roles reflected recognisable skillsets found in the higher education sector, providing an existing pool of candidates from which to recruit. They also noted the alignment of the Registrary and the Academic Secretary roles with the bicameral committee structures under the Council and the General Board. The Council is persuaded that a framework supported by academic, operational and governance leads will provide a more balanced representation of those perspectives on University business and therefore has recast its proposals to support the three-pillar model. The remainder of this response assumes that this is the model that the Council will now follow.

Several commentators asked for more information about how the proposals would work in practice. Some found the charts confusing. The proposal’s main purpose is to redistribute the duties of the two existing roles of the Registrary and the Chief Financial Officer to manage existing workload more effectively and coherently, after assessing current priorities and where need is greatest. As a peer of the Registrary and the COO, the Academic Secretary will be able to give voice to academic priorities. That work will be undertaken in consultation with the Secretaries of the Schools, as now. Similarly, the COO will work closely with the Academic Secretary and the School Secretaries to determine the operational resources needed to deliver academic objectives in ways that ensure coherence of data and avoid duplication of activity. What remains are the current responsibilities of the Registrary and some parts of the role of CFO that do not fit within the role of Director of Finance, for redistribution between the COO and the revised Registrary role. With the Academic Division removed from the Registrary’s remit, the Registrary role becomes that of a University Secretary, widely found within other higher education institutions.

Some commentators expressed a concern about weakening financial oversight without a Chief Financial Officer. Under the Council’s proposals, the Director of Finance would report to the COO and a new team would be set up to advise the COO on investments. The Council and the current CFO are of the view that a strong COO appointment would be sufficient to support the University’s financial strategy. In particular, the Council notes that the governance structures supporting financial decision-making are now more mature, with robust support from the Press and Assessment Board, the Property Board and the Finance Committee, and a revised approach for Phase 2 of the North West Cambridge development, through a joint venture with a commercial partner, to mitigate the risks identified during Phase 1. Furthermore, the borrowing of additional long-term funds at low interest rates in 2018 and the careful investment of those funds means there is now negligible risk of needing to identify funds to contribute to the repayment of the bond originally raised to fund Phase 1. The position across the University’s various pension schemes has also now stabilised. Finally, while the Director of Finance will report to the COO, they will also continue to have a direct relationship with the Finance Committee, the Audit Committee, the Planning and Resources Committee and (as appropriate) with the Council, ensuring a strong continuing voice for finance.

The proposals do not aim to make significant changes to the existing partnerships between the Pro-Vice-Chancellors, providing academic leadership in particular areas of University activity, and the Directors of professional service teams (including but not limited to UAS Divisions) who provide expertise in those corresponding areas. The Council recognises that the teams led by these Directors are variously focused on operations, provision of services, strategy, or a combination of those functions. The proposals also do not intend to make changes to the remits or reporting lines of existing committees1 nor to the current structures for the management of operations and the development of strategy across the University, whether within the UAS, UIS or in the Schools and other academic units. However, they do envisage that the COO, the Registrary and the Academic Secretary would have responsibility for reviewing existing arrangements and suggesting new, more efficient ways of working in their respective areas of activity, in consultation as appropriate. These discussions might then in turn lead to changes to those arrangements. This is expected to be particularly fruitful for the holistic embedding of sustainability across all operations.

Several contributors, mostly from University Information Services (UIS), identified a risk of weakening academic governance and prioritising administrative needs by bringing UIS within the Unified Administrative Service (UAS). The Council does not consider UIS becoming part of the UAS to be a ‘relegation’, as those who signed the request for the Topic of concern described it. It also suggests the use of this term could be considered disrespectful towards the staff of the UAS. Within the University there are units whose primary function is to carry out teaching and research and there are others whose primary function is to facilitate that teaching and research. UIS and the existing Divisions of UAS are both in that second group. The Council acknowledges that some of UIS’s activity involves working closely in partnership with academic staff, for example, Research Computing Services designs, deploys and runs high-performance digital infrastructure for the University, but that level of expertise is also to be found in the UAS, for example, in the outputs of the Cambridge Centre for Teaching and Learning in the Academic Division.

The Topic of concern called for a suspension of the plans for the relocation of UIS under the COO alongside parts of UAS, to allow time for the development of a digital strategy. Several contributors presented an alternative view, supporting the relocation of UIS as a means to improve coordination across professional services. Others noted that effective governance, engagement and leadership, rather than organisational location alone, determine academic alignment, and the urgent need for a digital strategy. The Council shares the view that it should not delay recruitment of a COO, who can support the Director of UIS in developing and implementing that strategy.

The Council notes the suggestion that the Health, Safety and Regulated Facilities Division might be better located within the Academic Division or as part of the Registrary’s revised remit. Having considered those options, the Council continues to favour its colocation with the Human Resources and Estates Divisions under the COO, given that all three Divisions intersect on the safety of staff and physical infrastructure in the pursuit of the University’s academic mission.

Several commentators noted a risk of creating another unmanageable role by transferring a substantial part of the Registrary’s workload to the COO. The Council is aware of this risk, but it notes that the remit of the COO would be a much more coherent and operations-focused role than the role currently assigned to the Registrary, and that the Directors of the individual Divisions would continue to be the main drivers of change in their areas of activity, with the support and input of the COO and the relevant Pro-Vice-Chancellors.

Some contributors noted an overlap between the role of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Resources and Operations and the COO and queried what the implications might be. In 2024, the Council recruited a Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Resources and Operations to address a need for a greater focus on prioritisation and operational effectiveness. The appointment of a COO will build on Professor Philpott’s work as part of a transition to ‘business as usual’. Professor Philpott supports (and was instrumental in devising) the Council’s proposals as set out in the consultation report. The Council routinely reviews the portfolio of each Pro-Vice-Chancellor when there is a vacancy, to reflect current needs. There will therefore be an opportunity for the Council to consider whether any changes need to be made to the portfolio of the Pro‑Vice‑Chancellor for Resources and Operations once a COO is in place.

The consultation report notes a proposed change to enable the Council to allow or direct that any duty of the Registrary is performed by an officer or a postholder, rather than only by an officer. One specific point queries whether that change is appropriate. The University’s Statutes already give the Council the ability to fill an unestablished post of Acting Registrary during a vacancy in the substantive office. The Council wishes to have the flexibility to choose the right person to undertake such a duty based on their skills and experience rather than on the terms under which they are employed.

The Council notes that there are no plans to change the current reporting lines of the Directors of the University’s Development and Alumni Relations and its Communications and External Affairs teams.

The Council is publishing a Report (p. 583) seeking approval for revised amendments to the University’s Statutes and Ordinances.