Fly-sheets reprinted

Fly-sheets relating to the ballot on Grace 1 of 15 December 2023 (additional Pro‑Vice‑Chancellor for a maximum of six years)

In accordance with the Council’s Notice on Discussions and Fly-sheets (Statutes and Ordinances, 2023, p. 116), the five fly-sheets by members of the Regent House received for the ballot on Grace 1 of 15 December 2023 (additional Pro‑Vice‑Chancellor for a maximum of six years) are reprinted below. For the result of the ballot, see p. 250.

Fly-sheet on the creation of a 6th Pro-Vice-Chancellor (the unstated cost)

A Pro-Vice-Chancellor is expensive (starting with a salary well into six figures) and needs numerous supporting administrative staff. A proposal to add another such office even for a fixed term needs full justification not only of its purpose but also of its costs. It should not be rushed through without either.

In a startling U-turn on Friday 15 December the Grace published on 6 December proposing to add a sixth Pro-Vice-Chancellor, with responsibility for sustainability, was withdrawn by the Vice-Chancellor. A replacement Grace was published in an extraordinary issue of the Reporter (Reporter, 6723, 2023–24, p. 207), also proposing to add a sixth Pro-Vice-Chancellor, but for a maximum period of six years.

The Report first proposing this (Reporter, 6715, 2023–24, p. 69) met considerable criticism in Discussion (Reporter, 6718, 2023–24, p. 118). This was largely set aside in a Notice published on 6 December (Reporter, 6721, 2023–24, p. 167), when the Council responded and the Grace now withdrawn was published. The Council appears unwilling to respond to well-founded criticism of the proposal, preferring to remit this to the Nominating Committee for the appointment. Nor has it provided the additional cost, which is a particular concern given that, unlike the existing PVCs, it is not apparent which Division of the UAS will have lead responsibility for supporting the proposed sixth PVC, whose responsibilities will be cross-University. This suggests they will need a significant new team, and budget, in order to do the job, whatever it may be.

The withdrawal was prompted when more than fifty signatures were collected to request a ballot. The Notice published on 15 December (Reporter, 6723, 2023–24, p. 206) relied on an assertion that that ‘had been prompted by a concern about the retention of the sixth office of Pro-Vice-Chancellor beyond six years’ and for that reason the new Grace would limit the new office to a fixed term of six years. There is no evidence for that assertion, the motives of the signatories will vary.

It has been argued in the case of both Graces that the need to establish the office is urgent, although the definition of the responsibilities of the new office still awaits further reflection in the Lent Term.

The Council says it has called a ballot itself so as ‘to expedite a decision on this recommendation’. The schedule published for this ballot is as tight as the University’s constitution allows. We recognise the importance of sustainability to the University and the need to progress the ambitions set out in the Council’s Report. However, the lack of substantive detail about the proposal, the unwillingness to respond to criticism of it, and the drip-feed of announcements from the Council about the Topping Study, all suggest ‘making it up as you go along’ rather than a considered plan.

Accordingly we urge you to vote ‘No’ in the ballot.

Signed by the following members of the Regent House:

Fly-sheet on the creation of a 6th Pro-Vice-Chancellor (respect for the requests of the Regent House)

An issue of the Reporter (Reporter, 6723, 2023–24, p. 206) was sent out by email at 1.15 p.m. on 15 December to announce the withdrawal of Grace 2 of 6 December 2023 proposing the creation of a 6th Pro-Vice-Chancellor, on which a ballot had been requested by more than fifty members of the Regent House. The same extraordinary issue published a new Grace (Grace 1 of 15 December 2023) seeking approval to appoint a 6th Pro-Vice-Chancellor, this time giving the new office a fixed-term maximum of six years.

By withdrawing the first Grace the Vice-Chancellor has in effect set aside a legitimate call for a ballot and the Council has instantly replaced it with another poorly drafted Grace which it believes would allow the proposed appointment, and called a ballot itself. This constitutionally permitted but apparently unprecedented device raises issues, in particular proceeding with a controversial proposal without engaging in discussion with those requesting a ballot, the wisdom of timing in the vacation, and respect for the conventions by which the University’s constitution operates. These issues stir disquiet about the respect for the Regent House, as the University’s governing body, on the part of the Council and Vice‑Chancellor.

We urge you to vote no, against this proposal in the ballot, in order to prompt review of the use of this device.

Signed by the following members of the Regent House:

Fly-sheet on the creation of a 6th Pro-Vice-Chancellor

Creation of a new role and remit for a Pro-Vice‑Chancellor is not something that should be undertaken lightly. However, the University must be a leader in the debate and actions around climate and environmental sustainability. It should both show how its research and teaching can be used to further sustainability ambitions worldwide, while also getting its own carbon footprint as low as possible. This is going to require leadership from right at the top of the University, and there are few ways that highlight this priority more than through the creation of a PVC role with this remit.1

Multiple reports (report of the Council Working Group on the Implementation of the Topping Study, and Research Policy Committee Report 14462) have recommended this step be considered, and now is the time to act. Council agreed with the Working Group’s proposed action to establish a new PVC role with responsibility for Sustainability. The Topping Study indicates that the University’s ambitions must be higher than they currently are. The final consensus statement in the Advisory Group on Research Purpose’s report into the potential development of strategic approach to research into the Energy Transition sums it up – ‘The University should recognise its leadership responsibilities by stating a strategic commitment to delivering change within the Energy Transition and seek to influence, rather than be led by, the external environment within which it operates’. A Pro-Vice-Chancellor would be the first step in this process.

We urge you to vote Yes, placet, IN FAVOUR of the fixed-term additional PVC role to take forward Climate and Environmental Sustainability.

Signed by the following members of the Regent House:

Fly-sheet in support of Grace 1 of 15 December 2023

Sustainability touches on all aspects of the mission of the University. It has relevance across all academic disciplines. It is also a key consideration in how we pursue our mission: the running of our estate, how we travel, the goods and services we procure, and the investments we make. This is true whether sustainability is narrowly defined as environmental sustainability, or more widely in the context of the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

The bottom-up culture of the University is producing excellent research, teaching, and outreach relevant to sustainability, and there is good practice in much of our operations. However, the lack of top-down strategies which can be clearly articulated complicates interactions with funders and donors, creates policy vacuums, and impedes progress in improving and communicating the sustainability of our operations.

We take pride in the linkage between our teaching and research activities. In sustainability, these linkages extend further into our operations. Some of these linkages into operations already exist, but the potential to extend these is enormous, particularly in the running of our estate.

There cannot be a single structure inside the University for sustainability: activities will necessarily be dispersed. But we can have focused leadership from the centre of the University that understands the diversity of that activity, that can see linkages, that can co-ordinate strategy development, and that can present a coherent narrative of sustainability across the University to both internal and external stakeholders.

The Environmental Sustainability Strategy Committee (ESSC) submitted a draft Strategic Framework for Sustainability to the Council in October 2023. That draft framework is the foundation for the institutional Climate and Environmental Sustainability Strategy which the Council has instructed.1 The draft framework recognised the need for both top-down and bottom-up approaches to sustainability. The ESSC was particularly concerned that sustainability strategies and initiatives would lack credibility without visible senior leadership. That draft also noted that institutions across the higher education sector are adopting a ‘whole-institution approach’ to sustainability.

If one accepts the need for central leadership, the question then arises as to whether sustainability can be incorporated into an existing PVC portfolio. The arguments against this are two-fold. The first is that sustainability impacts on all existing PVC portfolios; the second (which may be time-limited) is that there is just too much to be done over the next few years.

We urge you to vote placet, in favour of the fixed-term additional PVC role with responsibility for sustainability.

Signed by the following members of the Regent House:

Fly-sheet against approval of Grace 1 of 15 December 2023

We recognise the importance of the University’s environmental responsibilities and the pressing need for institutional action. Nevertheless, we are concerned by this proposal to increase the number of Pro-Vice-Chancellors, which we believe is misguided, for the reasons set out below.

Governance

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.

Effectiveness

Speakers, including students, in the University Discussion (Reporter, 6718, 2023–24, p. 118) on the original proposal questioned whether the lack of a dedicated Pro-Vice-Chancellor is an impediment to University policy on climate. One speaker suggested a new Pro-Vice-Chancellor might even hinder progress. Furthermore, the Council has already set out plans to deal with many of the Topping issues through the University’s committee system (Reporter, 6722, 2023–24, p. 195).

Efficiency

The academic University is running a significant deficit and is heavily subsidised by the surplus of Cambridge University Press and Assessment (Reporter, 2022–23: 6706, p. 782; 6709, p. 875). The Chest budget deficit for 2023–24 is £90m. At the same time, the value of staff pay in real terms (CPI) is roughly 20% lower than it was in 2009. The Council has recognised the problem of excessive staff workload (Reporter, 6720, 2023–24, p. 141). In these circumstances, the central administration of the University needs to take its share of the strain and operate efficiently, within financial constraints. This may mean reorganisation to ensure sustainability is given the necessary priority.

We encourage members of the Regent House to vote no to this proposal (non placet).

Signed by the following members of the Regent House: